H-cup a realistic solution, accepable to you?

Was just wondering what peoples though are on a genuine attemp to make a solution to the H-cup qualification that would keep all Unions happy. In the negotiations some want qualification solely league based and others want it to remain Union based, and hence I think we will see a mixture of both methods.

Reduce to 20 teams as French and English seam to wish.
Qualification is 5,5,8
Then award the top two performing leagues, using a co-efficient based on European performance, an extra place each? (if Pro 12 is one of top 2 leagues, then it is highest non qualified team, not going to any Union).

So England and France could have 5-6 teams and pro 12 Unions 8-9 teams, depending on who have the top two performaing leagues.

This reduces the English and French represention by 1 team each and Pro 12 Unions by 2. But 2 of the 3 leagues can claim an extra place back.

Pro 12 qualification is divided
IRFU 2 teams
WRU 2 teams
SRU 1 team
FIR 1 team
Next 2 (3, if Pro 12 is one of top 2 leagues) highest non qualified team, regardless of Union.

I'd add the provision that if the winner of the Almin is not from one of the 6 Nation countries that only the top performing League gains and extra entry spot.

Not quite acceptable but almost there.

Still allows hanging of coat tails which is wrong.

A side would be still be allowed to piggyback another side's glory without lifting a finger themselves.

If it was 6,6,8 with no additional spots for piggybacking then I agree.

I like to look at it from a different perspective, much the same way I look at the super XV as well.

The HC and the Super XV are supposed to be the elite competitions in the NH and SH is it not?

Well if it is an elite competition then I would suggest the best teams of each union must play in each of these competitions.

There are 6 countries involved in the HC, so regardless of whether teams compete in the Aviva, Rabo 12, Top 14 etc.

Essentially it should be a straightforward qualitifcation from these three competitions.

the top five teams from the Top 14
the top five teams from the Premiership
the top 6 teams from the RABO.

This will mean that the clubs/regional teams from RABO, Top 14 and Premiership must perform in their respective competitions and cannot only focus on the one or the other.

Supporters will get their money's worth in both competitions because a team can't slack or play 2nd string teams in the qualifying competitions for the HC.

Then have 4 pools and only semi finals and final.

Biltong, see the flaw with doing it by league is it doesn't allow for growth esp in Italy.

Why would italy say ok we'll take one place when if they left the Rabo (unlikely) they could turn around and say well we are a top league so give us the same as the other leagues.

And I doubt that the Rabo would keep all their places if the Italians left.

Doing it by league will only mess things up.

beshocked wrote:Not quite acceptable but almost there.

Still allows hanging of coat tails which is wrong.

A side would be still be allowed to piggyback another side's glory without lifting a finger themselves.

If it was 6,6,8 with no additional spots for piggybacking then I agree.

There is no piggy backing

5, 5, 8

Winners of Almin and H-cup come out of that Unions allocation, they don't get an extra place.

The extra places are rewarded on the strenght on the League, the strongest 2 leagues earn the right to have an extra place.

In football, the German Leauge co efficient overtook the Italians, and Hence they now get to enter One more team into Europe and the Italians one less.

This isn't the Germans 4th team hanging onto the coat tails of the other German teams, it is that they earned that extra spot as a collective, by having a stronger league.

It makes sense that if awarding spots that its the leagues that have performed best earn these, its not coat tail hanging, of one teams performance, its earning more spots by virture of collective performace.

I do think that it should be union co-efficient value or a mixture of both union and league but not just league.

Brendan wrote:Biltong, see the flaw with doing it by league is it doesn't allow for growth esp in Italy.

Why would italy say ok we'll take one place when if they left the Rabo (unlikely) they could turn around and say well we are a top league so give us the same as the other leagues.

And I doubt that the Rabo would keep all their places if the Italians left.

Doing it by league will only mess things up.

Understood, my other alternative was to say let each union submit their top teams for the follwing season.

In other words.

England 4-5
France 4-5
Ireland 2-3
Wales 2-3
Scotland 2-3
Italy 1-2

But the problem with that is you could have a team from Italy or elsewhere taking the place of a more deserved team.

Hence this way for me is more unfair.

I just honestly think the sheer number of teams participating currently are too many. I know it is a european competition, but it is still supposed to be the Elite competition. Hence the elite must compete.

Biltong,
Imagine if Southern kings/Spears were regarded as stronger that melbourne rebels.

what if the SA said that since they have a stronger conference than Aus, that they wanted to enter 6 teams in Super XV and Aus only enter 4.

Do you think Aus would be happy with that? As effectively you could argue that a weaker team is taking the place of a stronger SA team.

Thats really what your saying when you say a team from Italy or elsewhere taking the place of a more deserved team.

Super XV is strongest 5 teams from each country, Not strongest XV from southern Hemp.

Would you be happy if New Zealand said they had the strongest teams and wanted to enter a 6th team and either Aus or SA lose a place and only enter 4 teams to make room?

(I know Super XV is expanding to make room, but say it was set at 15.)

Thats why in model about

its 5,5,8

Each union guarenteed at least one place, and the strongest two performing Leagues (based on European performace of all teams entered) each get an extra place

Do you know when they are next due to meet to talk about it?

Kingshu wrote:Biltong,
Imagine if Southern kings/Spears were regarded as stronger that melbourne rebels.

what if the SA said that since they have a stronger conference than Aus, that they wanted to enter 6 teams in Super XV and Aus only enter 4.

Do you think Aus would be happy with that? As effectively you could argue that a weaker team is taking the place of a stronger SA team.

Thats really what your saying when you say a team from Italy or elsewhere taking the place of a more deserved team.

Super XV is strongest 5 teams from each country, Not strongest XV from southern Hemp.

Would you be happy if New Zealand said they had the strongest teams and wanted to enter a 6th team and either Aus or SA lose a place and only enter 4 teams to make room?

(I know Super XV is expanding to make room, but say it was set at 15.)

Super Rugby has effectively gone the opposite way Kingshu. S12 had 5 good NZ teams, 4 good (well, except for the Bulls before they turned things around ) SA ones and 3 good Aussie ones. In the interests of expanding the game and the audience another SA team was added, and 2 fairly ordinary Aussie ones. That's left the comp with 1 very weak SA team, 2 very weak Aussie ones, plus the top 3 handicapped by having their backup players moved out, while the player drain from NZ to Europe/Japan/Australia means that one of their 5 tends to struggle. The compromise has been to expand the comp each time one of the constituent unions wanted more representation, which has made things rather unwieldy.

Having read through this and the other tread (which was tough going!) https://www.606v2.com/t36401-an-8x3-club-side-hec-competition I don't think anyone has suggested a playoff system.

i.e.

England - 7
France - 7
Rabo - 7

And then a home / away playoff between the 8th and 9th teams in the 3 leagues for the remaining 3 places.

That way noboby can complain that a certain team (lets say Connacht) didn't earn their place in the Group stages.

It would also mean that the ideology of a "European Cup" would be maintained as all teams would be given the opportunity to qualify if they're good enough ala League Of Ireland soccer clubs in the Champions league.

Also it would allow the English / French clubs to have the expanded numbers they want but again only if they were good enough.

Finally I don't think finding space for the extra games would be a problem as given that it would be low ranked teams there probably wouldn't be too many international players involved and I think the clubs would be delighted at the opportunity to qualify for the group stages.

This is where I disagree with the Elite bit, Biltong. For me, although this is an Elite competition, I take that to mean pro but I think you would prefer it to be 'Elitist'. And this is where I think we should (and currently do) follow the football model.

In the Chamions league each country is guaranteed 1 place at least, with the stronger nations getting more places. But at least everyone is included and is allowed to feel part of the european showcase event. They do have qualifying rounds but that's because there are 53 nations which would mean massive pools! Everyone being involved helps to grow the sport and keep it 'grown', for want of a better term. Kicking out Belgium or Polish teams beacuse they're league is weaker, so their representatives don't add much to the competition, would ruin the tournament IMO.

If in rugby we went down to strongest leagues then there is the risk that nations won't be represented. They may never come back from this as lack of HC may mean players leave, funding dries, up, sponsors do a runner, etc.

Some will argue that we already have an elitist structure in that Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Russia, etc. are not represented. OK, fair enough. But let's not make it even more elitist by only including the strongest leagues (and only the strongest in the Pro 12). Perhaps we can add in other European nations at a later date when they become strong enough.

Overall, for me the Heineken Cup should be about european nations sending teams to represent their rugby. So, at the moment that should be 6 nations in my opinion. We shouldn't risk having just 4 nations as could happen under the current proposals. Just my opinion.

Also with beshocked with 6,6, 8 England and France do not make any losses in reducing from 24 to 20 teams, only Pro 12 Unions

With 5,5,8 all reduce teams, but with a European League co-efficient the strongest performing leagues get to claim a place back.

Note its strongest performing Leagues (using a co-efficient of the league teams average performance in Europe) can't be described as coat tailing, as its not nessarally winners that get the extra place, its a measure of League strenght, and hence a stronger league has earned the right for an extra team. That extra team is there because it was recongised that the league it tougher with more quality teams, and hence the place they finished deserved to represented in H-cup.

Kingshu wrote:Biltong,
Imagine if Southern kings/Spears were regarded as stronger that melbourne rebels.

what if the SA said that since they have a stronger conference than Aus, that they wanted to enter 6 teams in Super XV and Aus only enter 4.

Do you think Aus would be happy with that? As effectively you could argue that a weaker team is taking the place of a stronger SA team.

Thats really what your saying when you say a team from Italy or elsewhere taking the place of a more deserved team.

Super XV is strongest 5 teams from each country, Not strongest XV from southern Hemp.

Would you be happy if New Zealand said they had the strongest teams and wanted to enter a 6th team and either Aus or SA lose a place and only enter 4 teams to make room?

(I know Super XV is expanding to make room, but say it was set at 15.)

Kinshu, the scenario is slightly different in the SH. the whole thins is you have three countries basically on par with one another in most aspects of rugby , and also you have the vast distances, so it is very unlikely that SA will get a sixth Franchise in place of OZ. Remember also for many years, SA and OZ had fewer teams than NZ anyway.

I am not saying it must be the way I suggest, but I have read many complaints about some underserved teams in the HC in the past few months.

All I am trying to get to is there are far too many teams in the HC in my view.

Griff wrote:This is where I disagree with the Elite bit, Biltong. For me, although this is an Elite competition, I take that to mean pro but I think you would prefer it to be 'Elitist'. And this is where I think we should (and currently do) follow the football model.

In the Chamions league each country is guaranteed 1 place at least, with the stronger nations getting more places. But at least everyone is included and is allowed to feel part of the european showcase event. They do have qualifying rounds but that's because there are 53 nations which would mean massive pools! Everyone being involved helps to grow the sport and keep it 'grown', for want of a better term. Kicking out Belgium or Polish teams beacuse they're league is weaker, so their representatives don't add much to the competition, would ruin the tournament IMO.

If in rugby we went down to strongest leagues then there is the risk that nations won't be represented. They may never come back from this as lack of HC may mean players leave, funding dries, up, sponsors do a runner, etc.

Some will argue that we already have an elitist structure in that Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Russia, etc. are not represented. OK, fair enough. But let's not make it even more elitist by only including the strongest leagues (and only the strongest in the Pro 12). Perhaps we can add in other European nations at a later date when they become strong enough.

Overall, for me the Heineken Cup should be about european nations sending teams to represent their rugby. So, at the moment that should be 6 nations in my opinion. We shouldn't risk having just 4 nations as could happen under the current proposals. Just my opinion.

Griff, I realise every competition can't be all things to all people. But aren't the 6 nations in the HC already represented in the RABO, TOp 14 and Premiership?

If the HC is there to be a European competition whereby all nations are represented regradless of quality, then by all means, split it in a fair manner to all countries, but isn't that what the English and te Frnach are complaining about at the moment?

Alternatively if it is supposed to be the elite teams that must compete, then just take the three competitions (RABO, TOP 14 and Premiership) and have the top teams in those three comps compete.

Biltong the H-cup looks like its being reduced from 24 to 20 teams. (thats were munstermacs idea falls down as still based on 24).

If the Super XV were to be reduced back to super XIII, would Aus be happy if they were told that since SA and NZ have bigger TV deals and better teams (supposedly), that it will be Aus that loses 2 teams and NZ and SA are uneffected. I don't think Aus would just accept that. Thats effictivly whats happening in Europe.

also as you state the problem is either Elite based or Union based qualifation, and this is where the Unions are disagreeing.

In the negotiations some want qualification solely league based and others want it to remain Union based, and hence I think we will see a mixture of both methods.

That is why my proposed mobel mixes both, should keep all members happy.

MunsterMac wrote:Having read through this and the other tread (which was tough going!) https://www.606v2.com/t36401-an-8x3-club-side-hec-competition I don't think anyone has suggested a playoff system.

i.e.

England - 7
France - 7
Rabo - 7

And then a home / away playoff between the 8th and 9th teams in the 3 leagues for the remaining 3 places.

That way noboby can complain that a certain team (lets say Connacht) didn't earn their place in the Group stages.

It would also mean that the ideology of a "European Cup" would be maintained as all teams would be given the opportunity to qualify if they're good enough ala League Of Ireland soccer clubs in the Champions league.

Also it would allow the English / French clubs to have the expanded numbers they want but again only if they were good enough.

Finally I don't think finding space for the extra games would be a problem as given that it would be low ranked teams there probably wouldn't be too many international players involved and I think the clubs would be delighted at the opportunity to qualify for the group stages.

Please Sir! Please Sir! Me! Me! Me Sir! I did Sir!

I said that the 8x3 pool mix was negotiable,Sir!

Mr Binary told me that eight pools gives eight winners.
Mr Combination told me that there were fewer games in the pools.
And I heard Mr Lucky amd Mr Chance arguing in the staff room.

Sorry Sir!

Kingshu wrote:Also with beshocked with 6,6, 8 England and France do not make any losses in reducing from 24 to 20 teams, only Pro 12 Unions

With 5,5,8 all reduce teams, but with a European League co-efficient the strongest performing leagues get to claim a place back.

Note its strongest performing Leagues (using a co-efficient of the league teams average performance in Europe) can't be described as coat tailing, as its not nessarally winners that get the extra place, its a measure of League strenght, and hence a stronger league has earned the right for an extra team. That extra team is there because it was recongised that the league it tougher with more quality teams, and hence the place they finished deserved to represented in H-cup.

I would be happy with this if it was treated as a league. Not an union.

E.g. if Leinster wins the HC, the 9th top side in the Pro12 gets a HC place.

I would even hold the olive branch that if a Pro12 side wins both the HC and Amlin - the Pro12 gets 10 place. The 10th place going to the side 10th in the league.

This would give 5,5,10 and reward success in the European competitions.

Alternatively if an English side wins both the Amlin and HC they get two extra places - bringing to 7. Same if two French sides win - 7.

What do you think?

Kinshu, the basis of the HC has always been from what I can see a competition on unequal terms.

You have six nations competing in three domestic competitions, England and France have always had more teams compete than the other 4 nations.

I don't think there is an easy solution to the problem.

Ideally if you want to represent all six nations fairly you want equal number of teams from all six.

Problem is Scotland only has 2 professional teams, Italy may have more, but not up to standard, Ireland and Wales can muster 4 regional teams, but once again are they able to all be competitive?

England and France have the teams and the big payrolls.

So how are you ever going to keep everyone happy?

The Super XV has progressed slowly to a point where it is now deemed fair as all three nations ahve the same number of teams, but then Australia showed this year what happens when you have three pooor teams in one conference and the benefit to the other two remaining teams in that conference.

I guess the super XV's only problem is the format, not the teams.

Similarly, the HC with their 6 groups of 4 teams have a situation where currently a team can perform over a small pool and qaulify.

I have always believed of you want to create a competition that allows the better teams to progess and reduce the "fortune" factor, then have less pools and more pool matches per pool.

Not sure what the answer is, but it is clear, there are devided camps as to how teams should qualify for the HC, and what is the best format going forward.

The HEC has to do three things in my opinion.

1. Be the toughest competition possible with the best teams in Europe

2. Be run by the Unions in a way that encourages the improvement of rugby in all nations concerned as well as protecting their right to exist at the table.

3. The competition has to be on a level footing for all teams, there needs to be a measure of equal opportunity to profit financially and to garner results for all included..

maestegmafia wrote:The HEC has to do three things in my opinion.

1. Be the toughest competition possible with the best teams in Europe

2. Be run by the Unions in a way that encourages the improvement of rugby in all nations concerned as well as protecting their right to exist at the table.

3. The competition has to be on a level footing for all teams, there needs to be a measure of equal opportunity to profit financially and to garner results for all included..

So what is the solution?

maestegmafia, would you not say the above model, satisfies all the union members.

Rewards performace of Leagues, has all Unions represented, and has 2/3 places in Rabo based on performace, as English and French wish.

1) tougher comp reduced from 24 to 20 teams
2) still run by Unions each union has at least one repesentive, smaller nations still get place if win Almin (should be changed in number of years, maybe back up to 24 once smaller nations can fill 4 spots with quality teams)
3) Money divided to each Union as is currently done, bigger portion goes to prize money for group 1st 2nd 3rd finish and knockouts rewared better.

Anyone got any reasonable problems with this solution?

Kingshu wrote:Anyone got any reasonable problems with this solution?

Yup, we want more money. That answer is probably about as popular as a hog roast at a bar mitzvah but never mind.

Kingshu wrote:Anyone got any reasonable problems with this solution?

I have. Any solution that includes free passes of any description and no top-ups from best of the rest qualifiers from already imbalanced pools will perpetuate an already flawed system.

A pox on Kungshu, the APL, ERC and all-comers who deny the fundamental and Universal truth of mathematics.

Kingshu,to me it seems that Rabo Unions & several of their fans on here only care about the HC & not concerned about Amlin & below.So my proposal is 50% from Each league with extra one in order of qualification HC winner if not Quaified by league,then Amlin Winner,then HC runner up,then Amlin runner up. if all four qualify by league some sort of play off(open to suggestions)giving a 20 team 1ST tier comp. A 2nd tier comp of rest of league teams with 2 from other countries to form a 20 team comp. A 3rd tier of 20 teams from other countries with top 2 qualifying for 2nd tier.Money to be split on a per game played (rather than union) after a figure removed for 3rd tier comp.You get the same money for being in the 2nd tier as the 1st & the same for winning 2ND tier as 1st.

Kinshu, you won't get a perfect solution because you are mixing private clubs with central union elite teams. The HC was originally a club competition - but the rules were fudged and have been left with a permanent compromise that one side will ultimately never be satisfied with.

Recwatcher
+1

Recwatcher wrote:Kinshu, you won't get a perfect solution because you are mixing private clubs with central union elite teams. The HC was originally a club competition - but the rules were fudged and have been left with a permanent compromise that one side will ultimately never be satisfied with.

When did that original bit begin? Irish Provinces were in HC from the original beginning in 1995. Incidently, English clubs weren't.

Recwatcher wrote:Kinshu, you won't get a perfect solution because you are mixing private clubs with central union elite teams. The HC was originally a club competition - but the rules were fudged and have been left with a permanent compromise that one side will ultimately never be satisfied with.

The HC was set up by the respective Unions not the clubs. The English and French clubs are "invited" to play in the competition. They set their own qualification standard (I dont think the RFU or FFR interfere with this).

Here's a possible solution...remove the invite tell them to f...off and play each other in some non event.

The HC is a european competition not a league competition. That means that Italian, Scottish, Welsh and Irish RFUs set the qualification. Its fine now the only reason the changes are being asked for is money...Kerry Packer anyone.

IIRC Irish teams were the only union clubs originally,an exception as they had a historical bases.Wales & Scotland changed with professionalism as unable to support more teams
DOD so you have 2 Rabo only comps,how long could that be viable?

broadlandboy wrote:IIRC Irish teams were the only union clubs originally,an exception as they had a historical bases.Wales & Scotland changed with professionalism as unable to support more teams
DOD so you have 2 Rabo only comps,how long could that be viable?

Long enough. The premiership clubs are the ones making most of the noise the french clubs are just going along for the ride....

DOD if you believe that you are in trouble,the French clubs want change as much as the PRL.They make more from their league than the HC & would happily expand that.

English Clubs care more about their League than HC.
French Clubs care much more and earn more from their League than the HC.
And yet the calls for HC change are coming from the clubs that openly profess that League is more important? And that *yawn* the HC ain't as important as the 'Celts' like to think it is?

Maybe, if that's the case, the PRL should then simply look to France, see how they're making money from their own league and mimic it more closely? Maybe then they'd be happier to look on the HC as a nice little diversion every year to take away the stresses and strains of the main moneymaking event, the AP. If clubs want more money - maybe making more of it in their own League might be a starting point.

I believe that the minute the respective unions lose control of the HEC it will become a nothing competition with private individuals running the show and it will get squeezed further and further. I belive the English clubs need this more than the french and as with a few years ago and at the beginning of the competition the Unions must face them down.

I also believe that if the french and english pulled out a full on Rabo league would be quite successful.

and the french and english will come back with their tails between their legs sooner rather than later

Is it a Club or Union competition? If it is a Union Comp how come you have non qualified players in your teams?

broadlandboy wrote:Is it a Club or Union competition? If it is a Union Comp how come you have non qualified players in your teams?

At Present - it is Union controlled - as in the Unions that make up the Six Nation group have given the ERC the powers to control and run the HC and Amlin. That's the business bit. Union controlled.

On the field, it is evidently neither. It is both Clubs, Regions and Provinces. It is a competition. Private clubs can no more dictate terms than can any of the individual Unions, regions or provinces.

SecretFly it seems that the Fra/Eng teams agree with you as they have given notice to withdraw as the others were not open to debate about change so trying to dictate to them.

broadlandboy wrote:SecretFly it seems that the Fra/Eng teams agree with you as they have given notice to withdraw as the others were not open to debate about change so trying to dictate to them.

But it's more complicated, broadband. The PRL gave the notice to withdraw (the private club section of English rugby) and they signed a TV deal to prove they were serious. All fine so far. They have a right not to like what they see or what they are getting.
BUT......... who did they run into trouble with? The ERC? Well, yes, but they expected that. They also though ran into hot water with the RFU (their very own Union section of English rugby). The RFU is a shareholder in the current European ERC set-up and they've been vocal in their disquiet about how the PRL have operated.

And there you have your evidence that it is complicated, that it is much more than 'club, that it always was much more than 'club', that 'clubs' never created or controlled the competition and that nobody 'dictates' in a room of equal shareholders.

There will be negotiations and a solution. That's really all we can say. Will it mean the end of clubs, regions and provinces playing together in a competition every year? I don't think so.

I agree..The RFU were unhappy because the PRL signed a Media agreement which goes beyond an agreement that they have together,due to IRB regs that unions hold media rights.
No comments on my proposal above,is it acceptable to everyone?

broadlandboy wrote:Kingshu,to me it seems that Rabo Unions & several of their fans on here only care about the HC & not concerned about Amlin & below.So my proposal is 50% from Each league with extra one in order of qualification HC winner if not Quaified by league,then Amlin Winner,then HC runner up,then Amlin runner up. if all four qualify by league some sort of play off(open to suggestions)giving a 20 team 1ST tier comp. A 2nd tier comp of rest of league teams with 2 from other countries to form a 20 team comp. A 3rd tier of 20 teams from other countries with top 2 qualifying for 2nd tier.Money to be split on a per game played (rather than union) after a figure removed for 3rd tier comp.You get the same money for being in the 2nd tier as the 1st & the same for winning 2ND tier as 1st.

To me, your proposal seems to be an attempt to virtually equalise both 1st Tier(currently HC) and 2nd Tier (currently Amlin) certainly in terms of money earned. Maybe I'm reading that wrong? But if right, where is the inducement to have one of those contests being of a higher standard than the other? If the rewards are the same for competing in and for winning both then why would 1st tier be marketed as the 'best'? If Tier 1 was the major source of profits for the controlling TV companies, why would the sides creating the profit accept less of the more wholesome pot than Tier 2?

I'm not sure that would go down too well with the very clubs that now have the isues - the English and French top sides. Would they be happy that they struggle to get to the top six so that they can compete in the BIG one (Tier 1) and then see the lesser league sides walk into Amlin and get the same monetary rewards? In fact, then even club sides might be accused of not trying in their individual leagues (the accusation made about Pro12 sides currently), as long as they were away from the relegation trapdoor.


I might not be reading your proposal correctly but I think I see the equality of monetary gains in both competitions being a bigger issue for the French and English leagues than the others.

SecretFly wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Kingshu,to me it seems that Rabo Unions & several of their fans on here only care about the HC & not concerned about Amlin & below.So my proposal is 50% from Each league with extra one in order of qualification HC winner if not Quaified by league,then Amlin Winner,then HC runner up,then Amlin runner up. if all four qualify by league some sort of play off(open to suggestions)giving a 20 team 1ST tier comp. A 2nd tier comp of rest of league teams with 2 from other countries to form a 20 team comp. A 3rd tier of 20 teams from other countries with top 2 qualifying for 2nd tier.Money to be split on a per game played (rather than union) after a figure removed for 3rd tier comp.You get the same money for being in the 2nd tier as the 1st & the same for winning 2ND tier as 1st.

To me, your proposal seems to be an attempt to virtually equalise both 1st Tier(currently HC) and 2nd Tier (currently Amlin) certainly in terms of money earned. Maybe I'm reading that wrong? But if right, where is the inducement to have one of those contests being of a higher standard than the other? If the rewards are the same for competing in and for winning both then why would 1st tier be marketed as the 'best'? If Tier 1 was the major source of profits for the controlling TV companies, why would the sides creating the profit accept less of the more wholesome pot than Tier 2?

I'm not sure that would go down too well with the very clubs that now have the isues - the English and French top sides. Would they be happy that they struggle to get to the top six so that they can compete in the BIG one (Tier 1) and then see the lesser league sides walk into Amlin and get the same monetary rewards? In fact, then even club sides might be accused of not trying in their individual leagues (the accusation made about Pro12 sides currently), as long as they were away from the relegation trapdoor.


I might not be reading your proposal correctly but I think I see the equality of monetary gains in both competitions being a bigger issue for the French and English leagues than the others.

That's the status quo at the moment - the english share of the ERC pot is split 13 ways, mostly equally, so it probably isn't an issue. The financial reward of HC is in bigger gates, better sponsorship, and the prospect of prize money.


In other news, it seems that ERC have met with the French clubs(but not PRL) and had 2 counter-proposals rejected. One was for a 32 team HC, the other for a 24 team HC but with Amlin reduced to 16.

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-union/news/article/504/8194500/england-and-france-in-harmony

Just to throw another spanner into the works of the club vs province debate, and what the HC is intended for; in Wales me may have things called regions seemingly along the same lines of provinces, but to all intents and purposes they are clubs. They're run the same as English premiership clubs more or less. Only the Dragons are 50% owned by the WRU, but that was because the other half bailed and 1 of only 4 pro teams going down the pan would not have been great. Sure, the clubs (regions/provinces) get big handouts from the national governing body but we're told that's for player release, so the rest of the operation is privately funded as a 'normal' sports business. Hence the involement of benefactors (Thomas at Blues, Cuddy at Ospreys, Brown at Dragons) just like your benefactors in the prem. Don't let the 'regional' badge fool you.

SecretFly
That is correct. I went that way as on numerous occasions it has been said that the PRL want more money to creat a bigger gap between the haves & the have nots with those in the 2nd tier being left behind. The incentive is the prestige which would bring larger gate money & greater sponsership potential.If ,as I believe you want, a larger share in prize money this will only increase the money gap,if you are doing well you will get more money which would enable you to spend more getting the better players,

Except the pool of talent is relatively finite.
More money chasing fewer goods in a market with inelastic supply leads to higher prices right?

Interesting article in today's telegraph:

RUGBY UNION
Clubs threaten Dublin boycott
Premiership Rugby favours ‘cooling off’ period in talks to decide future of Heineken Cup after Paris snub
By Gavin Mairs
England’s top clubs, angered at being excluded from a meeting of key European stakeholders in Paris on Wednesday, may pull out of negotiations in Dublin next week to resolve the future structure of the Heineken Cup.
Premiership Rugby is due to make a call by close of business today about how best to proceed with the process, with a postponement in the talks until after the autumn internationals being considered to provide a “cooling-off period”.
Yet tensions have been heightened by the Paris meeting, which was attended by representatives from all six unions, including Ian Ritchie, the chief executive of the Rugby Football Union, Rob Andrew, the professional rugby director, and the French clubs.
There is a feeling among the English clubs that the decision not to invite them to the meeting was intended to drive a wedge between them and their French counterparts, who had backed Premiership Rugby’s calls for a reform of the structure of the Heineken Cup.
It is understood two proposals were put to the French clubs, including an enlarged tournament of 32 clubs, made up of 10 English clubs, 10 from the RaboDirect Pro 12 and 12 from the French Top 14, with the Amlin Challenge Cup to be scrapped.Encouragingly for the English clubs, that proposal, along with a second – which they were also opposed to – that retained the status quo of the Heineken Cup but reduced the Challenge Cup to 16 teams, was rejected by the French representatives.
It is understood the French clubs also intimated they would not countenance a European tournament that did not include their English counterparts, which effectively ruled out any possibility of setting up a new tournament without the agreement of the Aviva Premiership clubs.
The reaffirming of the Anglo-French alliance, if nothing else, is likely to leave the Celtic and Italian unions in little doubt about the seriousness of their calls for the Heineken Cup to be overhauled. The English and French clubs want the Heineken Cup to be reduced to 20 clubs, with only the top six from each of the three leagues qualifying.
Despite the Paris snub, the Premiership clubs are understood to be willing to compromise over the qualification criteria. “Our position on the competition format post 2014 is clear," said Premiership Rugby’s chief executive Mark McCafferty.
“We have given that to every stakeholder and it is in agreement with the French clubs. Wednesday was an unnecessary distraction but we look forward to deciding how best we might try to take future discussions forward."

t is understood two proposals were put to the French clubs, including an enlarged tournament of 32 clubs, made up of 10 English clubs, 10 from the RaboDirect Pro 12 and 12 from the French Top 14, with the Amlin Challenge Cup to be scrapped.Encouragingly for the English clubs, that proposal, along with a second – which they were also opposed to – that retained the status quo of the Heineken Cup but reduced the Challenge Cup to 16 teams, was rejected by the French representatives

So once again the simplicity of multiples of eight raises its head.

Eventually they will get to

Reduce to 20 teams as French and English seam to wish.
Qualification is 5,5,8
Then award the top two performing leagues, using a co-efficient based on European performance, an extra place each? (if Pro 12 is one of top 2 leagues, then it is highest non qualified team, not going to any Union).

So England and France could have 5-6 teams and pro 12 Unions 8-9 teams, depending on who have the top two performaing leagues.

This reduces the English and French represention by 1 team each and Pro 12 Unions by 2. But 2 of the 3 leagues can claim an extra place back.

Pro 12 qualification is divided
IRFU 2 teams
WRU 2 teams
SRU 1 team
FIR 1 team
Next 2 (3, if Pro 12 is one of top 2 leagues) highest non qualified team, regardless of Union.

Kingshu wrote:Eventually they will get to

Reduce to 20 teams as French and English seam to wish.
Qualification is 5,5,8
Then award the top two performing leagues, using a co-efficient based on European performance, an extra place each? (if Pro 12 is one of top 2 leagues, then it is highest non qualified team, not going to any Union).

So England and France could have 5-6 teams and pro 12 Unions 8-9 teams, depending on who have the top two performaing leagues.

This reduces the English and French represention by 1 team each and Pro 12 Unions by 2. But 2 of the 3 leagues can claim an extra place back.

Pro 12 qualification is divided
IRFU 2 teams
WRU 2 teams
SRU 1 team
FIR 1 team
Next 2 (3, if Pro 12 is one of top 2 leagues) highest non qualified team, regardless of Union.

Why will they get to this?