Can any country afford not to be at the top table

First topic message reminder :

In the late 80s english clubs were banned from all European club competitions (rightly or wrongly). South Africa were excluded in the main from rugby.

It took south africa a few years to get back to where they should have been and some may arruge that they are still stuck in the 70s with their style of play as they haven't adapted to the modern game.

English clubs took about 5 years after the ban to get back to competitive level with teams like Blackburn finishing behind the Polish champions who walked their group. Arsenal were the only ones to make a final and that was in the lowest cup.
England's new players also struggled and did poor (by their standards after 1990) in Euro 92 and failed to quailify for USA94 (even though two teams from a group quailified)
Their league and National team also failed to adapt to the progress in european football that they struggled to catch up.
Arsenal though they were top two in England by far from 1998-2001 struggled in the Champions league against weaker teams because they could handle the change.

There is always talk of different countries going it alone or have less contact with other countries. Would that lead to a decline or is Rugby different.

Would Rabo teams be able to keep their high standards if it was just the 4 of them outside of Test teams. Could England and France go it alone in their domestic league as they have enough money to get in the required level of player.

It is probable that the Premership in 1998 was harder to win the the HC was without them in it.

Sarries though they won the Premership were made to look like boys in their First year in the HC. Does this palying different styles add more to people then just playing the same people even though the standard might be higher among the teams you know.

What are your thoughts does isolation enforced or by choice make a difference even if you can maintain the same level.

gregortree wrote:SecretFly, is your nation a secret ?
I can see you are not English or French.
Are you worried about Spain & Russia clubs ?
I can see that some away matches might become a problem.

I think I'm well known enough around these parts that I didn't feel it needed a declaration again. I think too that if much of what I write was perused, the right answer would come up too.

I'm Irish, gregor. I'm not worried about Spanish & Russian clubs. I rarely regard them, to be honest. Too busy with life and then Irish Provincial rugby and then my main love (in rugby terms) International.

I'm not against them developing. But in a sense, they are responsible for their own wishes and, indeed, their own concerns. It's up to Russian, Georgian or Spanish clubs to speak up for themselves - to make their own concerns, if any, known to the IRB about access to meaningful competition in Europe. It's up to them to speak out if they feel they can't access club or indeed International competition at a level that they feel they deserve.

My role - as a follower of rugby in my country is to speak up for my interests, my concerns, my thoughts on what I feel are the real rumblings going on in English and French minds.

They (the English and the French) have a right too to feel what they feel - they have a right to look out for their interests. And if they see their interests lying more in tapping into the new and potentially big markets of heartland Europe (moneywise) then that's where they'll keep pushing bit by bit.

My part in that is to tell it as how I read it (and we all read it differently). I'll say that the idea that the PRL is emotionally interested in seeing rugby grow in these areas is a lie. They simply see a larger market out there than the insular small one the Pro12 unions bring (cold business logic at work and their right to act on it). They're after profits and will eventually go where they see them.

I won't stop the world but I will continue to argue the case for my nation and my Provinces. People from France, England, Scotland or Spain will do likewise for their concerns.

Secret
thanks. I was being a bit cheeky / tongue in cheek. Rugby U is not mainstream in most European countries, and esp here, (although we are grossly spoilt / wasteful in England for RU resources of all kinds). I can appreciate and respect the struggle players and fans from smaller populations have to go through. Professional sport brings its own commercial drivers, and money (unfairly) speaks for the bigger TV paying populations. But England and France still need a truly diverse European competition for it to remain interesting. Irish club rugby deservedly has a proud HC record, and true fans hope that continues in any new Euro format which replaces the Heiny.

gregortree wrote:Secret
thanks. I was being a bit cheeky / tongue in cheek. Rugby U is not mainstream in most European countries, and esp here, (although we are grossly spoilt / wasteful in England for RU resources of all kinds). I can appreciate and respect the struggle players and fans from smaller populations have to go through. Professional sport brings its own commercial drivers, and money (unfairly) speaks for the bigger TV paying populations. But England and France still need a truly diverse European competition for it to remain interesting. Irish club rugby deservedly has a proud HC record, and true fans hope that continues in any new Euro format which replaces the Heiny.

+1 We agree, gregor. Let's invite others in but hopefully not at the price of some old friends being kicked out. If we do it right (I mean those doing the negotiations) then some new happy faces might be joining us in the party that is entertaining European rugby..and a few faces that are now nervous (Scottish and Italian certainly) will also be smiling (from relief! )

Secret, there is talk of up to 3 tiers. Not sure how qualification for tiers is intended to work, but if on merit I see no problem for Munster & Leinster. As to player careers, well we have Irish in the Jeff, Englishmen & Welsh in France. Scots in the Jeff, including Glaws' captain. That is the cosmopolitan flavour we can well expect of the son of HC too.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:

In theory with auto HC qualification and the best players compacted into only 2 clubs you would expect Italy and Scotland to be doing better.

The best of Ireland is compacted into 3 clubs with Connacht as the feeder.

E.g. if you combined Leicester/Saints or Saracens/Quins you would have two very strong sides.

Em, I think if you put 50 million people on one side of a room and 4 million on the other you'd know instantly that talking about 'compaction' is a very relativistic subject indeed.

Munster - the compaction of a Province into one 'club' = an overall population base of about 280,000.Leicester - on its own, as a true club = overal population base of about 330,000

To suggest Irish clubs, or Welsh ones even, or indeed Scottish ones (the real ones) would ever compete with English ones is like saying a fair war would be where one side had nuclear weapons and the other had spoons. The compaction of players into a Provinicial 'club' is for the very reason to be able to compete with large English and French clubs.

Size matters - it's size that influences who is currently demanding the changes. Had England the same population as Ireland or Wales, and decided they were going to demand changes to the HEC, well, they'd be laughed at. Size matters - some of us do stuff to try to compete with it

I'm not smoking the right stuff to even try and understand this, but just out of curiosity, how did you come up with a 280,000 Munster population base?

Seems pretty straight forward to me - whats your problem with it?

Wikipedia gives Munster's population to be 1M+ in 2011. There's a link to the 2011 census but I couldn't see anything for 'Munster'. You can get a break down of each region but I really couldn't be bothered.

gowales wrote:You know what would help Scotland and Italy to a certain extent?

If the SRU would get off their arses and actually try and develop rugby in Scotland. They can't rely on the 6 nations and HC forever. There are other European nations catching up quick.

Exactly.

You talk about populations of Munster etc.

Exeter is not that big yet they have attendances of 9k +

Glasgow and Edinburgh aren't small places!!

Edinburgh has a population of 495,000 as of 2011.

Glasgow has a population of 598,000 as of 2011.

In regards to Treviso, the town of Treviso is around 82,000 but the province of Treviso is 880,000 and the Veneto region is very rich.

The veneto region has a population of 5 million.

South West England is quite a rich place though - in comparison withy large parts of West and South East Wales which, together with Albania, are the poorest regions in Europe. And of course Ireland isn't doing too well either...

and of course being entities that are less than 10 years old doesn't help either - particularly (in Wales' and Scotlands case) being in areas rich with sports teams and lots of rugby teams doesn't help either.

Probably in 10 years there will be huge increases in attedances, particularly in Italy but in the other nations teams as well - as long as they stay afloat and are allowed to compete.

The population of Exeter is only around 100,000 though.

Smirnoffpriest the Scottish have had this HC revenue for some time.


My point is people say oh the Scots and Italians are really poor but when you look at it they aren't!

Treviso are in the affluent North of Italy with a decent size catchment area.

Edinburgh and Glasgow are probably the most affluent places in Scotland and the biggest cities

I never said Italy was poor or the cities of Scotland - but I did say it's wrong to compare a club that was formed in 1872 with an identity which was formed this season (Zebre) or 2 seasons ago - Treviso.

It obviously takes time to build attachments to teams, and grow attendances organically - Saracens are finding that, and as well (and almost as important) develop your identity, ethos, rivalries and legends. Especially difficult when your in football dominated cities/countries like Italy and Scotland are - especially Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Smirnoffpriest fair points but it's actually that not difficult to rise like a phoenix with the right people at the helm. Look at Exeter. You say they have the identity but they were a championship side.

They did not have the benefit of top class opposition in the HC and that revenue stream as significant drawing power.

Auto HC rugby allows Edinburgh,Glasgow,Treviso etc to use this as drawing power.

I don't see anything from Edinburgh, Treviso that makes me think that they are making progress off the field.

Saracens have not been performing off the field but now with the new stadium there's hope.

They are a different discussion though.

Yes they were an established Championship side who grew their fan base and squad gradually until they were ready to make a sudden jump in improvements and get promoted.

Yet you seem unwilling to allow either the Scottish or Italian sides the same time to gradually improve their support or playing squad until they can truely compete with all comers.

It's kind of like brining in Romania and Georgia into the 6Ns suddenly and expecting them to start running Ireland/Wales close in 2 seasons, and if they don't then wanting to throw them out of the league in favour of other sides.

And surely Edinburgh are making progress by being the 1st Scottish side to get to the Semi's of the HEC - bettering all Welsh and English teams last season?

They have also improved their squad hugely for this season - much more strength in depth, and should be much more competitive through out the season.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:South West England is quite a rich place though - in comparison withy large parts of West and South East Wales which, together with Albania, are the poorest regions in Europe. And of course Ireland isn't doing too well either...

and of course being entities that are less than 10 years old doesn't help either - particularly (in Wales' and Scotlands case) being in areas rich with sports teams and lots of rugby teams doesn't help either.

Probably in 10 years there will be huge increases in attedances, particularly in Italy but in the other nations teams as well - as long as they stay afloat and are allowed to compete.

West Wales may have fallen behing Cornwall as the poorest place in UK since they both started receiving the Euro funding, but to refer to South West England (Devon isn't much better off than Cornwall) as quite a rich place, even in comparitive terms, is absolute rubbish.

The problem though Smirnoff is that the SRU seems unwilling/reluctant to try and grow rugby at all levels there.
Italy i'll give them slack because they only joined the 6 nations in 2000.

Scotland has been playing rugby for an awful long time, even longer than Wales for god's sake. The incompetence of their Union is a big problem. Why hasn't any progress been made?

They can't rely on being handed money every year just to survive.

Look at Argentina for example they haven't been getting money from any competitions and they can still grow rugby and build a strong player base.

Smirnoffpriest Edinburgh could get to a HC semi because they didn't need to perform in the Pro12. 11th doesn't suggest to me a side that is significantly on the rise.

With a far harder HC group they'll find it tough too.

Hasn't there always been an Edinburgh club in some shape or form since 1872? Glasgow are the same too?

I don't think age can be used as an excuse.

Treviso has been around for a long time too. They have had HC rugby too albeit only Pro12 rugby in the last two years.

Zebre - ok fair enough.

GoWales is correct. The Scottish clubs need to stand on their own two feet.


Some of the responsibility for developing club rugby in Scotland and Italy has to fall on Scotland and Italy!

beshocked wrote:
GoWales is correct. The Scottish clubs need to stand on their own two feet.
Some of the responsibility for developing club rugby in Scotland and Italy has to fall on Scotland and Italy!

They are trying to - two feet (clubs) is all they have. Unlike some of the millipedes of Europe (England and France) They are trying to - what does getting to the semi-finals of last years HC mean (Edinburgh)? I think that means 'trying', beshocked. I think it means trying harder than some of the sides they met and beat during that campaign. Why do many of the AP clubs run for cover under their big gun PRL when things get dicey for them? Are they afraid of standing on their own two feet?

The other point you make. The responsibility for developing club rugby in Scotland and Italy has to fall on those two nations. Well yes... we all have to take some responsibility for our own weaknesses, whether they be ability or funding. But why then do PRL all of a sudden want to 'assist' nations like Russia, Georgia, Portugal and Spain? They're going to be given a leg up? Russia? Oligarchs? Money galore Russia? Needs our help over here in Northern Europe? And Scotland and Italy doesn't? Italy is still only growing as a rugby nation. The potential there is still untapped. But pull the plug on them 'cause they haven't developed quickly enough for our money greed liking?

I've got a good book on socio-economics I think some of you probably need to read before this article goes much further...

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:
GoWales is correct. The Scottish clubs need to stand on their own two feet.
Some of the responsibility for developing club rugby in Scotland and Italy has to fall on Scotland and Italy!

They are trying to - two feet (clubs) is all they have. Unlike some of the millipedes of Europe (England and France) They are trying to - what does getting to the semi-finals of last years HC mean (Edinburgh)? I think that means 'trying', beshocked. I think it means trying harder than some of the sides they met and beat during that campaign. Why do many of the AP clubs run for cover under their big gun PRL when things get dicey for them? Are they afraid of standing on their own two feet?

The other point you make. The responsibility for developing club rugby in Scotland and Italy has to fall on those two nations. Well yes... we all have to take some responsibility for our own weaknesses, whether they be ability or funding. But why then do PRL all of a sudden want to 'assist' nations like Russia, Georgia, Portugal and Spain? They're going to be given a leg up? Russia? Oligarchs? Money galore Russia? Needs our help over here in Northern Europe? And Scotland and Italy doesn't? Italy is still only growing as a rugby nation. The potential there is still untapped. But pull the plug on them 'cause they haven't developed quickly enough for our money greed liking?

With only two clubs you think more money would be available to pour in. It's not the same as 12 or 14 teams sharing a pot.

Wow 1 semi in 16 years of auto HC rugby. Really impressive. Run for cover? Whose running for cover? With the AP sides you can see them most of them trying to grow - new stadiums, bigger attendances etc.

The likes of Russia,Georgia,Portugal and Spain are emerging rugby nations. Who said pull the plug? A more competitive and financially liable Amlin would help the likes of Zebre and Connacht compete in a competition where they stand a chance.

European rugby needs a restructure. The main talking point is how to do this.

Another haughty comment from Jimpy. Could you say something relevant to the discussion please?

beshocked wrote:Smirnoffpriest Edinburgh could get to a HC semi because they didn't need to perform in the Pro12. 11th doesn't suggest to me a side that is significantly on the rise.

With a far harder HC group they'll find it tough too.

Hasn't there always been an Edinburgh club in some shape or form since 1872? Glasgow are the same too?

I don't think age can be used as an excuse.

Treviso has been around for a long time too. They have had HC rugby too albeit only Pro12 rugby in the last two years.

Zebre - ok fair enough.

GoWales is correct. The Scottish clubs need to stand on their own two feet.

Some of the responsibility for developing club rugby in Scotland and Italy has to fall on Scotland and Italy!

It wasn't that they didn't need to perform, they failed to perform against stronger clubs because they were missing their internationals for large parts of the season and have a poor squad, yet a good 1st XV - their 1st XV was good enough to beat a lot of teams to get to the semi's of the HEC, but their squad was too weak to cope with squad rotation and beat some weaker teams, or the stronger teams in the Rabo.
They have now used the money earnt from the HEC run and invested it into their squad, improving it significantly - theSRU have also used the money earnt from that (and Glasgow's Semi-final place in the Rabo) to strengthen Glasgow and bring home more Scottish players - thus trying to improve both clubs and the national side.

Apparently this isn't good enough for the English clubs (or maybe it's too good for them) and they'd rather a lot of the Scottish players leave to go to English/French clubs (though how this improves the English/French game is anyones guess). and then they'd rather develop Russian/Romanian clubs instead - though whether they'll drop them if in 10 years they don't get more than 1 HEC Semi final, or finish higher than 4th in the 6Ns is anyone's guess.

Don't forget the weakest HC pool of the competition helped too.

I don't expect Edinburgh or Glasgow to qualify for the HC quarter finals. Where do they go from there?

It's 11th. That's below the likes of Connacht,Dragons and Treviso. Only above Aironi. Poor squad depth is hardly a decent excuse. A strong XV should be better than 11th.

Where's the information about wanting to develop Russian and Romanian clubs coming from?

beshocked wrote:Don't forget the weakest HC pool of the competition helped too.

I don't expect Edinburgh or Glasgow to qualify for the HC quarter finals. Where do they go from there?

It's 11th. That's below the likes of Connacht,Dragons and Treviso. Only above Aironi. Poor squad depth is hardly a decent excuse. A strong XV should be better than 11th.

Where's the information about wanting to develop Russian and Romanian clubs coming from?

From this thread and from posters stating that Franglo want to develop the third tier of European competition and invite clubs from around Europe, and the insinuations that they'd be better than Italy/Scotland. I thought you'd been reading this thread soz.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

beshocked wrote:Don't forget the weakest HC pool of the competition helped too.

I don't expect Edinburgh or Glasgow to qualify for the HC quarter finals. Where do they go from there?

It's 11th. That's below the likes of Connacht,Dragons and Treviso. Only above Aironi. Poor squad depth is hardly a decent excuse. A strong XV should be better than 11th.

Where's the information about wanting to develop Russian and Romanian clubs coming from?

From this thread and from posters stating that Franglo want to develop the third tier of European competition and invite clubs from around Europe, and the insinuations that they'd be better than Italy/Scotland. I thought you'd been reading this thread soz.

How dare you make such a haughty comment....

I want to see all sides develop including Italy and Scotland.

My suggestion for the HC is 8 Pro12 - Top 2 Irish,Welsh, Top Italian side and top Scottish side with the next best two in the Pro12 qualifying.

The 4 other sides would be in the Amlin.

6 AP sides and 6 Top 14 sides in the HC.

I don't think it's good for Zebre to be thumped repeatedly in the HC. They will gain more confidence in the Amlin as they are bound to win more matches.

beshocked wrote:

With only two clubs you think more money would be available to pour in. It's not the same as 12 or 14 teams sharing a pot.

Wow 1 semi in 16 years of auto HC rugby. Really impressive. Run for cover? Whose running for cover? With the AP sides you can see them most of them trying to grow - new stadiums, bigger attendances etc.

The likes of Russia,Georgia,Portugal and Spain are emerging rugby nations. Who said pull the plug? A more competitive and financially liable Amlin would help the likes of Zebre and Connacht compete in a competition where they stand a chance.

European rugby needs a restructure. The main talking point is how to do this.

You accuse and defend using the same criteria beshocked. Some clubs should stand on their own two feet and other clubs (AP one) who do as little as the Scottish ones (when ranked on domestic and European performances) are protected under the banner of offence taken ("Run for cover?") Yes, 'run for cover' in the same sense you use 'standing on their own two feet'. Scotland have to defend their own clubs... poor record!!!! Low ranked AP sides don't have to defend their presence...they're protected by PRL (who have a few pretty handy club outfits on top giving them their clout).

So if you truly believe that no sides should be insulted or removed from the discussions about what solutions should be brought to European competition then you won't so casually insult one or two of the clubs involved. None of us are standing on our own two feet, none of us are being asked to. We have been part of a collective where we've all benefitted - England and France too with their Scottish and Welsh players. Nobody stands on their own two feet in a climate where we all play for and against each other in the course of a year

Smirnoffpriest wrote:Yes they were an established Championship side who grew their fan base and squad gradually until they were ready to make a sudden jump in improvements and get promoted.

Yet you seem unwilling to allow either the Scottish or Italian sides the same time to gradually improve their support or playing squad until they can truely compete with all comers.

It's kind of like brining in Romania and Georgia into the 6Ns suddenly and expecting them to start running Ireland/Wales close in 2 seasons, and if they don't then wanting to throw them out of the league in favour of other sides.

Your argument might make sense with regard to Italian sides but Edinburgh and Glasgow were created in 1996. How long do they need do improve their support?

Smirnoffpriest wrote:From this thread and from posters stating that Franglo want to develop the third tier of European competition and invite clubs from around Europe, and the insinuations that they'd be better than Italy/Scotland. I thought you'd been reading this thread soz.

I'm pretty sure that the current idea is that 6 nations would automatically qualify for the 2nd tier of Euro rugby and get into 1st tier based on league performance. The other 'new' rugby nations would be auto qualifying for the 3rd tier. How exactly would this 'insinuate' that they would be better?

The points are generally that why do Italy and Scotland 'deserve' to be represented in the 1st tier and yet other European nations don't 'deserve' any representation at all. Basically it comes down to whether a unions representation bring in increased funding to the other or whether the others are willing to fund their inclusion.

So, do Scotland increase the central pot by more than they take out. If not then the decision is whether the other groups are happy with this. If the PRO12 teams decide to band together (either all of us or none of us) then the decision is made as a collective (which should include qualification). Same is applied to the English, French and everyone. If ANYONE has the 'right' to top tier representation then ALL do. So if the Scots want the automatic right to the top table then all European rugby unions should as well. then we would also have to split the money equally, etc. This would end up with them losing even more money than the current suggestions. But this would be 'fairer' right? (whatever that means)

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:
GoWales is correct. The Scottish clubs need to stand on their own two feet.
Some of the responsibility for developing club rugby in Scotland and Italy has to fall on Scotland and Italy!

They are trying to - two feet (clubs) is all they have. Unlike some of the millipedes of Europe (England and France) They are trying to - what does getting to the semi-finals of last years HC mean (Edinburgh)? I think that means 'trying', beshocked. I think it means trying harder than some of the sides they met and beat during that campaign. Why do many of the AP clubs run for cover under their big gun PRL when things get dicey for them? Are they afraid of standing on their own two feet?

The other point you make. The responsibility for developing club rugby in Scotland and Italy has to fall on those two nations. Well yes... we all have to take some responsibility for our own weaknesses, whether they be ability or funding. But why then do PRL all of a sudden want to 'assist' nations like Russia, Georgia, Portugal and Spain? They're going to be given a leg up? Russia? Oligarchs? Money galore Russia? Needs our help over here in Northern Europe? And Scotland and Italy doesn't? Italy is still only growing as a rugby nation. The potential there is still untapped. But pull the plug on them 'cause they haven't developed quickly enough for our money greed liking?

What has the SRU been doing for the past 17 years then?

gowales wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:
GoWales is correct. The Scottish clubs need to stand on their own two feet.
Some of the responsibility for developing club rugby in Scotland and Italy has to fall on Scotland and Italy!

They are trying to - two feet (clubs) is all they have. Unlike some of the millipedes of Europe (England and France) They are trying to - what does getting to the semi-finals of last years HC mean (Edinburgh)? I think that means 'trying', beshocked. I think it means trying harder than some of the sides they met and beat during that campaign. Why do many of the AP clubs run for cover under their big gun PRL when things get dicey for them? Are they afraid of standing on their own two feet?

The other point you make. The responsibility for developing club rugby in Scotland and Italy has to fall on those two nations. Well yes... we all have to take some responsibility for our own weaknesses, whether they be ability or funding. But why then do PRL all of a sudden want to 'assist' nations like Russia, Georgia, Portugal and Spain? They're going to be given a leg up? Russia? Oligarchs? Money galore Russia? Needs our help over here in Northern Europe? And Scotland and Italy doesn't? Italy is still only growing as a rugby nation. The potential there is still untapped. But pull the plug on them 'cause they haven't developed quickly enough for our money greed liking?

What has the SRU been doing for the past 17 years then?

As in???

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:

With only two clubs you think more money would be available to pour in. It's not the same as 12 or 14 teams sharing a pot.

Wow 1 semi in 16 years of auto HC rugby. Really impressive. Run for cover? Whose running for cover? With the AP sides you can see them most of them trying to grow - new stadiums, bigger attendances etc.

The likes of Russia,Georgia,Portugal and Spain are emerging rugby nations. Who said pull the plug? A more competitive and financially liable Amlin would help the likes of Zebre and Connacht compete in a competition where they stand a chance.

European rugby needs a restructure. The main talking point is how to do this.

You accuse and defend using the same criteria beshocked. Some clubs should stand on their own two feet and other clubs (AP one) who do as little as the Scottish ones (when ranked on domestic and European performances) are protected under the banner of offence taken ("Run for cover?") Yes, 'run for cover' in the same sense you use 'standing on their own two feet'. Scotland have to defend their own clubs... poor record!!!! Low ranked AP sides don't have to defend their presence...they're protected by PRL (who have a few pretty handy club outfits on top giving them their clout).

So if you truly believe that no sides should be insulted or removed from the discussions about what solutions should be brought to European competition then you won't so casually insult one or two of the clubs involved. None of us are standing on our own two feet, none of us are being asked to. We have been part of a collective where we've all benefitted - England and France too with their Scottish and Welsh players. Nobody stands on their own two feet in a climate where we all play for and against each other in the course of a year

You don't need to read my book.

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:

With only two clubs you think more money would be available to pour in. It's not the same as 12 or 14 teams sharing a pot.

Wow 1 semi in 16 years of auto HC rugby. Really impressive. Run for cover? Whose running for cover? With the AP sides you can see them most of them trying to grow - new stadiums, bigger attendances etc.

The likes of Russia,Georgia,Portugal and Spain are emerging rugby nations. Who said pull the plug? A more competitive and financially liable Amlin would help the likes of Zebre and Connacht compete in a competition where they stand a chance.

European rugby needs a restructure. The main talking point is how to do this.

You accuse and defend using the same criteria beshocked. Some clubs should stand on their own two feet and other clubs (AP one) who do as little as the Scottish ones (when ranked on domestic and European performances) are protected under the banner of offence taken ("Run for cover?") Yes, 'run for cover' in the same sense you use 'standing on their own two feet'. Scotland have to defend their own clubs... poor record!!!! Low ranked AP sides don't have to defend their presence...they're protected by PRL (who have a few pretty handy club outfits on top giving them their clout).

So if you truly believe that no sides should be insulted or removed from the discussions about what solutions should be brought to European competition then you won't so casually insult one or two of the clubs involved. None of us are standing on our own two feet, none of us are being asked to. We have been part of a collective where we've all benefitted - England and France too with their Scottish and Welsh players. Nobody stands on their own two feet in a climate where we all play for and against each other in the course of a year

The low ranked AP sides are not in the Heineken Cup though are they? They don't have the auto HC qualification safety net to fall back on.Also there is the threat of relegation for the weaker AP sides. The English pot is shared with all 12 clubs irrespective how each individual club does in European competitions. The Scottish pot is shared between 2 sides.

I think the solutions to European competition should be discussed but you have to acknowledge that the bigger players (England and France) aren't getting as much out of European rugby as the Pro12 countries.

Do you not think that the Pro12 sides have had it easy? 11 HC spots. Not bad at all is it?

SecretFly wrote:

gowales wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:
GoWales is correct. The Scottish clubs need to stand on their own two feet.
Some of the responsibility for developing club rugby in Scotland and Italy has to fall on Scotland and Italy!

They are trying to - two feet (clubs) is all they have. Unlike some of the millipedes of Europe (England and France) They are trying to - what does getting to the semi-finals of last years HC mean (Edinburgh)? I think that means 'trying', beshocked. I think it means trying harder than some of the sides they met and beat during that campaign. Why do many of the AP clubs run for cover under their big gun PRL when things get dicey for them? Are they afraid of standing on their own two feet?

The other point you make. The responsibility for developing club rugby in Scotland and Italy has to fall on those two nations. Well yes... we all have to take some responsibility for our own weaknesses, whether they be ability or funding. But why then do PRL all of a sudden want to 'assist' nations like Russia, Georgia, Portugal and Spain? They're going to be given a leg up? Russia? Oligarchs? Money galore Russia? Needs our help over here in Northern Europe? And Scotland and Italy doesn't? Italy is still only growing as a rugby nation. The potential there is still untapped. But pull the plug on them 'cause they haven't developed quickly enough for our money greed liking?

What has the SRU been doing for the past 17 years then?

As in???

To develop the game in Scotland.

Yea they made the semi finals this year, great. But they've been terrible for the past 17 years.

The only thing keeping the game alive there is money from the 6 nations and HC.
What have they done to try and improve this at the grass roots/school level?

Argentina, Georgia nations that don't have access to this sort funding are doing very well for themselves.

The USA's doing a better job of spreading the game for christ's sake. The only money they get is for the Olympics and it's not a whole lot to be honest.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:From this thread and from posters stating that Franglo want to develop the third tier of European competition and invite clubs from around Europe, and the insinuations that they'd be better than Italy/Scotland. I thought you'd been reading this thread soz.

I'm pretty sure that the current idea is that 6 nations would automatically qualify for the 2nd tier of Euro rugby and get into 1st tier based on league performance. The other 'new' rugby nations would be auto qualifying for the 3rd tier. How exactly would this 'insinuate' that they would be better?

I said that on this thread posters have mentioned the proposed 3 Euro tiers, and that they had insinuated that it would be better for Franglo to develop these other European nations as Scotland/Italy 'don't deserve to be at the top tier'. I never said that the proposal insinutated anything.

I know posts take a a mind of their own but this post was not about money and top tables. Even if four of the lower teams in the Rabo play in the Amlin they still get the same advantages as being in the HC (leaving money out of it).

They still get to test themselves against different styles and playing away from home and not only 100miles away. (one thing I think is over looked as to why Rabo teams are doing better is they are doing better away from home as they have to do it every second week in the league ie no away support)

We do need to do better in Europe at growing Europe as we will all be winners for it. The packs of the italians has added to the Rabo and if you added in strong packs from Russia and Georgia (if they got to the standard of italy now) it would bring a whole new dimension to the Euro competitions. Add in the flare that is natural to Spain and Portugal and they would add a new dimension aswell.

Money does play a part but it is the other things that are more important. If NZ were to lose all their AB, Maori and JR they would replace them all in 3-5 years (though they would take beastings their first few years). If Nz said we are better then everyone so we are going to play by ourselves in 3-5 years they would be outside the top 4 if they came back in.

GoWales,

And what have the Welsh being doing in those 17 years? Incidently, 17 years is precisely the last time a Welsh side was in the final of a HC.

And what have we witnessed in the interim? In-fighting, old clubs up in arms against the very idea of regionalism. Regions struggling to find constant support..., money woes, players drifting off to the continent for better wages.

I'm not getting at you, Go...but it's a little rich to see a Welsh person (supporter, whichever) throwing swipes at Scottish rugby considering the constant seeming flux that Welsh regional rugby itself is in.

This is a debate about European club competition. Is Scotland truly alone in the underperformance graph?

SecretFly wrote:GoWales,

And what have the Welsh been doing in those 17 years? Incidently, 17 years is precisely the last time a Welsh side was in the final of a HC.

And what have we witnessed in the interim? In-fighting, old clubs up in arms against the very idea of regionalism. Regions struggling to find constant support..., money woes, players drifting off to the continent for better wages.

I'm not getting at you, Go...but it's a little rich to see a Welsh person (supporter, whichever) throwing swipes at Scottish rugby considering the constant seeming flux that Welsh regional rugby itself is in.

This is a debate about European club competition. Is Scotland truly alone in the underperformance graph?

Then go back to my original post because i said that what would help Scotland's problems is for their Union to do a better job of spreading the game there.
It's obvious that's not what they wanted before, it was a game for the upper middle class. They haven't really done anything to try and break down these barriers. To try and gain new supporters, more interest etc...

It's easy to say that England and France are evil because they want reduce their funding but i'm saying do they (Scotland) really have anyone to blame? It works both ways you know. Scottish rugby is certainly not blameless.

Look at Aussie rugby sites for instance and you'll see constant debate about how the ARU isn't doing enough to spread the game to everyone there. Why isn't there more similar debate in Europe, or is it because the Unions can do no wrong in some peoples eyes.

Well yes Wales has had those problems but luckily rugby is still a sport that everyone in the country knows about. Not a lot support it at regional level but they know what the sport is, and have a bit of passion for it.

I'm looking at this from a rugby fans perspective, not a Welsh fan.

It may be slightly off topic but it is related and i was more replying to some posters.

SecretFly wrote:GoWales,

And what have the Welsh being doing in those 17 years? Incidently, 17 years is precisely the last time a Welsh side was in the final of a HC.

And what have we witnessed in the interim? In-fighting, old clubs up in arms against the very idea of regionalism. Regions struggling to find constant support..., money woes, players drifting off to the continent for better wages.

I'm not getting at you, Go...but it's a little rich to see a Welsh person (supporter, whichever) throwing swipes at Scottish rugby considering the constant seeming flux that Welsh regional rugby itself is in.

This is a debate about European club competition. Is Scotland truly alone in the underperformance graph?

I think that one thing we forget is that countries go through stages and they adapt. If Scotland and Italy had one teamin the HC and one in the Amlin (Italy moving their four teams down to the 3rd Tier) they would adapt. Maybe the Rabo coutries should demand that if the English and French get to have 12/14 teams in all 3 tiers that the Rabo countries should each get 8-10 teams.

The third tier really should replace the B&I cup as that really is the third tier. Would also improve the chance of selling it. The Rabo needs to look to get more teams in at the bottom to help build to the top to counter the English and french having 12-14 teams.

gowales wrote:

SecretFly wrote:GoWales,

And what have the Welsh been doing in those 17 years? Incidently, 17 years is precisely the last time a Welsh side was in the final of a HC.

And what have we witnessed in the interim? In-fighting, old clubs up in arms against the very idea of regionalism. Regions struggling to find constant support..., money woes, players drifting off to the continent for better wages.

I'm not getting at you, Go...but it's a little rich to see a Welsh person (supporter, whichever) throwing swipes at Scottish rugby considering the constant seeming flux that Welsh regional rugby itself is in.

This is a debate about European club competition. Is Scotland truly alone in the underperformance graph?

Then go back to my original post because i said that what would help Scotland's problems is for their Union to do a better job of spreading the game there.
It's obvious that's not what they wanted before, it was a game for the upper middle class. They haven't really done anything to try and break down these barriers. To try and gain new supporters, more interest etc...

It's easy to say that England and France are evil because they want reduce their funding but i'm saying do they (Scotland) really have anyone to blame? It works both ways you know.

Well yes Wales has had those problems but luckily rugby is still a sport that everyone in the country knows about. Not a lot support it at regional level but they know what the sport is, and have a bit of passion for it.

I'm looking at this from a rugby fans perspective, not a Welsh fan.

But Welsh sides (regional rugby) are still struggling through their attempts at reorganising to suit a modern world. And they're coming from a place where rugby is more truthfully part of their 'culture' than it is in Scotland.

I'm saying why should Scotland be isolated as the one to face the cold harsh truths of their under-development and lack of success? As Welsh rugby knows only too well - developing rugby to be able to compete on some kind of level playing field in this present world is a tough ask - and it continues to get tougher. And may I say, with more European Leagues (3 tier) and more competitors (new ones) - that struggle won't become easier, I think it'll actually become harder. Struggling to compete with limited resources, struggling to develop, struggling to enthuse a new following; all that will still be a constant issue into the next decade, regardless of what format the new European competiton takes. If you're small, you'll suffer.

Well that's the way most global sports work unless it is the national sport.

Well Scots love sports with only two strong teams in their domestic league so maybe the SRU are on to something.