What exactly is the point of the h cup?

First topic message reminder :

I posted this question before on another thread but I think that it merits its own discussion.

The question that these debates around the h cup bring up is what exactly is the point of this competition?
People are coming at this debate from all sorts of angles, fair division of money, having a higher quality competition, having a European wide competition, survival of pro rugby etc. But for one argument to win out there needs to be agreement on why the competition exists at all.

So what is the main function of the h cup as you see it?
Is it: (see pole above)

If it is (a) then yes the competition should of course be reduced in size and the English and French are absolutely right on this point. Obviously there are many teams every year in the competition who haven't a hope of winning it. But if it is only acceptable to have teams compete in the h cup that have a shot at winning the competition then this reduction should be far greater than what they have suggested. In order to eliminate all the weaker sides, which must include the weaker English or French sides, there should really be eight teams as a maximum in the h cup.

If (b) is true, and I believe that this was the reasoning originally behind setting up the competition, then it's doing an okay job but may need to be changed to help the weaker nations become more competitive. In this case more money could be allocated to Italian and Scottish clubs on perhaps a temporary basis, to help rugby advance in their countries and in the long run to strengthen European rugby as a whole. There could also be a minimum number of native players in each team competing so that rugby in France for example doesn't get dominated by foreigners to the detriment of their national side. (They have introduced a quota that will gradually increase)

If you look at how the 6 nations may develop with fewer Italian and Scottish teams in the h cup would you really want to see that? Rugby decreasing in popularity and strength in these countries over time and the 6 nations going back to what it was in the 1940s, 4 nations alone, less income for the unions from matches, less competition and rugby decreasing in popularity in Europe as a whole.

If (c) is the main point of it then how do you decide which clubs get the biggest cut? Is it according to performance? Is it according to which country provides the most tv viewers? Is it according to which union has the most clout? Should the unions get to decide how the money gets divvied up in their country? Right now only in England (I could be wrong here) do the clubs themselves get to decide how their portion gets split.
Also if c is the main priority then the number of clubs should really be increased to provide more revenue and include other countries to capture a wider audience and revenue stream.

Yes the h cup has been trying to achieve all of the above but until it decides which of these is THE priority then nothing really can get decided and it cannot progress. For example if one country prioritizes (c) then argument a and b are irrelevant. If b then a and c have to take a back seat.

If everyone agrees on what the main function of the competition is then with this clarity progress can be achieved.

Glas you keep talking in the present? The Rabo now means something? Again, has the deal been signed? You seem to know more than I do. Seriously, you talk like a guy who knows what's in the new deal? Do you? Is it out? 606 is way behind the times then

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Could you include the following as an option;

d) Created as an initiative of the then Five Nations committee to provide a new level of professional cross-border competition.

I'd focus in on cross-border on this. It doesn't refer to inter-league competition, it was (and I believe still is) in place to give countries a better level of competition to ultimately provide better exposure and development of players which in turn improves the national sides.

Yes but therein lies the problem, theres a lot of sub standard competition coming across certain borders.

I gave my source earlier on another thread:

@HarpinOnRugby: @WhiffofCordite reckon the 20-team thing is going to happen just a case of dotting i's and crossing t's

OK it's 3rd hand, but...

4 English
4 French
4 Irish
4 Welsh
2 Scottish
2 Italian

Well, I'm glad they finally cleared it up. I don't know why it took so long. Great news.

Well done Celtic Unions and Italy. A fine negotiation. And yes fly, I am eating my words with a fine red!

What is the main funtcion of the h cup?

So that women with large breasts can wear a bra.

em............ ............ so those negotiations are more intimate and sensitive than first realised?

I hope then that all sides are pliable and support each other through the points being put forward for consideration.

Cari wrote:What is the main funtcion of the h cup?

So that women with large breasts can wear a bra.

Very naughty Cari.

That is the death knell of the Rabo though.

Sorry, are those figures accurate? the 4x4x4x4x2x2?! Not sure I am happy with this either. I'd have accepted losing a spot if it went to the league (2 spots was too much to lose without the English & French compriising too) but to have 4 for certain and the french and English give up 2 each?!

How much money are they getting in return? Seriously, i am suspicious.....!

Cari wrote:What is the main funtcion of the h cup?

So that women with large breasts can wear a bra.

Sorry for posting this thread and then vanishing. I've had a mad week.

And thanks for this Cari, I'll never think of this competition the same way again.