Two new H Cup structures to be considered

First topic message reminder :

Following a meeting held in ERC offices today, the ERC has undertaken to examine two new proposals for change to the current comp structures.

The English and French have proposed a 20 team H Cup, 20 team Challenge Cup, and an undefined third tier comp.

The Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Italians have proposed a 32 team comp, comprising 10 teams from Pro 12 and Premiership, and 12 teams from the Top 14. There appears to be no other comp in their proposals. Some media reports say that this proposal was turned down by the French at a meeting last week in Paris, where there was also seeming agreement on the French proposal to move the completion of the comp to earlier in the season.

These proposals will be evaluated along with the current two competitions for discussion at the next meeting.

Each union has been asked to present its proposals/suggested re-structuring for the next meeting - apparently.

No discussions on commercial arrangements until the rugby structure is agreed.

Next meeting to be held in December. Still all to play for.

Some focus on the number of english teams that are put forward into the comp, forgetting an equal number are excluded.....

Oh on that logic Recwatcher, you might as well just say 'give Irish and Welsh 4 places each, give the Scots and Italians their 2, and have the entire 12 of the AP and the entire 14 of the Top14 in there too.

There you go, nobody feels left out - but STILL a loaded dice for England and France.

We operate on different logic here, Rec - we won't be unifying our theories anytime soon, I reckon. I can't understand your logic that 6 entries (and equal most entries along with France) isn't advantage enough in a 24 team competition for the PRL. And you don't understand my logic when I say I'm not Welsh, I'm not Italian, I'm not Scottish... but Irish. The compromises have been made and it hasn't been England making them.

Think the top two going into a cup, gives the elite element to it, you have to earn the right to the elite not from your domestic league but playing 3 other teams. Shield would be like Almin section.

It does add one extra round of fixtures, but is one extra round really too many? after all only 2 teams will play the full fixture list, 30 teams will play less.

It removes that uneven best runner up thing we all hate. Top of group 1 is at home to 2nd in group 8 - quarter finals - semi's then Final.

And if French don't like extra round we can suggest they reduce thier play offs to 4 teams, or reduce league to 12 teams to create room for it, after all if they want to interfer in how Pro 12 is run, we should likewise be able to suggest they change Top 14 'to improve it' like they do us!

Under Cup and Shield a 3rd teir cup could be set up for current Almin teams outside big 3 leagues, plus 2 Pro 12 teams, 2 Prem teams and 4 French teams, it could even include Championship and Rugby Pro D2 teams if RFU and FRU wish to enter them?

Secret, we might get 6 entries but only one team has played in the last 5 HCs - sadly Leicester.....

I would actually prefer the English clubs to get their own house in order domestically and have a competition with the Championship clubs and expose a wider pool of players to a higher standard but that is for another post.....

Kingshu, theory looks good not sure about the practice.

Kingshu
You are mixing Unions & clubs,only 1 English club has been involved in all HEC comps that they have been involved in.Where as Ireland & Wales have 3 with Scotland & Italy 2
I want a best of the best comp not a european conference comp

broadlandboy wrote:Kingshu
You are mixing Unions & clubs,only 1 English club has been involved in all HEC comps that they have been involved in.Where as Ireland & Wales have 3 with Scotland & Italy 2
I want a best of the best comp not a european conference comp

Ireland's best three sides happen to be three of Ireland's only four sides. Four sides is all we have. No relegation, not enough sides to mention relegation let alone try it. Four sides, dissecting the nation. And yep, they've been proving they are amongst the best of the best in a European context for a while now. They don't owe anyone a living. They pay their way in HEC.
But no matter how good they are or get, no matter how bad they get; they can't keep changing their names just to suit the lower ranked sides of AP who feel they're not getting an equal chance. We are a small nation with our small numbers of players playing in a small number of teams...our population as an entire nation is smaller than London's. Even if Ireland was only given one HEC spot... I'm afraid Europe would still be seeing either Munster, Leinster or Ulster at the HEC party. That's how smallness works.

Meanwhile, if you're there (at HEC) only because your nation isn't able to call on anyone else, then your bluff will be called, your number will be up, your goose will be cooked by the knight warriors of the real rugby that gets played in England and France. (At least that was the rallying call in the old days when we were the laughable whipping boys for the big classic English and French sides) Truth is, if you don't deserve to be in HEC, you don't last in HEC. And that actually in turn theoretically improves the chances of the 6 English and 6 French sides

I'm on record as preferring a purely merit-based qualification, regardless of nationality or league.

However, I don't get this idea of disputing the quantity of qualifying teams as if it trumps quality.

If I buy 6 lottery tickets, I've got a better chance than if I buy 3, but HC isn't a lottery. There's probably about a dozen teams (or less) each year who have the realistic ability to win HC, and of those teams, nationality is completely irrelevant - it's their quality that makes them contenders. Of the remaining teams who may aspire but make up the numbers in the end, how important is nationality as long as they are reasonably competitive?

But nationality is NOT irrelevant, Dubbleyew. This point keeps coming up, and it keeps coming up from, yep, yet again people who have a vested interest in AP (followers of AP sides or PRL itself) That's a vested interest - that's a bias, that IS nationality in Practice.

PRL oversee English sides in an English league. The reason they are sole administrators is because of the very fact that the sides in AP are all English. PRL fights for their sides in Europe because they have administration rights over those sides and it possesses those rights because the sides are all English. Had the AP consisted of Welsh, Scottish and English sides - the PRL would not now be speaking for the AP league, it would be speaking for the specifically English bit of that league, it would have no administrative rights over the Welsh sides or Scottish sides.

So HEC is and always will be a national issue. PRL fights for English sides within the ERC format - it has no vested interest in the abilities or financing or player contracts of external sides - it doesn't care, not it's business - so to suggest that there are some purists out there who would sacrifice their own 'national' involvement in a European event to better serve the purist idea of only including the 'best' is not honest.
AP fans feel safe that they can champion the concept of only the involvement of the best because yet again, they feel comfortable that they'll always be involved in any such competition - quality based or not. That's the paradox. It's easy to be a risk taker when you know the risk will never be yours. The PRL are in that position. They are asking outsiders - other unions, other nations - to take the risks of losing out.

Secret, I think we have discussed previously that you would happily support, say Ulster because they are Irish. The English fans support clubs not countries, that is what the 6Ns is for. Ultimately a top down structure versus a bottom up structure will never be compatible but you seem to think it will be. Good luck.

SecretFly wrote:But nationality is NOT irrelevant, Dubbleyew. This point keeps coming up, and it keeps coming up from, yep, yet again people who have a vested interest in AP (followers of AP sides or PRL itself) That's a vested interest - that's a bias, that IS nationality in Practice.

PRL oversee English sides in an English league. The reason they are sole administrators is because of the very fact that the sides in AP are all English. PRL fights for their sides in Europe because they have administration rights over those sides and it possesses those rights because the sides are all English. Had the AP consisted of Welsh, Scottish and English sides - the PRL would not now be speaking for the AP league, it would be speaking for the specifically English bit of that league, it would have no administrative rights over the Welsh sides or Scottish sides.

So HEC is and always will be a national issue. PRL fights for English sides within the ERC format - it has no vested interest in the abilities or financing or player contracts of external sides - it doesn't care, not it's business - so to suggest that there are some purists out there who would sacrifice their own 'national' involvement in a European event to better serve the purist idea of only including the 'best' is not honest.
AP fans feel safe that they can champion the concept of only the involvement of the best because yet again, they feel comfortable that they'll always be involved in any such competition - quality based or not. That's the paradox. It's easy to be a risk taker when you know the risk will never be yours. The PRL are in that position. They are asking outsiders - other unions, other nations - to take the risks of losing out.

Or another view is that they are asking others to share in supporting a secondary tournament. Whether that's losing out, and what the degree of losing out is, is purely subjective. The supporters of 11 out of 12 of the current AP teams (and a couple more in the 2nd tier) have recent experience of the Amlin on which to base their subjective opinion, an advantage which others do not have.

Oh, btw, PRL fights not for all English sides, just its membership, and it's arguable just how English London Welsh, London Irish and Saracens are, given their ownerships.

Recwatcher wrote:Secret, I think we have discussed previously that you would happily support, say Ulster because they are Irish. The English fans support clubs not countries, that is what the 6Ns is for. Ultimately a top down structure versus a bottom up structure will never be compatible but you seem to think it will be. Good luck.

It's much, much, much more complex than that Rec... much more complex. Actually, the PRL realise that. I'll give them that much, they understand the underlying complexity of the European stage.

Do I support Ulster because it's Irish? - Yes. Why? Because their success means Irish success - in the complex way - not just in the hip, hip horrah, let's go for a pint, way.

Success is players - Irish players - feeling encouraged to stay in Ireland, it means yes, sponsorship money is attracted to rugby in this country, it means Ulster feel confident enough to continue and intensify their academy structures, it means continued Provincial competitveness (one Province forcing another to improve and that Province then forcing the other one to increase standards again), it means more resources for International (my main love) - it means Irish players are involved in a self perpetuating quality control loop, whereby they stay to play in Province, Province then hopefully feeds into International (in time!!!)..and that overall enthusiasm then increases interest in rugby amongst casual International audiences..... cyclical growth.... real business, real grounded reasons behind me supporting the success of Ulster and not remotely caring about the success of Leicester, Toulouse or Edinburgh. None of those latter external clubs will strengthen rugby in my country or sustain it.

The same is true for English sides operating in England - and no, not all English fans think like you and regard Harlequins with equal indifference as they might regard Munster. No, many of your countrymen know exactly the deal between successful English clubs and the follow on boost to the National game. They certainly understand the Englishness of PRL's defence of their AP clubs. And certainly the PRL understand my reasoning when I say yes, I support Irish Provinces for very distinct and practical reasons. I have no vested interest in being as interested in Leicester cruising into a HEC as I would have in an Irish side doing so. Leicester doesn't represent anything that I am.... and never will in purely club terms. Indeed, the day I need to look to a few Irish players, playing for Leicester, and winning a HEC, that's when Irish rugby will be decending back into the amateur age black hole it is emerging from. I repeat, PRL know they risk nothing and therefore ask others to take the risks

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Or another view is that they are asking others to share in supporting a secondary tournament. Whether that's losing out, and what the degree of losing out is, is purely subjective.

Nope..nothing subjective about it - suggesting there is no guarantee of places in HEC for specific nations in Pro12 whilst England and France keep their guarantees is not a subjective view on the idea of losing out - it's an objective truth that some are being told to risk losing out whilst others remain in safe guaranteed territory.

On the idea of Irish four sides being asked to help out supporting the Amlin, I say we don't have the leisure in numbers to help the Amlin out. England have 12 sides, TOP14 have 14...they're the nations that have the leisure in numbers - and the need! - to find a competition for their lesser ranked sides. That's their need by virtue of the number of clubs in their country - it's not our natural obligation to assist. It's certainly not our obligation (and again I only speak as an Irish person, I don't speak for the other unions) to sacrifice HEC involvement assurances so that English and French leagues can more pleasingly divide their leagues into HEC regs and Amlin regs. If England and France have HEC regs...so do we. No falling on sword sacrifices.

We are not going to agree guys!!!! We're just never going to see eye to eye on this one...God help the negotiators!

broadlandboy wrote:Kingshu
You are mixing Unions & clubs,only 1 English club has been involved in all HEC comps that they have been involved in.Where as Ireland & Wales have 3 with Scotland & Italy 2
I want a best of the best comp not a european conference comp

I don't know where I mixed anything up?

But you seam to have a problem with the Provinces getting in as some seam to think its a club comp. The h-cup to me is having the top tier in each country play each other. For Ireland the top teir is and always has been the Provinces.

Some fans have a problem with Ireland entering our top teir and want clubs like Shannon and Ballymena in, sure that would be no good for the competation or for Ireland.

Also the talk if H-cup fails of England and France setting up a cup with SA. Now will the English and French want to play against the Currie cup teams, or the Super XV teams? If it was me, I'd want the Best in my country to play the best in another country, so Super XV sides. If you want to play against the top tier in Ireland, then its the Provinces. I don't want to play against the 2nd English tier championship teams, I want the best in Ireland, to play the other top level teams in Europe.

Kingshu,Why I believe you are getting them mixed is you say you want the best in Ireland to play the other top level teams but want all unions represented.You already play against 3 other countries in a league to see who is best. If they are not in the top half they are not good enough to be in a best of the best comp.Unless you are saying that the Rabo is a training league,much like the LV Cup is supposed to be.

The best of the best? Surely no room for 6 english clubs then?

No if you look back on this thread you will see I'm backing the proposial from the Pro 12 Unions

32 teams, 10 from Pro 12, 10 from Aviva, and 12 from top 14.

8 groups of 4, top two in each play knock outs for cup (h-cup) (1st in group one at home to 2nd in group 8 etc), 3rd and 4th in each group play off for Shield (amlin)

Nearly every team in the top flight in Europe gets in, and it isn't Leauge they are in or Union they belong to that decides if they are in the elite cup or second tier shield. Only their performance against 3 other European teams decides if they are Elite or Secondary.

Of course for the groups thier will be seeding, but this can be based on last 2 years european performance, or league, or a combination of both?

Of all the proposials it seams the fairest.

Bottom 2 from each League play in 3rd tier cup with other European teams, maybe introduce top half of Championship and French d2?

With 32 out of 36 top tier teams it is not a best of the best but more like the FA cup in which every one gets a chance.If you want that number involved go straight knock out with unseeded draw so no chance of percieved bias,5 matches at most,help reduce number of games played but not as attractive to sponsers or media so would bring in less money.

TJ,No room for the Scots,Welsh or Italians either

I have always liked the idea of after a group stage as well as having the main knockout stages having a sheild ( and even bowl) competition. I have to say of all the proposals I have seen the 32 team one has many advantages. cream rises to the top. It avoids the issue of the difficulty in getting back into the top rank after dropping out. everyone gets a decent number of competitive games.

that proposal seems to be the best and answers the issues raised by the french and the PRL mainly

TJ,Which is what the French/PRL are proposing(3 tier comp) only the leagues act as your pool matches so you dont get as many miss matches.I believe most would like to see contests rather than one sided matches

I think it answers a lot of the problems raised, one draw back is it adds an extra game to the season, (however it will only be finalists that play the full set of fixtures), and is one more potentional game really to many?

The problem with H-cup talks is do teams enter based on League or Union, or an odd mix of both?
and we can argue all day what it should be. Also we argue how many should be in H-cup and how many in Amlin? and should this be Union of League based?

This seams to solve all those issues, (mostly) 5/6ths of each League enters,
(Scotland or Italy's two teams could finish last and second last and therefore wouldn't even get Almin is a drawback) but I think they would be happy that chances are at least one won't be in bottom two.

Since bottom 2 only get 3rd teir cup they would be a real scrap to avoid bottom two places, so for Pro 12 this would go someway of having the bottom fight equalivent of a relegation dogfight.

Places for Elite and 2nd tier are not decided by League you play in, or Union you belong to, but by your own quality. The Elite cup is best of the best as proven against other European teams, (not as proven against other teams in your Union/League as current). Surley this is the best way.

Another Plus, is that most of the teams get to play in the group stage, which wil generate a lot more intrest in it. Instead of fans of teams in the H-cup and fans of teams in Almin, you will have both tuning in, and lets be fair, if your team is in Almin thier are a number of fans that don't really watch the Almin group rounds, and Attendances are lower than if in H-cup. This way we're all in the same boat for the groups. I think that this group stage would attract bigger TV audances and crowds to games than current H-cup and Almin combined. The group stages appeal to a fair wider group than currently. The groups are fairer, you aviod that lop sided best runner up thing.

A pontentional drawback is Aviva fans say having only their top 6 qualify adds fight to thier league that the Pro 12 lacks, but this will be lost as 10 teams qualify, and Aviva will lose intensity. Personally I think this is just an excuse to have a dig at Pro 12, and teams will fight just as hard for a top 4 place, and bottom of table will be tighter as it wouldn't be just bottom team that suffers (releagation) but bottom 2 lose out out on big Euro comp, meaning instead of bottom 2 fighting it out each season, bottom 3/4 will be. I do not believe that the Aviva will lose any intensity, and could gain more, and do not consider this a Drawback at all.

For the Extra game, if it is really a big issue, The pro 12 Unions can suggest the Aviva/Welsh teams shorten the LV= cup freeing up games (or ditch it?) and Top 14 change thier play offs to top 4 (like every other league) freeing up a round of fixtures (Of course don't think the French wil like us making suggestions for thier league, but if they want to make changes to 'improve' Pro 12, then we can try and return the favour).

Unfortunately the ERC have got to persuade the English & French as they have already given notice to leave

Recwatcher wrote:Regardless of who is currently enjoying a cycle of success TV firms will only look at real numbers over the term of a deal rather than which individual teams might currently be adding the 'colour'.

Any Euro deal should have the Unions put half their top professional teams into the HC and the other half into the Amblin OR put them all in one pot and not refer to it as an elite club competition.
The R12 sides had a good deal to establish the euro competition but financial circumstances have now moved on.

No-one expects Unions to voluntarily concede structures or finances, so negotiations have to take place with the two sides bringing options to the table. To date only one side had made suggestions which is then easy to cast as doom & gloom or greedy merchants.

The current structure should change to have the pool fixtures all in one phase and finances should be split evenly amongst all competing teams.

I have watched this issue develop over 18 months and I believe the French and English reps will not back down this time until some concessions are agreed. I await to see which ones.

If all the coutries get half their top teams in then Ireland have 8 so would get four and Italy have 12 so would get 6.

Brendan wrote:

Recwatcher wrote:Regardless of who is currently enjoying a cycle of success TV firms will only look at real numbers over the term of a deal rather than which individual teams might currently be adding the 'colour'.

Any Euro deal should have the Unions put half their top professional teams into the HC and the other half into the Amblin OR put them all in one pot and not refer to it as an elite club competition.
The R12 sides had a good deal to establish the euro competition but financial circumstances have now moved on.

No-one expects Unions to voluntarily concede structures or finances, so negotiations have to take place with the two sides bringing options to the table. To date only one side had made suggestions which is then easy to cast as doom & gloom or greedy merchants.

The current structure should change to have the pool fixtures all in one phase and finances should be split evenly amongst all competing teams.

I have watched this issue develop over 18 months and I believe the French and English reps will not back down this time until some concessions are agreed. I await to see which ones.

If all the coutries get half their top teams in then Ireland have 8 so would get four and Italy have 12 so would get 6.

Currently Italy do get 6, 2 in H-cup and 4 in Almin. Doesn't seam fair to me that England get to entry 12 teams in Europe France get 14 Italy get 6 and Ireland only get 4. But thats the draw back with only having 4 teams, the positive is top 3 get to play at the top level. Swings and roundabouts.
Aviva fans can complain we get 75% of our teams in top comp and they only get 50%, and think everyone should only put half their top professional teams in, but they can reduce to 8 teams and they would have 75% in as well.

Why is it top half? is this becuase its what Egland and France enter? We only have 4 teams we lose out on some things because of it. What if we made it a requirement that National teams can only be selected from top 4 domestic teams (as thats what Ireland does), would RFU be happy, we're limited in ways by only having 4 teams that England and France aren't however we do get 3 of them in top tier. What the French and English are wanting to do would just leave us with the disadvantages and none of the advantages.

Do if they want to remove Irelands advantages, why don't we remove theres, international teams can only be picked from your top 4 domestic teams (would they like that?). You can only enter 4 teams in Europe?

Top half of the league.If you are not in the top half of your "domestic"league are you good ehough to be in the top tier of european club comp

IMSHO As team work is so important in rugby you gain an advantage from picking from fewer teams in that they already have an understanding of each other,you lose by having less players to pick from if injuries or serious loss of form occure

its an old arguent Broadbandboy, as Unions we want our top teams, you want top teams by league. its such a boring argument now, all that is to be said has been said, on at least 10 different threads.

As said we will not reach agreement on this, and hence why I support the 32 team Pro 12 union idea, it bypasses the arguement, "should H-cup qualification be Union or League based?" as both parties disagree on this, what about a solution that avoids the need to even have this arguement.

broadlandboy wrote:TJ,Which is what the French/PRL are proposing(3 tier comp) only the leagues act as your pool matches so you dont get as many miss matches.I believe most would like to see contests rather than one sided matches

No its nothing at all like it as a moments thought would show you.

Kingshu,if it is a union comp why have non eligible players in your team?
I want the HEC to be a step up not a equal comp until the knockout stage.
IMSHO your suggestion would devalue the Aviva/Top14 which(along with SA)appear to be the only countries able to support a top tier professional domestic league
Why do you want so many teams involved?

the gulf in class is not that big tho and changes all the time - even if it sometimes results in major scores. The irish whipping boys of the past - connacht have beaten previous winners. Last years quarter finalists ( edinburgh) got absolutely humped this year.

the main advantage of the 32 team comp is that everyone gets an opportunity to win the whole thing every year, every country is represented. No dropping down a level to the amlin, losing money, losing players and never being able to get back up.

Why would teams lose money if all competing teams got the same not depending on which competition,as they do in England/France?

broadlandboy wrote:Kingshu,if it is a union comp why have non eligible players in your team?
I want the HEC to be a step up not a equal comp until the knockout stage.
IMSHO your suggestion would devalue the Aviva/Top14 which(along with SA)appear to be the only countries able to support a top tier professional domestic league
Why do you want so many teams involved?

Now your talking crap, "if it is a union comp why have non eligible players in your team?" its not international is it? its domestic teams
in a competation organised by thier Unions, (some unions give a share to league organisers, but these are still answerable to thier Union)

ERC Board of Directors

France

Jean-Pierre Lux (ERC Chairman)

France

Michel Palmié (FFR)

René Bouscatel (LNR)

England

Rob Andrew (RFU)

Peter Wheeler (Premiership Rugby)

Ireland

Peter Boyle (IRFU)

Philip Browne (IRFU)

Italy

Orazio Arancio (FIR)

Fabrizio Gaetaniello (FIR)

Scotland

Mark Dodson (Scottish Rugby)

Ian McLauchlan (Scottish Rugby)

Wales

Roger Lewis (WRU)

Stuart Gallacher (RRW)


So since the the ERC is created by the Unions, each Union would want its teams in the top tier RFU (PLC), FFR (LNR), IRFU, SRU, FIR, WRU (RRW).

Whats Wrong with an equal comp that steps up and the knock out's? the cream will rise to the top based on thier European performance, not how they did in respect to the other teams in thier Union.

"your suggestion would devalue the Aviva/Top14" would it really? I don't think so, teams will not be trying to get into top 4/6 just because they know they'll be in Europe next year, they wil still be fighting for Leauge places, and bottom two would be trying harder to get into Europe, instead of just bottom one trying to avoid relagation.


"Why do you want so many teams involved?" actually its less than the 40 teams the French and English propose for H-cup and Almin.

This is the only viable solution to make everyone nearly happy (which is about as close a compromise as we're likely to get):

All 5 unions (ex Italy) put all their top league teams in: 12 AP, 14 Top-14, 4 Welsh, 4 Irish, 2 Scottish. We then have another 8 places available for Italy & others but I'm frankly less interested in whether Italy get all of those or Georgian/Portugese teams get in - it's not going to make a material difference to almost all TV viewers. For the major nations, it means every team gets in - so no quibbles. If unions want more places, they can create more teams in subsequent years, but then they'll be spreading their resources more thinly, which will affect the likelihood of success of each team and, quite possibly, a subsequent knock-on effect to the national team (as well as finances). Ireland have chosen to have 4 teams, England have chosen to have 12. That is their choice and their prerogative.

So that gives us 44 teams each year. The top 20 go through to the HEC, based on seedings/rankings or whatever (4 pools of 5). The bottom 24 play the Amlin. The only really contentious bit is ranking the 20 and, more pertinently, the ranking in year 1. I would suggest historical competitiveness combined with minimum numbers for Scot & Ita would be most likely to achieve broad acceptance. And, in any event, it will only affect the first year. So, 5 Eng, 5 Fra, 3 Wal, 3 Ire, 2 Sco and 2 Ita - basically just trimming the current quota very slightly. I wouldn't get too fussed if it were a slightly different mix, either.

More importantly, the mechanism for subsequent qualification has to be agreed and be clear. I would suggest the bottom of each pool gets relegated from HEC to Amlin the following year and the semi finalists of the Amlin get promoted to the HEC. Over time, this should mean the HEC reflects the top 20 European clubs, irrespective of nationality, league size, etc. And, frankly, if someone is going to throw their toys out for the sake of that first year mix then they need to take a hard look at themselves.

Few flaws PJM1.
4 pools of 5, would create extra games, which the French do not want, 5 pools of 4 may work (5 group winners and 3 best runners up.

though you need the 4 pools to have 4 drop to Almin, and 4 moved up.

I don't know why you exclude Italy, they are a six nation union, it could be argued that Scotland should be dropped as well if you drop Italy.

6 places for other teams.

It does have a lot going for it,

Drawbacks,
More games involved.
All top teams get in, but as others say this would would devalue the Aviva/Top14 ( I don't agree with that, but some believe it).
If there was a 3rd teir cup there are 6 teams in Almin that really would be better severed in it, (it would be hard to promote if nobody can name a team that would play in it).
For first year England and France will not agree to have only 5 teams.

While I like it, I don't see the ERC going for it.
think the 32 team, then knockouts for Cup or Shield, with a 3rd tier cup seams best still.

Kingshu wrote:Few flaws PJM1.
4 pools of 5, would create extra games, which the French do not want, 5 pools of 4 may work (5 group winners and 3 best runners up.

though you need the 4 pools to have 4 drop to Almin, and 4 moved up.

I agree the French will be a struggle, but I genuinely don't see the French opposition to extra games as being anything other than "we want a bigger share of the cash". I would suggest that the cash is carved up based on a combination of participation and results. At present, France get something like (I might be wrong) 1/6 of the total, despite TV rights - and gates - in France being worth more.

Kingshu wrote:I don't know why you exclude Italy, they are a six nation union, it could be argued that Scotland should be dropped as well if you drop Italy.

I'm not excluding Italy - they would have (probably) all of their top tier teams playing in a European competition. The HEC needs to be competitive and, to be frank, the Italian teams aren't. They would get a year to prove they're not the worst teams in their pools, otherwise they drop down to the Amlin.

Kingshu wrote:All top teams get in, but as others say this would would devalue the Aviva/Top14 ( I don't agree with that, but some believe it).

Don't forget, the allocations only affect the first year - thereafter, it's totally meritocratic and if you perform in the Amlin, you get promoted to the HEC. If the AP and Top 14 deserve to have more teams in because they are stronger, they will have, over time.

Kingshu wrote:For first year England and France will not agree to have only 5 teams.

It would depend on the revenue share between unions... as I say, if it's allocated according to team participation and results, I struggle to see anyone (except Italy and Scotland) complaining: Wales and Ireland would get 75% of their teams into the HEC and almost no change to their share of the pot... France and England would get more of the pot than they do currently, so that is their incentive (and would, in my opinion, give France enough reason to accept the extra two games per season). Scotland and Italy would see their share drop significantly, especially if part of the share is based on performance. But that last point, as a concept, is a tough one to argue against: "growing the game" is not what the HEC should be about - the Amlin, yes, but not the elite competition.

Kingshu wrote:While I like it, I don't see the ERC going for it.
think the 32 team, then knockouts for Cup or Shield, with a 3rd tier cup seams best still.

It's all conjecture anyway - I just came up with an idea. To resolve the impasse, we have to try to provide what each union (and, where relevant, league body) really wants. This is my take:

Fra: more money... increased participation isn't really (IMHO) what it's about as the teams lower in the Top-14 don't really give the HEC a proper lash as it is - because of the fear of relegation, I suspect
Eng: more money... few clubs make a profit and, frankly, the same issue exists as with the Top-14 re: relegation.
Ire: more participation and maintenance of the status quo (because it seems to suit quite well and results have been good!), which could be delivered if Connaught perform well enough in the Amlin... if they don't then they don't deserve to be in the HEC
Wal: I think they have so many issues within the the WRU/province setup not to really know what they want!? Clearly, the national team is the priority for the WRU so is there as much appetite to pick a fight here?
Sco & Ita: maintenance of the status quo, more money - which are both unrealistic given the very favourable setup for both unions at the moment. Unfortunately, these two will almost certainly have to concede something for the greater good as the distortion they create is helping cause the other issues above.

Sco & Ita: maintenance of the status quo, more money - which are both unrealistic given the very favourable setup for both unions at the moment. Unfortunately, these two will almost certainly have to concede something for the greater good as the distortion they create is helping cause the other issues above.

Why should they have to concede anything? and in what way are they treated favourably?

TJ wrote:

Sco & Ita: maintenance of the status quo, more money - which are both unrealistic given the very favourable setup for both unions at the moment. Unfortunately, these two will almost certainly have to concede something for the greater good as the distortion they create is helping cause the other issues above.

Why should they have to concede anything? and in what way are they treated favourably?

Why - because if they want a HEC in the future involving France and England I suspect they, along with everyone else, will have to give up a little of something that they want. My understanding (and I'm happy to be told otherwise) is that all the nations, certainly all the home nations+France, get an equal share of the HEC money, per union. This would mean Glasgow and Edinburgh each get 3x what any English or French club gets, assuming the English/French HEC money actually gets distributed to the club playing, rather than a broader EPS-style share, and because they know they'll always qualify, they can rely upon that money year-on-year. It was one of the reason a few English clubs actually tried to win the LV - they got a lot more money for doing that than winning the HEC.

I'll admit I'm less certain about what Italian teams take out of the HEC...

The pot is split beween participation, and prize money for knock out rounds. Most is for participation.

Of the participation France and England currently get 25% each, I don't think this should be increased (they want 33% each and Pro 12 unions get the other 33% between then - England and France want it divided between 3 leauges, Pro 12 Unions want it kept divided between the 6 unions).

What I do recon it the split in prize money between participation and Prize money for knock out rounds in increased toward Knock out round Prize money.

So in 32 teams format, each union recieves its divide of the participation pot as they get currently.
But this participation pot is smaller than currently and Prize money for knock outs is greater.
Therefore the knock outs for Cup and Shield are the main money generators, not just taking part as currently is.

No pjm1 you are wrong in saying, "all the nations....get an equal share of the HEC money, per union"

Currently it is split for the participation pot.
France 25%
England 25%
IRFU 13%
WRU 13%
SRU 13%
FIR 11%

on top of the participation pot there is prize money given to each union for each team in the knock out rounds increasing to the Final. Most of the money generated by the H-cup is divided in the participation pot.

The French and English want to change the divide from each Union having a share, to each League having a share, to they would increase to 33% each and Pro 12 unions would have 33% to share between them.

SecretFly wrote:

DaveM wrote:

There's nothing inherently unfair about one league having to give up more than the other two, if that league is starting from an advantageous position. This is what the English and French sides believe to be the case.

Also the Rabo clubs need the English and French sides more than the English and French need them. Therefore it is reasonable to ask the Pro 12 to make serious concessions. If they don't want to then no agreement will be reached.

Actually, I've had enough of that old cliche and now I'm going to put the question: Explain How?

Explain how Individual leagues - of which Pro12 is just one entity amongst three - can so quickly mutate into 'English' and 'French' and yet can't be ripped apart even more into all constituents when debating the issue - ie, the 'English', the 'French', the 'Welsh', the 'Scots', the 'Italians, and the 'Irish'?
It's so easy for some to see the 'Englishness' of the AP, or the 'Frenchness' of Top14, but these same people have such a tough time spotting Welshness or Irishness or Italianness or Scottishness in Pro12???

And when you've explained that one, explain then too what possible evidence in the history of HEC suggests to you that the 'Irish' need the 'French' or 'English' more than 'French' or 'English' need them?

Well because England and France have, what, a potential audience in the tens of millions, and this is attractive to tv and to sponsors. Without the English and the French you have the Rabo mkII, and that will be of no interest to anyone.

If the English and French leave then I'd expect an approach to the South Africans, but even if that doesn't come off an Anglo-French competition would be better than introducing an AP Cup, and the same sides playing each other yet again. I also reckon that the HEC makes a significant contribution to the Irish players being prepared to stay at home.

From where I'm sat the Irish seem to do very well out of the current arrangements (although the national side looks to be slipping slightly), but I'm not sure about the other Rabo countries. I wouldn't be adverse to the Welsh Regions being invited to join a new competition - English - Welsh games are of interest to both sets of fans.

Finally, the 32 club version of the HEC would completely wreck the competition - it would be meaningless game after meaningless game. The side that finishes 10th in the AP should not be in the premier European competition. If that is all that is on offer then the AP clubs should walk away from a competition that would surely lose much of its attractiveness to tv, sponsors and crowds.

fine - walk away then. We willplay a european cup without you while you look on from the sidelines. Its fairly likely to happen and we all know what would follow - in a year or two you would be begging to be allowed in again. Its happened in the past.

Bullies must be stood up to and the PRL are attempting to bully the rabo unions.

TJ wrote:fine - walk away then. We willplay a european cup without you while you look on from the sidelines. Its fairly likely to happen and we all know what would follow - in a year or two you would be begging to be allowed in again. Its happened in the past.

Bullies must be stood up to and the PRL are attempting to bully the rabo unions.

Put your toys back in the pram TJ, or just change your broken record, how many times can type the same old crap before i gets tiresome - even to you. whaaa whaaa no you go away whaaaa baaawwwwwww

Wake up; each Union is going to argue for what benefits them most, for both their teams and the amount of money they will receive. Everyone is as selfish as the next and don't think there's anything more to it than that. To think there is any milk of human kindness or greater morality involved is just naiive.

Something will be hammered out, compromise, it will happen. Why? because it's better for all involved if it is. For player experience, their teams, and that golden pay day. This whole topic is jsut getting old and thank the powers that be for scotland you're not on the negotiating panel for the SRU as i'm sure foot stamping and tantrum throwing would make sure you're not listened to one iota.

Just a few points I would makle, AlastairW, on another thread I put together what the likly groups would have been for a 32 team comp, and they looked intresting, and not diluted.

2nd on the individuel Union selling TV rights, what would happen if say England pulled out but France agreed to stay, Could the SRU sell the TV rights for the H-cup to sky, and hence sky show the H-cup to just as wide an audance as if England were there. People in England still have sky and could view it, so without the English there is still the same market!
Because TV broadcasters cover the UK and Ireland, but there 4 Unions, I think that it has to be sold by ERC and not by a union.

Also all the Unions have agreed that they want all unions involved in H-cup, so this talk by yourself and TJ is nonesense, there will be a new H-cup and English, French Irish Welsh Scottish and Italian teams will be involved.

Back to the 32 team format, you say "The side that finishes 10th in the AP should not be in the premier European competition" I think of it as another way, The side that finishes 10th in the AP enter the groups to decide if it should be in the priemier comp (Cup) or second tier (shield) based on its performance against other European teams, not on how it performed against other English teams.

Think of it another way WRU get to enter 3 teams, so Cardiff Blues get in just by being better than Dragons, Should they be in Cup or Shield? Being better than Dragons doesn't make you top Tier, but thats what we get. Scotland and Italy get to enter 2 teams each, but just because they have only two teams, doesn't make them both top teir, like wise 6th in England and France.
This way its their performance against 3 other European teams that decides if they are top teir or shield, not on how they performed against teams in thier own Union (or were the only teams).

And don't come back with it should be top 6 teams in Pro 12, that decides if they are top tier or not, as this proposial is unacceptable to the Unions in the Pro 12, as the h-cup reduces by 4 places, and they all come from Pro 12 Unions, as you say its about compromise, but in this the French and English are not compromising on anything.

Kingshu wrote:Also all the Unions have agreed that they want all unions involved in H-cup, so this talk by yourself and TJ is nonesense.

That's what i said. What did you think 'Something will be hammered out, compromise, it will happen' meant exactley?

Thats my point. If the PRL insist on " its this or nothing" I expect them to be given short shrift. This has happened a couple of times before and who had to back down - the english.

The PRL want the major changes, they simply cannot attempt to use their muscle to get their way at the expense of others. Why must it change? No reason at all. the PRL want change and want to control the competition. Well its simply not going to happen the way they want as they do not have the votes and if they try to say - "its my way or the highway" then should be shown the door.

the alternative is that we end up with the whole of european rugby being run to suit not even the englsish clubs but he english club owners.

Simply pout why should the PRL do all the taking and the Rabo teams all the giving?

2 scots and 2 italian teams in the top tier must be a red line unless english and french representation is reduced dramatically as well.

Its incredibly arrogant ad ill judged to expect the entire reduction in teams to come from the 4 smallest unions. the English and French already have far more teams in the competition

its not a European cup if its English and french teams plus a couple of token irish and welsh

Interesting that the NZRU are selling off their franchises, as they have finally realised that top down control is simply not sustainable. I wonder how long before the 'business' acquire full ownership of team and players.

IF there is any 'giving' done by the R12 in the current round of negotiations for the next phase of the euro competition, then that is only because they have been 'taking' over the last decade with a dispropotionate share of the HC dividend. Which to date I would have fully supported.
My wife is from Edinburgh and they are my second team and I follow them closely and attend when in the city. The fact sadly is that they are still basically an average side with a very low core fan base despite the guaranteed place and funds. How much longer should the status quo go on? Indefinitely ?

My vote is private ownership and focus on the rugby heartlands in Scotland before chasing any euro dream. I fully realise given the PR machine that promotes Union ownership as the only way, that most on here would squeal in anguish but the current model is both poor and unsustainable.

Depends on the Union recwatcher,
The Provinces seam to do ok out of it.

SRU did sell Edinburgh to private owners before, not sure if you knew that, but a number of fall outs over NSQ players and SRU owning money they said they didn't resulted in court cases and SRU buying back Edinburgh (just after disbanding boarders as they didn't have the funds, but could buy Edinburgh back?)
Anyway I very seriously doubt that the SRU wil go down the privatisation route again, after getting their fingers burned.

I do agree that the Level of support for Glasgow and Edinburgh is shocking, and a disgrace, these are two good teams in big cities, yet are drawing crowds similar to Connacht? SRU have made improvments to the teams in last 2 years, lets give attendance a chance, but they should be getting 8-9000 average by this stage.