European competition - If I Ruled the World

Thank god I do not.

Structure:

Anyway there would be 3 competitions with 16 teams each. Currently we have 44 teams in HEC and Amlin, so that would create 4 extra tier 3 spots. I would suggest we could give these to some form of development sides for Countries not already represented (6Ns + Spain and Romania) - so maybe Georgia, russia Portugal and 1 other.

Each competition would have 4 groups of 4, played home and away with the top two in each pool progressing to 1/4 finals.



Money and TV Rights:

Each participating country would be responsible for selling the rights to their home matches. Countries could group up for better negotiating stance if desired. Each Country would keep 33% of TV revenues bargained, with the rest put into a common pot.

This pot would then be paid out in 4 ways each getting a total of 1/4 of the pot:

Union share - Every participating Union shares this equally (12 Unions, 12 shares)
Expenses - Each Particpating team would receive an equal share (48 teams, 48 shares)
Participation - Half this pot would be shared amongst Tier 1 teams, 1/3rd amongst tier 2 and 1/6th amongst Tier 3. within the tiers the shares would be equal.
Prize Money - Divided as per participation, the money would be awarded pro-rata to the number of "ERC Poits" earnt in that years competition.


Qualification:

The finalists of each Domestic Competition Play-Off qualify for Tier 1
All 6Ns unions guaranteed at least 1 spot in tier 1 and 2 competitions.
Remaining spots awarded based on "ERC Ranking"

The rankings would be overhauled and re-calculated retrospectively.
Teams in tier 1 would receive 24pts for winning their group, 16 for 2nd, 8 for 3rd and 0 for last. 8pts would be awarded for every win in the knockout stages. (Max 48pts)
Tier 2 would receive half of that.
Tier 3 half again.

Performance over the last 4 years rewarded in terms of ranking points, but degrading with time. So 100% of previous years points used, then 75/50&25 as we go back in time. (No points awarded to HEC teams winning Amlin matches).

Who would be in What next Season?

tier 1
Ulster, Leinster, Leicester, Northampton, Clermont, Toulon (probably for French) would qualify as League Finallists.
Scarlets, Glasgow, Treviso would qualify as best in their country.
Toulouse, Munster, Saracens, Biarritz, Stade, Harlequins & Perpignan would qualify through ranking points.

Even if we only take competition winners, the 3 losing finalists would all still qualify

1st Seeds: Leinster, Clermont, Toulon, Toulouse
2nd Seeds: Ulster, Munster, Saracens, Biarritz
3rd Seeds: Stade, Harlequins, Northampton, Perpignan
4th Seeds: Leicester, Scarlets, Glasgow, Treviso

Tier 2
Gloucester, Connacht, Ospreys, Edinburgh, Zebre & Castres as best available in Countires
Wasps, Cardiff, Montpelier, Bath, Exeter, Bayonne, London Irish, Worcester, Racing & Grenoble qualify by European ranking.

1st seeds: Wasps, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Gloucester
2nd Seeds: Montpelier, Ospreys, Bath, Exeter
3rd Seeds: Bayonne, London Irish, Connacht, Worcester
4th Seeds: Racing, Castres, Grenoble, Zebre


Sale, Newcastle, Begles (and 2 promoted French teams) & Dragons would be in Tier 3


Winners & Losers
Ospreys fans will feel really hard done by. they are in effect hampered by not performing well in Europe and finishing poorly in the Rabo this year. A strong performance in either would of course see them back in tier 1 though.
With 6 French teams in the Top competition they will be winners.
Teams who perform.
Smaller Unions will get money and exposure not currently available.




I think this would be a fair solution. Of course as I rule the world what anyone else thinks would not matter. Some will want to keep the current status quo, but of course anyone who benefits most wants things to stay as they are.

A thing on the TV money.

You think it shouldn't be shared evenly? You think teams that reside in a country with a larger population (and therefore can negotiate bigger TV deals) should get more money than a team which happens to be in a country with a lower population. What's meritocratic about that?

Teams are currently financially rewarded for performance on the field. FOr example Toulon got the most TV money this year; Leinster did last year. You want teams to be financially rewarded for happening to be located in a country with more chimney pots. Which is something that has nothing to do with rugby.

This is the great meritocracy in which you, McCafferty and the English clubs want to live. Coincidentally you, McCafferty and the English clubs happen to be from a country that has a much larger population than most and can negotiate bigger TV deals. So teams from England should have a permanent financial advantage over teams from, say, Ireland, regardless of what they do on the field?

We all come together to compete together and make these tournaments what they are. Pay every team the same share of TV money. No nation or team should be attempting to go off and negotiate their own pay deals to gain a permanent and self perpetuating advantage over most of their competitors. Do your competing on the field.

Just something to think about, for the preachers of meritocracy.

Feckless Rogue wrote:A thing on the TV money.

You think it shouldn't be shared evenly? You think teams that reside in a country with a larger population (and therefore can negotiate bigger TV deals) should get more money than a team which happens to be in a country with a lower population. What's meritocratic about that?

Teams are currently financially rewarded for performance on the field. FOr example Toulon got the most TV money this year; Leinster did last year. You want teams to be financially rewarded for happening to be located in a country with more chimney pots. Which is something that has nothing to do with rugby.

This is the great meritocracy in which you, McCafferty and the English clubs want to live. Coincidentally you, McCafferty and the English clubs happen to be from a country that has a much larger population than most and can negotiate bigger TV deals. So teams from England should have a permanent financial advantage over teams from, say, Ireland, regardless of what they do on the field?

We all come together to compete together and make these tournaments what they are. Pay every team the same share of TV money. No nation or team should be attempting to go off and negotiate their own pay deals to gain a permanent and self perpetuating advantage over most of their competitors. Do your competing on the field.

Just something to think about, for the preachers of meritocracy.

Out of curiosity are you aware the current Pro12 TV deal money is kept by the union that generates it?

Hi hammer. I am now. But I don't understand your point.

My point is that I think every team in a tournament should share the tournament TV money equally. I think that's fairest.

Anyhoo,

My proposal for European rugby would be this. Shorten the domestic leagues by playing everyone once instead of twice. When they're finished play one super erc comp for all the three leagues. Then play the 6 Nations. And in each comp, every competing team gets an equal share of TV money.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Hi hammer. I am now. But I don't understand your point.

My point is that I think every team in a tournament should share the tournament TV money equally. I think that's fairest.

Anyhoo,

My proposal for European rugby would be this. Shorten the domestic leagues by playing everyone once instead of twice. When they're finished play one super erc comp for all the three leagues. Then play the 6 Nations. And in each comp, every competing team gets an equal share of TV money.

So you're saying money for Europe should be shared equally by those that take part but the Pro12 money shouldn't? Why?

I'm sorry hammer, I'm not getting you (or you're not getting me). I don't think rabo money should not be shared equally.

I think every team that competes in a tournament (including the rabo) should get an equal share of the TV money because I think that's the fairest.

Feckless Rogue wrote: I'm sorry hammer, I'm not getting you (or you're not getting me). I don't think rabo money should not be shared equally.

I think every team that competes in a tournament (including the rabo) should get an equal share of the TV money because I think that's the fairest.

Yeah I know, sorry didn't read your full post.

Does that mean that you think Romania should get an equal share of the ERC money?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:A thing on the TV money.

You think it shouldn't be shared evenly? You think teams that reside in a country with a larger population (and therefore can negotiate bigger TV deals) should get more money than a team which happens to be in a country with a lower population. What's meritocratic about that?

Teams are currently financially rewarded for performance on the field. FOr example Toulon got the most TV money this year; Leinster did last year. You want teams to be financially rewarded for happening to be located in a country with more chimney pots. Which is something that has nothing to do with rugby.

This is the great meritocracy in which you, McCafferty and the English clubs want to live. Coincidentally you, McCafferty and the English clubs happen to be from a country that has a much larger population than most and can negotiate bigger TV deals. So teams from England should have a permanent financial advantage over teams from, say, Ireland, regardless of what they do on the field?

We all come together to compete together and make these tournaments what they are. Pay every team the same share of TV money. No nation or team should be attempting to go off and negotiate their own pay deals to gain a permanent and self perpetuating advantage over most of their competitors. Do your competing on the field.

Just something to think about, for the preachers of meritocracy.

Out of curiosity are you aware the current Pro12 TV deal money is kept by the union that generates it?

That sort of prompts the question 'How is the current Pro12 TV deal money distributed Hammer?'.
I'd love to know...

Any Romanian team that competes should get the same share as every other team. Why not?

The idea that a team should get more money because of the country they're from makes no sense to me. But I suspect that's what the English clubs want. It makes the claims of wanting a meritocracy much more annoying, when they're looking to build in a financial advantage for themselves.

Actually as well as ensuring a level financial playing field, there's another good reason for splitting TV equally across the HC and Amlin. Security. It alleviates the Scottish/Italian fears of financial disaster if they fall out of the HC for a long period of time. So they keep the financial security. It's up to them to use it to get back to the top tournament.

Presumably the Rabo could ensure the highest-placed of each union is guaranteed an HEC spot as an internal process.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Any Romanian team that competes should get the same share as every other team. Why not?

The idea that a team should get more money because of the country they're from makes no sense to me. But I suspect that's what the English clubs want. It makes the claims of wanting a meritocracy much more annoying, when they're looking to build in a financial advantage for themselves.

Actually as well as ensuring a level financial playing field, there's another good reason for splitting TV equally across the HC and Amlin. Security. It alleviates the Scottish/Italian fears of financial disaster if they fall out of the HC for a long period of time. So they keep the financial security. It's up to them to use it to get back to the top tournament.

Which means since there are 12 English clubs in the ERC competitions they should get (collectively) 3x as much as the 4 Irish provinces get (collectively)?

Edit: I agree that the core funding should be stable. Ie SRU gets the same every year and more if they get in the finals.

greytiger wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:A thing on the TV money.

You think it shouldn't be shared evenly? You think teams that reside in a country with a larger population (and therefore can negotiate bigger TV deals) should get more money than a team which happens to be in a country with a lower population. What's meritocratic about that?

Teams are currently financially rewarded for performance on the field. FOr example Toulon got the most TV money this year; Leinster did last year. You want teams to be financially rewarded for happening to be located in a country with more chimney pots. Which is something that has nothing to do with rugby.

This is the great meritocracy in which you, McCafferty and the English clubs want to live. Coincidentally you, McCafferty and the English clubs happen to be from a country that has a much larger population than most and can negotiate bigger TV deals. So teams from England should have a permanent financial advantage over teams from, say, Ireland, regardless of what they do on the field?

We all come together to compete together and make these tournaments what they are. Pay every team the same share of TV money. No nation or team should be attempting to go off and negotiate their own pay deals to gain a permanent and self perpetuating advantage over most of their competitors. Do your competing on the field.

Just something to think about, for the preachers of meritocracy.

Out of curiosity are you aware the current Pro12 TV deal money is kept by the union that generates it?

That sort of prompts the question 'How is the current Pro12 TV deal money distributed Hammer?'.
I'd love to know...

The WRU keep all the money from BBCW and S4C, IRFU keep all of RTE and BBC NI money and SRU get the BBC Alba amount.

I was trying to balance:

1) that england and France bring more TV money to the table.
2) ERC sold the rights for a tournament that currently no longer exists for a pittance
3) That we should look to give sizeable chunks of money to developing countries.

Now yes my method will see Unions keep 1/3rd of the TV money they generate - but that will be spread across more teams.
Also note that currently England and France get a higher share of the pot - but now they weil get the same share of the common pot as everyone else, including Italy who currently get the least.
Depending on the size of the TV contracts it is actually quite possible that Treviso would get more money that Saracens.

Hell if needed I would say that all clubs should get the same participation fee (including the minnows from) amounting to 50% of the revenues, with the rest paid for performance. That would probably suit Toulon, Ulster, Saracens a darn sight more than Treviso or Gernika.

Right now Rabo league teams get more money per team than French or English. Supporters of the staus quo - say hey we changed our system to fit so should you. Which sounds OK - except the people you are telling to effictivly "suck it up" actually generate most of the income.

But I do see there can be no constructive discussions. Everyone believes they are 100% right and any one who disagrees is 100% wrong.

Any objections to the more meritocratic allocation of places?

If I was an avid Barcode fan, I'd object to not being able to swipe my Zebra through the checkout.

Giving more money to a country with a larger TV audience makes no sense because you unfairly weight the competition in that countries favour to the point that there is no competition and the rich guys always win. Not much entertainment value other than for the few clubs the game serves.

An absolutely awful idea and exactly what most rugby fans are opposed to in this debate over the reorganisation of the European tournament.

London Tiger is doing his best. At least he admits that everyone is 100% correct and everyone who disagrees with them is 100% wrong. That takes a level of objectivity in this debate that is admirable. And I'm not joking about that one.

It amazes me how many people want to see the tournament swayed in their nation/clubs favour rather than see a better tournament, finance and any advantage possible being their criteria for negotiation rather than the encouragement of a tough competitive honest representation of a the best of European rugby sub international level.

I am still not sure that my method would be giving more money to the bigger unions. Yes they get a bigger share of a third of the income, but of the other 2/3rds they get a lower share than they do now.

In all liklihood by my method the guaranteed money paid to teams/unions (so excluding performance rewards) would see:

England, France, Ireland and Wales all get a reduced share.

Italy, Scotland, Romania, Spain, Georgia, Russia, Portugal and AN Other get a bigger share.


Of course if we treat each paricipating team equally, then English and French Teams ( as well as the real minnows) would be the biggest winners.

SecretFly wrote:London Tiger is doing his best. At least he admits that everyone is 100% correct and everyone who disagrees with them is 100% wrong. That takes a level of objectivity in this debate that is admirable. And I'm not joking about that one.

I agree that no-one is 100% correct. Including me let alone the real negotiators.

Which is what makes this whole debate more enthralling than A is better than B for position P in team Y.*

*Other letters are available.

LondonTiger wrote:I am still not sure that my method would be giving more money to the bigger unions. Yes they get a bigger share of a third of the income, but of the other 2/3rds they get a lower share than they do now.

In all liklihood by my method the guaranteed money paid to teams/unions (so excluding performance rewards) would see:

England, France, Ireland and Wales all get a reduced share.

Italy, Scotland, Romania, Spain, Georgia, Russia, Portugal and AN Other get a bigger share.


Of course if we treat each paricipating team equally, then English and French Teams ( as well as the real minnows) would be the biggest winners.

so why not just award money strait to clubs for participation and for performance?

If Saracens got the same money from a European pot that Leinster got.......... and that equality continued throughout all Leagues.... I wouldn't have a problem with equal shares all round.

If that meant PRL on the whole got much more money than IRFU, that's relative and irrelevant really. As long as Saracens as an individual side within PRL didn't get a cent more than Leinster. I mean as long as PRL didn't decide for itself (or IRFU) how they dish out their share of the pot so that some AP sides (IRFU sides) got bigger chunks than others.

Strict adherence to each side getting the same share of the pot. And then, an agreed cap on the European spend!!!...to drag the high spending French back into a more equitable playing field as it were.

They could spend as much as they like for players etc in their own domestic League, but for the European bit their salary levels should come to an agreed limit.

If that were to happen, with no rule changes at all on entry requirements...then I'd be ready to say we are getting somewhere. We can't talk about Pro12 advantages whilst continuing to ignore French rugby's every growing megabucks advantages.

Oh performance extras a natural of course, lest someone think I'm ignoring prize money!!!

SecretFly wrote:If Saracens got the same money from a European pot that Leinster got.......... and that equality continued throughout all Leagues.... I wouldn't have a problem with equal shares all round.

If that meant PRL on the whole got much more money than IRFU, that's relative and irrelevant really. As long as Saracens as an individual side within PRL didn't get a cent more than Leinster. I mean as long as PRL didn't decide for itself (or IRFU) how they dish out their share of the pot so that some AP sides (IRFU sides) got bigger chunks than others.

Strict adherence to each side getting the same share of the pot. And then, an agreed cap on the European spend!!!...to drag the high spending French back into a more equitable playing field as it were.

They could spend as much as they like for players etc in their own domestic League, but for the European bit their salary levels should come to an agreed limit.

If that were to happen, with no rule changes at all on entry requirements...then I'd be ready to say we are getting somewhere. We can't talk about Pro12 advantages whilst continuing to ignore French rugby's every growing megabucks advantages.

Oh performance extras a natural of course, lest someone think I'm ignoring prize money!!!

Well we're getting there as the agreement (if true ) is for the money to be split between the three leagues equally. Granted that means the French will get a less per team than everyone else but the PRO12 and Jeff would have the same amount per team. Now the PRL share the money equally between the clubs now and I imagine it would continue (most of the clubs will be out of the top at least some of the time so that's how they'd vote). No idea how the PRO12 would split the money.

The IRFU complicates a European salary cap due to central contracts. How much of that counts towards the cap? But that would sound good.

Or did you mean equal money for those in the HEC and equal money for those in the ACC but at two levels?

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:If Saracens got the same money from a European pot that Leinster got.......... and that equality continued throughout all Leagues.... I wouldn't have a problem with equal shares all round.

If that meant PRL on the whole got much more money than IRFU, that's relative and irrelevant really. As long as Saracens as an individual side within PRL didn't get a cent more than Leinster. I mean as long as PRL didn't decide for itself (or IRFU) how they dish out their share of the pot so that some AP sides (IRFU sides) got bigger chunks than others.

Strict adherence to each side getting the same share of the pot. And then, an agreed cap on the European spend!!!...to drag the high spending French back into a more equitable playing field as it were.

They could spend as much as they like for players etc in their own domestic League, but for the European bit their salary levels should come to an agreed limit.

If that were to happen, with no rule changes at all on entry requirements...then I'd be ready to say we are getting somewhere. We can't talk about Pro12 advantages whilst continuing to ignore French rugby's every growing megabucks advantages.

Oh performance extras a natural of course, lest someone think I'm ignoring prize money!!!

Well we're getting there as the agreement (if true ) is for the money to be split between the three leagues equally. Granted that means the French will get a less per team than everyone else but the PRO12 and Jeff would have the same amount per team. Now the PRL share the money equally between the clubs now and I imagine it would continue (most of the clubs will be out of the top at least some of the time so that's how they'd vote). No idea how the PRO12 would split the money.

The IRFU complicates a European salary cap due to central contracts. How much of that counts towards the cap? But that would sound good.

Or did you mean equal money for those in the HEC and equal money for those in the ACC but at two levels?

I meant equal money through the leagues. 12, 12 and...not so equal 14. I wouldn't even be against a more equitable split to take Top14 sides into a equal share too. But I'd be very strong on caps for European involvement. They and any over-the-top funded sides would have to select from their 'super' players when it comes to having declared squads for European competition. Let's see how equal we really are.


Fantasy I know! But at least I'd be nodding at something like that rather than coldly shaking my head.