European rugby talks end with no solution to impasse

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19878759

Talks over the future direction of European rugby have broken up with no solution to the impasse.

The meeting in Rome ended after six hours with rugby executives agreeing to continue negotiations in Dublin on 30 October.

The existing European Rugby Cup deal expires in 2013.

English Premiership and French clubs want changes to the Heineken Cup format from 2014 and have threatened to quit the competition.

The row was further complicated when Premiership Rugby and European Rugby Cup Ltd struck separate television deals for the rights to show their games.

Speaking after Monday's meeting, Rugby Football Union chief executive Ian Ritchie told BBC Sport: "I think it's not going to be resolved in one meeting. It's got to be seen as a priority but it's not going to be sorted this week or next."

In a statement the European Rugby Cup, the body which runs European club rugby tournaments, said: "The meeting featured six hours of comprehensive discussion on a broad range of issues raised by stakeholders including the structure and format of the European club rugby tournaments.

"All parties reaffirmed their desire to see European club rugby's tournaments continue to grow and develop further and to involve all of the current participant stakeholders."

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:The problem remains that Scotland (and Italy) cannot afford to lose places in the Heino from the perspective of their national teams - we have few enough players competing at the highest club level as it is, to effectively halve that will in the long-term ensure that Scotland never compete for the 6Ns again - we simply won't have enough players that are playing at the right standard

Is the Rabo not a higher enough standard? Wouldn't a young quality Scots rugby player be snapped up by a club anywhere if he was that good?

Johnny Wilkinson went years without HC experience when at the Falcons. Having more clubs with players spread out amongst them as the T15 & AP has, there is more chance of this. I'm not complaining but it is the other side of the coin isn't it?

Quins were 7th when they won the ACC and qualified that way. Saints did the same when they won the ACC (7th I think). Anglo-Welsh winner has tended to be a higher placed side or Welsh. Not sure about all of them but majority of European qualifiers are in the top 7 of the league every year (if an extra spot).

Also, even the AW winner has to actually win something so it's not like they're just selecting a particular team.

Regarding the 'changes' due to the celtic league introduction, didn't Ireland always put in the provinces? If they did nothing has really changed for them over the last 15 years has it?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:The problem remains that Scotland (and Italy) cannot afford to lose places in the Heino from the perspective of their national teams - we have few enough players competing at the highest club level as it is, to effectively halve that will in the long-term ensure that Scotland never compete for the 6Ns again - we simply won't have enough players that are playing at the right standard

and it would effectively mean the end of pro rugby in Scotland and Italy if the English proposals were followed thru. Once your team failed to qualify you would lose money meany reduced playing budgets meaning smaller lower quality squads meaning never qualify again. Scots teams do not run at a deficit unlike English ones. No rich people pouring cash in. within a few years it would only be 4 nations inthe HC and Italy and Scotland would never be competative again inthe 6N. Is that what you want? simply so some English club owners get more money?

Nobody wants to see the end of pro rugby in Scotland but is it right that it is effectively subsidized by everyone else? How long do you support something before it has to stand on its on feet?

They are not subsidised by everyone else - where is the subsidy? Do the Welsh hand over money to the Scots? This is a nonsense idea put around by greedy english club owners. Its the big lie technique.

The HC provides a profit that is divided between unions according to an agreed formula. Member Edinburgh got to the Semis playing an attractive form of rugby that is great to watch. the competition would be diminished without the Italians and the Scots - and remember the English proposals would badly damage wales as well.

On the contrary Greig Laidlaw understands the English and French POV. Fair play Greig.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby/top-rugby-stories/heineken-cup-reform-would-hold-no-fears-for-greig-laidlaw-1-2566562

I understand the English point of view - I also understand why their proposals are inherently unfair and how damaging they are to the wider game - and the motivation which is simply greed by a small number of club owners.

they would diminish the competiions, and damage the smaller unions irrvocably and have rightly been resisted by the other unions

If they really want a qualification based on how good teams are there would be few english teams in the competition and

TJ wrote:They are not subsidised by everyone else - where is the subsidy? Do the Welsh hand over money to the Scots? This is a nonsense idea put around by greedy english club owners. Its the big lie technique.

The HC provides a profit that is divided between unions according to an agreed formula. Member Edinburgh got to the Semis playing an attractive form of rugby that is great to watch. the competition would be diminished without the Italians and the Scots - and remember the English proposals would badly damage wales as well.

The pooled profits from both HC and Amlin are currently distributed without regard to representation in HC or Amlin. I have seen nothing particular in the proposals to alter this, although it may well be under discussion. SRU will probably get the same cut whether there are 2 scottish teams in HC or 2 Scottish teams in Amlin.

So qualification based on merit? 2 english teams maybe in the HC? or do you still wnat your 6 guarenteed places while others have none?

TJ hopefully we'll see you eat your words on the weekend.

beshocked wrote:TJ hopefully we'll see you eat your words on the weekend.

I must accept I do not feel terribly confident. :-)

Did you know there is a pub in Glasgow called the Saracens Head? lets hope for a Saracens scalp in Edinburgh

beshocked wrote:TJ hopefully we'll see you eat your words on the weekend.

Don't feed the Trolls shocked

Trying to get anything thorugh to TJ is an exercise in futility. I'll certianly be flying Sarries colours this weekend, oh and make sure they do underestimate you. You should be safe on that front though, self entitlement tends to lead to that kind of behaviour anyway.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

TJ wrote:They are not subsidised by everyone else - where is the subsidy? Do the Welsh hand over money to the Scots? This is a nonsense idea put around by greedy english club owners. Its the big lie technique.

The HC provides a profit that is divided between unions according to an agreed formula. Member Edinburgh got to the Semis playing an attractive form of rugby that is great to watch. the competition would be diminished without the Italians and the Scots - and remember the English proposals would badly damage wales as well.

The pooled profits from both HC and Amlin are currently distributed without regard to representation in HC or Amlin. I have seen nothing particular in the proposals to alter this, although it may well be under discussion. SRU will probably get the same cut whether there are 2 scottish teams in HC or 2 Scottish teams in Amlin.

thats not muyy understanding at all - but I may have got muddled with conjecture from fans not proposals

AlastairW wrote:

beshocked wrote:TJ hopefully we'll see you eat your words on the weekend.

Don't feed the Trolls shocked

Trying to get anything thorugh to TJ is an exercise in futility. I'll certianly be flying Sarries colours this weekend, oh and make sure they do underestimate you. You should be safe on that front though, self entitlement tends to lead to that kind of behaviour anyway.

Good man. I'll be supporting all English teams in the HC. Good luck vs Biarritz at home. I think you'll get things back on track. Please just don't beat them by too much (don't want you taking a record of ours).

It looks like any changes will only affect the Pro 12 leauge, with is pretty unfair when its the English and French that are wanting the changes.

Lets look at things another way, The French want less teams so less games and Final brought forward.

Fair enough you might say, but they want the fewer teams to be from the Celtic league so French teams play less games in a season, instead France could look at either, reducing the Top 14 to Top12, or only have play offs for top 4 teams instead of top 6, But instead of changing thier own League they want the H-cup changed to suit their League.

English are saying its unfair that the Pro 12 unions have 75%-100% of their teams qualify. So want to change the Pro 12 unions qualification.
Fair enough you might say, but again England is free to change its own league first, reduce it to an 8 team league and England will also have 75% of its teams qualify. If England want a 12 team league where only 50% qualify for the h-cup then thats their decision, and can't then complain about others doing what they don't want to do.

They say Pro 12 rest players, and a tougher qualification would mean they have to play more, truth, As Townsend told Jim Mallinder "Players get rested more in the Celtic countries because we've got more national squad players. As Jim knows you can't play your international players throughout the whole season."
Pro 12 just has more internationals than Top 14 or Prem, so appears to be resting more.


Overall it does appear that the English and French want to change the H-cup and Pro 12, because they are not wishing to make changes to thier own Leagues.

Its not trolling to hold a different viewpoint and to show the inconsistencies and falsehoods in other viewpoints.

Kingshu



thats a large part of my point.

The income distribution of the ERC is based on shareholding and not the number of participants in the HEC.

If Scotland had no HEC participants, the SRU would still gain income from that competition as they are signficiant shareholders in ERC.

Kingshu an interesting point of view but it doesn't change the point that the Pro12 have 10/11 sides in the HC. You might say they are 4 individual countries but this never seems to register when coat tails are being hung on.

Ultimately if you do look at the Pro12 sides as individual countries only the Irish sides have won the HC. The other 3 countries have struggled throughout the HC's history. They would have a higher chance of winning some silverware in the Amlin.

Pool 3 is a perfect example of an imbalanced group caused by a flawed system.

If these negotiations don't end up with a decent reward for "Amlin" competitors, half the English and French teams, as well as any Scots, Italians, etc will be sticking 2 fingers up to ERCv2, their Unions and their Club representative and saying thanks but no thanks.

Seeing as a strengthening of the Amlin, from what we've seen, is a big part of the English proposals, I'm confident that exclusion from the HC would not lead to a major loss, if any, of the collective income. It would lead to less income from 6 less prestigious pool games, and there will also be less top level rugby experience for the players. Balance against that is, perhaps, increased collective income from enhanced tv deal, the prospect of raised prestige for the "Amlin" (never up to "HC" standard, though) and a greater possibility of qualifying for lucrative knock-out stages.

I don't believe that non-qualification for HC would be catastrophic.

I agree Dubble.

For this to work the Amlin needs to be structured and given a bit more credibility and clout.

With the likes of Gloucester,Wasps,Stade Francais and Perpignan in the Amlin currently they should be able to market it as a creditable competition.

The dilemma is what do you do with the proper whipping boys from Spain,Madrid etc?

TJ wrote:Its not trolling to hold a different viewpoint and to show the inconsistencies and falsehoods in other viewpoints.

Agree completely - I find I rarely agree with what TJ says but hes consistent and doesnt start arguments or post controversial comments for the sake of it

beshocked wrote:I agree Dubble.

For this to work the Amlin needs to be structured and given a bit more credibility and clout.

With the likes of Gloucester,Wasps,Stade Francais and Perpignan in the Amlin currently they should be able to market it as a creditable competition.

The dilemma is what do you do with the proper whipping boys from Spain,Madrid etc?

The proposals that we've seen includes the introduction of a third tier competition, financed by ERCv2, to include the current minnows and broadening the competition to include teams from Georgia, Russia, etc. I've only seen one report that mentions that it might be held in September, and have a promotion pathway to the "Amlin". It seems likely that 2 minnows might be included in the "Amlin" to make the teams up to 20, 5 pools of 4.

This can be spun 2 ways:

We're enhancing the Amlin to provide truly competitive pool games, whilst broadening the base of European club rugby to encourage more and better players, and attract more money to the game. The 3rd tier will be competitive between peers of roughly equal ability and will enable the best to rise into the Amlin.

or

We're throwing the minnows out of Amlin because they're not good enough (and don't make money for us), and giving them a minor competition and a bit of travel money. We'll be interested only in sending scouts to recruit their best players. The Italian 2nd tier and the Romanians and Spanish might be p$£*d off be being demoted, but who cares?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

beshocked wrote:I agree Dubble.

For this to work the Amlin needs to be structured and given a bit more credibility and clout.

With the likes of Gloucester,Wasps,Stade Francais and Perpignan in the Amlin currently they should be able to market it as a creditable competition.

The dilemma is what do you do with the proper whipping boys from Spain,Madrid etc?

The proposals that we've seen includes the introduction of a third tier competition, financed by ERCv2, to include the current minnows and broadening the competition to include teams from Georgia, Russia, etc. I've only seen one report that mentions that it might be held in September, and have a promotion pathway to the "Amlin". It seems likely that 2 minnows might be included in the Amloin to make the teams up to 20, 5 pools of 4.

This can be spun 2 ways:

We're enhancing the Amlin to provide truly competitive pool games, whilst broadening the base of European club rugby to encourage more and better players, and attract more money to the game. The 3rd tier will be competitive between peers of roughly equal ability and will enable the best to rise into the Amlin.

or

We're throwing the minnows out of Amlin because they're not good enough (and don't make money for us), and giving them a minor competition and a bit of travel money. We'll be interested only in sending scouts to recruit their best players. The Italian 2nd tier and the Romanians and Spanish might be p$£*d off be being demoted, but who cares?

Nice way of putting it. I know it's a pretty extreme suggestion but why don't the lower ranked countries create two leagues - Western Europe and Eastern Europe

Western Europe consisting of sides from Portugal,Belgium,Spain and Germany.

Eastern Europe consisting of sides from Romania,Russia and Georgia.

These sides are geographically close. I know money might be a problem but it's the only way these sides will grow.

These countries are obviously neighbours and the rivalries could be spicy.

Georgia are ranked 15th, Romania 18th, Russia 19th

Spain are ranked 20th, Belgium are ranked 23rd, Portugal are 26th and Germany 31st.

How about Spain, portugal etc playing national teams in the amlin / HC? ~Georgia / Romania might be a bit strong perhaps?

I think one of the differences in approach here is about self interest V making rugby better. The English proposals are all about more money for some English club owners. I would rather the interests of European rugby were put first - and that means helping the smaller nations ( whioch includes Scotland and Italy) Rugby will become a better, richer sport if more people are encouraged to take part and the game spread wider.

beshocked wrote:

Nice way of putting it. I know it's a pretty extreme suggestion but why don't the lower ranked countries create two leagues - Western Europe and Eastern Europe

Western Europe consisting of sides from Portugal,Belgium,Spain and Germany.

Eastern Europe consisting of sides from Romania,Russia and Georgia.

These sides are geographically close. I know money might be a problem but it's the only way these sides will grow.

These countries are obviously neighbours and the rivalries could be spicy.

Georgia are ranked 15th, Romania 18th, Russia 19th

Spain are ranked 20th, Belgium are ranked 23rd, Portugal are 26th and Germany 31st.

I don't think you can put it into two leagues you would have to do three.

Wasn't there talk of Spain and Portugal creating a league together and also Germany and the benelux countries.

Eastern europe is more interesting as they have the interest and possibly the money. I think they would benefit from a conference system with say five teams from each of Rominia, Georgia and Russia and do it akin to the S15. Rugby is big enough in these countries (relitively speaking) and they a possibly the three strongest team below the 6 nations.

As italy have shown getting the national team a higher level without giving them weekly higher leveled games does little for advancement.

I also think that what ever format the third tier takes (as it will be created as it is in everyone interest and not to appear like they don't care) they have to have part of it that the countries develop leagues in say 10 years akin to the Rabo or Prem.

We can't create the third teir that does nothing to develop professional rugby in europe.

Romania Georgia and Russia can support some professional teams. Maybe other countries can look to have 30 professional players and enter their country team eg. poland, ukaine and germany (the yoyo b6n)

TJ it's all about self interest. Both for English and French clubs but also for Italian and Scottish clubs.

The Italians and Scottish clubs can't have their cake and eat it.

You say oh poor old Italian and Scottish clubs but they've been benefitting from guaranteed HC rugby for some time.

You say poor little Glasgow and Edinburgh but these sides are in the two biggest cities in Scotland. Two of the wealthiest too.

Treviso is in one of the most affluent areas of Italy for great potential for growth. Zebre isn't too far behind.

I think the Scottish and Italian rugby unions need to take more responsibility for their clubs instead of relying on hand outs from the IRB and ERC.

If New Zealand can thrive at rugby as they do pretty much any country can. They defy their population again and again to forge strong sides.

Beshocked, I do not think they are relying on "handouts".

Neither are they having their cake and eating it too. Indeed I would say if anyone were doing that it would be the English/French who want massive changes for everyone - except of course no changes for them.

beshocked - and Edinburgh / Glasgow and the SRU have been they have created sides from scratch and got them to be competitive with growing crowds and interest. they needed a prop to do this and still do. the question remains - do you want to see a 3 tier 6N with a pro England and France, semni pro Ireland and Wales and amateur Scotland and Italy - cos that is what the english proposals will lead to.

Its nothing to do with having a cake and eating it. Its about making the best of what you have. without the rabo and HC Italy would not be competitive in the 6N and Scotland would struggle

Why should Scotland and Italy do allthe giving and England do all the taking?

ENGLAND HAVE 6 GUARENTEED PLACES.

Would not a BT deal give everyone more cake?

Scots would never have thier cake and eat it, batter and deep fry it maybe.

English and French clubs do not have auto qualification into the HC. Every club have to fight hard with HC rugby not guaranteed. It means that their business model does not rely on having HC rugby.

Edinburgh and Glasgow have been clubs for years in one shape or form.

What giving have the Scottish and Italians clubs done? Scotland has 100% representation in the HC, so does Italy. England in comparison has 50% representation.


red stag if they are not relying on handouts what is so wrong with one of Glasgow or Edinburgh being in the Amlin?

An interesting interview on radio five last night at 9.30 pm in which Mark McCafferty explained/weasel-worded (delete as appropriate) the PRL's BT deal. Marmite Moore opines, starts at 5mins. Interview and comments lasts about 15 minutes.

TJ wrote:beshocked - and Edinburgh / Glasgow and the SRU have been they have created sides from scratch and got them to be competitive with growing crowds and interest. they needed a prop to do this and still do. the question remains - do you want to see a 3 tier 6N with a pro England and France, semni pro Ireland and Wales and amateur Scotland and Italy - cos that is what the english proposals will lead to.

Its nothing to do with having a cake and eating it. Its about making the best of what you have. without the rabo and HC Italy would not be competitive in the 6N and Scotland would struggle

Why should Scotland and Italy do allthe giving and England do all the taking?

ENGLAND HAVE 6 GUARENTEED PLACES.

The only way that assertion makes any kind of sense is if the Amlin does not exist, or if it provides no income for its competitors. That is not the case now, and it is highly unlikely that it will be in the future (ignoring the doomsday scenario of a complete breakdown of Euro competitions), given the Anglo-French clubs reliance on it by at least half of them.

beshocked wrote:red stag if they are not relying on handouts what is so wrong with one of Glasgow or Edinburgh being in the Amlin?

I have no problems with one of them being in the Amlin.

I have a problem with England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales being lumped together under the "Pro 12" for European qualification. I have a problem with "the Pro 12" allocation being cut by 40% and France or England feeling no pinch whatsoever.

Those are my issues. I do not mind a 20 team HEC, I don't mind losing a place or two and I don't mind a bigger Amlin and a third tier competition.

I would readily accept the following:

- 5 England
- 5 France
- 2 Ireland
- 2 Wales
- 1 Italy
- 1 Scotland
- Next two highest Pro12 teams regardless of nationality
- Winning Heineken Cup nation gets another place
- Winning Amlin Cup nation gets another place

Thats a fair compromise. England and France each give up one place. The "Rabo" gives up two places. All 6 Nations are represented. The Heineken Cup drops down to 20 teams just like France/England want which strenghtens the Amlin Cup. Everyone has to qualify. Nobody gets a free ride.

I don't think any nation or any league has room to complain under such a system.

beshocked wrote:English and French clubs do not have auto qualification into the HC. Every club have to fight hard with HC rugby not guaranteed. It means that their business model does not rely on having HC rugby.

Edinburgh and Glasgow have been clubs for years in one shape or form.

What giving have the Scottish and Italians clubs done? Scotland has 100% representation in the HC, so does Italy. England in comparison has 50% representation.


red stag if they are not relying on handouts what is so wrong with one of Glasgow or Edinburgh being in the Amlin?

Beshocked England has 50% represention because it choses to, it the prem was reduced to 6 clubs it to would have 100% representation. Just because England choses not to, doesn't mean other Unions should suffer. Scotland is entitled to 2 teams in the H-cup, England 3 times that number, Scotalnd choose to only have two pro teams for there own reasons, England decided to have 12 that could qualify. Englands decision, or do you wish to remove Scotlands allowance because it cannot afford more pro teams?

Red Stag I like it though the only flaw is that you could hypothetically get some sides getting a free ride again. I am not sure I like the HC winner and Amlin winner getting another place for their country. It's piggybacking again.

The only thing would be is that if you do win either competition you auto qualify.

Stag, I just think the qualification for the HC can be simplified.

Italy and Scotland can't just have one team in the HC simply because they might as well then play their international "A" teams.

So you need to start off with two teams for them each.

2 Scotland
2 Italy
3 Ireland
3 Wales
5 England
5 France.

This way each country or union can set their own qualifying criteria for their teams.

EG: they can say if you win any tounrament, be it the RABO, top 14, Amlin, Premiership etc. you qualify. This will motivate teams to win a tournament, there after it goes to the highest ranked team left.

SO lets say we use Ireland as an example.

Leinster wins the HC - they automatically qualify
Ulster wins the RABO - they automatically qualify
Munster is their next highest ranked team - they qualify.

This principle can work for all countries.

20 teams, four pools of 5 teams, 8 matches round robin, 2 qualifies for the quarters etc.

No confusion, each country makes their own rules, each country has a fixed number of teams.

The 'Connacht question' would also be resolved with Stag's proposal. And it's the most likely compromise.

There is no justification for team A from league B winning the HEC to justify team C from league B to gain a back-door entry.

For what its worth under that system you would have:

- 5 England: Tigers, Quins, Saints, Saracens, Exeter
- 5 France: Toulouse, Clermont, Toulon, Clermont, Montpellier
- 2 Ireland: Munster, Leinster
- 2 Wales: Ospreys, Scarlets
- 1 Italy: Treviso
- 1 Scotland: Glasgow
- Next two highest Pro12 teams regardless of nationality Ulster, Cardiff
- Winning Heineken Cup nation gets another place Connacht
- Winning Amlin Cup nation gets another place Biarritz

Red stag, mostly in agreement, but agree with Greytiger, winners should get an extra team.

6 English
6 French
8 Pro 12 (one from each union, rest by league, or your way)

Winners of H-cup and Almin come out of that countries allocation.

Ie if England win Hcup and Almin by teams that finish 7th and 8th in Prem. only top 4 in Prem + these two qualify. England enters 6 teams regardless of how many trophys it wins.

I will concede that this plan though means that only the Pro 12 league loses places in H-cup, but may be a compromise that is acceptable.

Greytiger no it wouldn't. They would still be able to piggyback off other sides.

The idea would be to have the strongest sides in the HC. Red stag that would still have sides piggybacking others.

Why should Side B qualify because Side A won a competition?

- Winning Heineken Cup nation gets another place Connacht

No. Winning Heineken Cup league gets another place
Next team in the rabo. It could be Welsh/Scottish/Italian

I don't mind the HEC and Amlin winners places (in my example the Biarritz and Connacht) places going to France and England.

Its far from a priority.

HammerofThunor wrote:Quins were 7th when they won the ACC and qualified that way. Saints did the same when they won the ACC (7th I think). Anglo-Welsh winner has tended to be a higher placed side or Welsh. Not sure about all of them but majority of European qualifiers are in the top 7 of the league every year (if an extra spot).

Also, even the AW winner has to actually win something so it's not like they're just selecting a particular team.

Regarding the 'changes' due to the celtic league introduction, didn't Ireland always put in the provinces? If they did nothing has really changed for them over the last 15 years has it?

In 1999/2000 season, Quins finished 10th in the league. The following season '00/'01, Harlequins won the Challenge Cup 42-33 against Narbonne. They finished 11th in the Premiership. They qualified for the H Cup the following season, in which they won X matches, and finished 9th in the league.

They won the Challenge Cup again in 2003/04 and finished 6th in league. They won a third time in 2010/11 and finished in 7th spot.

Saints won the Challenge Cup in 2008/09 season and finished 8th in the AP that season but qualified for the H Cup. (They had been relegated the previous season). They finished 2nd the following season.

One would have to query whether including the winner of the Challenge Cup in the H Cup has merit, if league ranking has a premium placed on it for European qualification.

I agree that the winner of the AW Cup has to win something. However, as I understand it, the AW Cup features second-string B sides. Thus, a spot is being handed to a team, based on the efforts of another team entirely - who didn't have to scrap their way to qualification all season.

Re changes to Irish provinces. You're right - IRFU has always put forward three provincial teams from day one of the H Cup. It has always been the highest ranked 3 out of the 4 provinces in the Celtic League 1995-2010 and then the Pro 12 2011 to present.

Edit: Correction on above. The IRFU picked Leinster, Munster and Ulster to compete regardless of league ranking until 2003/04 season. Connacht were deemed a development province up to that point. Highest ranked 3 out of 4 provinces in Celtic League came into play for 2003/04 season.

greytiger wrote:

- Winning Heineken Cup nation gets another place Connacht

No. Winning Heineken Cup league gets another place
Next team in the rabo. It could be Welsh/Scottish/Italian

Don't agree with that, why would it benfit the IRFU if Leinster won and Cardiff Blues get a place? Sure how about if an English team wins it, a place gets given to Russia?

greytiger wrote:

- Winning Heineken Cup nation gets another place Connacht

No. Winning Heineken Cup league gets another place
Next team in the rabo. It could be Welsh/Scottish/Italian

I will never accept this. I would rather give the places to England and France.

Pot Hale true but the Amlin has become tougher with the drop down rule. Quins beating Munster away for example was no mean feat.

Kingshu I agree with your suggestion.

That's the happiest compromise IMO.

beshocked wrote:Greytiger no it wouldn't. They would still be able to piggyback off other sides.

The idea would be to have the strongest sides in the HC. Red stag that would still have sides piggybacking others.

Why should Side B qualify because Side A won a competition?

In which case 'shocked, neither the Amlin winners nor the HEC winners should be worthy of automatic qualification. A principle which I agree with. One which the footy WC applies.

But.
But.
But.

This is a negotiation with the ERC.
Not an annexation.