H-cup a realistic solution, accepable to you poll?

I know there are a lot of articles on this already, but below is what I believe the outcome will be, and I just wish to know, would the below be acceptable to 606 fans, do they agree on the compromise?

The way I se it there are two pots assigned to the H-cup, one that gets awarded to teams in knock out stages which I don't see changing, the other is for taking part in H-cup which I see as the one that is the issue.

Currently for participation each Union recieves (this is basic, then topped up by knockout round payments):
RFU = 25%
FRU = 25%
IRFU = 13%
WRU = 13%
SRU = 13%
FIR = 11%

I believe the Pro 12 will argue for 8 Pro 12 teams (one from each Union, the rest league based) 6 English and 6 French. Winners of H-cup and Almin come out of that countries allocation

For this the split would be(this is then topped up by knockout round payments): ;
FRU = 30%
RFU = 30%
IRFU/WRU/SRU/FIR = 40% (5% for each team in H-cup at least one per Union)

Final bought forward as per the French wish.

This see's the French and English share increase from 25% to 30% and a reduction in number of Pro 12 teams, tougher qualification, plus since with less teams a reduction in payments. Each Pro 12 Union gets guarenteed 5%, and an additional 20% is up for grabs.

The TV deal is the second issue, the French and English have long said that it is being undersold by the ERC, and it looks like the PLC have highlighted this. The PLC sold the rights for just the English teams for 3 years for around £80 million, and ERC sold all nations for 4 Years for around £70 million.

I think every union will be upset, suspect long term the ERC will go back to selling the rights for everyone, but will be monitored better by the unions that they are getting the best possible deal. However for the next 3/4 years not sure what will be worked out as a temporary basis.

This assumes a direct link between HC participation and the split of money. It may be the case at the moment, but it ain't necessarily so.

A big part of the negotiations will be to promote the Amlin and make it into a worthwhile and moneymaking competition. If that becomes the case, then the split of the combined HC and Amlin income should perhaps be more based upon participation in both competitions, but with a weighting towards the HC.

intresting, I was thinking that a certain % of H money will go toward the Almin

Kingshu wrote:intresting, I was thinking that a certain % of H money will go toward the Almin

What percentage? You don't include an Amlin cut in your splits. There'll be 20 teams who will want (and deserve?) a decent wedge for gallivanting all over Europe.

no

the solution is too much in favour of France and England.

The only way the Scots and Italians could accept a lower representation in the HC by making sure the second tier is actually worth playing in and some financial protection.

If the rabo teams are expected to accept lower representation then why not the English and French as well? Are Sale more "deserving" of a place than Edinburgh?

So - to get to 20 teams. 5 English, 5 French as of right. one each from the rabo countries with 4 more on league position. Last years winner and Amlin winner - addition to countries allocation.

This allow for countries with good records to get more teams in than countries producing poor teams - For example If wales pack the top half of the Rabo then they could have 4 teams in. If an English team wins it would effectively mean an additional place the following year.............

I'm sorry but no way. That is a ridiculous share of the profits.

England and France are already taking the lions share, though neither have been overly successful.

Reducing the RP12 qualification AGAIN will only improve the RP12 teams AGAIN and give the French and English a more torrid time.

I want this cup to be run fairly by the Unions. I want Italy and Scotland represented even if it just one team. The detrimental effect on their game without the HEC for them would absolutely ruin their futures.

As england and France supply more teams have larger fan bases for their combined teams and larger TV audiences their sharing a 50% cut is justified though the amount of teams they enter should be changed.


I suggest that the RP12 qualification is fine as six teams but they are the best of two Irish, two Welsh, one Scot and one Italian.

England five teams and France seven because France have 14 teams possibly increasing to 18 in their Top14, where as England only have 12.

Plus Amlin Winner and previous years HEC winner.

I would like to see the cup finish earlier as the French want.

Just to throw a spanner in the works - No.

A lack of HC respect that Ireland (who've put the blasted Competition on the map in this here century of money and satellite TV) only get one automatic place. Downright bad show!

Increase the offer and we'll begin to think about it

Why can't they just split the total European money per Union, obviously not a six way even split, but based on teams entering the two competitions etc.

Then its up-to the individual Unions to split the money. So the Welsh might decide to split it 25% to each Region regardless of wither the Region is in the HC or Amlin. Where as the Scottish might split theirs 50/50 if both are in the HC or Amlim, but 70/30 if one is in the HC and the other the Amlin.

Then use the Rabo to determine the HC places.

This would take the "its not about the money argument" out the equation and the best 8 Rabo teams could qualify for the HC, without financially crippling either Scotland or Italy, who failed to provide any qualifiers for the HC.

No, for many of the reasons given above, and a nagging fear that any such move will in the end have massive implications for the Scottish national team

At the Minute you would have to say it's still unfair,

IRFU = 13%
WRU = 13%
SRU = 13%
FIR = 11%

Why do the FIR only get around 11% and they enter the same number of teams as the SRU.
(actually more 6 teams in European competation to Scotlands 2)
And why do the SRU get the same as the WRU and IRFU when they enter 3 teams each?

I think that the SRU will be losing out as their share was worked out when they entered 3 teams into Europe each year, thats not the case now.
FIR will be told they cannot enter clubs into the Almin any more as well.

When you think about it.... it really won't be a decision by English, French , Irish or Welsh teams... it'll be the Scottish and the Italians that will decide how this debate ends.

Right now, they are equal owners of the present competition along with the other four Unions. The Unions own the current competition.

The future will be decided on whether Scotland or Italy, or both, relent to pressure and allow their role to be diluted in favour of strengthening the others. I hope they resist, resist, resist. And if pressure comes from their brothers of the Pro12 league itself, I hope they use words like 'shame' and 'betrayal'.

If the Scottish and Italians hold firm and demand that club rugby continues to serve the interests of their International aspirations then it will be difficult for the others - they then either all go their separate ways or revise their plans.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:No, for many of the reasons given above, and a nagging fear that any such move will in the end have massive implications for the Scottish national team

A scottish team is more than likely to qualify as a top six team. It would be worse still for the Italians.

Point is that this is a European tournament not a tournament to see which league has the best teams in Europe.

It wouldn't be a European cup with out all the six nations represented at the top table.

The good news is that its looking less likely that the PRL deal with BT regarding Europe will happen as the RFU gave confirmed that it is an illegal deal, PRL did not have the TV rights to sell to anyone.

maestegmafia wrote:The good news is that its looking less likely that the PRL deal with BT regarding Europe will happen as the RFU gave confirmed that it is an illegal deal, PRL did not have the TV rights to sell to anyone.

If that is true........that seriously, and I mean seriously, must have been one bizarre meeting between directors of companies, their secretaries and their lawyers...with official papers and research details, and market stats and everything you'd need for a serious legitimate meeting to sign a very serious big corporate deal.

It would truly be a weird world if it comes to pass that not one of the people in the room or rooms ever considered the idea of checking out if the deal was actually legal - and you'd think that certainly BT would have sought assurances on this, not from PRL but from the RFU itself.
Surely someone in that company suggested they give a ring to RFU and just clarify that the PRL have the rights to independently deal with broadcasting rights to the AP...and most especially, that they have rights to negotiate a package for a European competition.

SecretFly wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:The good news is that its looking less likely that the PRL deal with BT regarding Europe will happen as the RFU gave confirmed that it is an illegal deal, PRL did not have the TV rights to sell to anyone.

If that is true........that seriously, and I mean seriously, must have been one bizarre meeting between directors of companies, their secretaries and their lawyers...with official papers and research details, and market stats and everything you'd need for a serious legitimate meeting to sign a very serious big corporate deal.

It would truly be a weird world if it comes to pass that not one of the people in the room or rooms ever considered the idea of checking out if the deal was actually legal - and you'd think that certainly BT would have sought assurances on this, not from PRL but from the RFU itself.
Surely someone in that company suggested they give a ring to RFU and just clarify that the PRL have the rights to independently deal with broadcasting rights to the AP...and most especially, that they have rights to negotiate a package for a European competition.

I think the details that make it illegal were seen as technicalities by the PRL and BT that would be over looked due to the enormity of the budget. I don't doubt for a second that they thought there would be an issue if the RFU wanted to make one.

I think the PRL have been challenging the RFU for quite some time.

Can maybe some of the voters who seriously think this proposal is avoid idea honestly explain why...?

Those who think it is not have voiced opinions and reasoned them well.

Come on you lot. Let's here some support for the proposal in the OP and why you think it is a good solution???

I think Putin is involved in this YES campaign. I smell a rat.

Wow. I guess 606v2 has spoken. Glad we've found a path that works for most.

Hmmm I think there are a number of glove puppet accounts still on this forum...!

HammerofThunor wrote:Wow. I guess 606v2 has spoken. Glad we've found a path that works for most.

Why?

What is beneficial to the possibility of reducing the HEC to just four nations....?

Why should two nations receive more than half the wealth between them?

Sorry, I didn't vote, I've got no opinion on what the outcome should be. I'm leaving it up the current owners of the ERC to negotiate a solution that they will all agree to.

HammerofThunor wrote:Sorry, I didn't vote, I've got no opinion on what the outcome should be. I'm leaving it up the current owners of the ERC to negotiate a solution that they will all agree to.

That's fine.

Although I also think that a reduction in the number of qualifiers from the Rabo (i.e. HC places earned on merit) would make it a better league.

A couple of posters have said that the AP and T14 don't have to make it their top 6 league placed teams that qualify; they can nominate who they like. Why can't the Pro 12 do the same with a reduced number of qualiying teams?

If the HC was created after the (as then) celtic league was formed, I am sure we would be seeing a different qualification criteria. And almost certainly a reduction in the number of competing teams across the board. 16 max.

To be a European competition you have to have European entries. This post outlines a method of reducing the nations that participate.

It encourages a reduction in the expansion of the game.

What is amusing is that qualification and all these other concerns were not seenas issues when it wasn't Irish teams consistently winning the comp.

The PRLs argument of Rabbo entries without qualification only applies to Italy and Scotland, both Ireland and Wales have qualification criterias.

But there are many countries in Europe that play rugby. Why do these 6 have to included for it to be 'European' rugby but no others? The only reason I can think of is because they're part owners. We have two professional rugby leagues that are not represented in 'European' rugby at all.

What we do by maintaining the current situation is hamstring the development of rugby in these countries. Whatever the motivations of the PRL and LNR, whatever the problems facing SRU and FIR, now is the right time to renegotiate the structure and look at ways of bringing these other leagues into the fold. The final result still needs to be negotiated, with both FIR and SRU having plenty of votes to fight their corner.

HammerofThunor wrote:But there are many countries in Europe that play rugby. Why do these 6 have to included for it to be 'European' rugby but no others? The only reason I can think of is because they're part owners. We have two professional rugby leagues that are not represented in 'European' rugby at all.

What we do by maintaining the current situation is hamstring the development of rugby in these countries. Whatever the motivations of the PRL and LNR, whatever the problems facing SRU and FIR, now is the right time to renegotiate the structure and look at ways of bringing these other leagues into the fold. The final result still needs to be negotiated, with both FIR and SRU having plenty of votes to fight their corner.

Why do you think there is something special about us six? Why do you make the distinction between what 'we' are and what we should allow 'others' into? Why should it be a prize for 'others' to get in? Why should the 'others' want to get in?

I'll tell you why, because despite protestations about Pro12 demands that the competition remains an exclusive club, the only reason English clubs and their PRL overlords 'champion' the opening up of Europe is because - and I'm tired saying this - they know, for a fact, that they'll be guaranteed to be there in it, whatever the new version is. There's absolutely no risk in a rabbit voting for Christmas - it's the turkeys that worry.

So why does that make the English clubs feel comfy? It makes them feel comfy because they want to be part of it - they don't want to be outside the loop. They know how priviledged they are to be part of it, they know its an elite event, they know it's regarded as the most exciting inter-national club event in the world (no I didn't say best quality - but best followed, most passionate etc) So the PRL know exactly why lower ranked Pro12ers want to remain in situ. The English clubs share those wants.

The event - the HC - IS special because of the very fact that it IS elitist. If other leagues want in, that's because it IS the competition in Europe to be part of, the one teams and supporters want to be involved in, the one England and the rest of us don't want to be outside of. We're not looking to join the Russians, the Portugese or Georgians in anything they might imagine for themselves because we already have what we've created - the Premium European club event. England didn't create it, France didn't create it - we all created it - six unions. More importantly, we ALL contributed to the success of it. We're shareholders in that success.

So now we have the scenario that one or two of the owners want to goad and bully their fellow owners to dilute their contribution so that the outsiders can get in, get better and push the weaker elements in the present set-up eventually to extinction. This is because England and France know they will never face the same risks of oblivion as the teams they are inviting to take a hit in any new competition. The rabbits at the Christmas party analogy goes on and on, no matter where you pick up the debate on this issue. It's no risk to be highbrow and PC inclusive when you know inclusivity won't ever push you off your perch.

English and French clubs are not in the premium European competition because they are the best, because they have the best players, because their rugby is the most entertaining, because their standards are higher than others. They are there because they have a right to be (those 6 automatic spots), they are there because it's where they want to be (they like the idea of an elitist top grade in 'European' rugby - despite the protests to the contrary) - and they're there because they will not tolerate the existence of any top ranking European competition that doesn't include them. They are there - in short - because of nothing more than power. They'll remain there because of power.

Any new competition, and if it includes more teams from other areas of Europe, will in the course of time see teams fall off the radar and teams rise. It won't be a perfect ideal of everone in and everyone happy. Teams will suffer because of the very fact that other teams will rise. When that day happens, will there be a clamour from English club supporters to create a new competition that allows poor Scottish clubs, for example, to re-develop after being drained to a standstill by the presence of a number of big Russian clubs or Spanish clubs?

Like hell there will. The call then will be: "sure why don't you all be happy that Scottish players are helping English clubs succeed or indeed that they're helping the Russian clubs succeed. Forget the insularity lads, this is club rugby, you can still support an English superclub if you don't have one of your own. Stop moaning".

Is the Amlin a totally worthless competition, unfit to even be considered in these discussions, and without even the potential to become a worthy competition?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Is the Amlin a totally worthless competition, unfit to even be considered in these discussions, and without even the potential to become a worthy competition?

It has been mentioned and a redevelopment so that the amlin becomes more meaningful would be of interest I think. However it can never be the same draw for spectators or worth as much in sponsorship and TV money. Alternative structures are possible and should be discussed for sure - its just that any changes should be done in such a way as to protect the vulnerable countries.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Is the Amlin a totally worthless competition, unfit to even be considered in these discussions, and without even the potential to become a worthy competition?

If the slate was clean, Dubbelyew, and from it's very inception there was NO automatic guarantee for any team to be in HC then Amlin would be worth a thought. As it stands, some say that's where Scottish and Italian clubs should be happy to go. If someone said English clubs, all of them, should be happy to go to Amlin as a consolation prize for there being no room in the big boy's club (HEC) - well, you'd get laughed at.

We all know what Amlin is - it's a lesser contest, that's what it is. Marketing men won't change its colours. It's what it is, more money or less money - it'll still be the step down, the relegation spot...the thing that happens at the same time as the HEC but fewer people watch.

Personally speaking, yep, it's worthless, certainly as a debating tool to offer as consolation. You should only be in it to get yourself good and mad enough not to ever be in it again.

SecretFly wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Is the Amlin a totally worthless competition, unfit to even be considered in these discussions, and without even the potential to become a worthy competition?

If the slate was clean, Dubbelyew, and from it's very inception there was NO automatic guarantee for any team to be in HC then Amlin would be worth a thought. As it stands, some say that's where Scottish and Italian clubs should be happy to go. If someone said English clubs, all of them, should be happy to go to Amlin as a consolation prize for there being no room in the big boy's club (HEC) - well, you'd get laughed at.

We all know what Amlin is - it's a lesser contest, that's what it is. Marketing men won't change its colours. It's what it is, more money or less money - it'll still be the step down, the relegation spot...the thing that happens at the same time as the HEC but fewer people watch.

Personally speaking, yep, it's worthless, certainly as a debating tool to offer as consolation. You should only be in it to get yourself good and mad enough not to ever be in it again.

So, perhaps it has its worth as a means to getting good and mad?

Other than that, it does exist to collect the falling clubs at the moment, and will probably exist in the future. There isn't an abyss beyond HC, there's a manageable step. Yes, less prestige, less crowds, but the share of collective is negotiable. Currently Amlin clubs get no specific payout from the collective, it's shared out as seen fit out of each country's share. What's the difference for Zebre playing Connacht, Quins and Biarritz in 6 HC games, plus 22 Pro12 games, and Zebre playing Bayonnne, Wasps and Dragons in 6 Amlin games plus 22 Pro12 games?

There is still 12 clubs protected from the manageable step, though ... in one of the discussed solution scenarios that would have no Scottish or Italian club (or indeed in some other scenarios, no Irish or Welsh) protected from the manageable solution.

Parity of esteem is the crux. You can't have one administrator (PRL) have protection for six of its clubs and then expect another administrators (IRFU, WRU, SRU etc) to not have that protection.

That's my above point - PRL have a voice at the table because it controls an entire league. PRO12 is not a PRL. That PRL role is taken up by four independent administrators - and parity is the issue

SecretFly wrote:There is still 12 clubs protected from the manageable step, though ... in one of the discussed solution scenarios that would have no Scottish or Italian club (or indeed in some other scenarios, no Irish or Welsh) protected from the manageable solution.

Parity of esteem is the crux. You can't have one administrator (PRL) have protection for six of its clubs and then expect another administrators (IRFU, WRU, SRU etc) to not have that protection.

That's my above point - PRL have a voice at the table because it controls an entire league. PRO12 is not a PRL. That PRL role is taken up by four independent administrators - and parity is the issue

How much esteem is due to Zebre for their qualification for the HC this year?

The argument I'm making is that the doom and gloom about the imminent apocalyptic destruction of Italian and Scottish rugby by the withdrawal of auto HC rights is, perhaps, just a tad pessimistic.

But to answer your latest point, PRL protects half of it's clubs, but also sacrifices half, as does LNR (or more than half). Why should one administrator sacrifice half its clubs while others (IRFU, WRU, SRU etc) do not?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:There is still 12 clubs protected from the manageable step, though ... in one of the discussed solution scenarios that would have no Scottish or Italian club (or indeed in some other scenarios, no Irish or Welsh) protected from the manageable solution.

Parity of esteem is the crux. You can't have one administrator (PRL) have protection for six of its clubs and then expect another administrators (IRFU, WRU, SRU etc) to not have that protection.

That's my above point - PRL have a voice at the table because it controls an entire league. PRO12 is not a PRL. That PRL role is taken up by four independent administrators - and parity is the issue

How much esteem is due to Zebre for their qualification for the HC this year?

The argument I'm making is that the doom and gloom about the imminent apocalyptic destruction of Italian and Scottish rugby by the withdrawal of auto HC rights is, perhaps, just a tad pessimistic.

But to answer your latest point, PRL protects half of it's clubs, but also sacrifices half, as does LNR (or more than half). Why should one administrator sacrifice half its clubs while others (IRFU, WRU, SRU etc) do not?

Don't really agree with that, to say the IRFU, WRU, SRU haven't made any sacrifices is wrong. If the pro 12 ended and the unions went back to there own domestic league AIL, Welsh premiership, Scottish Premiership and Super 10 they would be well within there rights for each union to ask for equal representation. If the set up was 18 clubs + winners of heinie and amlin, SRU and Italy would gain, WRU and IRFU wouldn't lose anything but French and English clubs would be cut by half. Also the quality of the product would go down pretty sharp and affect everyone with the likes of Melrose v Toulouse, Pontypridd V Saracens, Cork Constitution V Toulon and Petrarca Padova v Leicester Tigers these are cricket scores and would turn more people off from watching cross boarder competitions.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:But there are many countries in Europe that play rugby. Why do these 6 have to included for it to be 'European' rugby but no others? The only reason I can think of is because they're part owners. We have two professional rugby leagues that are not represented in 'European' rugby at all.

What we do by maintaining the current situation is hamstring the development of rugby in these countries. Whatever the motivations of the PRL and LNR, whatever the problems facing SRU and FIR, now is the right time to renegotiate the structure and look at ways of bringing these other leagues into the fold. The final result still needs to be negotiated, with both FIR and SRU having plenty of votes to fight their corner.

Why do you think there is something special about us six? Why do you make the distinction between what 'we' are and what we should allow 'others' into? Why should it be a prize for 'others' to get in? Why should the 'others' want to get in?

I'll tell you why, because despite protestations about Pro12 demands that the competition remains an exclusive club, the only reason English clubs and their PRL overlords 'champion' the opening up of Europe is because - and I'm tired saying this - they know, for a fact, that they'll be guaranteed to be there in it, whatever the new version is. There's absolutely no risk in a rabbit voting for Christmas - it's the turkeys that worry.

So why does that make the English clubs feel comfy? It makes them feel comfy because they want to be part of it - they don't want to be outside the loop. They know how priviledged they are to be part of it, they know its an elite event, they know it's regarded as the most exciting inter-national club event in the world (no I didn't say best quality - but best followed, most passionate etc) So the PRL know exactly why lower ranked Pro12ers want to remain in situ. The English clubs share those wants.

The event - the HC - IS special because of the very fact that it IS elitist. If other leagues want in, that's because it IS the competition in Europe to be part of, the one teams and supporters want to be involved in, the one England and the rest of us don't want to be outside of. We're not looking to join the Russians, the Portugese or Georgians in anything they might imagine for themselves because we already have what we've created - the Premium European club event. England didn't create it, France didn't create it - we all created it - six unions. More importantly, we ALL contributed to the success of it. We're shareholders in that success.

So now we have the scenario that one or two of the owners want to goad and bully their fellow owners to dilute their contribution so that the outsiders can get in, get better and push the weaker elements in the present set-up eventually to extinction. This is because England and France know they will never face the same risks of oblivion as the teams they are inviting to take a hit in any new competition. The rabbits at the Christmas party analogy goes on and on, no matter where you pick up the debate on this issue. It's no risk to be highbrow and PC inclusive when you know inclusivity won't ever push you off your perch.

English and French clubs are not in the premium European competition because they are the best, because they have the best players, because their rugby is the most entertaining, because their standards are higher than others. They are there because they have a right to be (those 6 automatic spots), they are there because it's where they want to be (they like the idea of an elitist top grade in 'European' rugby - despite the protests to the contrary) - and they're there because they will not tolerate the existence of any top ranking European competition that doesn't include them. They are there - in short - because of nothing more than power. They'll remain there because of power.

Any new competition, and if it includes more teams from other areas of Europe, will in the course of time see teams fall off the radar and teams rise. It won't be a perfect ideal of everone in and everyone happy. Teams will suffer because of the very fact that other teams will rise. When that day happens, will there be a clamour from English club supporters to create a new competition that allows poor Scottish clubs, for example, to re-develop after being drained to a standstill by the presence of a number of big Russian clubs or Spanish clubs?

Like hell there will. The call then will be: "sure why don't you all be happy that Scottish players are helping English clubs succeed or indeed that they're helping the Russian clubs succeed. Forget the insularity lads, this is club rugby, you can still support an English superclub if you don't have one of your own. Stop moaning".

Post of the month on this issue

It may even be fair to suggest that if it is 8,6,6, that 1 place from each league isn't guarented.

lowest English and French, plus lowest Rabo union (from union that already has H-cup spot) all 3 teams play off against top Russian, Georgian and Spanish club, for a H-cup spot, loser goes into Almin

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:There is still 12 clubs protected from the manageable step, though ... in one of the discussed solution scenarios that would have no Scottish or Italian club (or indeed in some other scenarios, no Irish or Welsh) protected from the manageable solution.

Parity of esteem is the crux. You can't have one administrator (PRL) have protection for six of its clubs and then expect another administrators (IRFU, WRU, SRU etc) to not have that protection.

That's my above point - PRL have a voice at the table because it controls an entire league. PRO12 is not a PRL. That PRL role is taken up by four independent administrators - and parity is the issue

How much esteem is due to Zebre for their qualification for the HC this year?

The argument I'm making is that the doom and gloom about the imminent apocalyptic destruction of Italian and Scottish rugby by the withdrawal of auto HC rights is, perhaps, just a tad pessimistic.

But to answer your latest point, PRL protects half of it's clubs, but also sacrifices half, as does LNR (or more than half). Why should one administrator sacrifice half its clubs while others (IRFU, WRU, SRU etc) do not?

First point: The esteem of being a signatory to the orignal piece of paper onto which the contract was typed for the current competition. The esteem of belonging to an Administrator that protects Zebre's right to be there (as the RFU/PRL protect its club who get in due to the signing of a contract some years ago) A contract is a contract, it doesn't simply morph into no-contract because time dulls the signature.

Second point: No such thing. This is not about doom and gloom being imminent. This is about the doom and gloom (under certain suggested scenarios) of non-protection from doom and gloom in the future. No written protection - unlike that automatically assumed by PRL and its six protected (in law) places.

Third point: Half the PRL is 6. Half the Italian Union's is 1. Some people say even that one shouldn't be offered the same protection as PRL's 6. 6 teams in the top European competition is a pretty good foundation for building and sustaining an International side. 1 is a joke. And even that 1 is being suggested in some parts as being too generous!

You know a combined Rabo12/Top14 cup competition would have a lot going for it. The Welsh and Irish are competitive, I know the Irish have won the old HCup and the welsh haven't but Blues/Ospreys have made very good runs in the comp in the past. The Scots can play a more open attractive game and is a great place for big games and Italy is always a great away trip to pull off as it can be combined with taking the missus on a weekend to Italy and you can get distracted with the rugby and drink while they soak up the fashion and romance of the place. There good arguments for the French to sign up to a Rabo/French competition, than a Franglo comp where the other guy at the table is already getting narky about how to split the bill (money). They also would get the great clashes of Toulouse/Clermont against Ulster/Leinster/Munster. Are guaranteed good away visitors into their home towns and also great away game venues to head to.

Then just leave the Jeff into the Amlin competition and their BT Vision deal really helps raise the profile of that fixture as their teams have exclusive tv rights for fixtures against bucharest and rovigo and the likes. When I think about it, it would be terribly narrow minded by the Unions to prevent such an improvement in the Amlin but not allowing this change go ahead. The Jeff can do the good deed and promote rugby in the 'lesser' nations as they already have a guaranteed contract signed so have negotiated a large, apparently guaranteed, pot of money for this venture.

thebandwagonsociety that actually sounds like a very good Idea.

Be a real boost to the Almin, would put PLC into line, once the TV deal is done allow English clubs into the H-cup again.

Bandwagon the scots were very competitive a number of times. Don't forget Scarlets too who have been semi finalists twice, once on an unbeaten run including victories home and away over Toulouse.

It is certainly one of the alternatives Mon. Lux mentioned yesterday.

bandwagon, you rascal!

Good idea actually as well as being a funny one.

Of course I'd feel duty bound, honour bound and morally impelled to support it for the betterment of rugby's progress in heartland Europe amongst all them poor countries there, like Germany, Poland and that biggest poor place from where all them destitute oligarchs emerged to control football................. Russia, that's the one.

Mon Lux is simply looking to protect his job on the Dublin gravy train and does not represent the French clubs as they wanted him out.

As usual a lot of the above is speculation and the only hard fact is the PRL for all its faults has brought more cash to the table for the next competition than everyone else combined, which I would speculate is why the R12 Unions have kept quiet to date, in order to see the numbers.

There are a few Irish fans on here who are potentially setting themselves up for a fall over the next few Euro competitions - which is all good fun on a conspiracy 606 board.

Recwatcher wrote:
There are a few Irish fans on here who are potentially setting themselves up for a fall over the next few Euro competitions - which is all good fun on a conspiracy 606 board.

You mean that there are a few of us who might get hit with a brick of truth that we currently fail to contemplate if one, two, three or four sides falter badly in the next few HECs?

Hmmm................, I personally never considered that faith. I thought we were destined from here to eternity to win...by right of ERC rules! That is a shock.

Now if you were to be cruel to yourself and go back over many posts of many months you'd hear nothing of the sort. The truth is that always you're up until you're not. All Irish supporters realise this. And not being up can hit you at any point. So, you might as well enjoy being up for as long as it lasts. Nothing is permanent. It might be all tears from as early as the end of this season. And of course, all of Europe will weep with us....

All good fun Secret - it is only a game a the end of the day. My life will still go on even if my team don't play in (your eyes) a worthwhile Euro competition....

I wasn't hitting the Amlin, Rec, I was hitting, forcefully hitting yes, the suggestion that sides should be happy to be in it as they look with delighted little faces at their 'betters' above them who are dropping the pennies their way benevolently

Sides play in it because it's what it is, it gives games and it gives experience but I detest the idea amongst the 'Haves' - and I'd include my own side of Leinster in this - that the poor lads, the 'Have-nots, should be content on the bottom where they belong and, sure, won't they be delighted with themselves there, bless 'em.

No, I'd be happy in the idea that the bottom sides want to knock our blocks off and take our place. That's competition, that's the attitude we need in sport. It's haughty to assume what 'lesser' sides should be satisfied with their lowly lot. It's alien to me.

Why do the Italians get the smallest percentage when they have the same number of teams as the Scots? That seems grossly unfair.

Someone before suggested that the seeding in the h cup could be determined by success in the pro 12 and that could add the competitive edge to the pro 12 that wouldn't allow coaches to neglect it.

SecretFly wrote:Why do you think there is something special about us six? Why do you make the distinction between what 'we' are and what we should allow 'others' into? Why should it be a prize for 'others' to get in? Why should the 'others' want to get in?

I'm not making the distinction. The distinction already exists. I'm asking why, if the Scots and Italian MUST be involved for it to be classed as a European cup, is it limited to these two?

I'll tell you why, because despite protestations about Pro12 demands that the competition remains an exclusive club, the only reason English clubs and their PRL overlords 'champion' the opening up of Europe is because - and I'm tired saying this - they know, for a fact, that they'll be guaranteed to be there in it, whatever the new version is. There's absolutely no risk in a rabbit voting for Christmas - it's the turkeys that worry.

Of course that's why the PRL and LNR were up for it. Develop the market for no personal loss and make more money. Not sure what that has to do with the arguments that a European competition MUST include the Scots and Italians.

So why does that make the English clubs feel comfy? It makes them feel comfy because they want to be part of it - they don't want to be outside the loop. They know how priviledged they are to be part of it, they know its an elite event, they know it's regarded as the most exciting inter-national club event in the world (no I didn't say best quality - but best followed, most passionate etc) So the PRL know exactly why lower ranked Pro12ers want to remain in situ. The English clubs share those wants

Regarded by who? How do you define 'Elite'?

1.
a. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status
b. The best or most skilled members of a group: the football team's elite.
2. A size of type on a typewriter, equal to 12 characters per linear inch.

Definition 1a is probably the most apt. It's certainly can't consider it the Elite1b competition in Europe as many professional sides do not have a chance of qualifying. I prefer definition 2 personally.

The event - the HC - IS special because of the very fact that it IS elitist. If other leagues want in, that's because it IS the competition in Europe to be part of, the one teams and supporters want to be involved in, the one England and the rest of us don't want to be outside of. We're not looking to join the Russians, the Portugese or Georgians in anything they might imagine for themselves because we already have what we've created - the Premium European club event. England didn't create it, France didn't create it - we all created it - six unions. More importantly, we ALL contributed to the success of it. We're shareholders in that success.

It's just a domestic club competition. It wasn't the product of visionary thinking. They want involvement because of the money and exposure.

So now we have the scenario that one or two of the owners want to goad and bully their fellow owners to dilute their contribution so that the outsiders can get in, get better and push the weaker elements in the present set-up eventually to extinction. This is because England and France know they will never face the same risks of oblivion as the teams they are inviting to take a hit in any new competition. The rabbits at the Christmas party analogy goes on and on, no matter where you pick up the debate on this issue. It's no risk to be highbrow and PC inclusive when you know inclusivity won't ever push you off your perch.

You could equally say there are 4 owners that want to force the others to stay with an agreement that's coming to an end. When the two 'bullied' groups say they'll walk away they're called bullies themselves. What that means is they MUST stick with the exact same concept that was there before.

English and French clubs are not in the premium European competition because they are the best, because they have the best players, because their rugby is the most entertaining, because their standards are higher than others. They are there because they have a right to be (those 6 automatic spots), they are there because it's where they want to be (they like the idea of an elitist top grade in 'European' rugby - despite the protests to the contrary) - and they're there because they will not tolerate the existence of any top ranking European competition that doesn't include them. They are there - in short - because of nothing more than power. They'll remain there because of power.

They there for the money. I'm not sure what 'power' they get out of it. They seem to have little power in the fact of the other owners. They're there because the other unions want money and the English bring it. That's why they have 6 spots compared to others. Because the Celtic unions are in it for the money.

Any new competition, and if it includes more teams from other areas of Europe, will in the course of time see teams fall off the radar and teams rise. It won't be a perfect ideal of everone in and everyone happy. Teams will suffer because of the very fact that other teams will rise. When that day happens, will there be a clamour from English club supporters to create a new competition that allows poor Scottish clubs, for example, to re-develop after being drained to a standstill by the presence of a number of big Russian clubs or Spanish clubs?

Like hell there will. The call then will be: "sure why don't you all be happy that Scottish players are helping English clubs succeed or indeed that they're helping the Russian clubs succeed. Forget the insularity lads, this is club rugby, you can still support an English superclub if you don't have one of your own. Stop moaning".

If we have enough teams to have a 4th tier then they probably will suggest it.

Hammer, Hammer, Hammer...................................

How does one answer that lot without starting a whole new website to find the room to do so? I would do it - with every single point you made.... but no, I'm not going to bore people and hog the space.

The City of London Boardroom Shareholder Profits Money Cup it is for you, then.

12 English sides with millions of TV sets and BT accounts - and 12 French sides with their bankrolling TV company.

Sides meet each other once with points awarded for Sponsorship profits, TAM ratings and Tweeting averages.

Playoffs decided on Graphics, Plushest Advertising and Punditry of respective broadcasters.

Final to be decided on Gross Profits divided by Net Profits, divided by market share with respect to share prices at opening of business on the first monday of May.

Yep, BT will probably win - so congratulations in advance.

Do you like rugby at all? A very, very, very icy, distant attitude to a good game.

Just out of curiosity why are you always posting along the lines of the PRL wanting money but the other unions not?

Because that's where it's at, Hammer. That's where it is at. The PRL mention money. They're not afraid to mention money...but then they get all that money talk snuggled into a big comfy 'inclusive' duvet to try and disguise it all, to soften the texture of their ambitions.

Everything you say is money. Virtually every defence you make of them is money - deals, brokering, contracts, markets...................

I'm the one asking you about rugby stuff...do you want the idea of a 'best' in Europe at all? To which you answered 'not really, my interests are league'. That might be honesty from you but its a concept I don't understand coming from a rugby person. The competition is about being best, not about getting most people to watch the adverts during the halftime interval. The competition is the sport not about the yearly accounts.

Yes.... in order to play rugby you need money. You have to pay for grounds, pay for the upkeep of grounds, pay for players, pay for staff. Of course unions and clubs need money...that they need money is part of the argument that if some of them lose the 'advantages' of HEC (that France and England have and won't be negotiating) they will begin to suffer as unions

BUT........... the need for unions is not the need for money. The need for rugby is that it is played in your areas, by your people, for you, to make you feel part of a world of 'worthiness', to give you something to cheer about in a bleak world, to help you along with feelings of oneness in your nation/region/locality, to entertain you for what it simply is - a beautiful game.

The PRL don't use language like that, they use boardroom language because the officials are boardroom people, running clubs as a business - interested in profits rather than the sport that is being played on the field. PRL generates rugby to make profits... my idea would be to use profits to generate rugby. Different emphasis but an important one.

SecretFly wrote:I wasn't hitting the Amlin, Rec, I was hitting, forcefully hitting yes, the suggestion that sides should be happy to be in it as they look with delighted little faces at their 'betters' above them who are dropping the pennies their way benevolently

Sides play in it because it's what it is, it gives games and it gives experience but I detest the idea amongst the 'Haves' - and I'd include my own side of Leinster in this - that the poor lads, the 'Have-nots, should be content on the bottom where they belong and, sure, won't they be delighted with themselves there, bless 'em.
No, I'd be happy in the idea that the bottom sides want to knock our blocks off and take our place. That's competition, that's the attitude we need in sport. It's haughty to assume what 'lesser' sides should be satisfied with their lowly lot. It's alien to me.

That sounds suspiciously like condoning real competition for HC places, and that those HC places should be earned. Somewhat at odds with the protectionism of the comfy Pro12 qualifications. I have noted the opinion that English and French teams are protected, but I refute it since no individual teams are protected.

However, would you be in favour of qualification purely by performance in Euro comps? Bottom 4, or 6, or 8 in HC get demoted to Amlin next year, and replaced by the best Amlin teams?