H-cup, changes. SRU and FIR likley losers?

The best summary of the H-cup debate, I have found is here.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0915/1224324046581.html

The H-cup Pot seams to be split into two seperate payments to the unions, one for performance (after group stages) and one for taking part.

I don't see the performance payments changing,

However the participation split, is the one the French and English wish changed. Currently

"The would leave about €40 million or thereabouts in basic distributions, of which the IRFU, along with their Welsh and Scottish counterparts, receive about 13 per cent. This equates to approximately €5.2 million each. The Italians are understood to receive marginally less, around 11-12 per cent , equating to roughly €4.4 million.

Roughly half of the basic distribution is divided between the French and English, amounting to approximately €10 million each. On the premise that might is right, as well as having 12 and 14 clubs to share, the English and French will argue for a bigger basic share."


breaking this pot down is appears that currently each Union recieves:
RFU = 25%
FRU = 25%
IRFU = 13%
WRU = 13%
SRU = 13%
FIR = 11%

The way I see it the French and English, will be wanting this changed from a Union based divide to a League based divide (6 teams from each league + H-cup and Almin winners). Currently the Pro 12 unions recieve 50% for the participation pot, I believe that the French and English will want to change this to approx 33.33%, whereby it is split (will change slightly to have H-cup and Almin winners league gain some extra);

RFU = 33%
FRU = 33%
IRFU/WRU/SRU/FIR = 33% (and leave it to the Unions to decide how to divide this between themselves)

I believe the Pro 12 will argue for a divide of 8 Pro 12 teams (some or all of qualification based on league position) 6 English and 6 French. For this the split would be;

FRU = 30%
RFU = 30%
IRFU/WRU/SRU/FIR = 40% (and leave it to the Unions to decide how to divide this between themselves)

I believe the second is what will be agreed as it see's the French and English share increase from 25% to 30% and a reduction in number of Pro 12 teams and tougher qualification, plus since with less teams a reduction in payments.

I believe this is what the French were wishing to discuss and threaten pulling out over (and nothing to do with TV deals), and the English TV deal has thrown a complete spanner in the works, for everyone involved and added a new dimension to the talks.

Personally I see that the 4 Pro 12 unions will guarentee one entry per union, with the other 4 being League based.
This means that each H-cup place will be worth 5% of the participation pot.
Meaning the split would be

IRFU and WRU would get between 5-20% each year (from 13% prevously)
SRU and FIR between 5-10% each year (from 13% and 11% prevously)

Think the WRU and IFRU will manage to get around the same money as prevously, maybe even slightly more some years, but will generally average the same.
French and English will both increase by 5%,
The losers are the SRU and FIR who will lose out by 3%-8% each year depending if they get one or two teams in the H-cup.

If all 8 H-cups places are league based it will see.

IRFU and WRU would get between 5-20% each year (from 13% prevously)
SRU and FIR between 0-10% each year (from 13% and 11% prevously)

The losers are (even more so) the SRU and FIR who will lose out by 3%-13% each year depending if they get one or two teams in the H-cup, and recieve 0% if no teams get in top 8.

I think this is the likely outcome of how the H-cup will be run. The TV rights part I have no idea yet and will treat it as a seperate issue.

What are your thoughts would the above be an agreeable solution to you? (TV rights can be discussed on a seperate thread).

Tis simple - without the Scots welsh irish and french there is no european cup. the English will very soon find themselves isolated and they have more to lose.

Its selfish posturing from the English and they will lose as they have done everytime they have tried this nonsense.

Watch this space - there might be a tiny face saving exercise for the English but no way on earth will they get what they want.

If rumours are to be believed the Welsh and Irish are prepared to compromise in having just the top 8 of the Pro12 in the competion.

No piggybacking and no guaranteed to any Celtic nation, or the Italians.

The Scots and the Italians are going to be the big losers in this.

TJ, I'm trying to go down a different route from all the prevous ones,

The above is what will be the realistic solution to the running of the H-cup.

I was trying to gain the opinion of the English, French, Irish, Scots, Welsh and Italians (not any on 606), if this solution would be agreeable to them.

My personally opinion is all the Unions will accept it as the way forward. SRU will be a bit disappointed by prob expect it.

It was the issue the French wanted resolved and the TV rights being sold seperatly by England was not something the French wanted and they will prob side with the Pro 12 Unions that TV rights should be sold by ERC, (once they agree the above) and the English clubs may come in for some form of punishment, but like I said I think they will agreed the above first and come to TV rights second, and we can deal with that on a seperate thread.

The bit I want is the above an agreeable solution to all?

No its not agreeable at all. why would any unions accept less money and less representation?

What you suggest is a recipe for the end of italian and scots rugby. If you want a european cup withou the scots or italians and a 4 nations not 6 thats the way to go.

think, I'll update it to have that as well Geoff

I really think the most likely outcome is a either no significant changes or a european cup without the English. Remeber the early history of it? the english didn't want to play on fair terms but when they realised what they were missing they came in. the european cup is bigger than the RFU

TJ wrote:I really think the most likely outcome is a either no significant changes or a european cup without the English. Remeber the early history of it? the english didn't want to play on fair terms but when they realised what they were missing they came in. the european cup is bigger than the RFU

Think that no changes is a very unrealistic stand to take, even the IRFU, have conceded that chages will have to be made, and it will involve some give and take.

can't just say we can have it without the English, would the French agree to it? Because your forgetting the French what changes as well, they aren't going to say Ok we accept no changes and no English.

We're discussing realistic outcomes.

What I would imagine is a middle ground as most allude to.

Current Situation: Favoured by Ireland, Wales, Italy and Scotland
6 English
6 French
3 Irish
3 Welsh
2 Italian
2 Scots
1 Heineken Cup Winners
1 Amlin Cup Winners

Proposal by France and England
6 English
6 French
6 RaboDirect
1 Heineken Cup Winners
1 Amlin Cup Winners

Most likely middle ground
6 French
6 English
1 Ireland
1 Wales
1 Scotland
1 Italy
4 Next Highest RaboDirect Teams

The french do not want to take everything and give nothing like the english clubs.

Seriously - the english clubs are going to get very little here - the other uniuons have called their bluff before and won - and will do it again.

Do you want a "European cup" that is english and french with a couple of irish and welsh clubs in it? cos that is what will happen if the english clubs get thier way. then the product is devalued and worthless. Personally I would just thorw the engglish clubs out and be done with it.

Why fix what is not broken?

Kingshu wrote:

We're discussing realistic outcomes.

No you are not. It is not realistic to have a European cup without two of the 6 natiuons and with token representation from the others. that is what will happen. the scots and italian need that mo0ney to survive

Kingshu, I think that reluctantly the Scots and Italians will have to agree to the changes that you have noted (I hope it is the 1 from each of the 4 unions and 4 next highest in the league). Add to that that Heino and Amlin winners get to play too (with whichever league they come from losing a slot - ie an English Heino winner would lead to that team plus 5 other English teams the following year), and I think that is where we will end up. As a Scot, I'm not too happy about it, but I'm not sure that there is a choice.

red_stag wrote:What I would imagine is a middle ground as most allude to.

Current Situation: Favoured by Ireland, Wales, Italy and Scotland
6 English
6 French
3 Irish
3 Welsh
2 Italian
2 Scots
1 Heineken Cup Winners
1 Amlin Cup Winners

Proposal by France and England
6 English
6 French
6 RaboDirect
1 Heineken Cup Winners
1 Amlin Cup Winners

Most likely middle ground
6 French
6 English
1 Ireland
1 Wales
1 Scotland
1 Italy
4 Next Highest RaboDirect Teams

Personally I think we'll end up with Stag's middle ground suggestion, with the one change that the Heino and Amlin winners come out of the tally for that league - ie English team wins, next year that team is in plus 5 next highest English league teams. I don't think anyone would agree to a situation where a team might win the Heino one year but not be eligible to compete the following one

Hadnt considered that Asbo.

Being honest I could get used to that set up even though its not as pleasant as what we currently have.

To expand the "likely middle ground" further you would probably have a 16 team Amlin Cup (4 Rabo, 6 English, 6 French) and a newly developed 3rd tier competition for Spain, Romania, Georgia, Russia, Portugal, Germany etc.

red_stag wrote:
Most likely middle ground
6 French
6 English
1 Ireland
1 Wales
1 Scotland
1 Italy
4 Next Highest RaboDirect Teams

I would agree, however I think it will be only be the next 2 placed Rabo sides, and only 5 English and French. That will reduce it to 16 teams (4 pools of 4 winners only progress) which will be less games, and technically higher quality sides only. And the English/French could claim that they have had to make sacrifices (by dropping from 6 teams to 5 teams).

Even that would be ok Scarlet. Im open minded enough however it is a priority for me that all 6 Nations are represented and that the RaboDirect as a league have a greater number of teams that the French or English leagues.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote: As a Scot, I'm not too happy about it, but I'm not sure that there is a choice.

the choice is call their bluff. They are acting as typical bully boys here - stand up to them

Stag - I totally agree the HEC needs to be a competition featuring the best sides that the 6 nations can provide. So it has to have a minimum of one per nation.

I do see the tournament being reduced in numbers as they French are meant to be wanting that, and I doubt the Rabo nations will accept a reduction in their sides without seeing the other nations have to reduce a bit too.

TJ on a perosnal level you may feel as though the combined strenght of Italy and Scotland offers more trump cards than the English have but it is sadly not true.

The only people who could cause things to backfire on the English is the French.

TJ
have you read the FRA/ENG proposal? SCO/ITA would have a chance of being in the top tier if they are good enough,if not they would be in the second tier with a proposed third tier for developing nations who have a chance to progress to the top tier.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Kingshu, I think that reluctantly the Scots and Italians will have to agree to the changes that you have noted (I hope it is the 1 from each of the 4 unions and 4 next highest in the league). Add to that that Heino and Amlin winners get to play too (with whichever league they come from losing a slot - ie an English Heino winner would lead to that team plus 5 other English teams the following year), and I think that is where we will end up. As a Scot, I'm not too happy about it, but I'm not sure that there is a choice.

Think this is the way forward, and something the Rabo Unions will want, because no point in having an Irish team win it, and a welsh team (if next highest non qualifier in league) gain access, What benefit is that to IRFU (or winning Rabo Union)?

I feel sorry for Scots and Italians, as they are going to be the losers in this, Englsih and French winner and IRFU and Welsh ,maybe slight losers as well, (will be at least a lot harder to do as well as previously).

broadlandboy wrote:TJ
have you read the FRA/ENG proposal? SCO/ITA would have a chance of being in the top tier if they are good enough,if not they would be in the second tier with a proposed third tier for developing nations who have a chance to progress to the top tier.

Yes - it would mean the end of professional rugby in Scotland and Italy wiuth no way back at all. For both nations the money from the HC is essential for pro rugby.

So you mainly agree that the scots and italians would lose a lot, the irish and the welsh a bit - but you think the English can still get what they want? get real. that would mean 4 unions who stand to lose voting for proposals that allow one union to gain a lot - and do not think the French will follow the english on this - they have a much wider less blinkered view.

TJ Lets assume worst case scenario and it was literally just 5 French, 5 English and 6 Rabo for both Heineken Cup and Amlin Cup

You would have:

Heineken Cup: Harlequins, Tigers, Saracens, Northampton, Exeter, Toulouse, Clermont, Castres, Toulon, Biarritz, Leinster, Glasgow, Ospreys, Munster, Ulster, Scarlets.

Amlin Cup: London Irish, Bath, Sale, Gloucester, Worcester, Cardiff, Dragons, Treviso, Edinburgh, Connacht, Zebre, Montpellier, Racing, Stade Francais, Bordeaux, Agen.

Thats a very good Amlin Cup too.

Now that being said I've outline the middle ground I'd accept but it cetainly is not the end of professional rugby to concede a ERC place or two.

redstag - do not be fooled - it would be - not overnight but within a few years Scotland and Italy cannot afford to loose the money. It would mean the end of pro rugby in Scotland and italy.

Year on year it would be less money for the scottish and italian clubs and thus they could not afford decent players so would tehn have less chance of qualifying thus earn less money in a downward spiral.

As in most negotiations, both sides have a point. However, I think there are two aspects to the debate that don't seem to have been picked up in the points above.

Firstly, as several people have said, no union in its right mind is going to vote for less money. From the PRL's statements, they understand this and it looks to me as if they are using the BT deal as a way to change that. Their argument is that the commercial rights for European competition are under-exploited, and that the BT deal brings in much more money for the pot. If that's right, then the Celtic unions may well accept a restructured tournament and a lower share of the income - as long as the absolute cash amount is bigger. A smaller share of a bigger pot can still be worth more than a bigger share of a smaller one.

Secondly, I can't see that it's in anyone's interests for the HEC and Amlin winners not to get an automatic place in the competition. An HEC without the previous champion would really lack something, and if the Amlin were not a qualification route it would die as a competition. Why would anyone bother?

We also forget that we would see more Rabo Amlin winners esp if they scraped the drop down places.

I think Stag's middle is most likely and fairer. Also I think that Treviso with the pack they have can top an amlin group.

Is Treviso FIR or privately funded.

On saving Money can the IRB make the AI window bigger so that the unions can play more games and thus put manners on the Clubs. With less Euro games it could work for the Rabo countries and Aus and NZ would be for it also.

The main problem is that you have two nations that can support top tier club rugby,while the rest have gone the region/franchise route and trying to balance where they meet is nigh on impossible as both have different goals

Even France and England are actually in deficit for many of their clubs. Scotlish clubs cannot do this - they are supported by the SRU but we do not have rich business men propping up teams in deficit

TJ
then why should the PRL prop up other Unions?

TJ wrote:redstag - do not be fooled - it would be - not overnight but within a few years Scotland and Italy cannot afford to loose the money. It would mean the end of pro rugby in Scotland and italy.

Year on year it would be less money for the Scottish and Italian clubs and thus they could not afford decent players so would tehn have less chance of qualifying thus earn less money in a downward spiral.

What you are forgetting is that while they may lose out on up to 8-13% of the H-cup money, they will instead be getting Almin money, OK it's not going to be as much but it doesn't mean the SRU and FIR get zero money for europe, but it is reduced to Almin levels.

I am an Irish rugby fan, but I have to say I can see the French and English point that if you look at it in a league view (which is what they are doing, instead of a European Comp, a best of 3 leagues comp) then while the French and English only get 25% each and the Rabo league recieves 50%, you can see from their view that its unfair.

I think that the 8,6,6 offer and H-cup and almin winners come out of the allocation is a fair compramise.

Brendan for to say
Treviso are private but recieve funding from FIR, like the Welsh regions
Zebre are owned and funded by the FIR, like the Provinces

TJ, where have you got this idea that the PRL are demanding all or nothing? Especially compared with the French.

Regarding the idea. I'd go with Stag's middle ground with As' proposal for the cup winners.

Also, Kingshu, I'm not sure but I think your numbers are slightly off for the Scots and Italians.

Currently each team that competes gets a share. If the share has gone from 1 in 24 to 1 in 20 then the value for each spot goes up. So if the Scots have 1 place they'll lose out. But if they get 2 they be better off (relatively).

Also TJ, I don't see the point talking about professional rugby collapsing if changes occur. Part of the proposal was to strengthen the Challenge Cup and make it more attractive. If the slight extra money per HEC spot and minimum for ACC spot was greater than the money for 2 HEC spots would you be on board? At the moment you seem to be focused on the money so if you ended up better financial would you be happy?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Kingshu, I think that reluctantly the Scots and Italians will have to agree to the changes that you have noted (I hope it is the 1 from each of the 4 unions and 4 next highest in the league). Add to that that Heino and Amlin winners get to play too (with whichever league they come from losing a slot - ie an English Heino winner would lead to that team plus 5 other English teams the following year), and I think that is where we will end up. As a Scot, I'm not too happy about it, but I'm not sure that there is a choice.

I agree with this. It's essential for the integrity of the tournament that at least one team represents each of the 6 Nations, without that you don't have a European Cup. I also think the defending champions and the Amlin winners should qualify. Beyond that I don't really care. If Scotland wants two teams, then their sides better sort themselves out in the league (something Edinburgh are thankfully fixing this season). With the squads we have at Edinburgh and Glasgow, there's no reason why a top 6 finish isn't achievable, we'll just have to earn those two places. Having said that, I do think the tournament needs at least one representative guaranteed from each side. Perhaps in the event that neither Scottish team finishes in the top 6, the winner of the Christmas/New Year derbies should get to qualify - would spice those games up a little....

broadlandboy wrote:TJ
then why should the PRL prop up other Unions?

They are not propping them up. See how much money the PRL have when they get without the HC

the money should be spread widely to mean a wider pro game. Do you relay think the game will prosper without a pr game in Scotladn and Italy and with Wales and ireland being semi pro?

TJ
The BT deal seems to cover any loss of revenue without European rugby.IIRC a few years ago Leicester it cost them more unless they had a home 1/4 final

funnyExiledScot wrote:. If Scotland wants two teams, then their sides better sort themselves out in the league (something Edinburgh are thankfully fixing this season). With the squads we have at Edinburgh and Glasgow, there's no reason why a top 6 finish isn't achievable, we'll just have to earn those two places. Having said that, I do think the tournament needs at least one representative guaranteed from each side. Perhaps in the event that neither Scottish team finishes in the top 6, the winner of the Christmas/New Year derbies should get to qualify - would spice those games up a little....

the only reason why Edinburgh are sorting this out is the significant money gained from last years cup run. a year without the HC would mean a loss of a siugnificant part of the playig budget which would make it almost impossible for them to ever gain a place again as they simpoly would not be able to afford a sqyuad good enough to finish in the top half of the rabo. the scots teams are amogst the poorest already. Making them poorer would set them on a downward spiral from which they never would recover - smaller squads with no stars, smaller gates, less chance of HC places spiraling down leading to the end of pro rugby in a few years

On the money split issue, I can say as a Rangers fan that having the already biggest and richest teams gobbling up the vast majority of the revenue leaves you with a far poorer product at the end of the day.

If you want to expand the game, then you have to allow for the poorer nations to finance themselves, and not shut them down. That's why it's extremely important that there's a guaranteed place for one team from each of Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Those unions need a guaranteed income stream from the HC.

broadlandboy wrote:TJ
then why should the PRL prop up other Unions?

The PRL should not prop up othere unions. However the major question is would the PRL really be getting that money without the help of hte other unions? Lets be truthful here would there be half as much money generated by the HEC if the Rabo nations were to pull out? PRL are getting money off the back of hte other unions, so a bit of give an take would be expected.

I presume that even if SCO/ITA teams are not in the top tier the unions will still get a share of the TV rights only losing the chance of the performance monies

TJ wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:. If Scotland wants two teams, then their sides better sort themselves out in the league (something Edinburgh are thankfully fixing this season). With the squads we have at Edinburgh and Glasgow, there's no reason why a top 6 finish isn't achievable, we'll just have to earn those two places. Having said that, I do think the tournament needs at least one representative guaranteed from each side. Perhaps in the event that neither Scottish team finishes in the top 6, the winner of the Christmas/New Year derbies should get to qualify - would spice those games up a little....

the only reason why Edinburgh are sorting this out is the significant money gained from last years cup run. a year without the HC would mean a loss of a siugnificant part of the playig budget which would make it almost impossible for them to ever gain a place again as they simpoly would not be able to afford a sqyuad good enough to finish in the top half of the rabo. the scots teams are amogst the poorest already. Making them poorer would set them on a downward spiral from which they never would recover - smaller squads with no stars, smaller gates, less chance of HC places spiraling down leading to the end of pro rugby in a few years

Which is why having one guaranteed slot is the right happy medium. We can't be cut off altogether, but at the same time I do understand the desire to make the qualification system fairer than it is currently. Clubs do need to be incentivized to succeed. I actually have some sympathy with the French and English teams at the moment. The current system is very harsh on those teams that have to battle to make the top 6. Makes it very hard for those sides to achieve the sort of success at HC level that Edinburgh managed last season.

Stuart Barnes did write an interesting piece in the Sunday Times at the weekend though, pointing out that the attrition of the Jeff isn't the sole issue, and that the more negative and defensive tactics of some of the Jeff teams have as much to do with their lack of success than anything else. It's an interesting point of view. I'm not sure I entirely agree, Leicester, Saints and Quins played some great stuff last season, but I do agree that Leinster game plan has been a step ahead of the rest of Europe in recent seasons, and I don't think that has had anything to do with the respective leagues.

Why is reduced Scottish, and other representation fair?
Engladn getting more money and the rabo teams less? very fair and wil of course mean that the pro game will grow and porosper in Scotland italy and wales

Why MUST a European competition include one from each of the 6 nations but not have to involve other nations that have fully professional leagues of their own? The Georgians have 8 professional sides, the Russians have 10. Why should they not be considered when talking about 'true' European rugby competitions? Because they haven't been lucky enough to be included in the cash cow that is the 6 nations?

TJ, the SRU have increased the player funding for their teams to level of the English salary cap. This was before Edinburgh got to the semi.

ScarletSpiderman, give and take is given as well. The PRL are sharing all the money they got for European games. If their portion is relatively small (compared with how much their TV rights are sold for) then it loses value for them to be involved. As for how much money would be generated without the PRO12 unions, if the French were on aboard I honestly don't think the drop would be anywhere near as much as the PRO12 unions take out. Pure supposition I'm willing to admit.

Tier 1:

16 teams - 2 winners of Tier 1 & 2 comps previous year, 4 English, 4 French, 6 Rabo (1 from each country +2)


Tier 2:

16 Teams - 4 from England, Rabo, France, plus representative teams (national teams excluding players participating in the HC)from top 4 FIRA Countries (say Spain, Romania, Russia, Georgia)


Tier 3:

16 Teams - Remaining 10 teams from PRL/T14/Rabo, plus representative teams from next 6 FIRA teams.



TV/Sponsorhsip Money :

All travel expenses from a central fund then:

Tier 1 60% split equally among unions participating
Tier 2 25% split equally among unions participating
Tier 3 15% split equaly etc.

As >80% of commercial income is derived from English/French markets (mainly due to population size) they would effectively be subsidising the rest of Europe - so no way they would accept this.

HammerofThunor wrote:Why MUST a European competition include one from each of the 6 nations but not have to involve other nations that have fully professional leagues of their own? The Georgians have 8 professional sides, the Russians have 10. Why should they not be considered when talking about 'true' European rugby competitions? Because they haven't been lucky enough to be included in the cash cow that is the 6 nations?

I am all for including them in a wider european competition

TJ, the SRU have increased the player funding for their teams to level of the English salary cap. This was before Edinburgh got to the semi.

Not by my understanding - around 2/3 after edinburgh and glasgow earned more money last year. Last year edinburgh had around half the salery cap IIRC. Got some hard numbers? I havent


Y

HammerofThunor wrote:Why MUST a European competition include one from each of the 6 nations but not have to involve other nations that have fully professional leagues of their own? The Georgians have 8 professional sides, the Russians have 10. Why should they not be considered when talking about 'true' European rugby competitions? Because they haven't been lucky enough to be included in the cash cow that is the 6 nations?

If that's your line of argument then presumably England will need to give up its 6 guaranteed HC places, perhaps to just 3, to allow for guaranteed representation from Russia, Cyprus, Serbia or wherever else you deem relevant for a premium rugby competition.

If England and France are guaranteed representation, why not Wales, Ireland, Italy and Scotland - as current stakeholders in the competition?

If you want us to break up the Rabo12 and go back to having our own leagues, just to secure a guaranteed place like you, then obviously we could go down that road, but obviously no-one benefits.

HammerofThunor wrote:Why MUST a European competition include one from each of the 6 nations but not have to involve other nations that have fully professional leagues of their own? The Georgians have 8 professional sides, the Russians have 10. Why should they not be considered when talking about 'true' European rugby competitions? Because they haven't been lucky enough to be included in the cash cow that is the 6 nations?

I can see your point about the Georgians, Russians etc. However if you really want to be fair then scrap any qualification from any of the leagues and say that only the teams ranked 1-20 in the ERC rankings can be in the HEC (Leinster, Toulouse, Biarriatz, Munster Blues, Saints, Clermont, Ulster, Tigers, Stade Francais, Quins, Toulon Edinburgh, Ospreys, Wasps, Perpignan, Bath, Scarlets, Glasgow, Sarries), and this wil be reviewed ever season.

Going by the suggestions of 6 Jeff, 6 T14, and 6 Rabo sides it would be giving the English and French a guarantee of having representation, but not extending the same to the Rabo nations. That seems somewhat arrogent.

HammerofThunor wrote:ScarletSpiderman, give and take is given as well. The PRL are sharing all the money they got for European games. If their portion is relatively small (compared with how much their TV rights are sold for) then it loses value for them to be involved. As for how much money would be generated without the PRO12 unions, if the French were on aboard I honestly don't think the drop would be anywhere near as much as the PRO12 unions take out. Pure supposition I'm willing to admit.

Losing the Welsh, Italians, and Scots would not be much of a loss, but surely losing Munster and Leinster would be a loss to the tournament. Or would there be more interest in it as realistically it would be more attaintable?

My suggestion reduces Englands entry, has a sensible number of groups, creates a decent second Tier competition and a Third Tier.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Why MUST a European competition include one from each of the 6 nations but not have to involve other nations that have fully professional leagues of their own? The Georgians have 8 professional sides, the Russians have 10. Why should they not be considered when talking about 'true' European rugby competitions? Because they haven't been lucky enough to be included in the cash cow that is the 6 nations?

I can see your point about the Georgians, Russians etc. However if you really want to be fair then scrap any qualification from any of the leagues and say that only the teams ranked 1-20 in the ERC rankings can be in the HEC (Leinster, Toulouse, Biarriatz, Munster Blues, Saints, Clermont, Ulster, Tigers, Stade Francais, Quins, Toulon Edinburgh, Ospreys, Wasps, Perpignan, Bath, Scarlets, Glasgow, Sarries), and this wil be reviewed ever season.

Going by the suggestions of 6 Jeff, 6 T14, and 6 Rabo sides it would be giving the English and French a guarantee of having representation, but not extending the same to the Rabo nations. That seems somewhat arrogent.

HammerofThunor wrote:ScarletSpiderman, give and take is given as well. The PRL are sharing all the money they got for European games. If their portion is relatively small (compared with how much their TV rights are sold for) then it loses value for them to be involved. As for how much money would be generated without the PRO12 unions, if the French were on aboard I honestly don't think the drop would be anywhere near as much as the PRO12 unions take out. Pure supposition I'm willing to admit.

Losing the Welsh, Italians, and Scots would not be much of a loss, but surely losing Munster and Leinster and Ulster would be a loss to the tournament. Or would there be more interest in it as realistically it would be more attaintable?

Corrected that for you.

Kingshu - apologies, didn't mean to miss you lot out, after all Ulster have won the HEC (and last seasons finalists)