HEC dead

First topic message reminder :

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/mobile/news/28786.php

At least until ERC and the IRB tell them they're ultra vires.

Interesting times.

Deluded actually - ulster's win rate vs English sides is 39%. 13 wins. 20 losses.

Scarlett's are exactly the same as Ulster.

Ospreys - win rate - 43%. 9 wins, 10 losses. 2 draws.


You are correct to be fair with Leinster - 68% - 26 wins, 11 losses, 1 draw. Munster - 67% - 26 wins, 13 losses


Fair enough to Cardiff too at 51% - 20 wins, 16 losses, 3 draws.

Notch if you genuinely believe that you know nothing.

beshocked wrote:Notch if you genuinely believe that you know nothing.

Actually you know nothing saying that Leinster and Munster carry the Rabo considering Ulster have also won it and have made the knockout stages for the last 3 seasons including a final appearance.

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:

beshocked wrote:Deluded where's the stat that shows that celts have a 70% win rate against English clubs? Perhaps Munster and Leinster but the rest? I doubt it.

I already stated on another post that the likes of Edinburgh, Connacht and Glasgow have overall win rate of 30% in the HC.

I know plenty of teams in the Pro12 who have a poor record against my side. I think only Leinster,Munster and surprisingly Cardiff have a good record.   It's 5-7 vs Irish sides currently - should make it even this season hopefully.

Whats your team? a few searches will show you how poor the English sides do against the welsh regions.

You get this thing with internet fora when someone tells the BIG LIE and you can get all uptight with refuting it, but sometimes it's best just to consign it to the big LIE folder

Scarlets

107 games

56 wins 1 draw 50 losses – 52% win ratio

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:

beshocked wrote:Deluded where's the stat that shows that celts have a 70% win rate against English clubs? Perhaps Munster and Leinster but the rest? I doubt it.

I already stated on another post that the likes of Edinburgh, Connacht and Glasgow have overall win rate of 30% in the HC.

I know plenty of teams in the Pro12 who have a poor record against my side. I think only Leinster,Munster and surprisingly Cardiff have a good record.   It's 5-7 vs Irish sides currently - should make it even this season hopefully.

Whats your team? a few searches will show you how poor the English sides do against the welsh regions.

You get this thing with internet fora when someone tells the BIG LIE and you can get all uptight with refuting it, but sometimes it's best just to consign it to the big LIE folder

Scarlets

107 games

56 wins 1 draw 50 losses – 52% win ratio


Cardiff

104 games

53 wins, 4 draws, 47 losses -51% win ratio



Ospreys

59 games

29 wins, 3 draws, 27 losses – 49% win ratio


Dragons

42 games

9 wins, 33 losses -21% win ratio



Scottish sides


Edinburgh

93 games

34 wins, 3 draws, 56 losses – 36% win ratio


Glasgow

81 games

25 wins, 2 draws, 54 losses – 31% win ratio




Irish sides


Munster

124 games

87 wins, 1 draw, 36 losses – 70% win ratio



Leinster

117 games

79 wins,3 draws,35 losses – 67.5% win ratio


Ulster

105 games

49 wins, 3 draws, 53 losses -46% win ratio

Connacht

8 games

2 wins, 6 losses – 25% win ratio

AWWWWHHH!!! didums! who's the b!tch now?

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:

beshocked wrote:Deluded where's the stat that shows that celts have a 70% win rate against English clubs? Perhaps Munster and Leinster but the rest? I doubt it.

I already stated on another post that the likes of Edinburgh, Connacht and Glasgow have overall win rate of 30% in the HC.

I know plenty of teams in the Pro12 who have a poor record against my side. I think only Leinster,Munster and surprisingly Cardiff have a good record.   It's 5-7 vs Irish sides currently - should make it even this season hopefully.

Whats your team? a few searches will show you how poor the English sides do against the welsh regions.

You get this thing with internet fora when someone tells the BIG LIE and you can get all uptight with refuting it, but sometimes it's best just to consign it to the big LIE folder

Scarlets

107 games

56 wins 1 draw 50 losses – 52% win ratio


Cardiff

104 games

53 wins, 4 draws, 47 losses -51% win ratio



Ospreys

59 games

29 wins, 3 draws, 27 losses – 49% win ratio


Dragons

42 games

9 wins, 33 losses -21% win ratio



Scottish sides


Edinburgh

93 games

34 wins, 3 draws, 56 losses – 36% win ratio


Glasgow

81 games

25 wins, 2 draws, 54 losses – 31% win ratio




Irish sides


Munster

124 games

87 wins, 1 draw, 36 losses – 70% win ratio



Leinster

117 games

79 wins,3 draws,35 losses – 67.5% win ratio


Ulster

105 games

49 wins, 3 draws, 53 losses -46% win ratio

Connacht

8 games

2 wins, 6 losses – 25% win ratio

AWWWWHHH!!! didums! who's the b!tch now?

Is that a 70% win ratio against English clubs?

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:But i find the biggest Irony ,the English kicking off about qualification with the Celtic League being the beef they have, every Irish team that has won the HC has always been in the top six of the league any way!
They suggest the Celtic league is soft because there is no relegation, but the English can choose if a team drops or not!!!!!! so hardly pressure on the top four teams in England who rarely finish out of the top six in there league any way!

I find it massively insulting to the Celtic league how they keep referring to our league as weak!!
HC stats prove that the Celtic nations have a 70% win rate over English teams in the competition.

So one team has a 70% win ratio yet you claim the celtic nations have a 70% win ratio?????????

Actually your right sorry it's closer to a 60% win ratio for the rabo boys after a quick bit of maths   poor PRL.

Squabbling over who's done what in the past is pretty pointless. We all know that the French have done pretty well throughout, the English did well a few years ago, and the Irish purple patch has only just faded a little.
 
One large part of the current argument is identifying who are the best teams to compete in an elite competition and, because of lack of competition, most of the usual suspects would be there. Another argument is whether there should be an elite competition at all, or continue to let in the no-hopers whose place is in the second tier cup.

My immediate thought on this was.. Noooo!!

But, having looked at it from both sides I think the following would be a really good solution...

Currently there are 11 Celtic teams in this years HC and 13 teams from France and England. What if they simply took the top 8 from the premiership, French and rabbo?

Going by last season that would mean this years teams would be...

Leicester, Saracens, Quins, Saints, Gloucester, Bath, Chiefs, Wasps, clermont, Toulon, Toulouse, castre, Montpellier, racing metro, Perpignan, Biarritz, Leinster, ulster, Leinster, Glasgow, Scarlett's, ospreys, Munster, treviso, Connacht. A good selection of teams!

Both Scotland and Italy would have a team in the comp, Wales would have three and England and France would have a couple of extra clubs in.

Why should edinburgh and Zebre deserve to play this year after such dismal performances last season in HC and rabbo? I'm saying this as an Edinburgh fan. Sure Edinburgh made semi's a season ago, but they played like pish that season in the rabbo which really annoyed me as it was clear they had given up on it to focus on the HC instead. In the future I would rather see them push for a top 8 spot in the rabbo to secure a HC place under my proposed qualification system. If they missed out it would allow them a whole season of no european rugby to work harder in the rabbo. I think It would make the rabbo more exciting, give smaller clubs more to play for and bigger clubs a tougher challenge.

English changing the goalposts all the time.


If Rabo teams do well its because they're resting players. If they do badly its because they're crap teams. Whatever happens no credit must be given.


On the one hand all the rabo teams are lumped in together and on the other hand each country is talked about individually. It depends on which argument they;re making. When it comes to HEC places the Rabo nations are treated as one. When it comes to talking about performances then they're split up into individual teams like Leinster, Munster and Zebre etc.


In the HEC negotiations all the talk is about the Rabo sides needing to give a little. Theres no talk about the fact that the English and French already have the most sides in the competition. Maybe.... just maybe, it is finely balanced at the moment?!


For all the talk of Zebre and Edinburgh (who can beat most English team) not being good enough to be there I wonder are those people saying Argentina should not be in the rugby championship too? Its a similar situation. As for turfing them out because they're not good enough, well England or France doesn't deserve more than 4 clubs in it either if thats the case.


All the talk is of the advantages Rabo sides have compared to the English and French who have to play their toughest teams week in week out. Theres no talk of the reasons why sides cannot play their full teams in the Rabo every week. Its because a large percentage of the players are playing international rugby which is miles tougher than the English or French league!!!! And why don't we hear of the French and English resting players?!


The Rabo teams have all the advantages in terms of preparation we're told. Again nonsense. At the beginning of the tournament the internationals come in undercooked because they need rest. After the 6 nations the Rabo teams have 1 week to prepare and slot back into their regional/provincial side before the HEC resumes. Ireland had a crippling injury list last season so don't give us this nonsense that the players are waltzing through Pro 12 matches and couldn't care less about winning.


We hear that the standard of the Rabo is poor, with weakened sides and nobody cares if they win or lose. The low quality games are brought up as proof. We don't hear about the high quality games that the French or English league cannot match. Oh no only the worst games are talked about. In English and French leagues all the games are great and intense and teams always play their best players... not! Have a look at the French results and teamsheets this time last week.


English and French teams claim they bring in the money to the table as if they own the fans. They're independent clubs and large parts of England and France are not even represented by a club. Maybe English fans pay to see the HEC rather than pay to watch English teams. I mean Irish fans pay to watch English premiership soccer and all that money goes to the premiership clubs.



Anyway I'm just highlighting how the goalposts are moving all the time. I think its a fair competition as it is. It was set up by the 6 unions to help grow the game and thats what it has helped to do.. especially in Ireland. I think the clubs are doing what clubs do, that is to try and get as much power and money for themselves.


I think we'll see the true value the Rabo teams bring to the table when the Franglo cup flops. It will flop! Then the PRL and LNR will see that English and French fans want a HEC.


Anyway with the financial difficulties English clubs are in its inevitable that if this BT deal doesn't work out we might see the Pro 12 and Englsh premiership combine with 2 or more divisions of near equal funding and a smaller HEC. The French will continue on their own path.

Brendan wrote:I nearly would rather have no HC next season and finish the season 2 months early.  Then have a 6N same time as the 4N so we are ready for the WRC.

Not sure that the 6N would need to be moved, simply don't play league games during the 6N. But that's a really good point. Not the best idea the mess around with things in the months leading up to a WC. But then, if the French teams are allowed to concentrate on their domestic league, would this make them stronger or weaker, potential winners or even more fractured and hopeless...?

For France, the issue of how to pay for the ever increasing cost of galactico recruitment is plain to see; it's less about winning the HC, which we've seen they do not prize nearly as highly as they do their league, than having more money. Likewise with England. This is the perfect opportunity, however, to restructure the league, specifically the Rabo. It's a rubbish competition, in the last 12 months I've sort of come round to the realisation that it simply isn't going to last, and better to cut off the wound now rather than let it spread and affect the body as a whole. It's based on a Super XV style mulitinational competition, but the domestic leagues of their respective nations are of a pitiful standard in comparison to the English and French top leagues. Ideally, if there is to be a Europen competition in some league and knockout format like the Super XV, it should include all European nations, and it should be tiered. It's a pipe dream, but it's the clearly the best and most workable way.

I can honestly see the HC still being played next season.

It's incredibly sad. I am trying to keep perspective. Us Irish have been treated, spoiled really with HEC. It made the game in Ireland what it is today. Because of this near no Irish person wants it touched. But the winds are changing and we are too small to stop change.

This is bad for rugby. But particularly NH rugby and all that entails. If HEC goes, if the rifts go deep between the unions, then we will see super-charged English and French leagues. Wales will become a series of feeder clubs, then scotland. Italy already is. The IRFU will hold out longer but will eventually not afford to keep our own talent. The treat of a place on the national team will no longer be incentive enough to keep our players. Clubs will dominate countries on the sporting calendar.

I was a huge football fan for years. Jumped on the Man U band wagon when I was 11 and never jumped off... Until right after the treble that is. I couldn't stand what football had become, the prima donnas rolling around on the ground, the disrespect for officials, the money, money, money. I cannot watch football anymore. Rugby, our beautiful, violent sport, war by another means, by the greatest means, is ending. Its been ending for years and we all know it. I am 29 and already feel I will be an old fogey telling the young one's the glory days when Irish players played in Ireland.

The only thing that can save NH rugby, or at least slow its inevitable decline into the faith I outline above, are the French and English unions. There must be a couple of romantics left who see that the clubs care only about one thing. Money. RFU, FFR and the IRB are the only ones left with any power to stop the clubs from killing the game.

Wolfball, there is another option. Rabo clubs could agree to change. Some of these changes would be good for them. Having to qualify would mean the league is more competitive and would make it more attractive for spectators. Welsh and Scottish regions cannot attract spectators at the moment. Surely change is required to address this. Otherwise the best players will end up in England and France.

You are right in saying that the status quo has been good for Irish Rugby. The trouble is that it is not good for English and French clubs who each get 24% of the money with Rabo getting 52%.

Exiledinborders wrote:Wolfball, there is another option. Rabo clubs could agree to change. Some of these changes would be good for them. Having to qualify would mean the league is more competitive and would make it more attractive for spectators. Welsh and Scottish regions cannot attract spectators at the moment. Surely change is required to address this. Otherwise the best players will end up in England and France.

You are right in saying that the status quo has been good for Irish Rugby. The trouble is that it is not good for English and French clubs who each get 24% of the money with Rabo getting 52%.

I hope the Rabo Unions see sense & think like you Exiled.

From today's Grauniad

The Heineken Cup was on the agenda at this week's meeting of the Six Nations committee in Rome, as it was at a gathering of the RaboDirect Pro 12 board last week when the consensus was that if the English and French left the Heineken Cup, they would not be able to arrange an alternative tournament and would face a player exodus.
"ERC would have to be wound up and we would be left high and dry," said one delegate. "The unions have dragged their feet on this and if it backfires on them, it would be irresponsible to then deny their  professional sides to play in a new tournament. They have to recognise how serious this is. Perhaps it would be best for the Heineken Cup to fall so we could start over again with a blank sheet of paper."

So maybe the Pro12 teams are not against this?  Maybe this is not really English and French clubs against the Celts but club/region against unions.  Given that the unions control the Irish and Scottish regions I suspect that the mystery delegate is Welsh. It would not surprise me to see Welsh regions join new setup.

So 52% between 4 unions and 48% between 2 is that? I strongly disagree that the Rabo is in a weak position. Sky will have the rights next season and whatever you say about BT they will not match Sky through rugby.

I think a break from the HEC could strengthen the Rabo further. Not that I'm saying I want any of this to happen.

As I understood it any involvement has to be ratified by the unions so the regions can't do anything without the unions approval. Its a very big leap to say the welsh would join anyway given the past statements made and the fact they'd would be getting less money

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:

beshocked wrote:Deluded where's the stat that shows that celts have a 70% win rate against English clubs? Perhaps Munster and Leinster but the rest? I doubt it.

I already stated on another post that the likes of Edinburgh, Connacht and Glasgow have overall win rate of 30% in the HC.

I know plenty of teams in the Pro12 who have a poor record against my side. I think only Leinster,Munster and surprisingly Cardiff have a good record.   It's 5-7 vs Irish sides currently - should make it even this season hopefully.

Whats your team? a few searches will show you how poor the English sides do against the welsh regions.

You get this thing with internet fora when someone tells the BIG LIE and you can get all uptight with refuting it, but sometimes it's best just to consign it to the big LIE folder

Scarlets

107 games

56 wins 1 draw 50 losses – 52% win ratio


Cardiff

104 games

53 wins, 4 draws, 47 losses -51% win ratio



Ospreys

59 games

29 wins, 3 draws, 27 losses – 49% win ratio


Dragons

42 games

9 wins, 33 losses -21% win ratio



Scottish sides


Edinburgh

93 games

34 wins, 3 draws, 56 losses – 36% win ratio


Glasgow

81 games

25 wins, 2 draws, 54 losses – 31% win ratio




Irish sides


Munster

124 games

87 wins, 1 draw, 36 losses – 70% win ratio



Leinster

117 games

79 wins,3 draws,35 losses – 67.5% win ratio


Ulster

105 games

49 wins, 3 draws, 53 losses -46% win ratio

Connacht

8 games

2 wins, 6 losses – 25% win ratio

AWWWWHHH!!! didums! who's the b!tch now?

Deluded you changed what you said. In your original post you said vs English sides.As you know you are wrong you are back tracking - turning it into overall stats.

These are some English sides overall wins to compare anyway.

Tigers - 65.8%
Wasps - 65.3%
Sarries - 61%
Gloucester - 60.3%
Saints - 59.7%
Bath - 59.7%



artful dodger it's quite a crucial point that Ulster won the HC when there were no English sides. Looking at Ulster's record vs English sides it's quite fortunate they didn't face one! Yes Ulster have done well in 3 seasons - about time too. Still a pretty poor overall HC win record. Also perhaps I need to explain it you but the more HC tournaments you take part in the higher chance you have of winning. Got to be in it to win it.

I like Ulster actually but they are overhyped.

Student-A1 wrote:About time, at some point you have to say it is a joke of a qualification process and people are refusing to change. If anything I am excited about seeing what club competition is organised that doesn't include whiping boys and is far more competitive. Right through the tournament that is and not just in knockout time.

What do you mean by 'qualification'? Each union has a number of spots in European competition and each union decides how they're allocated. The Celtic unions and the italians have chosen their method of allocation, the English and French unions have chosen theirs.

Standulstermen wrote:So 52% between 4 unions and 48% between 2 is that? I strongly disagree that the Rabo is in a weak position. Sky will have the rights next season and whatever you say about BT they will not match Sky through rugby.

I think a break from the HEC could strengthen the Rabo further. Not that I'm saying I want any of this to happen.

As I understood it any involvement has to be ratified by the unions so the regions can't do anything without the unions approval. Its a very big leap to say the welsh would join anyway given the past statements made and the fact they'd would be getting less money

Hmm. I have to to disagree. Quite properly and in line with the 2007 accord, the PRL and NRL served notice about renegotiating the terms of engagement in the next format of the ERC competitions. Since June last year, the time bomb was ticking and since the end of the end of the pool stages in January it has becoming increasingly evident that the rabo have been leaching bargaining chips. They now stand with a tear in their eye, a hole in the foot and a smoking gun in their hand.

The Dublin meeting today leaves the Rabo in the invidious position of having to patch together a late deal when their bargaining position is at its nadir.

My understanding from the Irish Independent is that they have a month to agree or go it alone.

Bringing up records from years and years ago has little or no relevance. The only relevant thing is what each nation/union can bring to the table now. So ulster may well have an overall poor rating v English teams but they have a better last 5 years in the HEC than any English team which is evidenced by them moving from pot 3 to pot 1.

Tell saints, bath or Leicester that they are playing ulster and they wouldn't be too happy. Also the year we won the HEC we beat the top two sides in Europe anyway.

I don't mind playing Ulster. No point having a European competition without the best teams in it although having really weak ones distorting the pool stages makes it more of a lottery which is not good.

standulstermen yet Pro12 fans bring up the Ulster HC win which was years ago......

Actually that's where you are wrong. You just don't like the overall win % because they don't look too rosy for most of the Pro12 sides.

Records do make a difference. No matter how old they are. When you having a losing record vs a side it plays on the mind.

Remember you have been in the HC in the last 10 years - basically auto qualification every year. Of course you should do better.

English sides must fight hard for HC rugby. They don't get it on a silver platter.

Ulster have done well in the last 3 seasons granted but you can't write off history yet bring it up when convenient for you.

The year you won - there were no English sides. You can't escape from that. Certainly when Ulster have a 39% record vs English sides.

Why all this back and forth about success rates and timeframes? All irrelevant. This is all about GREED and CONTROL. I've never been a fan of bullying personally

beshocked wrote:English sides must fight hard for HC rugby. They don't get it on a silver platter.

Take that up with the RFU. They decide to allocate European places by league position. Nothing to do with the Celtic and Italian unions and certainly nothing to do with their clubs / regions / provinces.

There is too much looking backwards in all of this and I think that has been a big part of the problem. We are looking at a new world, post the current ERC agreement and history is just that whether its team records, financial arrangements or qualification. It seems that the rabo nations thought that France and England were bluffing when anyone with an ounce of intelligence could clearly see they weren't.

Some of the petty vitriol in here is quite pathetic and reminds me of school kids running to the teacher screaming 'it's not fair!'. At what point did they think that even though they had given notice and clearly demonstrated they were able to negotiate better financial deals were they just going to turn around and say, 'oh well, you don't seem to be too chuffed about this so we'll go back to the old deal we never liked. BT you keep your money'. It's like giving your notice in at work when you have a new job and your current employer saying, 'nope, we quite like the fact you don't earn that much here and we do quite nicely out of it. Go back to your desk and carry on'. Then getting a big surprise 3 months later when the chair is empty...

alasbut100 again you think it's irrelevant because you don't have a leg to stand on.

I say the likes of Edinburgh and Glasgow are poor in the HC. I back it up with overall win % stats from the ERC website. You don't have a satisfactory answer to defend.

You are right it is about greed and control - the english and french are trying to curb the excesses of greed and control of the Pro12 sides.

Pro12 sides want to keep the status quo because it suits them nicely. A nice fat pot of money for doing very little.

Pro12 sides are getting stroppy because the English and French don't like the Pro12 trying to bully them. The Pro12 sides don't want to negotiate. They just want to rant and whine.

Why should the English and French bow to the Pro12 sides?

I hope the PRL are just bluffing because the IRB certainly will not be when they get involved.

Might well see the HEC continue with the English excluded after their behaviour.

beshocked wrote:Why should the English and French bow to the Pro12 sides?

Because they already get more European places than any of the other unions as it is?

beshocked wrote:alasbut100 again you think it's irrelevant because you don't have a leg to stand on.

I say the likes of Edinburgh and Glasgow are poor in the HC. I back it up with overall win % stats from the ERC website. You don't have a satisfactory answer to defend.

You are right it is about greed and control - the english and french are trying to curb the excesses of greed and control of the Pro12 sides.

Pro12 sides want to keep the status quo because it suits them nicely. A nice fat pot of money for doing very little.

Pro12 sides are getting stroppy because the English and French don't like the Pro12 trying to bully them. The Pro12 sides don't want to negotiate. They just want to rant and whine.

Why should the English and French bow to the Pro12 sides?

I think you'll find I have two, not quite in perfect working order, but certainly two - thanks

I'm not going to debate Heino record's with you - suffice it to say that I feel that the future for Scottish pro-districts looks brighter than it has for some time - until this, of course

Luckless Pedestrian not sure what the RFU has to do with it. Pro12 have 11 of their 12 clubs in the HC. England has 6 out of 12. 7 out of 14 for the French.

Toadfish Is it coincidence that most of the history is rubbish comes from Pro12 supporters? You don't like what history says.

Maestegmafia you wish.

Luckless Pedestrian you can't pick and choose when you are seperate unions or when part of the Pro12. You are part of the Pro12 - this means you should have qualification just like the AP and Top 14. Why should the Irish,Welsh,Scots and Italians have an easy ride when it comes to  HC rugby? Simply because you have less sides?

You talk about development yet not many pro12 sides have actually progressed in the HC outside Leinster,Munster and recently Ulster.

I want to see 6,6, 8. Hardly draconian.

alabut100ofus you can't debate with me about HC records because Edinburgh and Glasgow have woeful ones. There is no getting round that.

You call it bullying yet the way it sounds - 4 unions want to bully two.

beshocked wrote:alasbut100 again you think it's irrelevant because you don't have a leg to stand on.

I say the likes of Edinburgh and Glasgow are poor in the HC. I back it up with overall win % stats from the ERC website. You don't have a satisfactory answer to defend.

You are right it is about greed and control - the english and french are trying to curb the excesses of greed and control of the Pro12 sides.

Pro12 sides want to keep the status quo because it suits them nicely. A nice fat pot of money for doing very little.

Pro12 sides are getting stroppy because the English and French don't like the Pro12 trying to bully them. The Pro12 sides don't want to negotiate. They just want to rant and whine.

Why should the English and French bow to the Pro12 sides?

Do you even know the meaning of the word? Remind me what exactly the PRL are proposing that the English clubs give up? Erm, let me help you - NOTHING. Yep, all the giving up is on the side of the four smaller unions. BULLYING of the highest order - your support for it says it all

maestegmafia wrote:I hope the PRL are just bluffing because the IRB certainly will not be when they get involved.

Might well see the HEC continue with the English excluded after their behaviour.

And the French I assume as they have behaved in exactly the same manner as the English? But that doesn't suit your agenda does it...

beshocked wrote:Luckless Pedestrian not sure what the RFU has to do with it. Pro12 have 11 of their 12 clubs in the HC. England has 6 out of 12. 7 out of 14 for the French... You can't pick and choose when you are seperate (sic) unions or when part of the Pro12. You are part of the Pro12 - this means you should have qualification just like the AP and Top 14.

The only one picking and choosing is you. Allocation of European places is down to each union. The English and French do it based on league position, the others don't.

beshocked wrote:You talk about development yet not many pro12 sides have actually progressed in the HC outside Leinster,Munster and recently Ulster.

I haven't said anything about development.

Why can't we change the Pro12 to the Super12.
Play 22 league games plus 2 playoffs
5 AIs
6 weeks for 6N

Total 35

Then have our own 4N that was played the 4 weeks before the 6N including a week off before the 6N. You play home and away including the 6N games.

So that would have us with 6 extra weeks covering HC.

We would have 5 extra international which would make plenty.

I am worried that the Welsh will join in this franglo cup but the other 3 unions need to tell them it will cost them their rabo places. If that happens the welsh will have to go back to their prem and will they be wanted then.

alabut100 the current HC situation favours the Pro12 sides in terms of funding and places. I refer to the Pro12 because 4 unions decided to join forces to make up the Pro12.

Why is it fair that you should get auto qualification? Just because you happen to be able to afford less professional clubs?

Asbo,

I have said before that the PRL and T14 are being selfish and demanding. are they being bulies - possibly.

That does not mean that they are 100% wrong. The other sides want the status quo as that means that they are funded by English and French incomes.

The ERC want the status quo as they keep there cosy jobs and there News International funded jaunts to Vegas and Dubai.

Of course this is not the first time that European Rugby has seen bullying. Due to the incompetence of the RFU, English clubs entered a year late. The clubs went cap in hand seeking admittance, which they got - but were denied any voting rights and received a smaller share of the revenues. They tried to negotiate a fairer settlement and were denied. In the end they left for a year and got everything they wanted (yes they asked for more than they got - but they got what they wanted, equal voting rights and an increased share in the revenues). Who was the bully? Well it is up to each individual to decide.

beshocked wrote:alabut100 the current HC situation favours the Pro12 sides in terms of funding and places. I refer to the Pro12 because 4 unions decided to join forces to make up the Pro12.

Why is it fair that you should get auto qualification? Just because you happen to be able to afford less professional clubs?

It's really simple, beshocked. If you want a competitive 6Ns/international game in the NH, then that's what you need to do - else carry on, and soon enough it'll be you and the French are all that's left at that level  

LondonTiger wrote:Asbo,

I have said before that the PRL and T14 are being selfish and demanding. are they being bulies - possibly.

That does not mean that they are 100% wrong. The other sides want the status quo as that means that they are funded by English and French incomes.

The ERC want the status quo as they keep there cosy jobs and there News International funded jaunts to Vegas and Dubai.

Of course this is not the first time that European Rugby has seen bullying. Due to the incompetence of the RFU, English clubs entered a year late. The clubs went cap in hand seeking admittance, which they got - but were denied any voting rights and received a smaller share of the revenues. They tried to negotiate a fairer settlement and were denied. In the end they left for a year and got everything they wanted (yes they asked for more than they got - but they got what they wanted, equal voting rights and an increased share in the revenues). Who was the bully? Well it is up to each individual to decide.

LT, Don't get me wrong, I see no virtue in the 'we must keep the status quo' at all costs, there simply must be change, that is clear to all.

All this endless talk of performance in the competition bemuses me. Yes, the Irish have done very well and the Welsh have done fairly well in the group stages. However, making a direct comparison between them and the French and English sides is disingenuous when the playing field hasn't been level. Not having to qualify confers two advantages - better seeding and more options around player management.

Why? Seeding because you accumulate seeding points just by being in the competition, so teams that are guaranteed qualification are guaranteed points and - over time - have a much better chance of a better seeding, and therefore a better chance of more points. It's self-perpetuating. Player management because a Rabo team has more opportunity to rest a player who is 95% in the league and wait til they are fully fit; an AP or LNR team often has to take the chance and play players in the league because the games matter more. The overall impact is subtle, but it's enough to make an "I've won more games than you" childish and facile.

As for the money, yes, 2 unions get about half the money and a little over half the qualifying places. But those unions contain and maintain more clubs. Arguing that it's fair to allocate money and places only considering the number of unions is a bit like saying that child benefit or tax allowances should be allocated at a household level, so that each household gets the same total child benefit whether they have one child or five.

In fact, a very good analogy of the current financial situation is to imagine 6 households who share their income. 2 households have 2 children each, 2 have 4, one has 12 and one has 14. The latter two households make most of the income, but take out less than half of the total pot. The other households get roughly equal shares of the remainder. All the households have to feed and clothe their kids, pay school fees etc.

Oh, and there are only 24 bicycles in the village. The two smallest households have 4 bikes between them that no-one else is allowed to ride. The two with 4 kids have 6 bikes, the other two have 6 bikes each (and 14 scooters), and there are a couple of bikes for the kids who are fastest on the bike and the scooter each week. Of course, practice on the bikes makes you more likely to win the race.

Ok, it's a pretty daft scenario. But so is the current HEC setup, and my village does highlight some of the inconsistencies and biases. I think some bias is required - there *should* be at least one team from each nation, and there probably should be a slight bias towards the Rabo teams in the income distribution. But we shouldn't have a permanent structural advantage for some teams in qualifying and seeding, and we shouldn't have some teams receiving several times the income of others. Since the BT deal apparently makes it possible to rebalance the money without reducing anyone's take in absolute terms, a resolution ought to be possible.

Whether it happens perforce or by negotiation rather depends on whether the Rabo unions (or their teams) are willing to negotiate properly.

Toadfish wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I hope the PRL are just bluffing because the IRB certainly will not be when they get involved.

Might well see the HEC continue with the English excluded after their behaviour.

And the French I assume as they have behaved in exactly the same manner as the English?  But that doesn't suit your agenda does it...

Actually they haven't - the French official position (rather than the one given to them by the PRL) is that they don't want to participate in a tournament that excludes ANY party

beshocked wrote:standulstermen yet Pro12 fans bring up the Ulster HC win which was years ago......

Actually that's where you are wrong. You just don't like the overall win % because they don't look too rosy for most of the Pro12 sides.

Records do make a difference. No matter how old they are. When you having a losing record vs a side it plays on the mind.

Remember you have been in the HC in the last 10 years - basically auto qualification every year. Of course you should do better.

English sides must fight hard for HC rugby. They don't get it on a silver platter.

Ulster have done well in the last 3 seasons granted but you can't write off history yet bring it up when convenient for you.

The year you won - there were no English sides. You can't escape from that. Certainly when Ulster have a 39% record vs English sides.

The year we won is irrelevant to the argument as I have said. I was merely pointing out that we beat the top two European sides in that year.

In the years you mentioned though ulster had to fight hard for European rugby (because we were crap). In that same period we embarrassed both Leicester and Toulouse. The year quins became premiership champions they we're beaten in galway.

What is relevant is what a new league would be formed of as I have said. Any proposed new league without 3 of the top seeds in the current format is fundamentally flawed. By your lofty standards from the previous page none of your premiership teams would apply. The reality is that a proposed league between two countries isn't 'inclusive' no matter what way you spin it and whilst BT might throw money at the clubs the demand to see Bath v Grenoble won't make it viable

Poorfour wrote:All this endless talk of performance in the competition bemuses me. Yes, the Irish have done very well and the Welsh have done fairly well in the group stages. However, making a direct comparison between them and the French and English sides is disingenuous when the playing field hasn't been level. Not having to qualify confers two advantages - better seeding and more options around player management.

Why? Seeding because you accumulate seeding points just by being in the competition, so teams that are guaranteed qualification are guaranteed points and - over time - have a much better chance of a better seeding, and therefore a better chance of more points. It's self-perpetuating. Player management because a Rabo team has more opportunity to rest a player who is 95% in the league and wait til they are fully fit; an AP or LNR team often has to take the chance and play players in the league because the games matter more. The overall impact is subtle, but it's enough to make an "I've won more games than you" childish and facile.

As for the money, yes, 2 unions get about half the money and a little over half the qualifying places. But those unions contain and maintain more clubs. Arguing that it's fair to allocate money and places only considering the number of unions is a bit like saying that child benefit or tax allowances should be allocated at a household level, so that each household gets the same total child benefit whether they have one child or five.

In fact, a very good analogy of the current financial situation is to imagine 6 households who share their income. 2 households have 2 children each, 2 have 4, one has 12 and one has 14. The latter two households make most of the income, but take out less than half of the total pot. The other households get roughly equal shares of the remainder. All the households have to feed and clothe their kids, pay school fees etc.

Oh, and there are only 24 bicycles in the village. The two smallest households have 4 bikes between them that no-one else is allowed to ride. The two with 4 kids have 6 bikes, the other two have 6 bikes each (and 14 scooters), and there are a couple of bikes for the kids who are fastest on the bike and the scooter each week. Of course, practice on the bikes makes you more likely to win the race.

Ok, it's a pretty daft scenario. But so is the current HEC setup, and my village does highlight some of the inconsistencies and biases. I think some bias is required - there *should* be at least one team from each nation, and there probably should be a slight bias towards the Rabo teams in the income distribution. But we shouldn't have a permanent structural advantage for some teams in qualifying and seeding, and we shouldn't have some teams receiving several times the income of others. Since the BT deal apparently makes it possible to rebalance the money without reducing anyone's take in absolute terms, a resolution ought to be possible.

Whether it happens perforce or by negotiation rather depends on whether the Rabo unions (or their teams) are willing to negotiate properly.

Why not aim for a structure based on possibly the highest earning sports competition in the world, the NFL? Salary caps, drafts, etc. But that's not really what the PRL want - they simply want MONEY & CONTROL

alasbut100ofus this is where we disagree. I don't think Edinburgh and Zebre for example dropping down to the Amlin would harm them. It would give them a hunger and motivation to improve.

With the so called extra revenue from the HC as it stands the likes of Edinburgh and Zebre have done very little from it. 0 wins in all competitions is not healthy situation for Zebre. If Italy want to help Zebre they need to support them more. Same with the Scots and Edinburgh.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I hope the PRL are just bluffing because the IRB certainly will not be when they get involved.

Might well see the HEC continue with the English excluded after their behaviour.

And the French I assume as they have behaved in exactly the same manner as the English?  But that doesn't suit your agenda does it...

Actually they haven't - the French official position (rather than the one given to them by the PRL) is that they don't want to participate in a tournament that excludes ANY party

Then you seem to have missed the news that these current developments are a joint move, just as the submitting of notice was.

Have any English fans brought up that they FILL TWICKERS easily for HC games yet?

But have they ignored the fact that 3x times as many people live in London than the whole of Wales?
And you just don't jump on the tube to get from North to South Wales

The Rabo winners of the Heineken have never been outside the top 6 and when you consider Leinster have (I think) on two occasions had back to back finals the whole 'Rabo sides have an advantage' by not qualifying doesn't stack up. I'm not against qualification truth be told but the idea to give 4 unions a possible 6 guaranteed places whilst 2 unions have 12 is flawed and not 'inclusive' as I have said.

Oh Well.

They should just run a european league split in to 4 divisions.

Div 1
Top 3 English Sides
Top 3 Rabo
Top 3 French

Div 2
Teams placed 4, 5, 6 in the 3 leagues

Div 3
Teams placed 7, 8,9 & 10 in the 3 leagues

That's how it would start and then each year you have promotion & relegation of 2 teams. I wonder how feasible something like that would be?

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:Have any English fans brought up that they FILL TWICKERS easily for HC games yet?

But have they ignored the fact that 3x times as many people live in London than the whole of Wales?
And you just don't jump on the tube to get from North to South Wales

Seems like you are having a nice little argument with yourself there?