The HC negotiations look to be going down to the wire.....

http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/dec/11/english-french-clubs-heineken-cup-talks

Little or no progress appears to have been made to date despite various deals being offered to the French clubs. Which side of the demands/debate is going to come up with an offer or conceed on individual issues??

I don't particularly like the idea of an Anglo French competition but is it any nearer?

Prepare for a bland media statement tomorrow.......

Here is a far more balanced article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9738490/Premiership-Rugby-is-determined-to-end-the-impasse-over-the-future-of-the-Heineken-Cup-at-London-summit.html

The Guardian one makes it sound like the English and French are aligned against the rest of Europe. That is definitely not the case.

maestegmafia wrote:The Guardian one makes it sound like the English and French are aligned against the rest of Europe. That is definitely not the case.

It's a matter of record that the French and English clubs both served notice they were withdrawing from the Heineken in its current form. It's also a matter of record that the ERC called a meeting with the French clubs, without the English clubs, and could not find common ground. As it stands, then, it isn't "unbalanced" to report that they currently remain aligned against the Rabo unions.

That doesn't mean French and English clubs agree on everything, nor does it rule out the prospect that some agreement might be struck which leaves one of those sides isolated. However, there doesn't appear to be any proposal currently on the table which makes that more likely than the French and English hanging together.

More of the same, still no real new information (other than nothing has been agreed).

Didn't the French say it needed to be sorted out by the end of the year? We'll see if they were bluffing or not. However the last lot of negotiations went to the wire so I'm not surprised. Everyone will refuse to compromise too much until it become squeaky bum time. Lets hope they don't get Noarvirus.

maestegmafia wrote:The Guardian one makes it sound like the English and French are aligned against the rest of Europe. That is definitely not the case.

Rugby Fan wrote:It's a matter of record that the French and English clubs both served notice they were withdrawing from the Heineken in its current form.

They served noticed but it has been very apparent their reasons were very different. They want different things. Even the PRL and the RFU are not aligned on everything.

Rugby Fan wrote:It's also a matter of record that the ERC called a meeting with the French clubs, without the English clubs, and could not find common ground. As it stands, then, it isn't "unbalanced" to report that they currently remain aligned against the Rabo unions.

The RFU were at that meeting, the only people who weren't were the PRL. English clubs are also represented by the RFU. The French and the RFU before and after that meeting have stated how they want a competition with the RP12 teams.

Rugby Fan wrote:That doesn't mean French and English clubs agree on everything, nor does it rule out the prospect that some agreement might be struck which leaves one of those sides isolated. However, there doesn't appear to be any proposal currently on the table which makes that more likely than the French and English hanging together.

The Telegraph article explains that the English will compromise. Bruce Craig of Bath said "I am sure an agreement can be reached that there would be at least one participant from each nation,” said Craig.

Thats a massive U-turn and a very big step forward from the PRL going into this meeting. Something completely missed in the Guardian article.

I don't understand why it's a massive u-turn. They set out their original proposal. No where have they said they won't compromise or negotiate. Neither have the French. some people seemed to suggest they were "my way or highway" but that has never been backed up with quotes (that I've seen).

Both English and French have said things MUST change however neither have said what things MUST change and what things are just 'wants'.

The English were represented at the 'secret' meeting but the PRL are shareholders in the ERC. Was the PRL board member (one of the Leicester Peters I think) involved? Not sure, hasn't been mentioned as far as I know.

HammerofThunor wrote:I don't understand why it's a massive u-turn. They set out their original proposal. No where have they said they won't compromise or negotiate. Neither have the French. some people seemed to suggest they were "my way or highway" but that has never been backed up with quotes (that I've seen).

Both English and French have said things MUST change however neither have said what things MUST change and what things are just 'wants'.

The English were represented at the 'secret' meeting but the PRL are shareholders in the ERC. Was the PRL board member (one of the Leicester Peters I think) involved? Not sure, hasn't been mentioned as far as I know.

It is a U-Turn on the PRLs wish to get straight qualification from the RP12. That was a massive standing point, and a monumental bone of contention with the RP12 teams as it means excluding nations from Europe. France want a smaller competition.

The RFU were represented in Paris by the CEO Ian Ritchie and the PRD Rob Andrew, who's job is to be a link between the RFU and the professional clubs.

MM,

When you say "Massive U-turn" the end result is that you will antagonise people. I am not sure that is intentional, but your emotions on this subject at times make it appear that you wish to merely wind up us on this side of the dyke.

Of course PRL will be looking to compromise it is after all standard negotiating policy to demand the moon and stars when really you want less.

PS - the worst coverage I have seen comes from the Times - but being part of the same company I guess we should expect them to side with Sky.

LondonTiger wrote:MM,

When you say "Massive U-turn" the end result is that you will antagonise people. I am not sure that is intentional, but your emotions on this subject at times make it appear that you wish to merely wind up us on this side of the dyke.

LT I am not trying to antagonise anyone. I am always amazed at the unified support in England for the PRL as led by Mark McCafferty. Especially when some of the wishes are to demote nations like Scotland and Italy from playing in the HEC even on a temporary basis that will be devastating to Scottish and Italian rugby financially and to their dwindling supporters.

I think this meeting is going to be very much about him and his organisation. It looks like the English Clubs appear they are predominantly aligned with the RFU, who have wanted to compromise and negotiate from the start and not the the PRL when it comes to making a European competition work. McCafferty's big bargaining deal is his BT Vision gig and how that effects Europe, all the Nations including England will also want to know why they were not consulted by the PRL in this deal...


Brendan Fanning writes

"McCafferty has two options now: find a way to reveal enough of the BT deal without compromising its commercial content so that momentum swings his way; or else walk away.

The latter would mean England expanding the Premiership to bring in, say, Bristol, Leeds and Newcastle, and altering the structure to fill the nine weekends freed up by their exclusion from Europe. We're presuming here that BT's vision would not be blinded by there being no European element, and that the English clubs have the will to make the walk.

The former would be a game changer, for the one thing in professional sport that concentrates everyone's mind is money. The latter would alter the landscape dramatically too."

Im sure all 3000 Glasgow fans will be heartened by this news

Sorry but top 4 plus 2 best nations teams not in top 4 doesn't work.

What if say the Irish provinces finish 1-4. That would means one of Welsh/Scots/Italians wouldn't get in.

Kingshu wrote:Sorry but top 4 plus 2 best nations teams not in top 4 doesn't work.

What if say the Irish provinces finish 1-4. That would means one of Welsh/Scots/Italians wouldn't get in.

Nor any of the Romainans, Spaniards or Umbongolians. Becuase they arent good enough and dont merit inclussion.

The way the HC is going its the Frirish cup anyway. Let the Wanglos play in the LV= and the Scotalians can have their own mildly embaressing cup.

Kingshu wrote:Sorry but top 4 plus 2 best nations teams not in top 4 doesn't work.

What if say the Irish provinces finish 1-4. That would means one of Welsh/Scots/Italians wouldn't get in.

I agree Kh.
But look on the bright side, Connacht would qualify on merit.

Best just make it a straight top six then.

Also the 32-team option is so far as I know, on the table.

PRL want to control Euro rugby and there is only one winner in that, the English clubs, everyone else can go whistle.

They say this is meritocratic but if thats the case then why does England get to keep 6 sides and maybe more in the HC. What if England's 6th placed team is much worse than the Rabo's 9th placed? Do we then renegotiate the numbers?

Ah the evil English tag raises its hydra head.

When a contract comes to term it can be renegotiated. Either all parties agree on terms and go forward or those that don't withdraw.

Or maybe the ERC should collectively force every union to submit to the will of the majority which might result in some fragmentation of the 6Ns.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Kingshu wrote:Sorry but top 4 plus 2 best nations teams not in top 4 doesn't work.

What if say the Irish provinces finish 1-4. That would means one of Welsh/Scots/Italians wouldn't get in.

Nor any of the Romainans, Spaniards or Umbongolians. Becuase they arent good enough and dont merit inclussion.

The way the HC is going its the Frirish cup anyway. Let the Wanglos play in the LV= and the Scotalians can have their own mildly embaressing cup.

PSW mate,

If you don't have anything serious to add, please refrain from posting on this thread.

I would much rather hear your eloquent, constructive opinion than your mocking.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Kingshu wrote:Sorry but top 4 plus 2 best nations teams not in top 4 doesn't work.

What if say the Irish provinces finish 1-4. That would means one of Welsh/Scots/Italians wouldn't get in.

Nor any of the Romainans, Spaniards or Umbongolians. Becuase they arent good enough and dont merit inclussion.

The way the HC is going its the Frirish cup anyway. Let the Wanglos play in the LV= and the Scotalians can have their own mildly embaressing cup.

I's all very well to say that those club teams don't warrant inclusion. But if no Scottish team or Italian team gets HEC rugby for a couple of years, their national teams will falter. Their players will have little expsoure to top-level rugby outside international windows, and their very best players will be snapped up by other teams. The sport will decline in those countries.

And then there will be lots of tears about the quality of Six Nations matches. There will be tears at Sky about the amount of money they are paying to televise England pummelling a disintegrating Italian team, that few want to watch.

The simple fallacy at the heart of this idea is that club rugby exists in a vacuum. If you decide to strip nations of their HEC places, be prepared to face the consequences when our main international competition stutters.

If you could get over the attempt at humour you'd see theres a serious point there.
The "qualify on merit" argument does mean some Unions wont be represented, which whilst HORRIFYING is just a more extreme version of what that which exists anyway.

The cup is dominated by a handful of teams anyway. Arguing over who the no hopers should be is a bit limp, and really if we want the comeptition to be truely strong and taken seriously by all the top sides which it isnt always) it needs to be lean and attractive to viewers. The crowds at some games (3000) are low. Many fans only have a passing (especially in France).
This is why the negotiations are taking place.

Is the cup there for the elite sides to have a strong comeptitive battle or is it there to include everyone in a hippy hug fest?
Do we want to see a three game series played between the Irish and French champions in a stadium of gold or as 102 team euro turd league with crowds up to 500 clapping politely as the Tolouse 4th XV runs in its 53rd try?
How far along the scale between the two is what is being negotiated. Theres merits to both sides.

Is that translation OK?

Much better Pete.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

The "qualify on merit" argument does mean some Unions wont be represented, which whilst HORRIFYING is just a more extreme version of what that which exists anyway.

The cup is dominated by a handful of teams anyway. Arguing over who the no hopers should be is a bit limp, and really if we want the comeptition to be truely strong and taken seriously by all the top sides which it isnt always) it needs to be lean and attractive to viewers. The crowds at some games (3000) are low. Many fans only have a passing (especially in France).
This is why the negotiations are taking place.

Is the cup there for the elite sides to have a strong comeptitive battle or is it there to include everyone in a hippy hug fest?
Do we want to see a three game series played between the Irish and French champions in a stadium of gold or as 102 team euro turd league with crowds up to 500 clapping politely as the Tolouse 4th XV runs in its 53rd try?
How far along the scale between the two is what is being negotiated. Theres merits to both sides.

The ambition of the competition has to be part of the objectives of these meetings. Is this competition about rewarding the Wealthy and making them more elite? Or is this competition about building a stronger Europe. Toulon struggled to beat the bottom team in the AP, Connacht beat Biarritz who have a playing budget three times theirs.

I hope that this meeting will decide whether control of the Competition will remain with the six unions currently involved or will the European game be handed over to the clubs for them to organise?

Reason why there are no Romainans, Spaniards but has to have Scots and Italians is that they are shareholders in ERC, why are the English guarenteed places and Spanish not?

The format is prob the easy bit as well,
after its dividing the money and tv deals, which is where it will really bog down.

IRFU get 13% and they will not want to drop that, (they can try and dress it up as getting more money but a smaller share, but this will only create a finicial gap, and soon the top Irish players will be in France and England).

To be honest I can see the whole H-cup not being agreed on, PLC will say 33% divided among the 4 Unions, IRFU will say 13% non-negotiable
and it will all break down at that point.

Anyways 32 team format for me sounds the best solution, 8 groups of 4, top 2 in each group play for cup, bottom 2 play for shield. Top group one plays 2nd in group 8 at home etc.
That way weither you play in Shield or Cup is decided by your performance against other European teams, not how you perform in your own Union. Everyone is represented, and only adds one extra round of fixtures.

If the extra round of Fixtures is an Issue, Pro 12 Unions can suggest that England (and Wales) scrap the LV= Cup and Top 14 only has play offs for top 4 not top 6, to create the weekend needed. (after all if they want to change our League we can offer the same in return).

The proposial has 12 from top 14 and 10 from Pro 12 and Aviva, I'd change it to 10 from each and 2 finalists of 3rd tier comp.

Maesteg, It is surely somewhat ironic that at European level the argument is for bottom up inclusion when the R12 itself went for a top down approach and excluded all the historic clubs....
As a ST holder I will go whatever the cup competition format but the European structure as it stands has genuine flaws in both numbers and format. The T14 and AP already has losers in the teams that don't qualify and the commercial realities will not go away in who brings the TV commercial muscle and rights to the table.

I do genuinely wonder how close we are to a French/anglo cup. The Bath owner has been in talks for many months with his French neighbours and is probably wealthier in cash terms than all the R12 Unions combined. Negotiations are being attempted but a line will be drawn if no compromise is reached.

I hate a 32 team format. Crazy idea that follows the football route down to mediocrity.

The current system, with all it's flaws is a damn sight better than the 32 team system. Hell a 38 team tournament inviting everyone is better than 32.

doctornickolas wrote:PRL want to control Euro rugby and there is only one winner in that, the English clubs, everyone else can go whistle.

It is talking out of the arse like this that has created the problem we are now in.

I should not get angry with dumb, xenophobic crap like this - but I do, better not say what I really think as I would get banned.

I think the telegraph have got it about right in where we will land on this one. I just feel the French and the English have by far the greater bargaining power here. Ask yourselved the following 3 questions from the perspective of the English, French, and Rabo nations:

1) Are you prepared to walk away from the table with no deal?
2) Do you have an alternative plan if no deal is reached?
3) Will you be materially financially impacted if no deal is reached?

I think the English and French would answer Yes, Yes and No. The Rabo teams would probably answer No, No and Yes.

The only thing I can see putting a spanner in the works is if there are any contractual issues arising around the BT or Sky deals.

People here seem to be forgetting that in France the LNR holds more power than the clubs and is the main negotiating body. The LNR are interested in maintaining their cash cow which is the six nations. Seeing rugby in Scotland and Italy go down the tubes would adversely effect this. They have stated clearly that they do not want to form a competition with the English and maybe South Africans and I believe them.

The question that these discussions bring up is what exactly is the point of the h cup? Is it
(a) supposed to be a competition where the best sides in Europe compete against each other and where only ones with a chance of winning it should qualify to compete? (If it is then really it should be reduced to eight teams at most.)

(b) supposed to do what it was founded for. That is to give European countries with professional rugby teams an opportunity to play regularly against the best sides in Europe and thus enable our national sides to compete with the SH who set up the Super rugby competition.

(c) make some clubs make a lot of money.

Intotouch wrote:People here seem to be forgetting that in France the LNR holds more power than the clubs and is the main negotiating body. The LNR are interested in maintaining their cash cow which is the six nations. Seeing rugby in Scotland and Italy go down the tubes would adversely effect this. They have stated clearly that they do not want to form a competition with the English and maybe South Africans and I believe them.

The question that these discussions bring up is what exactly is the point of the h cup? Is it
(a) supposed to be a competition where the best sides in Europe compete against each other and where only ones with a chance of winning it should qualify to compete? (If it is then really it should be reduced to eight teams at most.)

(b) supposed to do what it was founded for. That is to give European countries with professional rugby teams an opportunity to play regularly against the best sides in Europe and thus enable our national sides to compete with the SH who set up the Super rugby competition.

(c) make some clubs make a lot of money.

I thought the LNR was the collective of French clubs? Do you mean the French Union (FFR)?

Other than that, all bang on. that is the whole point of the negotiations. They all want slightly different things and will have to come up with something everyone agrees with if it's to continue. There are no fundamental 'rights' in this. The previous reason for the competition or the previous agreement are largely irrelvant now as notice has been given. Any agreement will be made based on what the potential members want from it now.

This debate is going to go on and on.

The issue is that the H cup is an awkward amalgamation of a super XV style franchise competition and a football champions league club competition.

My personal view is that competition should be the best teams in Europe, not the default competition for everyone. However I understand that to completely cut out teams could be damaging long term, so I would say there has to be a qualifying team from each country.

The Amlin would then have to take greater prominence and be seen as less of a wooden spoon prize.

The thing is ok course, turkeys don't vote for Christmas so why would Scotland be at all happy about the chance of not having 2 teams in the H cup?

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I don't understand why it's a massive u-turn. They set out their original proposal. No where have they said they won't compromise or negotiate. Neither have the French. some people seemed to suggest they were "my way or highway" but that has never been backed up with quotes (that I've seen).

Both English and French have said things MUST change however neither have said what things MUST change and what things are just 'wants'.

The English were represented at the 'secret' meeting but the PRL are shareholders in the ERC. Was the PRL board member (one of the Leicester Peters I think) involved? Not sure, hasn't been mentioned as far as I know.

It is a U-Turn on the PRLs wish to get straight qualification from the RP12. That was a massive standing point, and a monumental bone of contention with the RP12 teams as it means excluding nations from Europe. France want a smaller competition.

The PRL have gone from top 6 qualifying to top 4 qualifying and the remaining two spots going to ensure one from each union. that's not a massive U-turn in any way. that's a mild compromise. It still results in more competition for places in the PRO12 and it increases the relative proportion of English and French clubs.

The RFU were represented in Paris by the CEO Ian Ritchie and the PRD Rob Andrew, who's job is to be a link between the RFU and the professional clubs.

So the ERC shareholders weren't represented then? Rob Andrew and Ian Ritchie don't speak for the PRL (unless the PRL nominate them, which they didn't).

Regarding the English clubs being alligned with the RFU but not the PRL...that doesn't make any sense. The PRL IS the clubs. It's not some sinister organisation that somehow took over English rugby. It's just a board that's made up of the representatives of the clubs and has been given the collective power of these clubs on some issues.

Having seen the rubbish from the Scottish sides (and to a lesser extent, the Welsh although the Ospreys have had a hell of a group) I have actually come round the French and English arguement. There is no urgency in so/too many of the Rabo games because nothing is at stake so we need to create that desire through removing non-automatic qualification.
I sincerely hope that we do keep our 2 HC places as the drop-off in cash would be horrendous but I can see why other countries get annoyed about this.

Compromise would be 20 sides

Top 6 English,

Top 6 French,

Top 8 Pro12 - one side guaranteed from each union.

Beshocked, that actually seems reasonable as it assures every country a share of the spoils and makes sure that, for advertising purposes, the games will be shown in the diddy countries like Scotland and Italy.
As a side note, please stop bringing these boards into repute (the opposite of disrepute) by using logic and good sense in a discussion. 606 has survived long and well enough without that kind of approach, thank you very much

Thank you injuredyetagain. Don't worry though I am sure I will get into an argument soon enough.

My point of view is finding the balance between the HC being more competitive but also being representative of the 6 nations involved.

Personally I feel the likes of Zebre and Edinburgh could do with some time in the Amlin to aid with their development. Better to win games and build up confidence albeit in a lesser competition.

I can see the other side of the coin that the Italians and Scottish clubs need the HC money but they need to become more self sustainable and less reliance on the HC money.

Proper qualification for the HC in the Pro12 I think would also help that competition - means more to play for. The playoffs in my opinion has helped and I think qualification would do the same. This would also eliminate the English argument that Pro12 sides don't deserve their HC places.

doctornickolas wrote:PRL want to control Euro rugby and there is only one winner in that, the English clubs, everyone else can go whistle.

They say this is meritocratic but if thats the case then why does England get to keep 6 sides and maybe more in the HC. What if England's 6th placed team is much worse than the Rabo's 9th placed? Do we then renegotiate the numbers?

Well, the Aviva 6th placed team just bumhumped the Rabo 2nd place team, away.

Remember a big point of both the English and the French was to see the Amlin being strengthened. Make it financially more worthwhile will increase team interest. Making it more diverse and balanced will make it more interesting to the fans. More fan interest will see more money. It would be an option that if certain sides lose out on places they are financially protected until the next review. So the SRU get the same money regardless of whether they're in the CC or EC for a period of time.

maestegmafia wrote:If you don't have anything serious to add, please refrain from posting on this thread.

It's not your thread.

HammerofThunor wrote:that's not a massive U-turn in any way. that's a mild compromise.

Regarding the English clubs being alligned with the RFU but not the PRL...that doesn't make any sense. The PRL IS the clubs. It's not some sinister organisation that somehow took over English rugby. It's just a board that's made up of the representatives of the clubs and has been given the collective power of these clubs on some issues.

It is a huge compromise from the perspective of the RP12 nations future prospects.

Re the English premiership teams and the PRL are not aligned there has been loads of disparity in what the PRL want and what the clubs want.

That one of the main reasons Bill Beaumont was reaching out to the clubs not to the PRL to get then to see sense a few months ago.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:If you don't have anything serious to add, please refrain from posting on this thread.

It's not your thread.

I didn't say it was, even if it was what difference would that make...!

The point is that it's not your place to tell people not to comment on it, nor how they should comment.

For gawd's sake, guys. Rather than tiresomely arguing between your two Welsh-selves, why not find an English poster and have a tiresome arguement with them if you are both feeling a bit touchy?

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:that's not a massive U-turn in any way. that's a mild compromise.

Regarding the English clubs being alligned with the RFU but not the PRL...that doesn't make any sense. The PRL IS the clubs. It's not some sinister organisation that somehow took over English rugby. It's just a board that's made up of the representatives of the clubs and has been given the collective power of these clubs on some issues.

It is a huge compromise from the perspective of the RP12 nations future prospects.

Re the English premiership teams and the PRL are not aligned there has been loads of disparity in what the PRL want and what the clubs want.

That one of the main reasons Bill Beaumont was reaching out to the clubs not to the PRL to get then to see sense a few months ago.

No, you're wrong - you may be thinking of PGB, but they haven't been publicly involved.

InjuredYetAgain wrote:For gawd's sake, guys. Rather than tiresomely arguing between your two Welsh-selves, why not find an English poster and have a tiresome arguement with them if you are both feeling a bit touchy?

Don't you start, Pict!

HammerofThunor wrote:Remember a big point of both the English and the French was to see the Amlin being strengthened. Make it financially more worthwhile will increase team interest. Making it more diverse and balanced will make it more interesting to the fans. More fan interest will see more money. It would be an option that if certain sides lose out on places they are financially protected until the next review. So the SRU get the same money regardless of whether they're in the CC or EC for a period of time.

Absolutely agree. Strengthening the Amlin would also soften the blow financially if sides from the Pro12 dropped down into that competition.


One point that hasn't really been properly discussed is how do we (the 6 main unions currently in the HC) deal with the rest of Europe e.g. Belgium,Germany,Russia,Romania,Georgia etc?

The French and English clubs served notice because they were being offered no accomodation at all by the Rabo unions. If the PRL proposals outlined in the Telegraph are accepted, then that would constitute a major change.

If it's necessary to describe the English clubs as being forced into a U-turn to make it more palatable for people who wanted to maintain the status quo, I'm fairly certain they would be happy to accept that.

[quote="beshocked"]

HammerofThunor wrote:Remember a big point of both the English and the French was to see the Amlin being strengthened. Make it financially more worthwhile will increase team interest. Making it more diverse and balanced will make it more interesting to the fans. More fan interest will see more money. It would be an option that if certain sides lose out on places they are financially protected until the next review. So the SRU get the same money regardless of whether they're in the CC or EC for a period of time.

Absolutely agree. Strengthening the Amlin would also soften the blow financially if sides from the Pro12 dropped down into that competition.


One point that hasn't really been properly discussed is how do we (the 6 main unions currently in the HC) deal with the rest of Europe e.g. Belgium,Germany,Russia,Romania,Georgia etc?[/quote]

I would hope that as part of the re shuffle, a 'plate' level competition would be set up, with the winner of it progressing into the Amilin. In that way there is a clear path for the likes of Bucharesti Wolves to the top of the tree. I know thats a long way off but I don't see any reason to close the door on those teams.
To use them as an example, Bath have played Bucharesti this year in the Amlin and it would be a huge shame and a backwards step for world rugby if teams like that were just ditched completely from a meaninful European competition as clubs which were previously in the Heni come down.

[quote="Bathman_in_London"]

beshocked wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Remember a big point of both the English and the French was to see the Amlin being strengthened. Make it financially more worthwhile will increase team interest. Making it more diverse and balanced will make it more interesting to the fans. More fan interest will see more money. It would be an option that if certain sides lose out on places they are financially protected until the next review. So the SRU get the same money regardless of whether they're in the CC or EC for a period of time.

Absolutely agree. Strengthening the Amlin would also soften the blow financially if sides from the Pro12 dropped down into that competition.


One point that hasn't really been properly discussed is how do we (the 6 main unions currently in the HC) deal with the rest of Europe e.g. Belgium,Germany,Russia,Romania,Georgia etc?[/quote]

I would hope that as part of the re shuffle, a 'plate' level competition would be set up, with the winner of it progressing into the Amilin. In that way there is a clear path for the likes of Bucharesti Wolves to the top of the tree. I know thats a long way off but I don't see any reason to close the door on those teams.
To use them as an example, Bath have played Bucharesti this year in the Amlin and it would be a huge shame and a backwards step for world rugby if teams like that were just ditched completely from a meaninful European competition as clubs which were previously in the Heni come down.

I agree. I just don't want to see the developing rugby countries being kicked out of the way in this squabble.

In conjunction with this there should also be a discussion on the future of European rugby in general - how can the likes of Georgia,Russia,Belgium get decent opposition at club level? Should more effort to create an European league for these teams be made?

I agree there's the potential for a "plate" level competition but I haven't heard much about how it would function.

It's obvious the whole European structure needs an overhaul but every European country must have a say IMO.

As I understand it the teams currently in the Amlin who aren't from the 3 big leagues are the top few from the now second tier Italian super 10, the Spanish champions and Bucharest.

An easy starting point for a third tier would be to use the other clubs from those leagues,plus the best German team etc?

But I agree, the whole European structure needs a rethink, and this is the perfect time to do it. I think the whole thing needs to be a clear pyramid, with the H cup final at the top, all the way down to the Romanian leagues or whatever at the bottom. Ideally it needs an independant body to implament a system, rather than the various unions who clearly put themselves first rather than improving rugby as a whole.

Bathman_in_London wrote:As I understand it the teams currently in the Amlin who aren't from the 3 big leagues are the top few from the now second tier Italian super 10, the Spanish champions and Bucharest.

An easy starting point for a third tier would be to use the other clubs from those leagues,plus the best German team etc?

But I agree, the whole European structure needs a rethink, and this is the perfect time to do it. I think the whole thing needs to be a clear pyramid, with the H cup final at the top, all the way down to the Romanian leagues or whatever at the bottom. Ideally it needs an independant body to implament a system, rather than the various unions who clearly put themselves first rather than improving rugby as a whole.

I agree in principle but unfortunately is there really such a thing as an independent body? I worry that it could potentially become an useless addition of red tape with no power, just more bureaucracy? Who do you appoint? We have enough incompetent old farts as it is in rugby bodies!

I like the ideology but sometimes ideology doesn't conform well with reality.

I'm just going to enjoy the final HCup games until they are all gone.

England and France don't like the little Irish boys winning the competition so will look to set up their own competition.

Competition is all well and good but when it's been a few years since England and France have won the thing, that changes.

The new competition between will be on BT Vision, and all historic highlights will show classic Bath, Leicester, Wasps, Toulouse, Brive images. All references to places like Leinster/Munster/Ulster will be forbidden. It will be hailed as the best competition in the world ever and propaganda machine will mock the myth that there were once 'irish provinces'.

Cheers everybody... it was bloody good while it lasted.

beshocked wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:As I understand it the teams currently in the Amlin who aren't from the 3 big leagues are the top few from the now second tier Italian super 10, the Spanish champions and Bucharest.

An easy starting point for a third tier would be to use the other clubs from those leagues,plus the best German team etc?

But I agree, the whole European structure needs a rethink, and this is the perfect time to do it. I think the whole thing needs to be a clear pyramid, with the H cup final at the top, all the way down to the Romanian leagues or whatever at the bottom. Ideally it needs an independant body to implament a system, rather than the various unions who clearly put themselves first rather than improving rugby as a whole.

I agree in principle but unfortunately is there really such a thing as an independent body? I worry that it could potentially become an useless addition of red tape with no power, just more bureaucracy? Who do you appoint? We have enough incompetent old farts as it is in rugby bodies!

I like the ideology but sometimes ideology doesn't conform well with reality.

Well in theory the ERC should be independant shouldnt it? The reality is probably sadly different.