Future European Comp

First topic message reminder :

Progress made when ERC not involved.http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/may/20/heineken-cup-tv-deal

Poorfour wrote:

profitius wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Secret, sorry for the misunderstanding. I have read most of this & previous threads about the future of the HC & this was the first time I can remember someone from the Rabo side agreeing that the Rabo teams get more money than the Aviva/Top14 teams.

I'm sure the Scottish and Italian teams get more than the Irish teams from the HEC. I don't hear any Irish complaining about that. The English and French get most of the money as it is and how they divide it is no concern of anyone else but they (English esp) still complain about other teams making more money.

The English clubs and French clubs in Europe would get much more money than the Celtic nations if they didn't share it out with the other teams in their league. So maybe they should be looking closer to home. Why should the bottom team in the English league be making as much or more than Leinster for example. It makes feck all sense from any angle including viewing figures etc.

For the PRL this is a matter of survival. Having 12 viable teams in the Premiership is more important than any one club's success. The PRL chooses to implement a salary cap and smooth revenues across the member clubs in order to ensure a level playing field and a competitive league. In a nascent professional sport where teams are not yet self-sustaining, you have to think that way. Allocating money strictly on the basis of success is a certain way to ensure that in the long run everyone fails.

The top 6 in the PRL could choose to break away, hoard the RFU's HEC revenue and focus solely on Europe, but they'd quickly find that they had no-one to play against in the domestic competition, at which point they would not be sustainable.

There's been a lot of "for the good of rugby" talk on this discussion, but very little of it has considered that successful English and French leagues are also important for the good of rugby.

At the moment, English and French teams are playing in a competition where the teams they play against have a structural advantage in terms of revenue from the tournament and qualification. The fact that the Rabo teams don't have to worry (much about qualification) distorts the competition and masks the financial disparities. Imagine if Leinster did have to qualify and had wild swings in income depending on whether it did or not.

This is the problem,the English and French want the Celtic and Italian teams to change to make up for the deficiencies in their system.Dragging us down to their level rather than improving their own system.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

profitius wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Secret, sorry for the misunderstanding. I have read most of this & previous threads about the future of the HC & this was the first time I can remember someone from the Rabo side agreeing that the Rabo teams get more money than the Aviva/Top14 teams.

I'm sure the Scottish and Italian teams get more than the Irish teams from the HEC. I don't hear any Irish complaining about that. The English and French get most of the money as it is and how they divide it is no concern of anyone else but they (English esp) still complain about other teams making more money.

The English clubs and French clubs in Europe would get much more money than the Celtic nations if they didn't share it out with the other teams in their league. So maybe they should be looking closer to home. Why should the bottom team in the English league be making as much or more than Leinster for example. It makes feck all sense from any angle including viewing figures etc.

For the PRL this is a matter of survival. Having 12 viable teams in the Premiership is more important than any one club's success. The PRL chooses to implement a salary cap and smooth revenues across the member clubs in order to ensure a level playing field and a competitive league. In a nascent professional sport where teams are not yet self-sustaining, you have to think that way. Allocating money strictly on the basis of success is a certain way to ensure that in the long run everyone fails.

The top 6 in the PRL could choose to break away, hoard the RFU's HEC revenue and focus solely on Europe, but they'd quickly find that they had no-one to play against in the domestic competition, at which point they would not be sustainable.

There's been a lot of "for the good of rugby" talk on this discussion, but very little of it has considered that successful English and French leagues are also important for the good of rugby.

At the moment, English and French teams are playing in a competition where the teams they play against have a structural advantage in terms of revenue from the tournament and qualification. The fact that the Rabo teams don't have to worry (much about qualification) distorts the competition and masks the financial disparities. Imagine if Leinster did have to qualify and had wild swings in income depending on whether it did or not.

This is the problem,the English and French want the Celtic and Italian teams to change to make up for the deficiencies in their system.Dragging us down to their level rather than improving their own system.

And if they're willing to do it...great.

Leinster do have to qualify. They have to be one of the top three Irish sides. Now that looks pretty easy given the fact that there are only four...but then again everything is relative and Irish sides only get three automatic places in a prestigious competition whilst English competitors get six.

Now that might not be worth anything to lower ranked English sides (although I hear that the League allegedly spreads around its money equally???) Anyway, lower AP sides might miss out on the cut to be one of the six English sides automatically entered into HC, but six automatic places still positively influences English chances of winning the prestigious competition. The more sides you have in (by right), the more chances you have to win it. It'll always be three of either Leinster, Munster, Ulster or Connacht that people will see in European competition, that's all we got. But they'll always be up against Six English sides and Six French ones.

Asore

This is the problem,the English and French want the Celtic and Italian teams to change to make up for the deficiencies in their system.Dragging us down to their level rather than improving their own system

Do they?
Who said that?
When?
In what context?

Is this in any way true or a half-truth or just a plain old-fashioned vilification?

greytiger wrote:Asore

This is the problem,the English and French want the Celtic and Italian teams to change to make up for the deficiencies in their system.Dragging us down to their level rather than improving their own system

Do they?
Who said that?
When?
In what context?

Is this in any way true or a half-truth or just a plain old-fashioned vilification?

It's 100% true. My mate Dave told me a couple of weeks ago and he would know.

Well, grey, I'd assume it's a mixture...a Bertie Bassett all-sorts of kinds ..but not so sweet.

English and French Leagues can decide for themselves how they issue out their HC allocations. They are not forced to do it any particular way, or to tie it into League performance. They decide for themselves how best to choose the six.

AP has decided to award the six positions to highest in the league, with no reference to how any sides have done in previous events etc. They then say how Celtic sides choose is wrong, that it's unfair - and main point! - that English sides always have to fight tooth and nail for their HC spot each year and so are at a disadvantage.

If they are, it's their rules that are causing the disadvantage, they've decided for themselves how to issue the spots.

They could quite easily take the cyclical pressure off some of the sides that have proven they can compete in HC by giving the highest performing English side or sides in HC each year a guranteed slot the following year. Thereby that side could then be more in control of being prepared to do battle in Europe next time round. Meritocratic bonuses for performances IN the European event itself.

I'm sure there are other ways they could also restructure the rules regarding their six places but nope, the easy way is to demand that another League/Unions change their ways instead to make life easier for AP sides.

Now grey, in your heart you know that's a little rich.

SecretFly wrote:Leinster do have to qualify. They have to be one of the top three Irish sides. Now that looks pretty easy given the fact that there are only four...but then again everything is relative and Irish sides only get three automatic places in a prestigious competition whilst English competitors get six.

Now that might not be worth anything to lower ranked English sides (although I hear that the League allegedly spreads around its money equally???) Anyway, lower AP sides might miss out on the cut to be one of the six English sides automatically entered into HC, but six automatic places still positively influences English chances of winning the prestigious competition. The more sides you have in (by right), the more chances you have to win it. It'll always be three of either Leinster, Munster, Ulster or Connacht that people will see in European competition, that's all we got. But they'll always be up against Six English sides and Six French ones.

Yep. But each specific Irish side has more chance to win it than any specific English side. 1 in 48 chance instead of 1 in 32. But of course that's our system and we could change it blah blah blah. Round and round we go. Where we stop no-one knows (except perhaps the Guardian*).

We all know it will be decided on money. How much will the PRO12 unions conceed for how much money. The reason there are more French and English sides in at the moment is because that generates more money and everyone gets more. The reason why this would happen again is for the same reason.

*The Guardian is a new super hero who protects rugby for the good of the planet. He's half Irish, half Welsh, half Scottish and half Italian. Unfortunately he's only his holidays at the moment. Thomas Cook has agreed to fill for now but little did the Guardian know that Thomas Cook was actually the evil McCaffinator in disguise. Will the McCaffinator managed to ruin rugby for all? Will the Guardian get back in time? Will English rugby be any good ever again? Find out next month in...the Guardian.

Apologies for that. I'm so contrite it's ridiculous

greytiger wrote:Asore

This is the problem,the English and French want the Celtic and Italian teams to change to make up for the deficiencies in their system.Dragging us down to their level rather than improving their own system

Do they?
Who said that?
When?
In what context?

Is this in any way true or a half-truth or just a plain old-fashioned vilification?

I am continually astonished that the ability to support a senior domestic competition of 12 (or in the French case, 14) sides in a single nation is regarded as a deficiency. If Ireland, Wales or Scotland could support a similar scale of league, I doubt the Rabo would have come into existence.

Anyway, as I've said before, whether the current tournament structure is fair or not depends on whether you look at it from a union perspective or a team perspective, and never the twain shall meet.

It doesn't matter anyway. For all the talk, the competition is a commercial entity negotiated between a number of parties. If you want a competition, all the parties have to agree on terms that are acceptable to them. The PRL and LNR teams do not find the current terms acceptable and, having had their request to negotiate rebuffed, have served notice on the competition. Now everyone has to negotiate a new structure, and either they will or they won't.

If they do, I strongly suspect that we will see something closer to what the PRL and LNR have asked for than the current structure.

Poorfour wrote:

greytiger wrote:Asore

This is the problem,the English and French want the Celtic and Italian teams to change to make up for the deficiencies in their system.Dragging us down to their level rather than improving their own system

Do they?
Who said that?
When?
In what context?

Is this in any way true or a half-truth or just a plain old-fashioned vilification?

I am continually astonished that the ability to support a senior domestic competition of 12 (or in the French case, 14) sides in a single nation is regarded as a deficiency. If Ireland, Wales or Scotland could support a similar scale of league, I doubt the Rabo would have come into existence.

Anyway, as I've said before, whether the current tournament structure is fair or not depends on whether you look at it from a union perspective or a team perspective, and never the twain shall meet.

It doesn't matter anyway. For all the talk, the competition is a commercial entity negotiated between a number of parties. If you want a competition, all the parties have to agree on terms that are acceptable to them. The PRL and LNR teams do not find the current terms acceptable and, having had their request to negotiate rebuffed, have served notice on the competition. Now everyone has to negotiate a new structure, and either they will or they won't.

If they do, I strongly suspect that we will see something closer to what the PRL and LNR have asked for than the current structure.

I'd be astonished too if anyone actually suggested that.

Poorfour wrote:

greytiger wrote:Asore

This is the problem,the English and French want the Celtic and Italian teams to change to make up for the deficiencies in their system.Dragging us down to their level rather than improving their own system

Do they?
Who said that?
When?
In what context?

Is this in any way true or a half-truth or just a plain old-fashioned vilification?

I am continually astonished that the ability to support a senior domestic competition of 12 (or in the French case, 14) sides in a single nation is regarded as a deficiency. If Ireland, Wales or Scotland could support a similar scale of league, I doubt the Rabo would have come into existence.

Anyway, as I've said before, whether the current tournament structure is fair or not depends on whether you look at it from a union perspective or a team perspective, and never the twain shall meet.

It doesn't matter anyway. For all the talk, the competition is a commercial entity negotiated between a number of parties. If you want a competition, all the parties have to agree on terms that are acceptable to them. The PRL and LNR teams do not find the current terms acceptable and, having had their request to negotiate rebuffed, have served notice on the competition. Now everyone has to negotiate a new structure, and either they will or they won't.

If they do, I strongly suspect that we will see something closer to what the PRL and LNR have asked for than the current structure.

Right so you mean it doesn't matter if its fair or not - we want things different so tough!

Depends on whether if it's fair now I suppose. The whole issue is relative.

I just happen to believe that none of the existing or officially tabled proposals is fair, reasonable, equitable or honourable. And that's just the leagues - let alone the underpinning rules of engagement.

What I have difficulty getting my head around is those who want an Union based comp but have non eligible players in their teams? If its an Union comp surely the players should be eligible for the respective Unions? If not it's a Club comp?

broadlandboy wrote:What I have difficulty getting my head around is those who want an Union based comp but have non eligible players in their teams? If its an Union comp surely the players should be eligible for the respective Unions? If not it's a Club comp?

It's what it is. You don't have to think what it should be. You don't have to think of it in terms of what you 'want'. It is what it is.

Some Union Owned Teams (Unions as owners and easy enough to understand) plus some Privately owned teams - playing for a common prize at the end of a season. Whether we want to call them Clubs or Provinces or Regions doesn't really matter. What they all are are teams. The European Competition doesn't have to be called a 'Club' Competition. Neither does it have to be called a 'Union' Competition. It doesn't have to be one OR the other. It's both, and the participnants are all 'teams'.

As for the non-eligibility thing? Ireland get most of their Internationals from their four Provincial teams. England gets most of its Internationals from its 12 clubs. Union Provinces provide International players. Club sides provide International players. Again, there is no need for either/or.

broadlandboy wrote:What I have difficulty getting my head around is those who want an Union based comp but have non eligible players in their teams? If its an Union comp surely the players should be eligible for the respective Unions? If not it's a Club comp?

I don't see how a Union comp means you can't have non eligible players in your team,there isn't a professional competition in the world that has that rule outside of internationals.

Also who wants a Union based competition?I'm perfectly happy to keep the English and French clubs involved,they've got massive following and history so why would you want to lose that?

Poorfour wrote:For the PRL this is a matter of survival. Having 12 viable teams in the Premiership is more important than any one club's success. The PRL chooses to implement a salary cap and smooth revenues across the member clubs in order to ensure a level playing field and a competitive league. In a nascent professional sport where teams are not yet self-sustaining, you have to think that way. Allocating money strictly on the basis of success is a certain way to ensure that in the long run everyone fails.

... on the one hand you're saying that the AP is under threat as a viable unit... yet on the other you're saying the AP has the ability to support a senior domestic competition of 12 sides. I'm confused.

Poorfour wrote:I am continually astonished that the ability to support a senior domestic competition of 12 (or in the French case, 14) sides in a single nation is regarded as a deficiency. If Ireland, Wales or Scotland could support a similar scale of league, I doubt the Rabo would have come into existence.

Supposedly the PRL are bringing megabucks to the European table, but they allegedly also have megabucks set aside for their own domestic competition. In other words they have a pot of money that can be divided between European and Domestic competitions. How that is split won't make one jot of difference to BT as long as whatever agreement is reached doesn't turn off potential subscribers. The only logical conclusion is that the PRL are seeking to advantage their teams, and disadvantage the opposition purely in relation to rugby. The reallocation of money being a matter of survival is entirely a smokescreen - unless it is the Pro12 teams viability that is being threatened. The domestic Pro12 earns a fraction of the AP, so the poorly supported teams rely far more heavily on the European money than their AP counterparts.

Taking a wider view might have wrote:For the PRO12 this is a matter of survival. Having 12 viable teams in the PRO12 is more important than any one club's success. The PRO12 doesn't earn enough revenue to lose European money to ensure a level playing field and be competitive in Europe. In a nascent professional sport where teams are not yet self-sustaining, you have to think that way. Allocating money strictly on the basis of parochial interest is a certain way to ensure that in the long run everyone fails.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Poorfour wrote:For the PRL this is a matter of survival. Having 12 viable teams in the Premiership is more important than any one club's success. The PRL chooses to implement a salary cap and smooth revenues across the member clubs in order to ensure a level playing field and a competitive league. In a nascent professional sport where teams are not yet self-sustaining, you have to think that way. Allocating money strictly on the basis of success is a certain way to ensure that in the long run everyone fails.

... on the one hand you're saying that the AP is under threat as a viable unit... yet on the other you're saying the AP has the ability to support a senior domestic competition of 12 sides. I'm confused.

Yes, I am. There's no logical inconsistency. It's pretty clear from around the world that a professional league needs 12-15 teams to be sustainable. The Rabo unions couldn't support that many on their own; the English and French domestic games can - eventually. At the moment, most clubs are working towards profitability but not there yet. It's a balancing act. The point is, concentrating resources and HEC places on a smaller number of clubs isn't, as some commentators seem to believe, a viable option. It's suicide.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Poorfour wrote:I am continually astonished that the ability to support a senior domestic competition of 12 (or in the French case, 14) sides in a single nation is regarded as a deficiency. If Ireland, Wales or Scotland could support a similar scale of league, I doubt the Rabo would have come into existence.

Supposedly the PRL are bringing megabucks to the European table, but they allegedly also have megabucks set aside for their own domestic competition. In other words they have a pot of money that can be divided between European and Domestic competitions. How that is split won't make one jot of difference to BT as long as whatever agreement is reached doesn't turn off potential subscribers. The only logical conclusion is that the PRL are seeking to advantage their teams, and disadvantage the opposition purely in relation to rugby. The reallocation of money being a matter of survival is entirely a smokescreen - unless it is the Pro12 teams viability that is being threatened. The domestic Pro12 earns a fraction of the AP, so the poorly supported teams rely far more heavily on the European money than their AP counterparts.

1) The BT domestic deal is better than the old Sky deal, but it's not megabucks. Might be enough to tip most clubs into an operating profit if it isn't used to blow the salary cap
2) "Professional sports league sells domestic TV rights for more money and refuses to share domestic revenues with other nations! Scandal! Shock! Horror!" Get real. Do you really mean that the PRL should subsidise teams in another country entirely from its domestic league income?
3) The PRL isn't proposing to take money away from anyone - in fact, one of the few definite points is that they have said that the European component of the BT deal is enough that everyone can have more money. However, what they are proposing is that the allocation should reflect the team structure of the leagues, to avoid the current imbalance where some teams get around 4% of the revenue and others get less than 2%.

I'm going to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons here.

I dont know the ins and outs of the financials but from a rugby point of view I think we have a lot to gain from a reduced Heineken Cup.

I can see it strenghtening the Rabo and giving us meaningful games and still ensuring that we can keep qualifying well.

I like the idea of a 20 team league: 6 England, 6 France, 8 'Rabo' (1 per nation plus the next best 4 regardless of nationality)

Give me that and I'll be happy.

red_stag wrote:I'm going to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons here.

I dont know the ins and outs of the financials but from a rugby point of view I think we have a lot to gain from a reduced Heineken Cup.

I can see it strenghtening the Rabo and giving us meaningful games and still ensuring that we can keep qualifying well.

I like the idea of a 20 team league: 6 England, 6 France, 8 'Rabo' (1 per nation plus the next best 4 regardless of nationality)

Give me that and I'll be happy.

I like this play off idea, as I said a few pages back 20 clubs, five from each of the three leagues four play off spots competed for by the teams placed 6th and seventh in each of the three leagues and an automatic slot for the winner.

Money shared equally between the clubs, plus payouts for each win or draw, maybe a bonus point bonus too...

Most importantly, as raised elsewhere, a competition based salary cap.

Poorfour wrote:1) The BT domestic deal is better than the old Sky deal, but it's not megabucks. Might be enough to tip most clubs into an operating profit if it isn't used to blow the salary cap
2) "Professional sports league sells domestic TV rights for more money and refuses to share domestic revenues with other nations! Scandal! Shock! Horror!" Get real. Do you really mean that the PRL should subsidise teams in another country entirely from its domestic league income?
3) The PRL isn't proposing to take money away from anyone - in fact, one of the few definite points is that they have said that the European component of the BT deal is enough that everyone can have more money. However, what they are proposing is that the allocation should reflect the team structure of the leagues, to avoid the current imbalance where some teams get around 4% of the revenue and others get less than 2%.

1) Do you have a link for this? Whatever the relative difference, both AP domestic deals are megabucks compared to the loose change for the PRO12.
2) Interesting quote - what lunatic said it?
3) I agree everyone can have more money. Just cutting the number of teams means every one earns 1/20th (5%) rather than 1/24th (4.167%). Of course the PRL already takes the money away from it's top performers before they see it to subsidise its non-performers. Similarly the IRFU gets all the money earned by their teams and what they give back (if anything) is at their discretion. So Leinster and Leicester both earn 4.2% in the current HEC but Leicester only see say 2.6% whereas Leinster see 0%!
What I don't understand is in a competition with 20 teams, how a block of six teams can claim one third of the spoils, when on a per team basis they would only be due 30%? That extra 3% surely has to come from somewhere?

Maest,
liking that idea with slight mod
20 teams by Winner & 2nd tier comp winner. Next highest 5 from each league not qualified.Next highest 2 from each league into playoff with highest from one league v lowest from another league, eg 6th Aviva v 7th Top14 6th Top14 v 7th Rabo 6th Rabo v 7th Aviva highest team have home advantage winners into top comp losers inton next tier comp

HammerofThunor wrote:

greytiger wrote:Asore

This is the problem,the English and French want the Celtic and Italian teams to change to make up for the deficiencies in their system.Dragging us down to their level rather than improving their own system

Do they?
Who said that?
When?
In what context?

Is this in any way true or a half-truth or just a plain old-fashioned vilification?

It's 100% true. My mate Dave told me a couple of weeks ago and he would know.

Is that the same Dave who got caught getting it on behind the McDonalds in Acton with old fat Mrs. Moseley?

doctor_grey wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

greytiger wrote:Asore

This is the problem,the English and French want the Celtic and Italian teams to change to make up for the deficiencies in their system.Dragging us down to their level rather than improving their own system

Do they?
Who said that?
When?
In what context?

Is this in any way true or a half-truth or just a plain old-fashioned vilification?

It's 100% true. My mate Dave told me a couple of weeks ago and he would know.

Is that the same Dave who got caught getting it on behind the McDonalds in Acton with old fat Mrs. Moseley?

I wouldn't like to say

HammerofThunor wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

greytiger wrote:Asore

This is the problem,the English and French want the Celtic and Italian teams to change to make up for the deficiencies in their system.Dragging us down to their level rather than improving their own system

Do they?
Who said that?
When?
In what context?

Is this in any way true or a half-truth or just a plain old-fashioned vilification?

It's 100% true. My mate Dave told me a couple of weeks ago and he would know.

Is that the same Dave who got caught getting it on behind the McDonalds in Acton with old fat Mrs. Moseley?

I wouldn't like to say

Hang on, I've lived in Acton, didn't know there was a MacDonalds. Are you sure it wasn't KFC?

[quote="The Great Aukster"]

Poorfour wrote:1) The BT domestic deal is better than the old Sky deal, but it's not megabucks. Might be enough to tip most clubs into an operating profit if it isn't used to blow the salary cap
2) "Professional sports league sells domestic TV rights for more money and refuses to share domestic revenues with other nations! Scandal! Shock! Horror!" Get real. Do you really mean that the PRL should subsidise teams in another country entirely from its domestic league income?
3) The PRL isn't proposing to take money away from anyone - in fact, one of the few definite points is that they have said that the European component of the BT deal is enough that everyone can have more money. However, what they are proposing is that the allocation should reflect the team structure of the leagues, to avoid the current imbalance where some teams get around 4% of the revenue and others get less than 2%.

1) Do you have a link for this? Whatever the relative difference, both AP domestic deals are megabucks compared to the loose change for the PRO12.
2) Interesting quote - what lunatic said it?
3) I agree everyone can have more money. Just cutting the number of teams means every one earns 1/20th (5%) rather than 1/24th (4.167%). Of course the PRL already takes the money away from it's top performers before they see it to subsidise its non-performers. Similarly the IRFU gets all the money earned by their teams and what they give back (if anything) is at their discretion. So Leinster and Leicester both earn 4.2% in the current HEC but Leicester only see say 2.6% whereas Leinster see 0%!
What I don't understand is in a competition with 20 teams, how a block of six teams can claim one third of the spoils, when on a per team basis they would only be due 30%? That extra 3% surely has to come from somewhere?[/quote]

But you're ignoring the Amlin and the teams that compete in that. The money currently isn't just HC, it's an ERC pot of income from both HC & Amlin, from UK&I, French and Italian TV deals and sponsorship. No doubt, the HC contributes more to the pot, if it could be separated out, but with, usually, the majority of French teams, and half the English teams (plus a quarter of Welsh and the majority of Italians) the Amlin will provide some of that pot. Anyone who watched Leinster's quarter, semi and final games this year will have contributed to the Amlin part of the pot, and there may also be some Spanish and Romanian money coming in.

Ignoring the minnows (which we shouldn't do, but I have little idea how they are currently compensated, nor how they will be so I'm oversimplifying) there are currently 38 competing professional teams - the number of these teams will not change. So the proposals are that 12 Pro12 and 12 AP teams will get equal shares regardless of which Cup they compete in, and the 14 French teams will get 12/14th of those shares, again regardless of their competition. The HCv2 teams will generally earn more because the greater prestige and more TV coverage will enable them to get better individual sponsorship deals, and they will get more bums on seats. That's the sort of distribution that the PRL currently use for the English teams - I don't know what the French do, but I assume it's something similar given their apparent agreement (or perhaps instigation) of the current proposals. I don't know what the Welsh currently do with the Dragons, nor the Italians with their S10 teams.

Whether that's fair or not is up for discussion (should Amlinv2 teams get 75% or 50% of HCv2 teams share, for example), but that's the essence of the proposals, and it's a gross distortion to compare %age of share with %age of HC participation in isolation of the Amlin. What it does mean is that, for example, if Glasgow compete in HCv2, and Edinburgh in Amlinv2, they will each receive the same basic central distribution of money, which will be the same as Leicester and Zebre and 14/12 of Toulon's and 1/4 of IRFU's.

broadlandboy wrote:Maest,
liking that idea with slight mod
20 teams by Winner & 2nd tier comp winner. Next highest 5 from each league not qualified.Next highest 2 from each league into playoff with highest from one league v lowest from another league, eg 6th Aviva v 7th Top14 6th Top14 v 7th Rabo 6th Rabo v 7th Aviva highest team have home advantage winners into top comp losers inton next tier comp

Aye good suggestion...

The idea of a stronger Amlin and a third tier comp too sounds great.

I just want to see great rugby where all good teams have a chance to win, not just the ones who generate the largest income

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Ignoring the minnows (which we shouldn't do, but I have little idea how they are currently compensated, nor how they will be so I'm oversimplifying) there are currently 38 competing professional teams - the number of these teams will not change. So the proposals are that 12 Pro12 and 12 AP teams will get equal shares regardless of which Cup they compete in, and the 14 French teams will get 12/14th of those shares, again regardless of their competition. The HCv2 teams will generally earn more because the greater prestige and more TV coverage will enable them to get better individual sponsorship deals, and they will get more bums on seats. That's the sort of distribution that the PRL currently use for the English teams - I don't know what the French do, but I assume it's something similar given their apparent agreement (or perhaps instigation) of the current proposals. I don't know what the Welsh currently do with the Dragons, nor the Italians with their S10 teams.

Whether that's fair or not is up for discussion (should Amlinv2 teams get 75% or 50% of HCv2 teams share, for example), but that's the essence of the proposals, and it's a gross distortion to compare %age of share with %age of HC participation in isolation of the Amlin. What it does mean is that, for example, if Glasgow compete in HCv2, and Edinburgh in Amlinv2, they will each receive the same basic central distribution of money, which will be the same as Leicester and Zebre and 14/12 of Toulon's and 1/4 of IRFU's.

Currently the WRU give the same funding to each of the four Regions (I think it's about £9M in total). In addition they give £6M for additional time with players. So the £9M is made up of ERC/PRO12 money and nay additional funding they supply just for being the union. I've certainly never heard that it was split differently although there have been plenty of rumours that the WRU wanted to have a two tiered system (probably balls).

Basically the Guardian 'agreement' would equalise the 1st and 2nd tiers in terms of core funding (meaning who doesn't get in tier 1 gets the same funding). I also expect getting to the QF of tier 1 gives more prize money that QF of tier 2, but that's a guess.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

greytiger wrote:Asore

This is the problem,the English and French want the Celtic and Italian teams to change to make up for the deficiencies in their system.Dragging us down to their level rather than improving their own system

Do they?
Who said that?
When?
In what context?

Is this in any way true or a half-truth or just a plain old-fashioned vilification?

It's 100% true. My mate Dave told me a couple of weeks ago and he would know.

Is that the same Dave who got caught getting it on behind the McDonalds in Acton with old fat Mrs. Moseley?

I wouldn't like to say

Hang on, I've lived in Acton, didn't know there was a MacDonalds. Are you sure it wasn't KFC?

If you were in Acton, you knew Mrs. Moseley. Close your eyes and remember: NO teeth, 21 stone, skin fair as cottage cheese. She might have been slumming behind a KFC, but word is she took her 'specials' behind McDs. I, of course, have never ben in Acton.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Poorfour wrote:1) The BT domestic deal is better than the old Sky deal, but it's not megabucks. Might be enough to tip most clubs into an operating profit if it isn't used to blow the salary cap
2) "Professional sports league sells domestic TV rights for more money and refuses to share domestic revenues with other nations! Scandal! Shock! Horror!" Get real. Do you really mean that the PRL should subsidise teams in another country entirely from its domestic league income?
3) The PRL isn't proposing to take money away from anyone - in fact, one of the few definite points is that they have said that the European component of the BT deal is enough that everyone can have more money. However, what they are proposing is that the allocation should reflect the team structure of the leagues, to avoid the current imbalance where some teams get around 4% of the revenue and others get less than 2%.

1) Do you have a link for this? Whatever the relative difference, both AP domestic deals are megabucks compared to the loose change for the PRO12.
2) Interesting quote - what lunatic said it?
3) I agree everyone can have more money. Just cutting the number of teams means every one earns 1/20th (5%) rather than 1/24th (4.167%). Of course the PRL already takes the money away from it's top performers before they see it to subsidise its non-performers. Similarly the IRFU gets all the money earned by their teams and what they give back (if anything) is at their discretion. So Leinster and Leicester both earn 4.2% in the current HEC but Leicester only see say 2.6% whereas Leinster see 0%!
What I don't understand is in a competition with 20 teams, how a block of six teams can claim one third of the spoils, when on a per team basis they would only be due 30%? That extra 3% surely has to come from somewhere?

But you're ignoring the Amlin and the teams that compete in that. The money currently isn't just HC, it's an ERC pot of income from both HC & Amlin, from UK&I, French and Italian TV deals and sponsorship. No doubt, the HC contributes more to the pot, if it could be separated out, but with, usually, the majority of French teams, and half the English teams (plus a quarter of Welsh and the majority of Italians) the Amlin will provide some of that pot. Anyone who watched Leinster's quarter, semi and final games this year will have contributed to the Amlin part of the pot, and there may also be some Spanish and Romanian money coming in.

Ignoring the minnows (which we shouldn't do, but I have little idea how they are currently compensated, nor how they will be so I'm oversimplifying) there are currently 38 competing professional teams - the number of these teams will not change. So the proposals are that 12 Pro12 and 12 AP teams will get equal shares regardless of which Cup they compete in, and the 14 French teams will get 12/14th of those shares, again regardless of their competition. The HCv2 teams will generally earn more because the greater prestige and more TV coverage will enable them to get better individual sponsorship deals, and they will get more bums on seats. That's the sort of distribution that the PRL currently use for the English teams - I don't know what the French do, but I assume it's something similar given their apparent agreement (or perhaps instigation) of the current proposals. I don't know what the Welsh currently do with the Dragons, nor the Italians with their S10 teams.

Whether that's fair or not is up for discussion (should Amlinv2 teams get 75% or 50% of HCv2 teams share, for example), but that's the essence of the proposals, and it's a gross distortion to compare %age of share with %age of HC participation in isolation of the Amlin. What it does mean is that, for example, if Glasgow compete in HCv2, and Edinburgh in Amlinv2, they will each receive the same basic central distribution of money, which will be the same as Leicester and Zebre and 14/12 of Toulon's and 1/4 of IRFU's.

Isn't there an equal amount of money guaranteed for the Amlin Cup entries as the ERC. Meaning that the top HEC clubs are not funding those that are in the Amlin.

doctor_grey wrote:I, of course, have never ben in Acton.

Is that what you called your Acton man?

I've always been an advocate of a modified version of the Eurotable

Last week it looked like this

Code:

echo "
1   ASM Clermont Auvergne      100.00   1   no change
2   Leinster      93.50   2   no change
3   Toulon      85.93   3   no change
4   Ulster   Ireland   85.78   5   up 1
5   Saracens      82.51   4   down 1
6   Harlequins      80.22   6   no change
7   Leicester Tigers      80.11   9   up 2
8   Racing Metro 92      77.60   7   down 1
9   Toulouse      75.91   11   up 2
10   Northampton Saints      74.96   13   up 3
11   Montpellier      74.88   8   down 3
12   Castres Olympique      74.82   12   no change
13   Glasgow Warriors      72.84   10   down 3
14   Exeter Chiefs      68.39   14   no change
15   Perpignan      67.08   15   no change
16   Munster      67.03   16   no change
17   Bayonne      66.99   17   no change
18   Stade Francais      64.87   18   no change
19   Ospreys      64.53   19   no change
20   Gloucester      62.20   20   no change
21   Biarritz Olympique      61.23   21   no change
22   Bath      59.64   22   no change
23   Sale Sharks      58.21   24   up 1
24   Scarlets      56.91   23   down 1
25   Benetton Treviso      54.94   25   no change
26   Grenoble      53.95   26   no change
27   London Irish      53.53   27   no change
28   Begles-Bordeaux      50.75   28   no change
29   London Wasps      48.47   29   no change
30   Connacht      44.74   30   no change
31   Cardiff Blues      38.89   31   no change
32   Newport Gwent Dragons      37.39   32   no change
33   Edinburgh      37.01   33   no change
34   Agen      36.19   34   no change
35   Worcester Warriors      35.56   35   no change
36   Mont-de-Marsan      29.57   36   no change
37   London Welsh      26.59   37   no change
38   Zebre      19.14   38   no change
";

www.eurorugby.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Rugger&file=latest&week=2013-05-13

Yet today (I don't know whether if this includes last night's t14 semi Toulon 24 - 9 Toulouse but last week it was updated 2 6 after the Euro finals).

Code:

echo "1   ASM Clermont Auvergne      100.00   1   no change
2   Leinster      99.27   2   no change
3   Toulon      94.70   3   no change
4   Ulster   Ireland   88.35   4   no change
5   Saracens      84.98   5   no change
6   Harlequins      82.62   6   no change
7   Leicester Tigers      82.51   7   no change
8   Racing Metro 92      79.93   8   no change
9   Toulouse      78.19   9   no change
10   Northampton Saints      77.21   10   no change
11   Montpellier      77.12   11   no change
12   Castres Olympique      77.06   12   no change
13   Glasgow Warriors      75.03   13   no change
14   Exeter Chiefs      70.44   14   no change
15   Perpignan      69.09   15   no change
16   Munster      69.04   16   no change
17   Bayonne      69.00   17   no change
18   Ospreys      66.47   19   up 1
19   Stade Francais      65.59   18   down 1
20   Gloucester      64.06   20   no change
21   Biarritz Olympique      63.07   21   no change
22   Bath      61.43   22   no change
23   Sale Sharks      59.95   23   no change
24   Scarlets      58.61   24   no change
25   Benetton Treviso      56.59   25   no change
26   Grenoble      55.57   26   no change
27   London Irish      55.14   27   no change
28   Begles-Bordeaux      52.27   28   no change
29   London Wasps      49.93   29   no change
30   Connacht      46.08   30   no change
31   Cardiff Blues      40.05   31   no change
32   Newport Gwent Dragons      38.51   32   no change
33   Edinburgh      38.12   33   no change
34   Agen      37.27   34   no change
35   Worcester Warriors      36.63   35   no change
36   Mont-de-Marsan      30.45   36   no change
37   London Welsh      27.39   37   no change
38   Zebre      19.72   38   no change";

http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/site/index.html

It's all a bit odd to see how every team's score changes with just a couple of results but as only the flimsiest of explanations is give regarding the formulae underpinning the calculation, the reason is obscure.

I still prefer a form-based ranking system than the solely Euro-based one than the ERC bollixs, but as the Eurotable is recognisable as a guide I still prefer the concept.

At least Leinster wouldn't be matched with ASM (or similar) again in the pool rounds in the near future.

The table looks fairly accurate though GT...!

Can it really be that inaccurate?

Ulster - Ireland? Why does Ulster need the 'Ireland' bit at the end.

Saracens - England.
Glasgow Warriors - Scotland.
Toulon - The Planet.....

SecretFly its just the copy and Paste for Leinster, Munster and have the tricolour for them, for Ulster they use the Ulster flag, Which is correct. It just has an Ireland tag to it, and the other flags have no tag.

Those tables make little sense.

For example Perpignan is ahead of Munster.

However Munster have a substantially better record in Europe this season and finished 6th in the Rabo while Perpignan finished 7th in France.

So why rank higher?

Similarly Sale Sharks who finished 10th in their league are higher than Scarlets who made the semi final playoffs. Neither of them made it out of pool stages in Europe.

Theres no logic to that.

The current system is at least a clear transparent system.

Does it not work on a degree of keying in what teams play what teams?

I mean perhaps Perpignan is considered higher than Munster because they've played against higher ranked (French) sides more frequently - plus - whatever score they achieved against those high ranking sides would be factored in?

Kinda like the IRB rankings where how much you gain or lose depends on the team you are playing against, and how high they themselves are on the same ranking system. Plus tries, points etc.

Ah thanks Fly

Here's the explanation;

Each week, the results of all domestic league and cup games as well as European ties are fed into the computer. As with any league, points are awarded to teams for winning or drawing a match. The Eurotable, however, takes account of many other factors:

A. Points scored and points conceded (the points system encourages attacking rugby but it also rewards sides who lose a match by a narrow margin.).
B. Whether the game was played at home or away (bonus awarded to the away team).
C. Strength of the opponent (more points are awarded when playing against a top-ranked opponent as opposed to a weaker one).
D. Strength of the domestic league (Account is taken of the differences in playing standards of the various domestic leagues by applying coefficients for each country. These are based on the performance of each country's clubs in the Heineken Cup (and to a much lesser extent, the European Challenge Cup) over the previous three seasons. The approach is similar to that used by UEFA to calculate their football rankings for each country.
E. Importance of the game (more points are awarded for European Cup games and at the latter stages of all cup competitions).
F. Recent form feature (a unique weighting of the results ensures that a team's more recent performances are given more credit than those of earlier games. As a result, the rankings will usually reflect current form rather than a team's standing over its last thirty games.

The number of points credited to each team over their last 30 games is summed up and teams are then ranked from top to bottom. Each team's rating is expressed as a percentage of the top-ranked team.

It's as much a measure of current form as anything, and it doesn't necessarily reward a good Cup run if its not backed up in the league.

D. Strength of the Domestic League.

Now there's an interesting one. Any more detail on that one, as in which League is defined as 'strongest' and how do you compare a League that exists within a National boundary (like Top 14 and AP) with a League that staddles a number of countries?

For example - if you used Italy as a barometer of Pro12 European strength you'd have Pro12 as possibly weakest league...but if you used Ireland as the barometer, you'd perhaps have Pro12 as strongest league in terms of European presence in the last three seasons.

In the estimation of League Strength in this system we're discussing, I wonder do the weaker Pro12 sides (countries) get their points dragged up by the better sides(countries) or do the better countries get their points dragged down by the weaker ones?

I imagine they use a composite. Most sensible way of doing it is giving a certain score for European performance, taking the sum or mean and using that. So a bit of both

Will Leinsters win and Clermonts loss at the weekend see a change in the table? Only .73 points between them now.

If Toulon do the double would they end up on top?

The old argument was that the lower Irish, Italian, Scottish, Welsh sides were not as good as the AP or TOP 14 sides..and this was distorting the competition.

So now the argument is to have low quality Top 14 or AP sides in the competition to get hammered regularly- brilliant.

This is disregarding the issue of making it more a closed shop and limiting the competitions reach.

DOD wrote:The old argument was that the lower Irish, Italian, Scottish, Welsh sides were not as good as the AP or TOP 14 sides..and this was distorting the competition.

So now the argument is to have low quality Top 14 or AP sides in the competition to get hammered regularly- brilliant.

This is disregarding the issue of making it more a closed shop and limiting the competitions reach.

Code:

1   Leinster      100.00   2   up 1
2   Toulon      95.63   3   up 1
3   ASM Clermont Auvergne      92.89   1   down 2
4   Leicester Tigers      85.03   7   up 3
5   Ulster   Ireland   82.46   4   down 1
6   Saracens      81.82   5   down 1
7   Castres Olympique      80.64   12   up 5
8   Harlequins      79.55   6   down 2
9   Racing Metro 92      76.96   8   down 1
10   Montpellier      74.26   11   up 1
11   Toulouse      73.38   9   down 2
12   Northampton Saints      72.86   10   down 2
13   Glasgow Warriors      72.24   13   no change
14   Exeter Chiefs      67.82   14   no change
15   Perpignan      66.52   15   no change
16   Munster      66.47   16   no change
17   Bayonne      66.43   17   no change
18   Ospreys      64.00   18   no change
19   Stade Francais      63.15   19   no change
20   Gloucester      61.68   20   no change
21   Biarritz Olympique      60.72   21   no change
22   Bath      59.15   22   no change
23   Sale Sharks      57.73   23   no change
24   Scarlets      56.43   24   no change
25   Benetton Treviso      54.49   25   no change
26   Grenoble      53.50   26   no change
27   London Irish      53.09   27   no change
28   Begles-Bordeaux      50.33   28   no change
29   London Wasps      48.07   29   no change
30   Connacht      44.37   30   no change
31   Cardiff Blues      38.56   31   no change
32   Newport Gwent Dragons      37.08   32   no change
33   Edinburgh      36.71   33   no change
34   Agen      35.89   34   no change
35   Worcester Warriors      35.27   35   no change
36   Mont-de-Marsan      29.32   36   no change
37   London Welsh      26.37   37   no change
38   Zebre      18.98   38   no change


Well there have been changes.
And the volatility of the system is evident.

But again I repeat, it's not the system I like but the tabs it keeps on both domestic form as well as HEC/ACC performance.

An extended Eurotable taken over two full seasons should do it.

Also the currebt ET system appears to overemphasise over recent results.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/stalemate-threatens-european-deadline-8622413.html

And one Irish representative on the ERC board said last week: "We're not for blinking. This is just a money grab by the English clubs."

It looks like there'll be no HEC after next season's one.

I say call their bluff. When their is no Heineken Cup the Rabo will be the winner as will international rugby.

profitius wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/stalemate-threatens-european-deadline-8622413.html

And one Irish representative on the ERC board said last week: "We're not for blinking. This is just a money grab by the English clubs."

It looks like there'll be no HEC after next season's one.

That's an old article and all quotes were from before the meeting before the final. The one which suggested a deal had all but been made

I think calling their bluff is the right thing to do too.

I had an interesting conversation with a French rugby fan recently about this. He lives in Ireland but visits France still every year. He says that people outside of France have no idea how popular the h cup is there, or how much more popular it has made rugby. He said that years ago outside of the 6 nations there was very little rugby shown on tv and the top 14 was a niche interest, but the h cup brought in far more fans to rugby in France as viewers and regular fans.

These days there is rugby on some channel or other in France every other evening, and channels fighting to cover rugby every year. The change in his lifetime of the sports popularity is huge. And it is not the top 14 that is responsible for this. There is the notion here that the French clubs put the top 14 first and would hardly notice if the h cup were gone, but he insists that all the newer rugby fans, and there are millions, were drawn to rugby through the h cup and would drift away without it. the h cup captured the imagination of the French public in a way that the top 14 never did. I don't know that even the wealthy French sides want to risk losing their fans over this argument.

This is just one persons view on this but I thought it was interesting and worth sharing.

And what bluff is that?

HammerofThunor wrote:And what bluff is that?

That they will leave the Heineken Cup with the French if needed. Maybe they will, maybe they won't.

I don't think the consequences will be that dire if the HEC was disbanded (for us Irish/Welsh/Scots/Italians).

Probably not. Personally I hope it does go down the swanny. I've got a bit bored of it (English clubs not being good enough and all that) and something different would be nice.

Maybe expand on the Anglo-Welsh, bring in the French and Irish, might as well include the Scots and Italians. Probably need a couple of tiers though or it'll be too big. Maybe even have a third and invite a load more countries in. Might be reasonable.

Hammer,

As integral as it has been to Irish rugby in last few years I say (in hushed tones) that it might not be the worst thing in the world for Irish rugby if we had 2-3 years without it.

Munster currently have a situation where we have a full house of 26,000 for every single Heineken Cup games as these are the big game in town. Outside of that we're probably averaging just abotu 17,000 or so.

This was deemed a highly successful season despite finishing 6th in the league. All the jibes from Anglo-French posters about it being a mickey mouse league; I actually agree.

With the Heineken Cup gone, the Rabo becomes the only game in town and instead of our current mentality (6-9 "cup finals" per season) we instead concentrate on winning every single match.