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

First topic message reminder :

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).

English clubs don't have to fight relegation. They choose themselves to have it as part of their league format.

Stop moving the goal posts to suit your agenda, this isn't an arguement about the quality of the constituent leagues, it's about fairness in the selection of teams for the plaudits that go with HC selection. At the moment it isn't, you get it easy.

Its perfectly fair at the momnet - indeed biased towards the bigger unions.

France get 6 entries to the HC. England 6, etc etc. You can decide yourself how you use them.

If it was a true qualification on merit how many of the six english teams are amongst the 20 best european teams? On tehir performace inteh HC not very many.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Just because you want it to be that way doesn't make it so.

Which is why we chew the fat on forums

I would love to see the HC become a competition based on a pure mritocracy across the 3 leagues, but as you say it'll never happen, but some people claiming to be hard done by are talking a lot more cr4p than i am.

TJ wrote:

Stop moving the goal posts to suit your agenda, this isn't an arguement about the quality of the constituent leagues, it's about fairness in the selection of teams for the plaudits that go with HC selection. At the moment it isn't, you get it easy.

Its perfectly fair at the momnet - indeed biased towards the bigger unions.

France get 6 entries to the HC. England 6, etc etc. You can decide yourself how you use them.

If it was a true qualification on merit how many of the six english teams are amongst the 20 best european teams? On tehir performace inteh HC not very many.

point completely missed

The individual competition that seems to gain most from the proposals that seem flying around is the Amlin.

Half of the PRL play in that. Maybe a lot of what is going on is about the PRL trying to raise income and profile for the lower half of the league rather than kill off the top half?

AlastairW wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:AlW, Why are you bringing up how the Rabo unions choose to organise a league between them? It comes across as tho you are suggesting it be changed - can sound like an outsider telling others how to run their own business? Should we be grateful that the AP and T14 "allow" us to have a ring-fenced league? Comments like this make me (and others) question the motivation here

I just can't see fairness at the moment. English clubs have to fight relegation, get into the top 6 of the AP, then enjoy a HC place. Whereas no matter how sub-par a scots club in their league, they get a free pass into the HC and can concentrate on that without having to worry about relegation. Hardly fair.

Then you have people bemoaning how hard done by they are, and pointing the finger of blame at anyone and everyone else.

This is down to the English clubs to get together and change if they want to,it's within their power to ringfence the AP if they want to,they can hardly complain if they refuse to help themselves.

lostinwales wrote:The individual competition that seems to gain most from the proposals that seem flying around is the Amlin.

Half of the PRL play in that. Maybe a lot of what is going on is about the PRL trying to raise income and profile for the lower half of the league rather than kill off the top half?

An astute observation sir

AlastairW wrote:

TJ wrote:

Stop moving the goal posts to suit your agenda, this isn't an arguement about the quality of the constituent leagues, it's about fairness in the selection of teams for the plaudits that go with HC selection. At the moment it isn't, you get it easy.

Its perfectly fair at the momnet - indeed biased towards the bigger unions.

France get 6 entries to the HC. England 6, etc etc. You can decide yourself how you use them.

If it was a true qualification on merit how many of the six english teams are amongst the 20 best european teams? On tehir performace inteh HC not very many.

point completely missed

No the point is not missed. Its perfectly fair at the moment. The English have 6 places in the HC an its up to the RFU to decide how this is decided, the scots have two. You chose to use the top 6 from your league. we chose not to use the top two from a scottish league but to use our two pro teams. Our structure has been built round the HC.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

AlastairW wrote:

We both know the RABO won't split so your hypothetical arguemnt is simple beligerance. As opposed to whining about it, get your head down and come up with a plan to put you in contention. You have a ring fenced league, what more do you want?

Just another cheap pop at English clubs - that's not an arguement, that's just trolling. Try harder.

I don't understand this argument,the HC was set up to give clubs from he 6Nations a European competition,it was never mean to be just about having the best teams involved.Just because you want it to be that way doesn't make it so.

Pedant Alert

HC was set up the 5N, not the 6N commitee and initially comprised entrants from only 3 of the 5, plus Romania and Italy. It has evolved into 6N exclusivity, and studiously ignored the wider European game.

If it's not about the best teams, where are the representatives from Georgia, Russia, Romania, Spain, Portugal, etc?

rodders wrote:

lostinwales wrote:The individual competition that seems to gain most from the proposals that seem flying around is the Amlin.

Half of the PRL play in that. Maybe a lot of what is going on is about the PRL trying to raise income and profile for the lower half of the league rather than kill off the top half?

An astute observation sir

Lets face it the amlin would be much more interesting if all countries entered half their teams.

LondonTiger wrote:

rodders wrote:

lostinwales wrote:The individual competition that seems to gain most from the proposals that seem flying around is the Amlin.

Half of the PRL play in that. Maybe a lot of what is going on is about the PRL trying to raise income and profile for the lower half of the league rather than kill off the top half?

An astute observation sir

Lets face it the amlin would be much more interesting if all countries entered half their teams.

Begrudgingly I agree....although if you give me a bit more time I'll try and come up with a reason why I don't.......

What do you think the reaction would be if someone from Switzerland came up with the following plan:

To reorganise European rugby we suggest you:

- Reduce the number in the top tier competition making it more difficult to get into and thus raising the quality of the overall product

- Put more teams into a second tear competition again raising the quality and competitiveness and producing a more entertaining and marketable product

- Develop a third tier competition in an effort to expand the development of rugby through Europe.
If you do this we guarantee you all more income in terms of broadcasting rights and believe that your income will be further enhanced by a general expansion and commercialisation of the game.

Alternatively you can sit on your arses, let the rest of Europe rot, play a cut down European cup with no French or English but sleep well at night as you haven’t let the English or French prosper in any way.

Which do you reckon you’d go for?

Think it will be 6,6,8
Hcup and Almin winners come out of countries allocation

means RFU and FRU increase share by 5% each
Rabo teams every union guarented 1 place, and then rest based on league position.

moved to a month earlier, groups in 2 blocks.

Almin relauched.

and if Sky picked up the PRO 12, even if it was less than the Prem deal, it would still be a big boost, be more TV money than they are currently getting (by a fair bit)

and they could get more from sponsors as they are being seen by a wider audence, and the SKY hype would really build the teams up.

BT hyping up English teams, SKY hyping up PRO 12 teams, when they clash in Europe, you can guarentee that many many more people would be intrested that there are now.

Toadfish wrote:What do you think the reaction would be if someone from Switzerland came up with the following plan:

To reorganise European rugby we suggest you:

- Reduce the number in the top tier competition making it more difficult to get into and thus raising the quality of the overall product

- Put more teams into a second tear competition again raising the quality and competitiveness and producing a more entertaining and marketable product

- Develop a third tier competition in an effort to expand the development of rugby through Europe.
If you do this we guarantee you all more income in terms of broadcasting rights and believe that your income will be further enhanced by a general expansion and commercialisation of the game.

Alternatively you can sit on your arses, let the rest of Europe rot, play a cut down European cup with no French or English but sleep well at night as you haven’t let the English or French prosper in any way.

Which do you reckon you’d go for?

That's a man from Switzerland talking??? Em, no it ain't. That's an Englishman wearing lederhosen and trying on a pigeon English accent. Try again, Toad.

Kingshu wrote:Think it will be 6,6,8
Hcup and Almin winners come out of countries allocation

means RFU and FRU increase share by 5% each
Rabo teams every union guarented 1 place, and then rest based on league position.

moved to a month earlier, groups in 2 blocks.

Almin relauched.

and if Sky picked up the PRO 12, even if it was less than the Prem deal, it would still be a big boost, be more TV money than they are currently getting (by a fair bit)

and they could get more from sponsors as they are being seen by a wider audence, and the SKY hype would really build the teams up.

BT hyping up English teams, SKY hyping up PRO 12 teams, when they clash in Europe, you can guarentee that many many more people would be intrested that there are now.

All hyperbole aside I think this sort of idea is getting closer to an acceptable compriomise

SecretFly wrote:

Toadfish wrote:What do you think the reaction would be if someone from Switzerland came up with the following plan:

To reorganise European rugby we suggest you:

- Reduce the number in the top tier competition making it more difficult to get into and thus raising the quality of the overall product

- Put more teams into a second tear competition again raising the quality and competitiveness and producing a more entertaining and marketable product

- Develop a third tier competition in an effort to expand the development of rugby through Europe.
If you do this we guarantee you all more income in terms of broadcasting rights and believe that your income will be further enhanced by a general expansion and commercialisation of the game.

Alternatively you can sit on your arses, let the rest of Europe rot, play a cut down European cup with no French or English but sleep well at night as you haven’t let the English or French prosper in any way.

Which do you reckon you’d go for?

That's a man from Switzerland talking??? Em, no it ain't. That's an Englishman wearing lederhosen and trying on a pigeon English accent. Try again, Toad.

But I've got all these really cool bells and a bitchin pocket knife too? It has a toothpick and everything.

I would like to pick up one point. why if the competition needs to be reduced in size is it only the rabo teams allocation to be reduced? Why should the French and English not bear the some of the cuts?

Not just trolling but do sale sharks bring more than Edinburgh?

Toadfish wrote:

But I've got all these really cool bells and a bitchin pocket knife too? It has a toothpick and everything.

Yeah. I'm...I'm beginning to come round to the idea that you might be Swiss afterall................. I'll think about your offer.

The bit that caught my interest was "With PRO12 television revenues having consequently been split by rather complex mechanisms to reflect what each country is bringing to the table"

TJ wrote:I would like to pick up one point. why if the competition needs to be reduced in size is it only the rabo teams allocation to be reduced? Why should the French and English not bear some of the cuts?

Not just trolling but do sale sharks bring more than Edinburgh?

They will - compromise is compromise.

Kingshu wrote:Think it will be 6,6,8
Hcup and Almin winners come out of countries allocation

With one team guaranteed for each union? Probably the best.

The whole negotiations will be about the concept of whether it should be a competition of 6 unions or 3 leagues. I imagine we'll end up somewhere in between (like most negotiations).

TJ wrote:I would like to pick up one point. why if the competition needs to be reduced in size is it only the rabo teams allocation to be reduced? Why should the French and English not bear the some of the cuts?

Not just trolling but do sale sharks bring more than Edinburgh?

Same reason there were more English and French teams originally. Back when the Welsh Premiership sides entered.

PS I'll give you a hint, it's not because everyone loved having us involved (we won a lot back then unlike now)

It would be a nice insult to the next meeting place to come out with a conclusion that it's top 6 positions in League regardless of where the teams come from.

"Thanks for your time, and your lovely food Rome but from here on in it's screw you... the serious European business for the next 7or 8 years is now elsewhere *yawn*. Where's me briefcase?"

TJ wrote:I would like to pick up one point. why if the competition needs to be reduced in size is it only the rabo teams allocation to be reduced? Why should the French and English not bear the some of the cuts?

Not just trolling but do sale sharks bring more than Edinburgh?

No but I suppose it could be argued that in the interest of fairness that the same proportion of teams per Union get a spot.

I do think there is some merit in the point that all of the Scottish and Italian teams shouldn't get automatic entry. Even Ireland getting 3/4s in essentially guarantees Leinster, Munster and Ulster selection.

Now for selfish reasons I don't want anything that jepordises Ulsters (or indeed any of the provinces) place but if the number of teams is reduced then I think that each Union gets the same percentage of top tier teams is a reasonable one.

...plus I think we will finish higher up the league than Munster.... ....

Just a few points

The t14 teams all play by the same rules and so the league positition is fair.
The Prem teams play by the same rules so the league positition is fair

The Rabo teams do not play by the same rules so league postion isn't fair.
We have one privately owned team that can do what they want (as far as I know) Treviso
The Welsh have a wage cap and also have extra games their players are missing for.
Ireland had central contracts and strict enforce palyer rest and where players can play
Scotland has ranged from no international allow to play for five months to now where they have alot of non scots compared to the other nations.

It would be like the Northern England teams focusing on playing only northern players to grow the game. I am sure the RFU would seek to reward them for growing the game in the north

rodders wrote:

TJ wrote:I would like to pick up one point. why if the competition needs to be reduced in size is it only the rabo teams allocation to be reduced? Why should the French and English not bear the some of the cuts?

Not just trolling but do sale sharks bring more than Edinburgh?

No but I suppose it could be argued that in the interest of fairness that the same proportion of teams per Union get a spot.

I do think there is some merit in the point that all of the Scottish and Italian teams shouldn't get automatic entry. Even Ireland getting 3/4s in essentially guarantees Leinster, Munster and Ulster selection.

Now for selfish reasons I don't want anything that jepordises Ulsters (or indeed any of the provinces) place but if the number of teams is reduced then I think that each Union gets the same percentage of top tier teams is a reasonable one.

Our mantra here (whether any of us genuinely believe in it or not) has always been percentages - we wanted each nation involved in the HC to have the same rights as each other. Therefore, we stated that if England and France (as Unions) have their players gaining valuable experience in a Euro wide competition, that also sets them up to be better Internationals; and if that's their lot by right, then it should also be the right of the unions that meet them regularly at International level. If France gets to train its players in a Euro contest then Italy should have the same rights. That was our argument until some of us (seemingly the Irish and Welsh) got greedy and started saying they might let Italy and Scotland sink as a price worth paying.

Now - moving on; that argument above never was the one put forward by England or France as their reasons for being upset. They prefer to tell the story this a way: 'we want a European contest that means something and that means the best sides should be in it regardless of where they hail from in Union terms - not sides simply there because of inalienable rights.

Leaving me with a "Wha?" on my face. - What? You mean like teams that have already won it should rank themselves as pretty decent in the line of European rugby and might feel like they're some of the sides that might rank themselves as 'best'?

So, it's not all about 1 side from each nation at all in Pro12... it's about Leinster and Munster and Ulster deserving a place at the Euro table more than most - they've virtually become the blueprint for the abilities needed to be there in the first place.

"Oh wait a second," shouts McCafferty - "hold on a sec, that's not what we're saying at all - we don't mean that the best should be there at all. You have us all wrong, mate; that's not what we meant."

rodders wrote:English clubs don't have to fight relegation. They choose themselves to have it as part of their league format.

Well, actually that's not true. Many English clubs don't want relegation, and don't want it as part of the league structure - unless I'm much mistaken the RFU force it on them as they will not allow the premiership to become ringfenced. It's one of many areas where PRLs arguments are actually with the RFU not ERC, and it's possible (though unlikely) that PRL will come back in not due to concessions from ERC but concessions from the RFU.

Anyway, I'm going to try and break down the proposed changes into it's constituent parts (as I see them) and give a view on each...

1. Who gets the broadcasting rights. Without knowing the actual figures on offer from Sky and BT it's hard to judge, but it does look like BT may be offering more. From a business perspective I'd have thougth this is a no brainer - it's not about whether you support this league, that league or the other it's about who is offering the best deal - Sky or BT? Surely all involved want the best return! If ERC have negotiated a poor deal with Sky then they will have questions to answer, if the BT deal isn't any better PRL will be even more embarrased and will have to answer not only for negotiating a poor deal but also for rocking the boat for no reason.

2. How the money is split. Payment per club involved or payment per union (+ performance bonuses)? With (I assume) Eng and Fra probably hoping for the former and a slightly larger slice of the pie. I expect that Eng and Fra will be fairly united on this front and will probably get their way.

3. How many teams are involved. When England and France threatened to hand in their notice PRL wanted (I think) to keep a 24 team tournament but with 8 from each league, France wanted 20 with 6 from each and the previous year's HC and AC winners. PRL have since changed their proposals to match the French, so again I expect they will get their way by having a united front. It may come down to how the French back up other PRL proposals, if PRL do not think they are getting enough backing elsewhere (i.e. point 2) they may compromise and agree to their original 24 team proposal - leaving the French to back down or drop out.

4. Tournament programme. The French (and to lesser extent English) want the tournament reduced in length and finished earlier. Understandable, and I don't think the Rabo teams have a problem with this. Unless I've read wrong most of the opposition comes from Heineken as they want to get repeated exposure throughout the year. This for me is a real problem if correct - we should not be allowing tournament sponsors to dictate the format and set up of our tournament. Regardless of the structure I expect Heineken to drop their sponsorship sooner or later as they cannot advertise through the tournament in France, so why pander to them? What I think will happen is that the tournament will finish earlier, and the group stages will be played in two blocks rather than three - the format requested by the French. However, from where I'm sat playing the tournament in one block would be much better on two fronts. First if it is played in one block there is no need to argue about whether or not Rabo teams get the benefit of resting between games, it will be the same for all and would negate the need to force changes in the number of Rabo teams playing and how they qualify. Secondly, if the European Cup is to provide a stepping stone between club and international rugby it should be played in a similar manner. The best way to prepare players for playing a number of high intensity games in a short period in either the 6Ns or World Cup (which are both over 7 weekends) is to do just that in the European Cup. I hope this happens once Heineken are gone.

5. Division of voting rights etc. Yes PRL want it to be a competition run by clubs not by unions. I can't see this happening though. Maybe the RFU will hand over the last of their votes and give them free rein to sell tv and other rights, though I can't see why they would and don't think they will (not without other concessions from the clubs on the England front). Much the the LNRs frustration FFR will overrule anything in this respect... so I'd be very surprised if PRL get their way here. Not that this means they are isolated, I'm pretty sure LNR would go for it as well if they thought they could get away with it.

So in summary my predictions are:

1. Financially everyone wins when they go with the best offer, someone ends up with egg on face though for negotiating a poor contract.

either
2. PRL/LNR win. and 3. LNR win
OR
2. Rabo win. and 3. PRL win.

4. LNR win.

5. Rabo/FFR win.

TJ wrote:

Kingshu wrote:Think it will be 6,6,8
Hcup and Almin winners come out of countries allocation

means RFU and FRU increase share by 5% each
Rabo teams every union guarented 1 place, and then rest based on league position.

moved to a month earlier, groups in 2 blocks.

Almin relauched.

and if Sky picked up the PRO 12, even if it was less than the Prem deal, it would still be a big boost, be more TV money than they are currently getting (by a fair bit)

and they could get more from sponsors as they are being seen by a wider audence, and the SKY hype would really build the teams up.

BT hyping up English teams, SKY hyping up PRO 12 teams, when they clash in Europe, you can guarentee that many many more people would be intrested that there are now.

All hyperbole aside I think this sort of idea is getting closer to an acceptable compriomise

TJ your softening, you wouldn't have accepted this a few days ago as it mean that Scotland would prob only get one team in the H-cup each year each year.

While I see this being the likily result.

I do have a few questions about it
From changing to the old agreement to this one,

English gain 5% extra of the revenue
French gain 5% extra of the revenue, reduced number of teams hence games, earlier final, relaunched Almin, possible group games played in two blocks.

Rabo Unions, lose 2 automatic places, lose 10% of the revenue, every Union loses automatic all their automatic spots bar one.

If this is about give and take, it seams this deal is the Rabo unions are giving and French and English taking.
I believe that if the Rabo unions do agree to this there are a few demands they can make of the French and English in return, (just not sure what these would be).

And is it really fair that the IRFU with our h-cup record are forced to move from having 3 automatic qualifers to only 1?

While I think this deal is a fair compromise, I think that the Pro 12 Unions will be able to lever something in return.


and another point, if the French had allowed the Italians to enter the top 14, instead of the Pro 12, would they be happy to still have only 6 qualifing positions, meaning some years only 4 French teams entered the H-cup???

The PRL have said to the SRU and FIR (if my understanding is right) yes you will get less of the pie but you will get the same money from you small share.

What they are saying is that the pie will get bigger and the Rabo countries will get the same money but the French and English will get much more then they are now as they will get a bigger same of a bigger pie.

Fly I have no idea what your point is there but I agree with your posts a reasonable percentage of the time so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt....

rodders wrote:Fly I have no idea what your point is there but I agree with your posts a reasonable percentage of the time so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt....

Oh go try again...I always make sense, Rodders... Well, when I'm making sense, that is.

My point in a nutshell is that French and English say quality is a major stumbling block in the Pro12, not really the idea of each Union having a rightful contribution. They say they worry about the quality of Pro12 sides being allowed into the HC.

Hmmm, and then they can also say with a straight face that they could live with the idea of Leinster, Munster and Ulster not at the event - as in theory new rules might force all Irish sides out. My point is that surely the nation with the proven Euro quality should be the nation dictating entry requirements, not the countries that despite big populations and big money are finding it obvioulsy difficult to meet the requirements. The guys with the ultimatums are the wrong guys is my point.

If you're still confused, then you've been drinking last night, Rodders

Brendan wrote:The PRL have said to the SRU and FIR (if my understanding is right) yes you will get less of the pie but you will get the same money from you small share.

What they are saying is that the pie will get bigger and the Rabo countries will get the same money but the French and English will get much more then they are now as they will get a bigger same of a bigger pie.

I don't agree with this as the gap between the haves and have nots will grow, ok they may have more money than they used to , but England and France will have even more of a finicial advantage then they used to , and hence make it harder for the have nots to keep hold of their top players, over time this will tell.

When the new deal h-cup deal comes into effect (2015 is it?) I wonder how well on the Itialians will be.

Rabo should go, ok top 6 each league, but the Italians are moving to the Top 14, and we are going back to a 10 team league in 2015.

See if France is then happy to have only Top 6 Qualify, as by that time i'd say Terviso (esp with their equal share of top 14 tv money) would be capable of challenging for a top 6 place,

or if we agree that Rabo is one form each union, and rest are league based,
say to France the two italian sides are entering the Top 14 and one of your 6 qualifing places has to be given to them.

I think the French would back down a bit.

Honestly English rugby fans would you be happy if the Prem was expanded to 14 teams, with the two italians joining, and one of the 6 Prem qualifing positions is guarenteed to them meaning at most you have 5 English team in H-cup each year and some years only 4?

Kingshu That is what I was getting at. The PRL are saying yes you'll get less but have the same amount over all.

They then fail to say that they will be getting as much as the Rabo Teams put together.

SecretFly wrote:

rodders wrote:Fly I have no idea what your point is there but I agree with your posts a reasonable percentage of the time so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt....

Oh go try again...I always make sense, Rodders... Well, when I'm making sense, that is.

My point in a nutshell is that French and English say quality is a major stumbling block in the Pro12, not really the idea of each Union having a rightful contribution. They say they worry about the quality of Pro12 sides being allowed into the HC.

Hmmm, and then they can also say with a straight face that they could live with the idea of Leinster, Munster and Ulster not at the event - as in theory new rules might force all Irish sides out. My point is that surely the nation with the proven Euro quality should be the nation dictating entry requirements, not the countries that despite big populations and big money are finding it obvioulsy difficult to meet the requirements. The guys with the ultimatums are the wrong guys is my point.

If you're still confused, then you've been drinking last night, Rodders

but haven't the Irish sides generally been towards the top of the PRO12, while they've been well in the HEC? That backs up the point doesn't it? Better sides in the PRO12 are generally the better sides in the HEC. If the Provinces fell out of the top 8 of the PRO12 it would suggest there relative quality had fallen...wouldn't it?

As far as I was aware the PRL have said they want to make the cake bigger rather than worry about slices. They haven't said anything about the relative size of the slices. I imagine the distribution of the money will be part of the negotiation, if they agree on a format.

HammerofThunor wrote:

but haven't the Irish sides generally been towards the top of the PRO12, while they've been well in the HEC? That backs up the point doesn't it? Better sides in the PRO12 are generally the better sides in the HEC. If the Provinces fell out of the top 8 of the PRO12 it would suggest there relative quality had fallen...wouldn't it?

We're back to square one, Hammer. And yep, I know it's tiresome but nothing else seems to be on the chat agenda and since I have time on my hands for a while, I contribute.

But here we go. You're right. Let's take the nightmare scenario for me. All hell breaks loose and all Irish sides massively underperform over the next half decade and none of them qualify for entry into a quality only League format. So keep with me, for me that means no Irish contribution to the premier European event. Now let's say a nightmare of sorts takes place in the AP League too. All the top grade teams in that league fall victim to the same mysterious lack of form and luck, and fall away to the bottom to be replaced by a new six with little European Cup experience or history. What happens?

What happens is that England still have their 6 entries into the European premier competition. No change in European fortune for English based sides, just new names representing them. They don't suffer the consequences of dip in quality that Irish sides do.

"What difference does it make? They're clubs not countries. A French or an Irish person can support an English side in the European Competition as easily as they could a French or Irish team" - Em - nope.

And I'll tell you why 'nope'.
Firstly, I'm Irish not French, Welsh or English.
Secondly, how many sides do you need at club level to produce the basis of an International side? - One? Two? Four? Six? The more the better would be the honest opinion. Well if you have six clubs getting valuable big game experience in a club European contest every year (without fail - by right), then you have a better selection of potential International players to choose from than the country that has no club involvement.

So the issue is much more complex than PRL or their French equivalent would have us believe. What happens at club level in Europe will influence what happens at International level. Plus - when Irish sides begin to suffer in my hypothetical scenario - the downfall becomes self perpetuating. We lose money, Provinces lose the ability to hold onto best players, we lose players to the clubs that are performing best in Europe and so even our own players become weapons in the further weakening of Provinces. You go down and there is a big chance you stay down.

Much more complex a subject than many would pretend it is.

SecretFly wrote:If you're still confused, then you've been drinking last night, Rodders

Darn it busted again!

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

but haven't the Irish sides generally been towards the top of the PRO12, while they've been well in the HEC? That backs up the point doesn't it? Better sides in the PRO12 are generally the better sides in the HEC. If the Provinces fell out of the top 8 of the PRO12 it would suggest there relative quality had fallen...wouldn't it?

We're back to square one, Hammer. And yep, I know it's tiresome but nothing else seems to be on the chat agenda and since I have time on my hands for a while, I contribute.

But here we go. You're right. Let's take the nightmare scenario for me. All hell breaks loose and all Irish sides massively underperform over the next half decade and none of them qualify for entry into a quality only League format. So keep with me, for me that means no Irish contribution to the premier European event. Now let's say a nightmare of sorts takes place in the AP League too. All the top grade teams in that league fall victim to the same mysterious lack of form and luck, and fall away to the bottom to be replaced by a new six with little European Cup experience or history. What happens?

What happens is that England still have their 6 entries into the European premier competition. No change in European fortune for English based sides, just new names representing them. They don't suffer the consequences of dip in quality that Irish sides do.

"What difference does it make? They're clubs not countries. A French or an Irish person can support an English side in the European Competition as easily as they could a French or Irish team" - Em - nope.

And I'll tell you why 'nope'.
Firstly, I'm Irish not French, Welsh or English.
Secondly, how many sides do you need at club level to produce the basis of an International side? - One? Two? Four? Six? The more the better would be the honest opinion. Well if you have six clubs getting valuable big game experience in a club European contest every year (without fail - by right), then you have a better selection of potential International players to choose from than the country that has no club involvement.

So the issue is much more complex than PRL or their French equivalent would have us believe. What happens at club level in Europe will influence what happens at International level. Plus - when Irish sides begin to suffer in my hypothetical scenario - the downfall becomes self perpetuating. We lose money, Provinces lose the ability to hold onto best players, we lose players to the clubs that are performing best in Europe and so even our own players become weapons in the further weakening of Provinces. You go down and there is a big chance you stay down.

Much more complex a subject than many would pretend it is.

+1 Extremely eloquently put, Fly, and the reason why Scots fans have every right to be so fearful - let's be honest here, if one of our only two teams does not compete at the highest level in Europe, then those players are missing out on competing at a level just below international - in the long run (don't ask me how long), the likelihood is that our international performance will dip further as a consequence. It may not be directly what the PRL intend (I think they are more interested at shoring up their own club balance sheets than anything else), but it is an indirect consequence that cannot be denied. The 6Ns will become less of a spectacle, etc. It's a downward spiral and to not recognise that is imo blinkered

How about this for fairness each club gets the same wether in HC or Amlin. So French get 14/38, English 12/38, Ireland 4/38, Welsh 4/38, Scots 2/38 & Italians 2/38 after a figure has been taken off for the Third Tier Comp.
No comments after an hour & a half. Been thinking keeping things fair each union gets half its top teams in each tier ,I know this makes 19 so top tier winner gets another spot for its union/league,would leave 18 in middle tier so 2 places from developing nations, third tier of suitable number from developing nations with winner getting spot in next years middle tier.

Edited above comment

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

but haven't the Irish sides generally been towards the top of the PRO12, while they've been well in the HEC? That backs up the point doesn't it? Better sides in the PRO12 are generally the better sides in the HEC. If the Provinces fell out of the top 8 of the PRO12 it would suggest there relative quality had fallen...wouldn't it?

We're back to square one, Hammer. And yep, I know it's tiresome but nothing else seems to be on the chat agenda and since I have time on my hands for a while, I contribute.

But here we go. You're right. Let's take the nightmare scenario for me. All hell breaks loose and all Irish sides massively underperform over the next half decade and none of them qualify for entry into a quality only League format. So keep with me, for me that means no Irish contribution to the premier European event. Now let's say a nightmare of sorts takes place in the AP League too. All the top grade teams in that league fall victim to the same mysterious lack of form and luck, and fall away to the bottom to be replaced by a new six with little European Cup experience or history. What happens?

What happens is that England still have their 6 entries into the European premier competition. No change in European fortune for English based sides, just new names representing them. They don't suffer the consequences of dip in quality that Irish sides do.

"What difference does it make? They're clubs not countries. A French or an Irish person can support an English side in the European Competition as easily as they could a French or Irish team" - Em - nope.

And I'll tell you why 'nope'.
Firstly, I'm Irish not French, Welsh or English.
Secondly, how many sides do you need at club level to produce the basis of an International side? - One? Two? Four? Six? The more the better would be the honest opinion. Well if you have six clubs getting valuable big game experience in a club European contest every year (without fail - by right), then you have a better selection of potential International players to choose from than the country that has no club involvement.

So the issue is much more complex than PRL or their French equivalent would have us believe. What happens at club level in Europe will influence what happens at International level. Plus - when Irish sides begin to suffer in my hypothetical scenario - the downfall becomes self perpetuating. We lose money, Provinces lose the ability to hold onto best players, we lose players to the clubs that are performing best in Europe and so even our own players become weapons in the further weakening of Provinces. You go down and there is a big chance you stay down.

Much more complex a subject than many would pretend it is.

+1 Extremely eloquently put, Fly, and the reason why Scots fans have every right to be so fearful - let's be honest here, if one of our only two teams does not compete at the highest level in Europe, then those players are missing out on competing at a level just below international - in the long run (don't ask me how long), the likelihood is that our international performance will dip further as a consequence. It may not be directly what the PRL intend (I think they are more interested at shoring up their own club balance sheets than anything else), but it is an indirect consequence that cannot be denied. The 6Ns will become less of a spectacle, etc. It's a downward spiral and to not recognise that is imo blinkered

There's the crux (or one of them) of the dispute - is (or should) the Heiney be a competition for individual clubs, or is it a competition for sub-national representative teams (and a training ground for internationals)? Well, it's somewhere in between. Who are the rugby fans, who are the tribalists, and who are the bandwagoners?

Consider this:

About 1/3 of the England EPS squad have not been getting Heiney experience for years, and will continue not to do so, playing for the poorer english teams.

More than half of regular game attending English club supporters will not have their team in the Heiney, and will continue not to do so.

I expect the standard response will be along the lines of well that's the choice of the English. Well, it's also the choice of the other countries to arrange their teams as they do. The success of the Irish teams is self-perpetuating - there are no checks or balances to restrain their success in the way a salary cap might. Why should there be a check or balance to restrain their failure (if it happens)?

There seems to be a wide spread dismissal of the Amlin as a competition - at the moment, the pool stages aren't always competitive, but the knockouts are. The parachuted Mighty Munster were summarily dismissed from the competition a couple of seasons ago by a qualifier. If the proposed changes to the Amlin succeed, the pool stages will also be fully competitive.

So if the prl proposals are accepted:

England: 6 guaranteed positions each year
Wales: 0 guaranteed positions each year
Ireland: 0 guaranteed positions each year
Scotland: 0 guaranteed positions each year
Italy: 0 guaranteed postitions each year
France: 6 guaranteed positions each year

An acceptable proposal would be for the rabo direct to be allocated 8 qualification places with the top 6 qualifying automatically.

Those teams finishing in 7th and 8th also qualify automatically unless one of the constituent nations of the rabo league does not have a representitive.

So if 3 irish 1 scottish and 2 welsh finish in the top 6 then and there is no italian team in the top 8 then the 7th placed team would qualify but the 8th qualification place would go to the italian team and not the team in 8th.

This would leave us with 20 teams as the english want and also a more competitive rabo direct league. Each nation would also be guaranteed 1 representitive in Europe.

broadlandboy wrote:How about this for fairness each club gets the same wether in HC or Amlin. So French get 14/38, English 12/38, Ireland 4/38, Welsh 4/38, Scots 2/38 & Italians 2/38 after a figure has been taken off for the Third Tier Comp.
No comments after an hour & a half. Been thinking keeping things fair each union gets half its top teams in each tier ,I know this makes 19 so top tier winner gets another spot for its union/league,would leave 18 in middle tier so 2 places from developing nations, third tier of suitable number from developing nations with winner getting spot in next years middle tier.

Interesting concept.

I think they will have at least 1 guaranteed spot for each nation and the rest by position, to ask italy and scotland to possibly give up both spots in the top tier might be to much. financially I cant see the other unions or clubs risking pro rugby in scotland, italy and possibly wales this would start to affect the 6 nations which nobody wants, so i think the ''PIE'' as the PRL referred to will just be increased.

From a scottish view I think if they don't lose out to much financially by dropping 1 team to the amlin then they may consider this

BUT

I don't think they will do it for nothing, I think they may go after an issue which has vexed them for some time now which is player release for internationals from English and French clubs they'll want the same time with the players as the RFU and FFR get. Also means Scotland could have a 4th November international which could plug any short fall in european money and puts them on an equal footing in preparation time with most top tier nations before the 6 nations and the RWC and takes the pressure of the SRU to try and keep as many top internationals in 2 teams.

Cogs been turning'
5 Leagues of 4,would have liked 4 leagues of 5 but would add 2 more games for each club plus more weekends to play & cant see the French going for that. So league winners plus best 3 runners up with bottom club unable to be in top tier next year so reduces the risk of playing weakend teams when unable to qualify for knockout stages.Prefer that Leagues played in one block so less chance to rest players but can see advantage of split into 2 blocks to help supporters spread cost of going to games.

Spreading the money equally to all Amlin and HC teams is a very interesting idea. That means demotion to the Amlin is not self perpetuating from a financial point of view. Italy would not be at any financial disadvantage if both teams wound up in the Amlin. They'd have the money to compete and try and fight their way back into the HC. They'd be getting the same guaranteed ERC tv payout as Leinster, Toulouse or Tigers. It would be up to them to produce the team with that money.

The big danger of the Franglo proposal is that Italian rugby teams could both be in the Amlin. The loss of HC funds would make it very difficult to make it back to the HC while competing with PRO12 teams with much more money. The permanent participation in the Amlin would put the test team at a disadvantage to test teams made up of players permanently playing in the higher level HC.

Maybe evenly distrinuting money across both tiers is the ultimate compromise. Maybe even a set amount of extra money could be diverted to a struggling nation. So in pure money terms, they have a fighting chance to make it back to the top tier. We don't want a nation underachieving to become self perpetuating until pro rugby in that country sinks and the their players are snapped up by the likes of Toulon and Racing.

So to perpetuate the idea of a league based cup, the tv money is paid to the leagues,which then divides it equally amongst its participant clubs. Mightn't be a bad way to go.


Not much has been said about the bonus performance monies paid additionally to those clubs who progress to knockouts and finals, but I think these should be increased substantially as well,given it willbe a much tougher comp. The H Cup winner would get a premium prize which would include a bonus payment to all the clubs in its league. This would help to reinforce the PRL desire for a cup based on leagues, rather than countries. It would be a prize within a prize for the league itself which could be used for league development costs, greater prize money for League placings, etc.

The PRL may well go for equal payments for both competitions; it's generally considered they're controlled by the middle majority in the Premiership who are those that fluctuate between the HEC and ACC.

Only issue I can see is it would be financially better to get into the ACC knockout stages than leave the HEC at the pool stages. The middle clubs in the premiership will be trying to lose games when they're relegation 'safe'

HammerofThunor wrote:The PRL may well go for equal payments for both competitions; it's generally considered they're controlled by the middle majority in the Premiership who are those that fluctuate between the HEC and ACC.

Only issue I can see is it would be financially better to get into the ACC knockout stages than leave the HEC at the pool stages. The middle clubs in the premiership will be trying to lose games when they're relegation 'safe'

I think PRL already do split the HEC and ACC money evenly between their clubs for precisely the reasons given, so I don't think they'd be bothered at all.

As an aside why does the HEC and ACC need to be seperated at the group stage? I know it's all speculative and remote from what ERC/PRL/et al. are discussing but if I had to draw something up from scratch I'd probably go for 16 groups of 3. All teams from the Rabo, Premiership and TOP14 + 10 others from the likes of Portugal, Romania, Georgia, etc. Winner of each group would go into the european cup, second place into the plate and third into bowl. A bit more like the 7s where the different tiers are seperated after the group stages. For each tier I'd then have the 2nd round knockout with home and away legs, then quarters to final as single knockout matches on nominally neutral grounds.

It would make the groups a bit less competitive, but you'd get the opportunity for giant killers (e.g. like this) that just don't exist in the current format. And the home/away 2nd round matches would be better than the current games 3/4 of the group stage as it really would decide who goes through.