H-cup a realistic solution, accepable to you?

by Kingshu Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:40 am

First topic message reminder :

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.

by broadlandboy Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:57 pm

Did they know before hand that the PRL wasn't going to be there?
IMVHO this has only strengthened the Clubs as it shows it isn't just the PRL & the ERC are worried
Kingsu
New meeting this week,report from Telegraph at bottom of previuos page IIRC
Sorry Page ONE

by maestegmafia Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:17 pm

DOD wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:
DOD
The ERC had a meeting with all interested parties exept the PRL to try & get the French on side. They said"Non"

They said they were unhappy that the PRL werent represented....but they still went along

Which meeting are you talking about, the PRL have been represented at all ERC meetings this year and previously so far as I know...?

by Toadfish Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:20 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
DOD wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:
DOD
The ERC had a meeting with all interested parties exept the PRL to try & get the French on side. They said"Non"

They said they were unhappy that the PRL werent represented....but they still went along

Which meeting are you talking about, the PRL have been represented at all ERC meetings this year and previously so far as I know...?

Nope, see the sneaky meeting yesterday that's in all the papers today. You have to wonder about the stupidity of the ERC. France haven't been that clear about what they want out of this but one thing they have been pretty clear on is wanting less teams. Cue the suggestion for a 32 team comp...

by broadlandboy Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:22 pm

Toadfish wrote: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."

by Big Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:23 pm

DOD wrote:No suggestion its to do with jealousy of recent Irish success. Its primarily to do with Money in this case and when Money becomes the primary factor then good luck. Its a european competition. Thats how I like my HC. If you think the PR teams will survive without it or even prosper then good luck to them they havent/couldnt in the past and wont in the future. The French clubs could but they still see it as a positive which is why their support for the PRL is half hearted.

DOD - I wasn't really aiming that comment at you. In an odd sense I agree with you about it being primarily about money, and said as much in one of the previous threads. I'm not overkeen with the focus on money, but equally I respect the clubs right to independence and the benefits that independent clubs bring. Lets face it places like Argentina and the pacific islands don't have pro leagues and couldn't play as competitively as they have without the English and French leagues allowing many of their players to train as pros and play regularly at a high level.

For a number of reasons I have for a long time thought that the way forward is to seperate club and national rugby. I.e. if PRL want to operate as independent companies let them, ringfence it seperate it from the rest of the English structure and move on. That gives them the financial independence they want, but equally denies them the benefits of being part of a national structure - no RFU funding for academies, players not picked for England (so no EPS funding and advertising by proxy), HC places go to Championship teams, etc. Then divert all the RFU funding that currently goes into PRL to the championship - do all the things that should have been done when the game first went pro (central contracts, more sensible controls on club finances, funding linked to infrastructure improvement, etc) and create an English top tier that fits in with the lower and higher levels rather than one with seperate goals and a desire to act independently of the rest.

At the moment it seems we are trying to find a suitable shaped hole for both square pegs and round pegs, and the bottom line is that whatever you try either one the other or both won't fit.

by SecretFly Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:27 pm

Toadfish wrote:

Nope, see the sneaky meeting yesterday that's in all the papers today. You have to wonder about the stupidity of the ERC. France haven't been that clear about what they want out of this but one thing they have been pretty clear on is wanting less teams. Cue the suggestion for a 32 team comp...

Yes, there was a sneaky meeting yesterday. Who was at it? Them sly Union dogs! Including the RFU. Who didn't tell who about the meeting? Or maybe who did tell who about the meeting but told them not to object until the meeting took place so that the anger could be better projected?

by broadlandboy Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:29 pm

Big
and cripple England for their home world Cup,this might be what you want.IMVHO this could finish rugby in England & possibly the world

by Toadfish Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:02 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Toadfish wrote:

Nope, see the sneaky meeting yesterday that's in all the papers today. You have to wonder about the stupidity of the ERC. France haven't been that clear about what they want out of this but one thing they have been pretty clear on is wanting less teams. Cue the suggestion for a 32 team comp...

Yes, there was a sneaky meeting yesterday. Who was at it? Them sly Union dogs! Including the RFU. Who didn't tell who about the meeting? Or maybe who did tell who about the meeting but told them not to object until the meeting took place so that the anger could be better projected?

Read into it what you will but here's another paper calling it a 'secret' meeting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/25/premiership-clubs-talks-heineken-cup

Coupled with the fact that the ERC website is usually pretty keen to publicise these meetings (and haven't) makes me think it was a bit of a sneaky affair.

by SecretFly Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:11 pm

Toadfish wrote:
Read into it what you will but here's another paper calling it a 'secret' meeting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/25/premiership-clubs-talks-heineken-cup

No, I genuinely agree with you - it was a sneaky meeting.

But the RFU were at it (there is telephone, e-mail etc links between people in PRL and people in RFU? There is cross-pollination of contacts there?) I'm simply asking why the RFU didn't tell the PRL that there was going to be a meeting and that the French clubs would be represented? Seems if you can't even trust your own Union - and if they in turn can't trust you (the TV deal that the RFU weren't happy about) then you yet again have as big an internal problem within English rugby itself as you have an external one - the issues with ERC and Pro12.

by ME-109 Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:15 pm

And interestingly enough the FFR and French clubs attended. The last time the French clubs backed down when the FFR threatened them....in the early days the PRL tried it on....same as ever..they now think the BT deal is the turning point.....same old same old.

by broadlandboy Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:17 pm

Did the RFU know that the PRL hadn't been invited beforehand? The ERC organised .I would have expecteed them to invite everyone

by Big Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:25 pm

broadlandboy wrote:Big
and cripple England for their home world Cup,this might be what you want.IMVHO this could finish rugby in England & possibly the world

It couldn't happen before the world cup as the current contracts between the RFU and PRL run to the season after, so I'd see any change happening then. Beyond that I can't really see how it would finish rugby in England - let alone the world. I remember well enough what the Premiership was like in the mid to late 90s, and the Championship is better than that! It would mean taking a backwards step and it would take time to recover, but planned well in advance it could be significantly less painful than say the formation of the regions in Wales.

by SecretFly Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:33 pm

broadlandboy wrote:Did the RFU know that the PRL hadn't been invited beforehand? The ERC organised .I would have expecteed them to invite everyone

Ah come on broadband. The first thing any executive would ask when being invited to a meeting, especially about such an important issue at such an important time, is "Who is going to be there?" And I mean that would be a formal request. They'd want to know who they'd be meeting with - just Union execs, execs and their lawyers, Unions and club reps - which. They'd ask. And certainly if they didn't ask, there is still enough behind the scenes emaling, texting and phoning between sources to make it certain they'd know who was getting invited.

Maybe a journalist should just ask them then. "Did you guys know your very own PRL didn't get an invite? Why didn't you either tell them or actually protest in support of their presence?"

by maestegmafia Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:43 pm

Toadfish wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
DOD wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:
DOD
The ERC had a meeting with all interested parties exept the PRL to try & get the French on side. They said"Non"

They said they were unhappy that the PRL werent represented....but they still went along

Which meeting are you talking about, the PRL have been represented at all ERC meetings this year and previously so far as I know...?

Nope, see the sneaky meeting yesterday that's in all the papers today. You have to wonder about the stupidity of the ERC. France haven't been that clear about what they want out of this but one thing they have been pretty clear on is wanting less teams. Cue the suggestion for a 32 team comp...

Just read the articles in the guardian and Telegraph. I think the articles reflect that PRL are unhappy at being excluded from talks that the RFU and all other nations unions were invited to, but to be honest it is the PRL that attempted to negotiate a deal without any of the other nations being included, when they structured their proposal involving BT.

Also note that both articles are solely based on Mark McCafferty's side of the story, not the RFU, (who think that the PRL acted illegally in selling to BT), nor the other unions nor the ERC. Until we hear their sides of the story, these articles bare little weight to the future discussions.

by broadlandboy Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:47 pm

I agree that is one question I would like asked?
Big
You think that all the PRL team supporters would just move to another team?
The best players would be signed up by the PRL so the England team wouldnt be so good,the supporters won't go .The RFU are one of the top 3 Unions with the money to back the IRB,take that away what happens to the IRB?
Maest
It does show that it isnt just the PRL who are unhappy.It has often been said on these forums that get the French onside because its the English causing all the trouble so strengthening the Clubs position

by maestegmafia Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:53 pm

broadlandboy wrote:I agree that is one question I would like asked?
Big
You think that all the PRL team supporters would just move to another team?
The best players would be signed up by the PRL so the England team wouldnt be so good,the supporters won't go .The RFU are one of the top 3 Unions with the money to back the IRB,take that away what happens to the IRB?
Maest
It does show that it isnt just the PRL who are unhappy.It has often been said on these forums that get the French onside because its the English causing all the trouble so strengthening the Clubs position

I would say that everyone involved probably doesn't see the PRL as a trust worthy company. They have already dealt an illegal deal behind the backs of even their own Union the RFU.

I think every country would have suggestions for a better HEC. It appears we all want the same thing. A successful and fantastic HEC all parties seem willing to compromise and to construct objective debate over the best direction for the competition.

I think it would be best if the PRL let the RFU represent English rugby's interests regarding European rugby.

by Toadfish Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:56 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
Toadfish wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
DOD wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:
DOD
The ERC had a meeting with all interested parties exept the PRL to try & get the French on side. They said"Non"

They said they were unhappy that the PRL werent represented....but they still went along

Which meeting are you talking about, the PRL have been represented at all ERC meetings this year and previously so far as I know...?

Nope, see the sneaky meeting yesterday that's in all the papers today. You have to wonder about the stupidity of the ERC. France haven't been that clear about what they want out of this but one thing they have been pretty clear on is wanting less teams. Cue the suggestion for a 32 team comp...

Just read the articles in the guardian and Telegraph. I think the articles reflect that PRL are unhappy at being excluded from talks that the RFU and all other nations unions were invited to, but to be honest it is the PRL that attempted to negotiate a deal without any of the other nations being included, when they structured their proposal involving BT.

Also note that both articles are solely based on Mark McCafferty's side of the story, not the RFU, (who think that the PRL acted illegally in selling to BT), nor the other unions nor the ERC. Until we hear their sides of the story, these articles bare little weight to the future discussions.

I don't think you are likely to get press releases from parties to a secret meeting. There are no direct quotes but it's clear from the common points in both articles that they have details of what happened and that the French rejected the proposals. I feel that this is only going to bring the French and English closer together as these negotiations continue. I think the rabo nations need to start thinking about what they are prepared to give up to keep the competition alive.

by broadlandboy Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:02 pm

Maest
So have the ERC
you ask the Aviva/English fans,they dont trust the RFU.

by maestegmafia Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:06 pm

Toadfish wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
Toadfish wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
DOD wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:
DOD
The ERC had a meeting with all interested parties exept the PRL to try & get the French on side. They said"Non"

They said they were unhappy that the PRL werent represented....but they still went along

Which meeting are you talking about, the PRL have been represented at all ERC meetings this year and previously so far as I know...?

Nope, see the sneaky meeting yesterday that's in all the papers today. You have to wonder about the stupidity of the ERC. France haven't been that clear about what they want out of this but one thing they have been pretty clear on is wanting less teams. Cue the suggestion for a 32 team comp...

Just read the articles in the guardian and Telegraph. I think the articles reflect that PRL are unhappy at being excluded from talks that the RFU and all other nations unions were invited to, but to be honest it is the PRL that attempted to negotiate a deal without any of the other nations being included, when they structured their proposal involving BT.

Also note that both articles are solely based on Mark McCafferty's side of the story, not the RFU, (who think that the PRL acted illegally in selling to BT), nor the other unions nor the ERC. Until we hear their sides of the story, these articles bare little weight to the future discussions.

I don't think you are likely to get press releases from parties to a secret meeting. There are no direct quotes but it's clear from the common points in both articles that they have details of what happened and that the French rejected the proposals. I feel that this is only going to bring the French and English closer together as these negotiations continue. I think the rabo nations need to start thinking about what they are prepared to give up to keep the competition alive.

They already have, months ago.

by maestegmafia Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:07 pm

broadlandboy wrote:Maest
So have the ERC
you ask the Aviva/English fans,they dont trust the RFU.

More problems with this lie with the relationship between the RFU and PRL than anything else. As many of us have said for a long time English rugby needs to sort itself out. It can't lay its fundamental internal disagreements on the rest of Europe.

by Kingshu Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:10 pm

So all breaks down, No H-cup

English prem increases to 16 teams, so does Top 14, soon to be Top 16.

Pro 12 becomes Pro 16 with 4 USA teams (2 east coast 2 west coast), Pro 12 could be on better terms than either French or English leagues.

by Big Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:16 pm

broadlandboy wrote:I agree that is one question I would like asked?
Big
You think that all the PRL team supporters would just move to another team? No. But other clubs can build support, much as the premiership clubs have done over the last 10-15 years.The best players would be signed up by the PRL so the England team wouldnt be so good,the supporters won't go. The RFU are one of the top 3 Unions with the money to back the IRB,take that away what happens to the IRB? Not convinced on that myself. First, the RFU have more than enough financial clout to contract the players they want the most and ensure that at the very least a core of current players remained available. Plus I'd expect a number of players to move if only to remain elligible for international and European rugby. Second, I can recall a number of times when the England team was poor and they still got good crowds.

Responses above.

It's not something I can ever see happening though. Primarily because the RFU lack the balls and foresight to put their foot down, but also in the event that they did I expect most premiership clubs would abandon PRL and tow the line in an RFU run league rather than going solo.

by **profitius** Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:18 pm

The English/French are very concerned about what happens in the Pro 12 but not too concerned about French teams not taking half their HEC matches seriously. The French are well known to target Top 14 matches but that seems to be swept under the carpet.

Toadfish wrote:
I don't think you are likely to get press releases from parties to a secret meeting. There are no direct quotes but it's clear from the common points in both articles that they have details of what happened and that the French rejected the proposals. I feel that this is only going to bring the French and English closer together as these negotiations continue. I think the rabo nations need to start thinking about what they are prepared to give up to keep the competition alive.

Thats the problem. Its all one way traffic. How about the English and French give up something since they're the ones driving the change.

They're even demanding changes to the Rabo league! Thats taking the p!ss. I'd like to see some changes but not be dictated to by foreign clubs. They're really getting too big for their boots IMO.

by broadlandboy Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:32 pm

Unfortunately money talks.The PRL have a deal for any European comp they are in that seems to be larger than ERC's deal.The French will follow the money.Without the Eng/Fre you would be left with the Rabo,how much is that worth?

by Toadfish Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:47 pm

profitius wrote:The English/French are very concerned about what happens in the Pro 12 but not too concerned about French teams not taking half their HEC matches seriously. The French are well known to target Top 14 matches but that seems to be swept under the carpet.

Toadfish wrote:
I don't think you are likely to get press releases from parties to a secret meeting. There are no direct quotes but it's clear from the common points in both articles that they have details of what happened and that the French rejected the proposals. I feel that this is only going to bring the French and English closer together as these negotiations continue. I think the rabo nations need to start thinking about what they are prepared to give up to keep the competition alive.

Thats the problem. Its all one way traffic. How about the English and French give up something since they're the ones driving the change.

They're even demanding changes to the Rabo league! Thats taking the p!ss. I'd like to see some changes but not be dictated to by foreign clubs. They're really getting too big for their boots IMO.

You are not being dictated to, it's a free market. We've left (or have said we are going to). If you want us back you have to do something to get us there. If you want to come with you have to accept that life will be different. If you don't give a crap say goodbye, au revior, toodle pips and go it alone. What you can't have is to enforce the status quo as two of the major parties aren't happy with it.

by SecretFly Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:52 pm

Toadfish wrote: I think the rabo nations need to start thinking about what they are prepared to give up to keep the competition alive.

...em.... winning it?

It seems that's the only solution some will be happy with.

by Kingshu Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:58 pm

If No agreement is reached, does that mean that the H-cup becomes the property of pro 12 teams, therefor the pro 12 winner gets to call them selves best in Europe?

Means they if ever a new H-cup is formed we'd keep th erecord of wins without French or English teams in it.

by SecretFly Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:22 pm

It means the Rabo goes on as before but only gets more vicious, brutal and slick - as there'll be no more European rugby for us - except the European rugby we already play (four nations involved instead of one)

And the French and English clubs will be allowed go off an print money with a new Anglo-French competition that has a Best in Europe title attached at the end of every season.

And Rabo will look on and smirk.
And the Anglo/French lot will ask us what we're looking at?
And Rabo will say "we're looking at you guys, claiming to be the best in Europe."
And the Anglo French outfit will say "We are"
And we'll say "Prove it"
And they'll say "How?"
And we'll say "play us in a European Cup".
And they'll say "What a bloody good idea actually!" Wink

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:31 pm

SecretFly wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:Did the RFU know that the PRL hadn't been invited beforehand? The ERC organised .I would have expecteed them to invite everyone

Ah come on broadband. The first thing any executive would ask when being invited to a meeting, especially about such an important issue at such an important time, is "Who is going to be there?" And I mean that would be a formal request. They'd want to know who they'd be meeting with - just Union execs, execs and their lawyers, Unions and club reps - which. They'd ask. And certainly if they didn't ask, there is still enough behind the scenes emaling, texting and phoning between sources to make it certain they'd know who was getting invited.

Maybe a journalist should just ask them then. "Did you guys know your very own PRL didn't get an invite? Why didn't you either tell them or actually protest in support of their presence?"

Exactly Fly, this is the usual McCafferty PR bollix - by implication even his own union are happy for him not to be involved in talks about the future of top level European club rugby. Reflects v badly on him and the PRL - makes I larf, so it does!!

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:35 pm

broadlandboy wrote:Unfortunately money talks.The PRL have a deal for any European comp they are in that seems to be larger than ERC's deal.The French will follow the money.Without the Eng/Fre you would be left with the Rabo,how much is that worth?

not really, BB, as the PRL deal covers both prem and Europe, etc. I think Sky will trump the European element of that

by maestegmafia Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:36 pm

The French have said they want to keep the HEC going, they want the English involved too as do the celts and Italians....!

This meeting in Paris was all about working out what is the best way forward, some varied suggestions have been made and some rejected. Things are moving forward well towards salvaging the HEC and hopefully improving it for everyone.

The RFU attended the meeting so they obviously want to stay in Europe, it looks like the PRLs bargaining tools are diminishing fast, BT deal is illegal, RFU don't want to include them in talks on the major competition in Europe, no wonder Mark McCafferty is seething in the press.

by maestegmafia Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:38 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:Unfortunately money talks.The PRL have a deal for any European comp they are in that seems to be larger than ERC's deal.The French will follow the money.Without the Eng/Fre you would be left with the Rabo,how much is that worth?
not really, BB, as the PRL deal covers both prem and Europe, etc. I think Sky will trump the European element of that

The RFU said that the BT deal is illegal. It might be brought to the pot, but BT will have to deal with the RFU and Europe if they want to buy what they thought the PRL had sold them.

Until further talks progress I would say the BT deal is a pipe dream that is unlikely to see fruition.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:38 pm

True that, maes, true

by broadlandboy Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:53 pm

As
The ERC have already sold the rights to a non exsistant comp for the same money as before

by HammerofThunor Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:59 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:Unfortunately money talks.The PRL have a deal for any European comp they are in that seems to be larger than ERC's deal.The French will follow the money.Without the Eng/Fre you would be left with the Rabo,how much is that worth?
not really, BB, as the PRL deal covers both prem and Europe, etc. I think Sky will trump the European element of that

If the Sky deal trumps the European part of the BT deal the PRL are getting more for the premiership off BT than they got for the Premiership AND Europe previously. If so they can tell everyone else to bog off.

The BT European deal needs to be ratified by the RFU (nothing to do with Europe or ERC). All the PRL have to do is say "if we're involved our home games are sold to BT". If that's agreed they'll be involved. If not they won't be.

EDIT: Basically the PRL have sold the rights to something that doesn't yet exist and therefore part of setting up the 'new' competition with be the PRL being able to sell the broadcasting rights.

Fly, I thought you weren't commenting on this topic anymore? Wink

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:42 pm

You know me, Thunor, just can't resist dipping my toes in from time-to-time!! How's you?

by HammerofThunor Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:50 pm

Sorry, that bit was directed at SecretFly.

I am well. Yourself?

by TJ1 Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:54 pm

So - have the english clubs got it yet? Insist on your demands that are all one way traffic and completely without merit then expect to be cold shouldered.

Nasty lying bullies - and as such should be shunned

by Guest Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:01 pm

Aslongas, I'm sure you've mentioned your preferred outcome somewhere but I'm too lazy to find it! I'd be interested to hear your views as you have a foot in both camps, as it were. With your Scottish hat on, are you more inclined towards the view of guaranteed representation (maybe at least 1) from each nation so there's no chance of nations not being there (could happen to the scots teams, and just so easily the welsh. Ireland I'm sure will be fine!). Or, with your Exeter hat on are you leaning towards the merit based system where you have to qualify and be in the top half of the league?

by Toadfish Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:15 pm

TJ wrote:So - have the english clubs got it yet? Insist on your demands that are all one way traffic and completely without merit then expect to be cold shouldered.

Nasty lying bullies - and as such should be shunned

Yes nasty old England trying to look after their own interests. How dare they? If only they would just bugger off and do something on their own. Oh wait, they have?

by maestegmafia Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:19 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:If the Sky deal trumps the European part of the BT deal the PRL are getting more for the premiership off BT than they got for the Premiership AND Europe previously. If so they can tell everyone else to bog off.

The BT European deal needs to be ratified by the RFU (nothing to do with Europe or ERC). All the PRL have to do is say "if we're involved our home games are sold to BT". If that's agreed they'll be involved. If not they won't be.

EDIT: Basically the PRL have sold the rights to something that doesn't yet exist and therefore part of setting up the 'new' competition with be the PRL being able to sell the broadcasting rights.

Do you not want England to be involved with a European competition?

by Guest Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:29 pm

The problem in all of this is that we're trying to compare apples and oranges and trying to fit a system to both. We've got two single nation leagues (top 14 and AP) vs a euro league (pro 12). The suggestions seem to be that the qualification should be the same for all (top 6 from each, etc.) but that doesn't account for the difference in the types of league that we have.

I guess a way for me as a pro 12 fan/follower to explain our predicament to English prem fans would be to imagine the English prem joining the top 14, and there's been suggestion of this, and then the top half of that league get's to go to Europe which could mean no English representation. The fans may say 'ok fine', but the clubs in this negotiation stage may have more of a problem with it, and I think that's what the Pro 12 sides are fighting at the moment.

by HammerofThunor Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:10 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:If the Sky deal trumps the European part of the BT deal the PRL are getting more for the premiership off BT than they got for the Premiership AND Europe previously. If so they can tell everyone else to bog off.

The BT European deal needs to be ratified by the RFU (nothing to do with Europe or ERC). All the PRL have to do is say "if we're involved our home games are sold to BT". If that's agreed they'll be involved. If not they won't be.

EDIT: Basically the PRL have sold the rights to something that doesn't yet exist and therefore part of setting up the 'new' competition with be the PRL being able to sell the broadcasting rights.

Do you not want England to be involved with a European competition?

I'd rather a proper European competition rather than a 6 Nations love in. Regardless of whether that mean the other nations get less money or not.

If it goes it won't be the end of my world in any way shape or form. However it's not going to go. Concessions will be made and something will go ahead. Highly unlikely it'll be either what we have now or the original French proposals. The CC is crap (made all the worse with the stupid parachuted in HEC worst runners up) and needs improving. Other European nations (with as many professional teams as Wales and IReland put together) need to be included somewhere.

by Guest Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:22 pm

Hammer, when you say you'd rather have a proper European competition, do you mean you would prefer to have more nations in the HC, or whatever it will be called? As in, representation from more than 6? How would you guarantee that representation?

Not trying to argue or pick holes, I just genuinely don't know your view and don't really want to go back over all of the previous posts!

by HammerofThunor Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:48 pm

Georgia and Russia both have professional leagues (8 and 10 teams, respectively) and yet they aren't involved in any other cross border competition with other professional structures at any level.

People are saying Scotland and Italy MUST be involved for it to be a European competition but then other countries are ignored. It's not a 'European' competition; it is the 6 nations domestic/club competition. The only reason Scotland and Italy MUST be involved is because they are part owners of the current set-up. There's nothing intrinsically special about any nation 'deserving' representation. You get it by negotiating that/those spots. If you want to have the moral high ground and say it's for the good of European rugby you have to expand it out to other nations.

Have you got any idea how good the russian clubs are? They're probably rubbish as their national team isn't great but that speculation because I've never known them to play regularly against opposition I 'know' the standard of.

I like the idea of a third tier (funded out of the 1st tier's pocket) for the other rugby nations. If the Russians batter all the others then they should be able to negotiate involvement in the 2nd tier, etc.

by Guest Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:03 pm

All for that hammer. And yes, I agree that the need for representation from the 6 is because it is all 6 that are part owners. But for me, I'd prefer to see it grow (e.g. Adding teams from Romania, Georgia, Russia, etc.) slowly rather than taking away, which is what would happen if we went down the 'top 6 from the 3 leagues' rule. Italy would be gone straight away, looking at the last few Pro 12 leagues.

by maestegmafia Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Scotland would likely go before Italy.

If the nations are excluded! the top tier of rugby would move away from them. Scottish rugby would quickly lose its few fans, lose money and the game would die. Scotland and Italy need help not hindrance.

It would be great to see new emerging nations like Moldova, Russia and Georgia join the ERC.

A three tier competition is a must. Promotion to the next level by winning the level they enter at.

by HammerofThunor Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:46 pm

[EDIT: to griff] That's because you see it as HEC and 'other'. We need to a series of competitions that are all a draw. The CC shouldn't a graveyard that no-one cares about. More the weaker teams into a 3rd tier, move some from the top tier into the second and have it so most are on a relatively even and competitive. Currently if someone is in the CC it's seen as a disaster (it would end Scottish rugby apparently). That needs to change (it will always be the case in some ways but the gap shouldn't be as large as it is).]

Maesteg, aye that's the best way of introducing it.

I'd prefer a minimum of 1 from each participant with the rest by position (if that's the route we go down)

Also, the money can be divided anyway wanted so it doesn't have to be the driving issue (e.g. SRU could get the same lump regardless of what competition they're in a get bonus for reaching QF, like everyone else).

by Feckless Rogue Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:00 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:Georgia and Russia both have professional leagues (8 and 10 teams, respectively) and yet they aren't involved in any other cross border competition with other professional structures at any level.

People are saying Scotland and Italy MUST be involved for it to be a European competition but then other countries are ignored. It's not a 'European' competition; it is the 6 nations domestic/club competition. The only reason Scotland and Italy MUST be involved is because they are part owners of the current set-up.

Good point. I agree with you. But I wouldn't see it as a reason to exclude Scotland or Italy. I'd see it as a reason to get Russia and Georgia in. Maybe they should set up one franchise each. Tbilsi and Moscow perhaps? It would be good if they could get most of their internationals in those teams. And add in some foreign talent to help them be competitive to begin with. I'd love to see them in it. The more nations the merrier I say. Maybe a Romanian side too.

Seriously, rugby authorities in Europe need to be more inclusive. Problem is, this would require money. We need to get some eastern oil barons involved.

by HammerofThunor Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:57 pm

Why should they set up franchises? They support several professional teams (a lot more than Scotland does). Why should they be forced to enter a made up franchise?

It's not a reason to drop Scotland but it makes the arguments that the top level of European rugby 'needs' Scotland and Italy to be truly European weak. That's a cowpat reason.

Either say everyone should be involved, in which case everyone is involved. Or have it a more exclusive and everyone has to negotiate their involvement.

by Sponsored content