H-cup a realistic solution, accepable to you?

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.

The Paris meeting was reported quite differently in other media. The telegraph has one view, the Times has another - in which it claimed that the French clubs demands about moving the competiion to finish in april was agreed with, and the inclusion of teams from every union was also agreed with.

I don't believe anything has been agreed, until everything has been agreed - to quote some relatively recent negotiators in an entirely unconnected resolution to a a long-running international dispute.

Griff wrote: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?

Griff, I'm for the 5+5+8+last season's two winners solution, with one team from each of the Celtic-Italian nations guaranteed a slot and the remaining 4 decided by league position. That may well be the end of Scotland (and Italy, poss even Ireland and Wales) as competitive forces in the 6Ns in the long-term, but I can't see any other compromise that will appease the English (personally I don't think the French are that fussed as long as the final is moved to April and as long as the pool games are played in two blocks and not three). I have to admit that it sticks in my craw that the Rabo nations are effectively being dictated to as to how they run their own business, but in the end money talks in this day and age. I'm also more than happy to ensure that all rugby playing European nations have their clubs playing in some part of the European club competition

Franchises are the way forward in professional rugby, it is what the majority of the top ten IRB ranked nations are doing.

If you are an up and coming nation looking to break into the top tier like Russia or Georgia, you are going to look to copy a model from NZ Oz or SA, not England and France.

They should looking at their situation and planning around it. Taking advice from other established nations but not just copying the successful nations and hoping it rubs off.

MM

I agree with Hammer, Eng and France have built very succesfull products and therefore are euro power houses, they, like they are now are dictating the terms of where they want the HC to go for their own benefit.

IMHO emerging netions like Russia should be looking to use a model that is currently being succesfull for them in their football league, there is clearly money kicking about and a fully prof rugby prem in Russia would progress quite nicely. Sadly it will only be a matter of time before they overtake Wales then!!!

Anyone looking to mimic the franchise style adopted down south for the sake of it deserves all the misfortune they get (WRU!!!!!!) If your willing to throw away a hundred years of tradition and history not to mention welsh culture then your always going to be fighting against the tide!

Russia and Georgia's club rugby does not have the tradition and established fan base of the older nations in rugby's top tier.

English and French rugby's biggest clubs are the only clubs making a sustainable success of club rugby, those below in both countries are struggling to fund club based rugby.

Using Wales as an example of Non Club rugby not working is ridiculous, the successes of welsh rugby since going regional, the quality and quantity of players produced by the regions is massively improved. We could not compete with clubs.

Georgia and Russia, like Italy, would be sensible to follow. Once the game has reached larger audiences within the afore mentioned counties, then looking to implement the SH/Celtic model of league, franchise hierarchy would be the best way to implement a successful system.

Theres just one flaw in your argument MM, the regions have acheived little of note and did not produce their current top players, they inherited them from clubs!!

Any player over the age of 26/27 was a club developed player given a chance by the regions, and lets not pretend the regions have produced lots of top talent, they are producing far less numbers than the clubs did, and therefore there is far less competition for places = less depth of quality!!

The only comparison that can be made between clubs and regions is numbers produced and comparitive level at their time.

The regions were a short term answer made by lazy businessmen trying to cash in, the squads were pooled with international talent from 1 to 15 yet still proved competitive at best.

Now those huge int squads have proven too costly, and unsustainable talent has left, and what we are left with are 4 regions getting beat 7 games in 8 on a HC window!!!

The likes of Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Ulster who were the poor relations of the Rabo have kicked on and left the welsh regions for dead, Treviso IMHO are on par with where our club game is at present, and why? Because of the insentives offered by them to keep their best players (or have them return)

I'm not making a case for a return to the prem, or even a part return to the prem here, I am stating facts of the regions, where we go from here is anyones guess, but IMHO the prem holds the key to the grassroots game in Wales, and it is being left to rot!!

There are 10 teams in the PRL (Professional Rugby League ). Rather a pointless speculation but how 'could' they go to 'franchises'?

Italy way? Just pick the best team(s) and put them forward? From memory the league has generally been won by one or two teams. The league has only been won by 3 teams since 1992. Two are from Krasnoyarsk (Siberia, not far from Mongolia, are they even European ). The other is from Monino just outside Moscow. There are 4 teams inside Moscow (a couple of these seem very small with only 1000 seater stadiums. One based in Novokuznetsk near Krasnoyarsk (well 600km, only 18hrs on the train apparently). Another is in Kazan, part way between Moscow and the Siberian teams. Last one is in Penze which is a fair way south of Kazan.

So most teams (and their best teams) are based in Moscow and Siberia. You could create two franchises based on these teams but that leaves a huge (and I'm sure we all know how big Russia is, I mean HUGE) areas not represented at all. We know the feelings of being left out by large portions of Wales. Also I have no idea of the cultural or political structures in Russia. Would Krasnoyarsk teams happily join? What about adding Novokuznetsk and having a Siberian team? Would they be willing? Kazan and Penze? Big distances between them and what about languages? I imagine that changes across Russian like it does across China.

They tried adding non-fully professionals to their league and bringing it from 8 up to 14 but it didn't go down too well. It was very non-competitive as you can imagine. They only got an average attendance of 4500! Given some of the weaker sides had max attendance of 1000 the better teams must be getting decent crowds.

I think the best franchising system for them would be to continue with the one they have (or the Super league model). Ring fence the top league with PRL licences. If a lower division team get to the right standard they can either replace a team in the top league or expand the league.

Of course this is all speculation based on limited knowledge and a poor understanding of how things work in Russia or with franchises and businesses.

Let's look at Georgia. I've looked at this one before when trying to find out how many professional teams they have. What I 'think' is that they have 8 professional teams in their top league. Some of these teams also have non-pro teams that also compete. They have a 3 league structure with the top being professional.

Trying to find out more is difficult because everything is in Georgian (if only they were involved in European competitions they would be on the ERC website )

So their 8 teams,
5 seem to be in the capital, Tbilisi
1 in Ruslavi, south and east of Tbilisi
1 in the far east of the country
1 in the far west of the country

The Tbilisi teams seem to win pretty much every year. Franchise to one Tbilisi based team?

A franchise model is the kind of suggestion administrators come up with when they look at the sport exclusively from the top down.

The history of franchise models to promote overseas expansion in other professional sports isn't great. It always sounds good. "Let's consolidate the interest in other countries into one neat package". That thinking didn't work out very well for the NFL Europe and the London Monarchs.

You have to respect the local base of support for the game in these other territories. You can't buy fan loyalty, it's a more organic process built around existing institutions.

You can't buy fan loyalty, it's a more organic process built around existing institutions.

How precise. Final some reasonable thinking

I have always stated on here that centrally controlled elitist structures are a high risk strategy. In some ways the welsh model between the regions and WRU is a healthy compromise but it doesn't change the fact you have just four sides in the top tier which reduces access for players and fans alike, which has big long term implications.

Many on here suggest that welsh clubs would not produce test players in todays game, which unfortunately is anecdotal because I would like to see the proof in that. A domestic league should always be the priority before any Euro shindig.

I think 6 each from the Rabo, England and France is right with the league previous years winners getting 2 extra qualifiers is the fairest solution. So if we say Leinster won it last year then the Rabo league would get the extra 2 places, if Saracens won it then the extra places would go to England etc.

I dont see why the Amlin winners should qualify its a B team competition.

I think the idea is it's like promotion. Winner the lower comp and you get in the next one up.

BBC Sport http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/20153329

European rugby union bosses are set to consider two rival proposals to revamp the Heineken Cup.
English and French clubs have proposed the tournament should be reduced from 24 to 20 teams.
The Rabodirect Pro12 league, featuring Irish, Scottish, Welsh and Italian teams, wants an increase to 32 teams.
The plans will be evaluated by European Rugby Cup (ERC), with the results presented at the next stakeholder meeting on 12 December in London.
What is the Heineken Cup?
The Heineken Cup features clubs from the countries that play in the Six Nations: England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France and Italy
The second-tier Challenge Cup has teams from the Six Nations countries, plus Romania and Spain
The competitions are governed by European Rugby Cup (ERC), which has an agreement with the clubs that runs until 2014
Irish side Leinster are current Heineken Cup champions
The ERC said: "This evaluation will examine the rationale for the proposed changes to both tournaments, as well as the impact on all stakeholders of any change to the format and structure of the competitions."
The decision comes after English and French clubs announced their intention to pull out of the Heineken Cup after 2014, with a row over English TV rights inflaming the situation.
Premiership Rugby and their French counterparts want all teams to qualify for European rugby union's blue riband club tournament "on merit", removing guaranteed places for the Pro12 clubs.
But the Celtic and Italian clubs oppose the proposals and are not willing to give up guaranteed qualification.
There is no relegation from the Pro12 and the English and French sides argue this gives teams from that league - notably the Irish provinces, who have enjoyed huge success in the Heineken Cup over the last decade - an advantage because they can rest players for league matches to keep them fresh for Europe.
The English and French clubs also want the money from the TV deal to be split evenly between the English Premiership, French Top 14 and Pro12 - at the moment the Pro12 receives 52% of the income.
The Pro12's proposal of a 32-team tournament was initially presented at a meeting last week, to which the English clubs were not invited, and was rejected at that time by the French clubs.

I though that BBC's write up appeared to be one sided toward the English view.

Thinks like "
The English and French clubs also want the money from the TV deal to be split evenly between the English Premiership, French Top 14 and Pro12 - at the moment the Pro12 receives 52% of the income."

While the Pro 12 does, it is devided between 4 Unions not one like French or English If they said

at the moment the RFU and FRU recieve 25% each Pro12 receives 52% (IRFU 13%, WRU 13% SRU 13% and FIR 12%)of the income."

would desplay it in a much fairer context.

Kingshu wrote:I though that BBC's write up appeared to be one sided toward the English view.

It's not an election broadcast. We aren't all going to vote on the proposals being discussed.

RTE appear to be reporting nothing. So no bias can be construed there.

Kingshu, I'm with you on this one.

Reading the article, I could barely believe it was meant to be even-handed!

Ridiculous, BBC.

The ERC also report nothing either.

So no news is good news I suppose.

Naughty Auntie.

Don't be naieve now lads, this is the EBC we are talking about.

Naieve, EBC? Are you talking tongues or code Rava?

Quick check.
RTE nothing
ESPN nothing
Sky nope
ERC sorry

Auntie must be having one of her hot flushes again

Shifty wrote:I think 6 each from the Rabo, England and France is right with the league previous years winners getting 2 extra qualifiers is the fairest solution. So if we say Leinster won it last year then the Rabo league would get the extra 2 places, if Saracens won it then the extra places would go to England etc.

I dont see why the Amlin winners should qualify its a B team competition.

Why would this be fair? England and France lose nothing, Rabo loses 40% of its places. get real. Its a European competition not England, France and a couple of others