HC draw...

Just got round to checking in on the draw for the next season, and not sure how I feel about it.

As a Blues fan I am left in limbo, Toulon and Montpellier will be very tough in France, but very different outfits on the road, and are beatable (well in Toulons case I really hope so) and I don't think Sale is the worst of the teams to draw from that tier. If I was Davies I would be targetting 18 points realistically.

Looking at some of the other groups I am pretty thankfull, Leic, Osp, Tolouse promises to be a belter, but with Treviso the possibility of 2nd spot has to be looked at.

Scarlets will be a little gutted with their draw, but Ulster should be pretty excited.

What do we all think...?

thebluesmancometh I think you've got a good group. Admittedly the tier 4 side could have been weaker but you have drawn arguably the weakest English side in the competition.

I don't think the Ospreys in particular will fancy the trip to Treviso.

Treviso were tough to beat at their place.

Pool 1: Munster and Saracens in particular should be the happiest. The most intriguing pool of the lot in my opinion.

Pool 2: the pool of death. I doubt any team is happy. Ospreys are probably the most nervous.

Pool 3: Connacht,Quins and Biarritz will be laughing in the weakest pool of the lot by some margin - arguably the weakest tier 1,tier 3 and tier 4 in this pool. All three will feel confident a HC quarter final is in their grasp.

Pool 4:Ulster and Saints should feel confident in this pool. Glasgow will likely be groaning.

Pool 5:Leinster and Clermont won't be pleased to be drawn together. Scarlets will likely be devastated by this news. Exeter will simply enjoy their first HC appearance. Why not vs the best?

Pool 6: All 4 sides will be pleased. A winnable pool for all. Again Cardiff are blessed in a relatively weak pool.

Are you guys happy about the format of how these pools are drawn.

Do you think this is firstly the best format for the HC?

Secondly is there a better way to establish the pools?

I have no real issue how they draw the pools - though do think success in the Amlin is over-rewarded.

I have an issue with there being 6 pools. Should be 4 or 8.

LT, you prefer 4 or 8 because the quarter finalists is more clear cut then?

Bilgtongbek I like the system actually. My biggest problem is the Amlin. Particularly the dropping down of HC sides - rewards failure in the HC.

Agree with that LondonTiger. The Amlin is definitely over rewarded.

Case in point - Biarritz fail in the HC, drop down to Amlin, win the competition and rack in the European points. 6 to be exact.

biltongbek wrote:LT, you prefer 4 or 8 because the quarter finalists is more clear cut then?

Yes. The main reason we worry about "Group of Death" etc is because of the dumb 2 best runers up going through.

Rugby seems to delight in making things complicated (Super XV qualification another case in point - or the Championship in england.)

I agree with London Tiger.

4 pools is the way to go. I've said a number of times I would love to see:

4 x England
4 x France
2 x Ireland
2 x Wales
1 x Scotland
1 x Italy
1 x Amlin Cup winning team (if they are already in then it goes to their nation)
1 x Heineken Cup winning team (if they are already in then it goes to their nation)

Open draw with the provision that no two teams from same country can be drawn together (unless England/France have an extra team)

That would give us:

Munster
Leinster
Ulster
Treviso
Glasgow
Toulouse
Clermont
Castres
Toulon
Biarritz
Harlequins
Leicester Tigers
Northampton Saints
Saracens
Ospreys Scarlets

Thats a seriously good competition. You'd have:

Pool 1:
Toulouse
Saracens
Leinster
Glasgow

Pool 2:
Biarritz
Castres
Harlequins
Munster

Pool 3:
Ulster
Toulon
Northampton
Ospreys

Pool 4:
Scarlets
Clermont
Treviso
Leicester Tigers

Two teams qualify per pool. Teams who finish first get to play quarters at home. Teams who finish second play quarters away from home. 3rd and 4th place do not drop into the Amlin.

It would make the Rabo more competitive, especially the derby matches and yet allows each country to be fairly represented.
It would make the Heineken Cup process far more logical I feel and also makes the Amlin a better tournament and the Heineken Cup qualification for winning it serves to incentivize teams to win it.

red_stag wrote:I agree with London Tiger.

4 pools is the way to go. I've said a number of times I would love to see:

4 x England
4 x France
2 x Ireland
2 x Wales
1 x Scotland
1 x Italy
1 x Amlin Cup winning team (if they are already in then it goes to their nation)
1 x Heineken Cup winning team (if they are already in then it goes to their nation)

Open draw with the provision that no two teams from same country can be drawn together (unless England/France have an extra team)

That would give us:

Munster
Leinster
Ulster
Treviso
Glasgow
Toulouse
Clermont
Castres
Toulon
Biarritz
Harlequins
Leicester Tigers
Northampton Saints
Saracens
Ospreys Scarlets

Thats a seriously good competition. You'd have:

Pool 1:
Toulouse
Saracens
Leinster
Glasgow

Pool 2:
Biarritz
Castres
Harlequins
Munster

Pool 3:
Ulster
Toulon
Northampton
Ospreys

Pool 4:
Scarlets
Clermont
Treviso
Leicester Tigers

Two teams qualify per pool. Teams who finish first get to play quarters at home. Teams who finish second play quarters away from home. 3rd and 4th place do not drop into the Amlin.

It would make the Rabo more competitive, especially the derby matches and yet allows each country to be fairly represented.
It would make the Heineken Cup process far more logical I feel and also makes the Amlin a better tournament and the Heineken Cup qualification for winning it serves to incentivize teams to win it.

I like it actually.

Stag +1 googolplex

Quick question you knowledgeable people will be able to answer, no doubt...

When is the fixture list being released??

week after next I think

Cheers Tiger !

16th July

red_stag wrote:16th July

How do you know that !!!?? Winner... but how'd you get the info Stag?

Can't say I'm a fan of that layout Staggy. The best proposition for HEC layout came on here a while ago and involved a preliminary knock out round with all the teams from the top three leagues involved but seeded based on their league position from the previous season. It was to my mind an almost perfect way to organise the HEC, only issues were within the seeding of the teams (which league gets preference) and that it added another week of fixtures.

Duigers, I work for a rugby touring company. We have enquired as we need to know for future tours. That isn't definite but more than 1 person has mentioned this date to us.

You dont know the fixtures already do you ?

Sadly not. It would make my job a lot easier.

Stag

Couldn't disagree more with your 16 team 'elite' only structure!

That eliminates the possibility of european progression outside of the UK Ireland and france!!

Also If all of the major nations contribute evenly, and get funds from their teams progressing through to the 1/4's, why should Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy settle for the scraps you've allowed them? IMO Leinster, Munster and Ulster all have cases for being better than any English team in europe at present, so would 4 English clubs instead of one of these teams be strengthening the tournament, I don't think so!

Same argument goe's to the Blues, their progression through to the knockouts has been very consistent over the last 5/6 seasons, and until the blow up this season were regularly the Welsh threat. Should they miss out in favour of an English side who continually struggle?

(Apologies to keep mentioning English clubs, but they highlight my point far greater than French clubs, who, of the top 4 generally do quite well)

This structure would also inhibit the Italians and Scots massively, taking focus away from the HC and back to league finish would kill off any hope of progression, infact we could quite easily see them throwing games in the HC to ensure qualification for next season.

I'd like to see the HC and Amlin combine, 64 teams 16 groups of 4.1 Vs game each. Top teams after 3 rounds go into the HC 4 groups of 4 teams, for again another 3 rounds. The 4 top teams go into the semis, and same for the Amlin, 2nd in the initial stages go into the Amlin after 3 rounds top 4 go into semis.

Now I know that was long winded, and complicated but bare with me.

By this Model, most main european teams get a shot, the advantage of teams and lowe tier quality goes to England and France, but a lot of non main european clubs get the chance to be exposed to top level rugby also!
There are still only 6 fixtures, and all teams are gurentee'd 1 home game per round. Alcompetitive game played by a club effects their Euro ranking.
Giving the Rabo more competitiveness etc...

I really think that structure would be best for all concerned, granted there would be a few tonkings in the initial 'qualification' period, but so be it. The 'tonked' team would at least profit financially!

To be fair we are never going to solve the stucture. Treviso will be hard to beat at home in the HC and I think there will be no second place team from the group as Treviso won't cough up 10 points to each team like aroini did.

I like the two best runner up spots as it makes the last round so much harder as was shown this year where one game can affect so much. Connacht beating Quinns only hurt Quinns as they had to be the second best second place, they were alwyas going to be second in the group.

could we do a Champions League style game where the 16 stag suggested get through and then you have a preliminary round for the remaining in the top 10 teams from Eng/Fra league and the rest of the Rabbo. It would be an open draw (can't play country from your own league) with first out getting home advantage.

I Also would not mind a 6N style one so six team play each team once. Four groups top two go through. Saves one game which could be the preliminary round as stated above.

The one thing we all love about the HC is you rarely play the same teams in consecutive years (always exceptions).

We all know who the top teams would be if it was like the S15 where you can almost hand pick the top 6 teams. The HC is always new.

I would love to know the stats for HC teams to make the Semis v S15 to do the same

Blueman - I don't see how it damages things.

Treviso and Zebre could finish last and second last in the Rabo. They will still get a team in the Heineken Cup under this model. There is internal competition which will make them strive to improve but it will not "kill off hopes of progression or have them throwing games in the HC to ensure qualification".

I certainly don't buy your arguments regarding the English clubs. As you say "at present" which are vital words. Rugby is cyclical there will always be ups and downs for teams. I remember in 2008 London Irish made the Heineken Cup semi finals. They did not make the Heineken Cup the following season. There was no wailing of hands about it.

The Blues will have no need to worry about their European Cup chances if they can get ahead of Scarlets and Ospreys. Similarly Munster will have to be better than Ulster and Leinster to stay in Europe.

It would lead to a very good Amlin Cup and the chance to create a new 3rd Tier competition for developing nations (currently there are only 2 teams in the entire ERC compeitions from developing nations)

Stag

So by your model would Italy pay half into the comp to what they pay now, as they are only represented by half their teams? Also If Treviso and Zebre are on joint points in the Rabo with 2 HC games left each, being bottom of their HC groups and no chance of progression why would either feild a strong team? Meaning the groups are determined by who plays the Italian, Scot, Welsh teams at home first up. The same can be said of Edinburgh/Glasgow, Edinburgh focused on the HC, but they would fail to qualify next season despite beating Tolouse and being a semi finalist?! And Ulster would've been beaten finalists and not qualified possibly?


YOU SEEM TO BE FOCUSING ON LEAGUES, but in reality the Rabo contributes financially more than double what the English and French leagues contribute, qualifications should always be per nation, and every nation deserves at least 2 berths IMO, as every nation contributes.

If one day Treviso and Zebre finish 1st and 2nd in the Rabo, and Treviso are beaten finalists in the HC only Treviso will be eligible for the next season = JOKE!

Weekly action for Treviso and Aroini/Zebre is doing and will do more for Italy then 6 games a years as they had it.

There was talk of Italy putting their u20s and Sup10 represtive team into the amlin instead of Super 10 clubs that were throwing games and lost to a romanian Represtive team home and away.

The FIR see that they will get more from that then how it is now. Also means that Italy can develop their players. In a reorganised Competion Scotland could do a similar thing in the third tier as could the North and Valley teams if Wales wanted.

thebluesmancometh wrote:
YOU SEEM TO BE FOCUSING ON LEAGUES,

I really don't think I am.

thebluesmancometh wrote:If one day Treviso and Zebre finish 1st and 2nd in the Rabo, and Treviso are beaten finalists in the HC only Treviso will be eligible for the next season = JOKE!

This comment suggests you are the one interested in league positions. Your scenario is no different to what we have already. Ireland and Wales only get 3 teams. In fact Dragons finished above Edinburgh, Treviso and Aironi this season and yet they are not in the Heineken Cup. It isn't a joke because Scotland and Italy have the places not the Rabo. My suggestion is no different.

thebluesmancometh wrote:
In reality the Rabo contributes financially more than double what the English and French leagues contribute, qualifications should always be per nation, and every nation deserves at least 2 berths IMO, as every nation contributes.

This confuses me. Do we really contribute more than double England and France? Seriously? I agree that qualifications should always be per nation - they are in the model I outline too in fact I even gave a list per country I dont understand how you thought I was advocating league allocations. I don't agree every nation deserves at least 2 berths. Why 2? Why not 4? Why not 20. Thats just a randomly plucked number. I think every nation deserves to be represented but thats all I think any nation is entitled to.

Brendan wrote:
The FIR see that they will get more from that then how it is now. Also means that Italy can develop their players. In a reorganised Competion Scotland could do a similar thing in the third tier as could the North and Valley teams if Wales wanted.

Agree I think a proper second and third tier would work well and lead to good all round compeition.

If you look at soccer England doesn't focus on the UEFa cup and becuase of that only have 4-6 teams in europe who throw games if they go to the UEFA cup. Other countries use both competions and as a result have a bigger internation standard of players and more movement in the placing of their top teams.

There has to be different levels for players to progess which was/is missing in Scotland and Italy but is getting fixed

Brendan wrote:Other countries use both competions and as a result have a bigger internation standard of players and more movement in the placing of their top teams.

There has to be different levels for players to progess which was/is missing in Scotland and Italy but is getting fixed

Again an excellent point.

YOU SEEM TO BE FOCUSING ON LEAGUES, but in reality the Rabo contributes financially more than double what the English and French leagues contribute

I'd be interested to know where you got these figures from? Someone posted a link on here (which I now can't find, annoyingly) that showed Ireland alone took out 3 times more than they put in.

https://www.606v2.com/t31043-a-proposal-for-the-hec-debate?highlight=hc+proposal

That's still the best proposal I've heard.

Can you guys tell me the win record percentages of the teams who have played HC for the last decade, it would be interesting to see who has been the underperforming teams and where they come from.

Thanks

I'd agree with some of your point on the Uefa Cup thing, but most of the winners of the tournament are from countries with one dominant team (Spain Madrid/Barca, Atletico Madrid won it this year) or where the top tema in the country lacks the top quality to compete in the CL (Porto won it 2 years ago).


So you see some teams go for it as it is their only serious chacne of silverware, or they will comfotbably win their league or qualify for Europe and can afford to divert their attentions.

Sam, I hadn't seen that article. I'll have a read of it tonight.

I had also thought that Ireland got more out than they put in as well.

Sam, The 6N unions all put the same/similar into the pot before the tourny begins, you only take out what your teams have been succesfull for. I'd say Ireland having 3 of their 4 teams qualifying and 2 in the final might have been a result of them receiving lots.

You'll have to forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick but I thought that England put in X amount, matched by France, Wales Ireland Scotland, reduced in Italy's case, therefore the Rabo puts in over 3 times the Aviva does, as it's made up of 4 unions.

IMO an elite comp is bad for the game on so many levels, but if it's forced to become 16 teams surely every nation has the right to be represented equally...

Wales = 2
England = 2
France = 2
Ireland = 2
Scotland = 2
Italy = 2

top 3 HC

Amlin winner

= 16.

I think it should be one in all in style tourny, with an elite edge at the sharp end, or a totally equal representitive elite tourny, where a 2nd and 3rd tier are also totally equally represented by all euro nations, not just 6N.

One arictle I read talked about the second Italian team in the Amlin being the best of the Super ten players that could play for Italy e.g. 21-25. If they and Scotland did this they would be able to base them in places and build the next club/region around it.

so Scolands u20 would be call the highlanders/reds and play in perth. after a few years you mix up the two teams so some u20s and so older players but the fans will stay with the team.

Italy could do one in Rome and call the them the Legions. Helps Fans attach to the team and when it becomes a club the stucture is in place already.

As we all know it is hard to make things from nothing. Connacht have been built slowly and are now much more solid then if they had been given a full team and money day one and left alone. The coulc have been built quicker but they have gone from nothing to have atleast 2-3000 fans. Boarders failed because to much fighting. this might help to eliminate it.

On the Uefa cup the point is that Liverpool put outs its ~B team in the eufa cup so all the english players that could have experinced a knockout/higher pressure game missed out. Spain had two teams in the final all of who were able to take that experince and make them better players. the problem Soctalnd and Italy face is not so much the first 15 players its the second and third 15 that you now need in international Rugby and what the clubs need. Think if some North had played at 17/18 for North wales in the Amlin he would have been even better. Same goes for players like denton, or even Irish players like hanrahan and others.

You need to have players to be at all levels or the jumps just get to big, ask super mario on jumping if you miss a step

Bluesman I think the English and French put in more because they managed to agree far bigger tv rights deals. It's not an equal split and more of an EU style put cash in take some out which is why the English and French are demanding a change.

Sam

I don't think they put in more cashwise, I am almost sure I read somewhere that funding is very equal, but your right they have a large bargaining tool in Sky's TV deal.

They want change because they can't compete with Leinster, and this season they saw 2 more 'average' eropean teams develop models to succeed in the HC, they must be worried about the likes of Ospreys, Blues, Scarlets, Glasgow all following suit, totally focusing on europe and using the Rabo as a development tool rather than a legitimate comp.

Mind you when aren't the RFU FFR talking about change?

Blue I really don't think it is anything do with the success of the clubs - my understand is that the Anglo-French desire for change is based around the fact that the unions feel they are not getting a proper return on their investment.

Well they would if their clubs do better.

Financial gain is based on club performance!

Im not sure there is all that much prize money involved in the Heineken Cup.

Certainly the IRFU have been very quick to stress that Leinster, Munster have yielded little revenue from their ERC successes and that in fact they have required IRFU funding generated from international rugby to build these winning teams.

They want change because they can't compete with Leinster, and this season they saw 2 more 'average' eropean teams develop models to succeed in the HC

Not really, they want a restructured league which would generate more cash for the French and the English because of the arguement that they provide more. They've brought it up now because this is the time that the contract is being discussed. They can't do it when under contract so they are making their objections known at the relevent time.

http://www.irishrugby.ie/save/the_facts.php

Found it, Dubya posted this on another thread a while back. I don't know where he found it but it's interesting.

"although the Irish TV market contributes only €5 million pa to the central pot (c.€3m to the Six Nations pot and c.€2 million to the ERC pot), the other TV markets contribute much more, and the IRFU therefore receives €16 million each year from the central pot (c.€11m from Six Nations and c.€5m from ERC). This constitutes about 24% of the IRFU's total annual turnover."

That doesn't seem quite right to me.

Why would Ireland receive 5 mill as a basic, yet they have only contributed 2?! I can understand if that is because of Connacht being in the comp (4 teams instead of 3) or because of their recent performances, but surely not regularly. I'm not sure why anyones surprised that the IRFU is playing it down!
The problem with figures is they hide a multitude of sins.

I know the Welsh regions receive the cash back from the WRU, who receive it from the ERC, and it is a considerable amount, 5 figures nearing 6 apparently!

Yep - the figures say the Irish TV market contributes 5mil, but in reality the provinces add a huge amount of value to the HC as 3 of the provinces are now 3 of the biggest teams in Europe. The financial contribution therefore is a hell of a lot more than the 5m you are saying.

An example of this is the Leinster vs Ulster final - that didn't just bring money from the Irish TV market but across the whole of Europe - 5million my arse.

Ireland get more out as the erc and 6N funding is from tv and sponsership money which is then divided up equals amoung the 5Ns and Italy gets a part.

Ireland puts in less as our tv deal is less but technically all money is raised by the ERC/6N and not individual unions.

The simple thing is that the ERC and 6Ns could raise more money which is Eng/Fra's problem which would raise more money for everyone. Yes they want more of a share but that will be ironed out.

The ERC needs to tap into the rest of europe to really make it work. Eng & Fra are seeking to grow the lower countries so bring in more countries.

When you look at the addenances for the HC v the Vodacom or super rugby we are poor. Making a better product makes bigger attendances.

If we had Munster v Irish in the Amlin you would get just as much attend as in the HC and that is their point. Considering the distance the Super rubgy shouldn't be getting higher attendances then HC

Brendan

A lot of Super attendances are really poor, this season and last. Infact last season they were at a very low figure weren't they. I can't see how attendances in the Super league as an average are higher than the average HC game number!

Are you really saying that Munster V London Irish would be bigger than Leinster Cleremont, or Leinster Tolouse, or Cleremont Tolouse etc etc. French games attract huge numbers, as do a few English games.

I think a more elite Heineken Cup would have a two-fold effect on the Amlin competition:

1) More quality teams in the Amlin Cup (the 8 or so that get "cut" from the Heineken Cup) means you get a higher quality competition.

2) With Heineken Cup qualification made that much harder, the Amlin (with its automatic qualification spot) becomes a much more appealing prize and teams will take it more seriously.

Personally, I'd prefer Heineken Cup qualification to be based purely on Heineken Cup finish the previous season. Get rid of league qualification completely.

3 tiers of 16 (Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3). 4 pools of 4 in each competition (6 games), with quarterfinals (top placed at home, second placed away), semi-finals and a final for each competition. 9 matches, just as we have now. Then, the next year:

Tier 1 competition made up of:
8 Tier 1 Quarter-finalists
3 best Tier 1 3rd place pool finishers
4 Tier 2 semi-finalists
1 Tier 3 winner

Tier 2 competition made up of:
1 worst Tier 1 3rd place pool finishers
4 Tier 1 4th place pool finishers
4 Tier 2 Quarter-finalists
4 Tier 2 3rd place pool finishers
3 Tier 3 semi-finalists (not including winner, who is moved to Tier 1)

Tier 3 competition made up of:
4 Tier 2 4th place pool finishers
12 Tier 3 teams who didn't make the semi-finals.

That's 48 teams (4 more than are currently in European Competition) and they all have a chance for qualifying for the Heineken Cup in the next season.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Brendan

A lot of Super attendances are really poor, this season and last. Infact last season they were at a very low figure weren't they. I can't see how attendances in the Super league as an average are higher than the average HC game number!

Are you really saying that Munster V London Irish would be bigger than Leinster Cleremont, or Leinster Tolouse, or Cleremont Tolouse etc etc. French games attract huge numbers, as do a few English games.

No you miss understood, what I was saying is that If Munster and London Irish played in an Amlin group of quarter final match.

The average HC match is only about 12k where as a S15 is 15k. Add in the fact that there isn't much traveling support that makes S15 look even better.

The Vodacom cup in SA gets about 20k average. So as you can see the HC and Amlin really should be getting higher attendances.

Why would Ireland receive 5 mill as a basic, yet they have only contributed 2?!

I'd imagine that the deal was struck a few years back when the Provinces weren't so dominant in Europe and the AP and French teams were along with the Scots being in financial trouble and the Welsh teams struggling under their new format. The agreement, much like the EU agreement where Britain puts in more to the pot than they take out, was probably designed to try and create a more equal balance between the competing countries. Now things have changed and the Rabo is in a much stronger position it seems that the English and French want to limit their subsidising of the Celtic nations and recoup more of their own money or see the Rabo nations put in more tv money initially before maintaining the amount they withdraw.

Remember these deals are not ongoing things they are agreed for blocks of time and I think the last contract was signed in 2007 (though I could well be wrong) and things have changed quite a bit since then.