An 8x3 club/side HEC competition?

8 Rabo sides (who can decide their own qualifiers)
8 Jeff sides (who can decide their own qualifiers)
8 T14 sides (who can decide their own qualifiers)

No automatic entrants whatsoever (including HEC/Amlin or even LV= cup)

No 'second best' qualifiers. Win it or lose it and suck it up.

To allow the 3rd tier nations a chance, the worst performing league from season x has to submit their lowest qualifying team to a h/a pre-qualifier in season x+1.

Yup thats right. Firstly lump Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy together as one league. Then reduce the amount of places available to that league. Then increase Englands league places. Then increase Frances leagues places.

This is an even more severe system on the Irish, Welsh, Scots and Italians than the Anglo French have suggested.

red_stag wrote:

Yup thats right. Firstly lump Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy together as one league. Then reduce the amount of places available to that league. Then increase Englands league places. Then increase Frances leagues places.

This is an even more severe system on the Irish, Welsh, Scots and Italians than the Anglo French have suggested.

I've just done a dissertation on that very topic on another thread. Very well put there, Stag! It seems that no matter how we all do the leaving cert maths...England and France always either stay the same in numbers present or indeed go up....but never down. Just looking back over the entire HC history and every incremental solution seemed to add to the English and French tally.

Secretfly how many professional clubs/regions do the Irish have?

Last two years the Irish have had 100% representation. One of the clubs struggles in the Amlin let alone the HC!

red_stag wrote:

Yup thats right. Firstly lump Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy together as one league. Then reduce the amount of places available to that league. Then increase Englands league places. Then increase Frances leagues places.

This is an even more severe system on the Irish, Welsh, Scots and Italians than the Anglo French have suggested.

Each of the eight pools will consist if one team from each league.

To be fair, it wasn't the anglo-frogs who decided to go international.

As you are on record Staggy as saying that you'd rather and anglo-french outfit than another member of your own league if they are not Irish, I'd have thought that no automatic entrants would have appealed.

beshocked wrote:Secretfly how many professional clubs/regions do the Irish have?

Last two years the Irish have had 100% representation. One of the clubs struggles in the Amlin let alone the HC!

England can reduce the prem to 6 teams and they would have 100% representation, or 8 teams and have 75% representation like the Irish.

Number of Professional teams shouldn't make a difference, quality should.

When Italy entered using the Super 10, did any English fans say, hang on they shouldn't only have 2 teams they should have 5 or 6 teams?

Ireland has proved its top teams are equal with France and England's, so if we only get 3 they should only get 3!

kingshu the English and French as it is dominate the Amlin. They also hold all the muscle.

You say quality makes a difference yet you want one of the worst sides in Europe to be in the HC because they are Irish!

Grey,

I have made my feelings on this clear.

I have no problem with Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy losing places.
I have no problem with things remaining the same for England/France.

I do not like the idea of lumping the Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy together.
I do not accept any system where the individual countries of England and France have the same amount as Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy combined.

I would happily accept:

- 2 Ireland
- 2 Wales
- 1 Scotland
- 1 Italy
- Next two highest "Rabo" regardless of nationality
- 6 England
- 6 France

I think it is fair. England and France lose nothing. We lose some places and the Rabo does its part in qualification.

so beshoked you think it should be League based do if Italians left pro 12 an dwent back to super 10 youd be happy to have 8 Italian teams enter it?

What exactly is the problem?
It seems to me that the Rabo nations want to have both sweet baking products and mastication. The Rabo is a contributory league which allows no entry apart from from the financial failure to the HEC.

Maybe the HEC should be open to
8xEnglish
8xFrench
8xIrish
8xScottish
8xWelsh
8xItalian
8xEurope(east)
8xEurope(west)
and have a seeded knock-out competition.

Tbh that would be a rubbish idea.

Kingshu wrote:Ireland has proved its top teams are equal with France and England's, so if we only get 3 they should only get 3!

Doubt the provinces/IRFU would want to see their income drop so much. While it is criminal how cheap ERC have sold the rights for (less than PRL got for just English home games remember) reducing the participation from the most populous countries will reduce the income generated. And that is all the suits actually care about.

I doubt celtic fans will ever agree - but the method of qualification does give advantages to Rabo teams. There are two options available to the Franco/English bloc. They can either change how they qualify or state they will stop entering unless the whole thing is changed. why should they destroy their domestic competitions - competitions that draw in a lot of fans and a lot of income?

I do not like the proposal in the OP. I have several times said I would reduce the number of automatic spots from every country, having a top competition of 16 clubs and a proper second tier competition.

If we're all fighting our own corner - and for argument's sake forgetting the needs of others (Scottish, Welsh, Italians) - then I'd instantly say no - I wouldn't accept 2 sides for Ireland.

No way.

We've given more to Europe - we've certainly given more to it as a spectacle in the last half decade or so than to be snubbed by such an allocation. If English and French rugby thinks itself important enough to demand changes then I certainly have no guilt in saying 3 is the minimum Irish contingent I'd tolerate. Don't insult a demonstrably quality European nation by either demanding (or settling) for less.

London Tiger - of course our system gives us an advantage. I agree with you entirely.

However it is not an unfair advantage.

England and France are the only two teams left in the rugby playing world who don't use franchises.

Italy, South Africa, Australia, Ireland, Wales, New Zealand and Scotland all operate on franchises as there are advantages.

Rather than looking to advantage themselves England and France are asking the other nations to disadvantage themselves to match their system.

Thats the problem.

red_stag wrote:Grey,

I have made my feelings on this clear.

I have no problem with Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy losing places.
I have no problem with things remaining the same for England/France.

I do not like the idea of lumping the Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy together.
I do not accept any system where the individual countries of England and France have the same amount as Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy combined.

I would happily accept:

- 2 Ireland
- 2 Wales
- 1 Scotland
- 1 Italy
- Next two highest "Rabo" regardless of nationality
- 6 England
- 6 France

I think it is fair. England and France lose nothing. We lose some places and the Rabo does its part in qualification.

Red stag I absolutely agree with this.

beshocked wrote:

red_stag wrote:Grey,

I have made my feelings on this clear.

I have no problem with Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy losing places.
I have no problem with things remaining the same for England/France.

I do not like the idea of lumping the Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy together.
I do not accept any system where the individual countries of England and France have the same amount as Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy combined.

I would happily accept:

- 2 Ireland
- 2 Wales
- 1 Scotland
- 1 Italy
- Next two highest "Rabo" regardless of nationality
- 6 England
- 6 France

I think it is fair. England and France lose nothing. We lose some places and the Rabo does its part in qualification.

Red stag I absolutely agree with this.

Glad to hear it Beshocked. They should have just let me and you settle this. We would have it wrapped up in no time.

What would be the Rabo response to Italy and Scotland reducing their teams to Azzuri and Asbo Freedoms?

Both of the above are one professional side away from this reality.

That would allow Gorgeous Georgians and Russia Tsars a place.

red_stag wrote:

beshocked wrote:

red_stag wrote:Grey,

I have made my feelings on this clear.

I have no problem with Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy losing places.
I have no problem with things remaining the same for England/France.

I do not like the idea of lumping the Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy together.
I do not accept any system where the individual countries of England and France have the same amount as Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy combined.

I would happily accept:

- 2 Ireland
- 2 Wales
- 1 Scotland
- 1 Italy
- Next two highest "Rabo" regardless of nationality
- 6 England
- 6 France

I think it is fair. England and France lose nothing. We lose some places and the Rabo does its part in qualification.

Red stag I absolutely agree with this.

Glad to hear it Beshocked. They should have just let me and you settle this. We would have it wrapped up in no time.

Yup I wouldn't even need to mention a certain Irish side again.

Population size if nothing else makes Franchises difficult to create in England/France. The only way that either country could even start to make franchises work is if the whole domestic season was restructured - on similar lines to the SH. After all SA and NZ still have a vibrant club culture - but their competitions are in the main at a differnet time to the S15.

The jury is still out on whether Franchises were good for Scotland. At club level Franchises have been a near disaster in Wales - but most Welsh fans would be prepared to accept this in exchange for the 3 Grand Slams.

In general in Rugby franchises only work when they fit a natural geography.

As I said, Franco/English clubs are entitled to say they want change.

Rabo clubs are entitled to disagree.

Other countries get no say and get treated badly by the 6Ns countries.

If a compromise cannot be reached and the Franco/English clubs do not enter in 2014 then what are we left with. Rabo 2.

to be honest I've said
6 English
6 French
8 for pro 12 Unions.

No winner gets extra spot thing, comes out of allocation.


But I'll go further, since they is confusion over the allocation for H-cup being Union or League based, why not something of a duality.

I'd devide the 8 spots as per Union as
2
2
1
1
next best 2 regardless of Union.

Use a coefficient based on European and Leauge performace over 3 years to decide which Union has which allocation.

Currently
Ireland 2
Wales 2
Scotland 1
Italy 1

If Italian teams start performing better than Welsh teams then the WRU entries could drop to 1, and FIR's increase to 2.

However I would also like to see a French and English Co-efficient as well, meaning they could be reduced to 5 places, if the Pro 12 Co-efficient over takes one or either of them.

This extra place or two, if added to the best in Leauge not already qualified.

2 English
2 French
2 Irish
2 Welsh
2 Scottish
2 Italian
2 German
2 Russian
2 Portugese
2 Georgian
2 Spanish
2 Monaco?! (as I've heard mention they're interested in joining!!!)

So there you go, the perfect multi-cultural European format the PRL are after ("for the goodness of the sport in these poor countries" - always have to include that lingo or PRL sue you)...and nobody with more sides in it than any other nation. A fair pan-European competition.

Hmmmmm......................... "We didn't mean that fair," mutters the PRL

Kingshu wrote:to be honest I've said
6 English
6 French
8 for pro 12 Unions.

No winner gets extra spot thing, comes out of allocation.


But I'll go further, since they is confusion over the allocation for H-cup being Union or League based, why not something of a duality.

I'd devide the 8 spots as per Union as
2
2
1
1
next best 2 regardless of Union.

Use a coefficient based on European and Leauge performace over 3 years to decide which Union has which allocation.

Currently
Ireland 2
Wales 2
Scotland 1
Italy 1

If Italian teams start performing better than Welsh teams then the WRU entries could drop to 1, and FIR's increase to 2.

However I would also like to see a French and English Co-efficient as well, meaning they could be reduced to 5 places, if the Pro 12 Co-efficient over takes one or either of them.

This extra place or two, if added to the best in Leauge not already qualified.

Not a bad idea either.

LondonTiger,

I wouldnt dream for a second in suggesting that France/England go for franchises. They have the resources to sustain a professional club game and if I were a English/French fan I would not want them changed.

However my point is that systems have pros and cons. Our franchise system means that we kind of struggle for attendances and commercial gains as its hard to get from Galway to Edinburgh to Swansea to Parma.

We all need each other

We may not bring much, but we do bring the money.

We bring the style*



*note not necessarily Munster

The main point about the OP was that it is a multiple of eight. Well actually a factor of two - that's the basis of cup competitions.

The three leagues would each have eight teams which could be assigned on whatever their leagues decide a entry qualification level. That's up to each league.

No lucky losers. No bonus extra spots for past winners - all earned.

Thinking about it, I''d be persuaded to agree to a 7(French)/7(English)/10(Rabo/European) split.

But only the top of each pool goes through to the K-Os.

greytiger wrote:
Thinking about it, I''d be persuaded to agree to a 7(French)/7(English)/10(Rabo/European) split.

Really? I would certainly have no issue with that but I dont see how England or France would really benefit from this set up.

greytiger wrote:The main point about the OP was that it is a multiple of eight. Well actually a factor of two - that's the basis of cup competitions.

The three leagues would each have eight teams which could be assigned on whatever their leagues decide a entry qualification level. That's up to each league.

No lucky losers. No bonus extra spots for past winners - all earned.

Thinking about it, I''d be persuaded to agree to a 7(French)/7(English)/10(Rabo/European) split.

But only the top of each pool goes through to the K-Os.

This is the problem,why should England get an automatic 8 spots when 4 other countries have to share 8 spots,the ERC is made up of countries (more accurately Unions representing each country) not leagues.

Of course 90% of the income is generated from just two countries

And in the end they are all quibbling about money. If it was meritocracy all 38 top tier pro sides would qualify.

red_stag wrote:

greytiger wrote:
Thinking about it, I''d be persuaded to agree to a 7(French)/7(English)/10(Rabo/European) split.

Really? I would certainly have no issue with that but I dont see how England or France would really benefit from this set up.

Well in reality Stag the umpteeth side in any league is unlikely to qualify for the K-O stage. But the downside for the Rabo would be submitted to eternal h/a play-offs with the best of the rest European contenders - plus their squabbles with the t2/3 Euro nations for their share of the spoils.

May I also recommend http://www.eurorugby.com/index.php (or similar) as a tool for determination of seedings rather than the dendrochronology of the current system.

It's about quality!
Well, we have as much quality as you.
It's about money then!
Well, so you want to kill the quality to grab a bigger part of the profit pot?
No, it's not so crass. It's about the best sides in Europe.
But we have some of those.
It's about the money then.
We create our fair share of that - exciting spectacles - play off stages, semi-finalists, finalists, winners. We do our bit to turn TV outlay/investment into TV profits on advertising.
It's not all about money you know. It's about fairness.
You have 6 spots already. How many more do you want?
It's about the money then..............

The arguments - like HC success itself - are cyclical

Well in reality Stag the umpteeth side in any league is unlikely to qualify for the K-O stage. But the downside for the Rabo would be submitted to eternal h/a play-offs with the best of the rest European contenders - plus their squabbles with the t2/3 Euro nations for their share of the spoils.

Grey,

With a comment like that, it seems like you just want to irriate the Rabo teams rather than improve the fortunes of your country.

Surely if changes are needed it is better to improve the competition as a whole, than just keeping things as they are and giving the Rabo a headache with 2/3 tier nations?

SF, LT and others.

Please, please note. This is note that this is not yet another article about inter-league rivalry.

It's about debating an eight-pool HEC system.

There are loads of other threads about national/league righteousness - many of which I have contributed to.

Actually I'm beginging to like a league co-efficient, based on European performace of teams, deciding on how many teams that league gets to enter.

It means if French teams underperform (which some do) the FRU will start putting pressure on them to do better or they may only have 5 teams the following year. Which would affect the FRU and the clubs as they have one less.

Think 5,5,8 is fair between the leagues (from current deal England and France lose one each, Pro 12 Unions lose 2).

with two automatic places floating, granted to the two best performing leagues.
English min 5 max 6
French min 5 max 6
Pro 12 Unions min 8 max 9 (if 9 place awared to highest finish not qualified)

Like I said a Leauge/Union duelity may be th eway forward?


We saw this recently in Football where the German League overtook the Italian League and now has 4 Champions league places to Italys 3 (used to be other way round).

This would keep pressure on teams to perform in the H-cup even if no chance of qualification, as the next year a 6th place league finish may not be enough to qualify!

red_stag wrote:

Well in reality Stag the umpteeth side in any league is unlikely to qualify for the K-O stage. But the downside for the Rabo would be submitted to eternal h/a play-offs with the best of the rest European contenders - plus their squabbles with the t2/3 Euro nations for their share of the spoils.

Grey,

With a comment like that, it seems like you just want to irriate the Rabo teams rather than improve the fortunes of your country.

Surely if changes are needed it is better to improve the competition as a whole, than just keeping things as they are and giving the Rabo a headache with 2/3 tier nations?

Not exactly Staggy. The mathematically rational model system of 2-4-8-16... is the concept which every two-team contest has to arrive at at some point.

I was proposing a rationale that a 7/7/10 to accommodate the calls of international demands. I be equally content with the 7/7/7 split with an additional prequalifier round between worst incumbents and best aspirants for the additional spots - or any other variation of the marginal qualification criteria.

greytiger wrote:SF, LT and others.

Please, please note. This is note that this is not yet another article about inter-league rivalry.

It's about debating an eight-pool HEC system.

There are loads of other threads about national/league righteousness - many of which I have contributed to.

There is only so many times you can say "No" grey,before you're forced to elaborate...and answer the opinions of others.

But to repeat then..... 8, 8 and 8?

No...wouldn't like that at all. That's English and French numbers going up again... they've been going up since the competition began way back in 1995. Now up again to 8 a piece?
No - and no simply because they don't deserve so many places by right. Even their record in the competition itself proves they don't deserve such a pleasant present; and coming at the same time as Irish places drop by one? That is going completely contrary to the history of European competition.
If any nation could look for anything extra then it would be France on its own - who might justifiably look for 1 more spot. But of course that would cause organisational complications.
But it is true that France have a bigger league than the other two. The sides therefore play more games and have therefore more competition within their own league, and they might justifiably say their season is tougher than the other two and that they should have an extra place as compensation.

But 2 more places for English sides? Can't be justified in my opinion.

I did propose two alternatives to Staggy to be fair, SF.

Any number of strategies can be debated. Ultimately your logic appears to centre on European as opposed to domestic competition - which excludes any outside contenders.

Whilst I accept that (on the basis of recent HECs) Jeff teams' form is poor, the overall Rabo (non-Irish) contingent is spectacularly abysmal. Your argument appears to be based on a uninational might and we debate whilst the current HEC is being played.

greytiger wrote:I did propose two alternatives to Staggy to be fair, SF.

Any number of strategies can be debated. Ultimately your logic appears to centre on European as opposed to domestic competition - which excludes any outside contenders.

Whilst I accept that (on the basis of recent HECs) Jeff teams' form is poor, the overall Rabo (non-Irish) contingent is spectacularly abysmal. Your argument appears to be based on a uninational might and we debate whilst the current HEC is being played.

Grey...in an 8,8,8 system the rights of the French to have 8 places and the rights of the English to have 8 places would be protected. It wouldn't vary according to league successes or the strength of those leagues in any given year in comparison to the Pro12 one. 8 places for English and 8 places for French sides would be guaranteed.

No it is not a League argument, it remains justifiably a 'national allocation' argument - as at present, when Leinster do well, it's not the next best (non HC qualified side) Pro12 team that gains entry to HC but Connacht, a particularly Irish one. Same is true if the winner was an English side - that English side would drag through another English side not the next best (outide the initial 22) European side on points. So the HC is already stacked on national allocation grounds.

So to recap. Not only would your new system continue to guarantee 6 places each for French and English teams, it would increase the guarantee to 8 each. At the very same time, Irish guarantee would be reduced from 3 to 2. That is simply unsatisfactory to me.

You'll say that my concerns are misplaced as Irish sides do quite well in Pro12 and would therefore be in line for one if not two extra places each year on merit within the Pro12. I say that's no guarantee - that's just hope. Hope is not an equal bedfellow to guarantee. Guarantee would be an extra two slots by right to France and England and the loss of a slot for Ireland (a nation that almost shares honours with England in the competition itself)

It suits some to suggest the sides in the Pro12 league should pretend they're all controlled by the one union and are part of one nation, and that they therefore should naturally agree that 8 sides from the league is more than enough to cheer about in HC competition.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Edinburgh are as much an enemy/outside force in HC as are Saracens or Toulon. Edinburgh isn't an Irish team. I support Irish teams in HC, nothing else. Irish Provincial success helps sustain rugby in Ireland. Welsh regional success would only assist Welsh rugby. There is no genuine 'we' in Pro12, whereas 'we' in AP and Top14 is very much a reality.

Good gods this is boring. My wife watching QVC and that's more interesting then same old Love sacks being written over and over and OVER again.

My own fault for reading it but still...does anybody have anything new to say on the matter?

HammerofThunor wrote:Good gods this is boring. My wife watching QVC and that's more interesting then same old Love sacks being written over and over and OVER again.

My own fault for reading it but still...does anybody have anything new to say on the matter?

Nope...no buts...your own fault - period.

I was going to talk about The American Election debates but nobody was having any of it. Stick to the thread, I was warned. So it's 6, 6, 6 or 8,8,8 I'm afraid

Why 6,6,6 or 8,8,8 only? They were the initial proposals but the negotiations are ongoing.

Neither of those are going to happen. 6 is too few teams for the PRO12 and 8 is too many for T14 and Jeff.



And there's always a but

As indicted earlier SF, I don't really care how the 24 is made up.
What would be important to me is to allocate an 8xn number and I think that 16 is genuinely too small satisfy the number of top professional t1 leagues.
32 is possible, but would require an Amlin/HEC pre-tournament round-robin to place teams into the top (HEC) and bottom (Amlin) rounds.
I elect for 24 (8x3) with only the top team in each pool to qualify.

My rationale is that the the current contingent of 24 lends itself naturally 8x3 just as it it bizarrely does presently into 6x4.

Trouble is that 6x4 means two lucky losers from imbalanced pools.
Plus HEC currently magics up two lucky losers (this time around from Amiln winners, Biarritz and Leinster's coat-tailers, Connacht)

Remember no Rabo (or anyone else for that matter) side has ever faced an Italian outfit in the HEC KO stage. And in the past ten years only Ulster and Toulouse ever faced a Scottish side in a HEC KO encounter. And safe to say that stat will remain true for the eleventh season on the trot.

Why is 8 important?

I'm pretty much certain that the Ospreys have played against the Italians in the HEC.

Given that each pool has 1 English and 1 French, it's almost certain that the Italians will play against a RABO team every year (unless the English and French get extra spots and both Italian sides are in the two pools with 3 English and French teams


Edit: KO?

Eight provides eight pool winners without lucky losers from the imbalanced pools.

How the 24 pool entrants is divvied up is a matter for negotiation. 8,8,8 was proposed for the sake of simplicity.

To my mind the franglo proposal of twenty teams is mad - especially as the ground rules allow for the Amlin winner and Charley's Golden Ticket allows a dubious back door entrance.

I'd rather 4 pools with the top two going through. Otherwise how would you decide who gets the home game? Arguments over 'easy' pools, etc. 4 Pools with 1st getting home quarter and 2nd getting away quarter.

Of course 16 teams is probably too small. Any more and you either have one game per team only or more games. The French are probably not going to agree to more games. I think we're stuck with a weird number of pools.

I suppose as 8x3 pool winners means two fewer games in the pool stages, the QFs and SFs could each be on h/a basis.

That wouldn't be too bad from my point of view. Of course teams that don't have much chance of the finals would lose two games (although only one home game). Home and away quarters and semis have been mooted before and would potentially reduce the 'easy pool, home QF' problem.

8x3
so three teams each from England, France, Wales,Ireland,Scotland, Italy and who gets the other two threes?