A REAL second tier Celtic league

First topic message reminder :

Iv'e noticed on a few threads that people have started talking about the Celtic league or the potential for a second division of the Rabo direct, so I had a little think about how one could be created using the Celtic nations, and their second teams in most cases.

Wales (5 teams)
1 Rugby Gogledd Cymru 1404 (North Wales region, Colwyn Bay / Wrexham)
2 Pontypridd RFC / Valleys rugby (Cardiff Blues A side)
3 Bridgend Ravens RFC (Ospreys A side)
4 Cross Keys RFC (Gwent Dragons A side)
5 Pembrokeshire Scarlets (Scarlets A side, playing out of Bridge Meadow, Haverfordwest)

Ireland (4 teams)
6 Ulster Ravens
7 Munster A
8 Leinster A
9 Connacht A

Scotland (3 teams)
10 Scottish Borders (Galashields)
11 Aberdeen (Aberdeen, formerly half of Caledonia Reds)
12 Perth (Perth, formerly half of Caledonia Reds)

Other (4 teams)
13 Stade Nantais (Nantes, Brittany, France)
14 REC Rugby Rennes (Rennes, Brittany, France)
15 Cornish Pirates A (Cornwall England)
16 Douglas RUFC (Douglas, Isle Of Man)

So there we go, a potential 16 team development league for the Celts.

AlynDavies wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:Three Celts walk into a bar.

The first one buys everyone a round with borrowed money that he can't afford to pay back.
The second one keeps his wallet zipped in his pocket and hopes nobody notices.
The third one see's somebody from his neighbouring village and tries to beat him up.

you forgot the punchline...

Then they all have a meeting about who is to blame for this mess, and decide the innocent Englishman in the corner is the one at fault!

Why didn't I think of that.

TrailApe wrote:You do realise don't you that the term 'Celt, has no real basis in history and weas invented in the 1700's and popularised in modern times as a marketing tool.

Here's a quote from the BBC history site (which unlike Wiki is more interested in facts than opinions and urban myth)

However, there is one thing that the Romans, modern archaeologists and the Iron Age islanders themselves would all agree on: they were not Celts. This was an invention of the 18th century; the name was not used earlier. The idea came from the discovery around 1700 that the non-English island tongues relate to that of the ancient continental Gauls, who really were called Celts. This ancient continental ethnic label was applied to the wider family of languages. But 'Celtic' was soon extended to describe insular monuments, art, culture and peoples, ancient and modern: island 'Celtic' identity was born, like Britishness, in the 18th century.

It's a nice idea and a way of distancing yourself from the common herd, but by and large, the ethnicity of the people in these islands are much the same as they have always been, apart from the obvious influx of Afro-Caribean and Indian Subcontinent peoples that came out of Empire in the 1950's and onwards.


And don't get me started on England 'Saxons', possibly most innacurate name they could have picked.

This has to be the most irrelevant post I have ever come across on any rugby forum EVER.
To try to prove a point with a half hearted attack on Ethnicity is juvenile at best.
To Quote the BBC as been fact based is even more niave than the attack on ethnicity.
As far as any history is concerned, does the poster realise, that every history book is written with the beliefs of the author been the foremost source of facts, as it is not difficult to interpret any set of data to mean pretty much what you want it to mean.

2ndtimeround wrote:

TrailApe wrote:You do realise don't you that the term 'Celt, has no real basis in history and weas invented in the 1700's and popularised in modern times as a marketing tool.

Here's a quote from the BBC history site (which unlike Wiki is more interested in facts than opinions and urban myth)

However, there is one thing that the Romans, modern archaeologists and the Iron Age islanders themselves would all agree on: they were not Celts. This was an invention of the 18th century; the name was not used earlier. The idea came from the discovery around 1700 that the non-English island tongues relate to that of the ancient continental Gauls, who really were called Celts. This ancient continental ethnic label was applied to the wider family of languages. But 'Celtic' was soon extended to describe insular monuments, art, culture and peoples, ancient and modern: island 'Celtic' identity was born, like Britishness, in the 18th century.

It's a nice idea and a way of distancing yourself from the common herd, but by and large, the ethnicity of the people in these islands are much the same as they have always been, apart from the obvious influx of Afro-Caribean and Indian Subcontinent peoples that came out of Empire in the 1950's and onwards.


And don't get me started on England 'Saxons', possibly most innacurate name they could have picked.

This has to be the most irrelevant post I have ever come across on any rugby forum EVER.
To try to prove a point with a half hearted attack on Ethnicity is juvenile at best.
To Quote the BBC as been fact based is even more niave than the attack on ethnicity.
As far as any history is concerned, does the poster realise, that every history book is written with the beliefs of the author been the foremost source of facts, as it is not difficult to interpret any set of data to mean pretty much what you want it to mean.

The notion of Celtic ethnicity identity is the invention of 19th century academics. I spent 4 years at University studying European Archaeology (including a specific module on the theory of Ethnicity in prehistoric study), that was (is) the prevailing view of most serious academic work on the Iron Age. Whilst the BBC may dumb down some of its content I dont see that statement as massively controversial.

There is a distinct identity which can be seen in terms of language, art and music.

It many not be, primarily, ethnic but it is most certaintly cultural.

I dont want to appear flippant but why do we have more gingers than in England. If we were complete homogenious that would not be ther case. Clearly movement of people has very heavily blurred our DNA but there are still recordable differences between the differing regions of Britain and Ireland.

Contrary to what has been psoted the extent of the influx of people duting the invasion of the Saxons, Angles and Jutes in a matter of much debate and that there was a degree of taking land form the local people and driving them west. This is not the case for the Romans or Normans.


I do agree that the similarity between the nations named at 'Celts' is over emphasised by many.

I think people are confusing Celts with the previous Iron age inhabitants of these Islands.

For my money the Celts are a people that came out of the Balkans general area and reached Ireland about 500 BC. (and yes they contained a fair few people with the mutated gene that causes red hair)

The people who built Newgrange, and the people who built Stonehenge (not the same people, Newgrange is older) were not Celts.

There is a (Bogus) theory that the dark haired people that exist along the West coast of Ireland are remnants of the Spanish Armada who were shipwrecked.

Obviously the Spanish Armada is too recent and too small to account for even a fraction of these people.

Recent genetic research shows that originally the inhabitants of the west coast (and indeed much of the country) travelled from the Basque region by boat.

But most subsequent influxes of people came from the East, hence the remaining indigenous people are more concentrated along the west coast, accounting for the dark hair etc.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:I think people are confusing Celts with the previous Iron age inhabitants of these Islands.

For my money the Celts are a people that came out of the Balkans general area and reached Ireland about 500 BC. (and yes they contained a fair few people with the mutated gene that causes red hair)

The people who built Newgrange, and the people who built Stonehenge (not the same people, Newgrange is older) were not Celts.

There is a (Bogus) theory that the dark haired people that exist along the West coast of Ireland are remnants of the Spanish Armada who were shipwrecked.

Obviously the Spanish Armada is too recent and too small to account for even a fraction of these people.

Recent genetic research shows that originally the inhabitants of the west coast (and indeed much of the country) travelled from the Basque region by boat.

But most subsequent influxes of people came from the East, hence the remaining indigenous people are more concentrated along the west coast, accounting for the dark hair etc.

Nearly as old as Callanish and the Ring of Stenness!

This has to be the most irrelevant post I have ever come across on any rugby forum EVER.

Oh I don't know, some of the Henson/Cipriani posts have had a pretty tenuous relationship with Rugby.

Lighten up kidder - it's only a rugby forum and everyone has a right to an opinion. If the initial post had been about a second tier Rabo Direct and excluded areas of England, France and the Isle of Man I would have sailed on by, but by stamping certain areas of Europe as Celtic and others as not-Celtic raised a question in my mind and I thought I would enter the debate.

I thought that this what forums were for – ie exchanging information and opinions?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:I think people are confusing Celts with the previous Iron age inhabitants of these Islands.

For my money the Celts are a people that came out of the Balkans general area and reached Ireland about 500 BC. (and yes they contained a fair few people with the mutated gene that causes red hair)

The people who built Newgrange, and the people who built Stonehenge (not the same people, Newgrange is older) were not Celts.

There is a (Bogus) theory that the dark haired people that exist along the West coast of Ireland are remnants of the Spanish Armada who were shipwrecked.

Obviously the Spanish Armada is too recent and too small to account for even a fraction of these people.

Recent genetic research shows that originally the inhabitants of the west coast (and indeed much of the country) travelled from the Basque region by boat.

But most subsequent influxes of people came from the East, hence the remaining indigenous people are more concentrated along the west coast, accounting for the dark hair etc.

Nearly as old as Callanish and the Ring of Stenness!

I think Newgrange is older. Probably not by much, and it is hard to be exact.

TrailApe wrote:

This has to be the most irrelevant post I have ever come across on any rugby forum EVER.

Oh I don't know, some of the Henson/Cipriani posts have had a pretty tenuous relationship with Rugby.

Lighten up kidder - it's only a rugby forum and everyone has a right to an opinion. If the initial post had been about a second tier Rabo Direct and excluded areas of England, France and the Isle of Man I would have sailed on by, but by stamping certain areas of Europe as Celtic and others as not-Celtic raised a question in my mind and I thought I would enter the debate.

I thought that this what forums were for – ie exchanging information and opinions?

Yop. I found your opinions interesting anyway.

And it is the off season in Club Rugby up here.

I thank you Sir

On the old BBC site such arguments would rage for days. Ahh the days of Windsocks, Fleggs and Spetsnaz Yaks....

sniffle.

According to the links I have read NewGrange is the winner i.e, the oldest

geoff998rugby wrote:According to the links I have read NewGrange is the winner i.e, the oldest

Probably as reliable as the claim that DUFC is the oldest rugby club.

3200 BC, or so, by all accounts. The others mentioned are around the 2500 BC to 2000 BC mark. We now have the technology to check these things oput you know.

geoff998rugby wrote:According to the links I have read NewGrange is the winner i.e, the oldest

I tell you what tho, geoff, I do like the way you cemented Newgrange back together!

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:According to the links I have read NewGrange is the winner i.e, the oldest

I tell you what tho, geoff, I do like the way you cemented Newgrange back together!

It does look like a a travesty of an archaeological site As.

Stonehenge http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.newgrange.com/newgrange/newgrange-safaris.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.newgrange.com/&h=371&w=760&sz=96&tbnid=3NrfBXis8GSKFM:&tbnh=60&tbnw=122&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dnewgrange%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=newgrange&usg=__lZWT26ysbagf70HjhgtUdsbTEdk=&docid=IkiOARocPx6ISM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aDvGT6K8IYGb1AXN5eDzBQ&ved=0CJEBEPUBMAU&dur=9467

Newgrange

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=stonehenge+image&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&biw=1366&bih=606&tbm=isch&tbnid=rkrrzjDQj0H7FM:&imgrefurl=http://sacredsites.com/europe/united_kingdom/stonehenge.html&docid=uJHrWC4sN-hLDM&imgurl=http://sacredsites.com/europe/england/images/stonehenge-distance-500.jpg&w=500&h=332&ei=mDzGT5a0A6fO0QXl1oX9BQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=857&vpy=151&dur=1419&hovh=183&hovw=276&tx=145&ty=122&sig=112092907440510976659&page=1&tbnh=127&tbnw=169&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0,i:77

They really effed up Newgrange. Not a lick of paint.

Dear god what has any of these posts got to do with my celtic league idea!

Are you advocating promotion and relegation or just two separate leagues, who would want to support an "A" team or a team that's no hope of going anywhere. The idea of a 2 tier competition has potential but only if there's no connection between sides. If you brought in qualification for the heineken you'd alleviate the English and French concerns. I think four extra teams should have two from Italy and one from Georgia as well as a Romanian/ Russian team.

So let me see if I follow this, we're all celts genetically, the Irish and scottish a bit more so, but some nations grabbed the romanticized 18th century version of "celts" and now firmly believe they are those people and we(English) are the horrible bastardized "saes" with no culture!

But in the end were all the same, love our rugby and a beer after just we live in different parts of Britian and Ireland

The people who romanticised the celts also seem to have written all the previous inhabitants out of history. celts would be a small fraction.

123456789 wrote:Are you advocating promotion and relegation or just two separate leagues, who would want to support an "A" team or a team that's no hope of going anywhere. The idea of a 2 tier competition has potential but only if there's no connection between sides. If you brought in qualification for the heineken you'd alleviate the English and French concerns. I think four extra teams should have two from Italy and one from Georgia as well as a Romanian/ Russian team.

No this would be a development league below the Rabo direct for the academy players of the 10 celtic rabo direct sides.

Knackeredknees wrote:So let me see if I follow this, we're all celts genetically, the Irish and scottish a bit more so, but some nations grabbed the romanticized 18th century version of "celts" and now firmly believe they are those people and we(English) are the horrible bastardized "saes" with no culture!

Oh god no we don't think that highly of you at all, your Germans who learned how to row boats and breed like rabbits!

AlynDavies wrote:

123456789 wrote:Are you advocating promotion and relegation or just two separate leagues, who would want to support an "A" team or a team that's no hope of going anywhere. The idea of a 2 tier competition has potential but only if there's no connection between sides. If you brought in qualification for the heineken you'd alleviate the English and French concerns. I think four extra teams should have two from Italy and one from Georgia as well as a Romanian/ Russian team.

No this would be a development league below the Rabo direct for the academy players of the 10 celtic rabo direct side

It's a good idea in principal but aside from Ireland the teams struggle for attendances as it is, who'd want to support a team with no hope for improvement and whose best players just move up straight away, a development league would also be highly detrimental to the domestic league. On the other hand a promotion/relegation system would make the league more competitive and would provide a less pressurized league for youngsters to play in. It would also be good for European rugby because it would put us on par with the English and French. How about two divisions of 10 with promotion/ relegation and a cup competition.
There'd be 5 Scottish teams, 6 Welsh, 6 Irish and 3 Italian. In Wales they could split up the regions into more natural teams that aren't crippled by infighting and politics, the Italians could add one more and the Scots could split into North, South, East and West as well as a development side based in a city or large town without a side, the Irish could easily make two more with the depth at Leinster and Munster. We could end up with:
Division 1:
Edinburgh
Glasgow
Leinster
Ulster
Munster
Cardiff
Scarlets
Ospreys
Dragons
Treviso

Division 2:
Borders based in a new stadium built to host the new team and the Scottish sevens
Caledonia based in Aberdeen
Scottish development side based in another city with a decent population
Connacht
"Leinster B" obviously with a new name
"Munster B" same as above
North Wales team
Valleys team
Parma
Aironi

As well as a knock-out cup competition, Division 1 teams in the Heineken and Division 2 in the Amlin. This will add something to the league, also all teams gain the same amount of money (except prize money) therefore there won't be a massive gulf between the two divisions and the risk of relegation won't be as large. You could even have a play off for relegation between the top two of division 2 and the bottom 2 of division 1 so that team that give a disproportionate amount of players to national sides don't suffer.

Having any B teams won't work for reasons already mentioned. It would be much better for London Welsh and London Scottish to pitch into this league with maybe a new Irish exiles side. Can't see there being snobby ground restrictions!

Or of course we could just create the strongest league in the world (big claim I know) by both sides swallowing their pride and having a joint league system with England.

The leagues could be something along the lines of:

Top Tier:
Leinster
Harlequins
Ospreys
Leicester
Munster
Saracens
Ulster
Northampton Saints
Scarlets
London Irish
Blues
Exeter

Second Tier:
Glasgow
Sale
Connacht
Bath
Dragons
Gloucester
Treviso
Worcester
Edinburgh
Wasps
Falcons
(Insert new Italian side)

With two teams getting promoted from the second tier each season, one automatically (winning the league) the other in some sort of play offs.

The benefits this system would bring:

Two strong and highly competitive leagues - Less confidence knocking drubbings, less unmotivated performances, more chance of development.

England rivalry - the rivaly between the "Celtic" and English sides would raise ticket sales and inspire big performances.

National advantages - Not only would the national teams benefit from having all of their players playing a higher quality of rugby, players would also be less tempted to leave for France.


Heck I want this to happen so badly for the good of the game, that i wouldn't even mind if Sky had the rights to all the games!

Who gets promoted to the second tier Curly?

Vast areas of the nations would be condemned to eternal exclusion if there was no mechanism.

Well my first thought was to have the Welsh Prem, All Ireland league and English Championship to combine to form the third tier, with two divisions that play-off for promotion at the end of the season.

I realise however that this system may result in problems arising with travel costs e.g. smaller clubs may not be able to afford multiple trips to Ireland (though they seem to manage in the Celtic cup).

So despite Glasgow being in the top 4 and Edinburgh reaching the semis, Scottish teams are condemned to a second tier? London Irish are in the top tier, Edinburgh beat them twice, once away and once with a bonus point. Glasgow thrashed Cardiff and finished above Ulster, the Blues and the Scarleta. It would also devalue the Heineken cup.

Yeah I thought Scottish posters may disagree, but at the end of the day it was just a quick mock-up to show what the leagues could be like, obviously the real structure of the tiers would be properly calculated and set out so the teams get put in their rightful places.

Don't get me wrong, I admire what the Scottish teams have achieved this season, but they haven't been all that consistant over the past few years. It would have done a lot for Edinburghs team moral to be able to compete for their league and do so well in the Heineken cup this year, but at the moment it's a case of one or the other.

Also, would the Heineken cup really be devalued? The pools would get stronger and so it would be a harder competition to win. There would be less chance of having an easy ride to the final..
In fact, why should the Heineken Cup hold so much value anyway? Surely our domestic leagues should be just as important?

Glasgow have been in two play-offs in three years and what have London Irish achieved? Why have England got over 20 teams in your three tiered system yet Scotland only two? How on earth do you keep a competitive six nations? Also I'm a big fan of the English system, the fact you can retain your identity and clubs is fantastic, why would you want rid of that?

You're reading too much into the teams in each tier, it wasn't based on facts and figures, it was just meant to give an idea. But if you really want to be pedantic about it, LI have a win ratio in the Heineken cup of 0.42, Glasgow 0.32.

England are always going to have more clubs because they have a larger player base and have already shown they can support more clubs than Scotland. If Scotland could get another team up and running then hypothetically it would be in the mix, but certainly not in the top tier. I'll be honest, I know very little about Scottish rugby at any level below the Pro 12 so I couldn't really comment on it.

I'm all for passion and patriotism, but if something isn't done to improve the state of rugby in the Northern Hemisphere then we're in danger of being left behind.

I disagree, I think the NH is closer to the SH than it has been in quite a long time, on the whole most six nations teams can compete with South Africa and Australia. It's only New Zealand that are far away from us and that's nothing to do with league systems that's to do with culture and the development systems they've in place.

Problem with a development league are costs of travelling. Young players playing for their clubs would be more appropiate.

And why would anyone be interested in this