Do you want a European Cup

by maestegmafia Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:33 am

Financial stipulations and other arguments aside, do you want a European Rugby Cup?

Do you want to see your team battling the BEST teams in Europe or not?

by Exiledinborders Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:06 am

I would like a competition where all teams compete on an equal basis. That is pretty much what the PRL and LNR want.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:08 am

Exiledinborders wrote:I would like a competition where all teams compete on an equal basis. That is pretty much what the PRL and LNR want.

cowpat - the PRL want a competition in which they get more MONEY and they have ultimate CONTROL - equality, my arse

by beshocked Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:12 am

Do you want an European cup? Or is it just 6 nations?

It's obvious that the European competitions need a huge restructure. Unfortunately only the English and French see the necessity for this.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:16 am

beshocked wrote:Do you want an European cup? Or is it just 6 nations?

It's obvious that the European competitions need a huge restructure. Unfortunately only the English and French see the necessity for this.

More cowpat - everyone recognises the need for some restructuring, but the basis for negotiation traditionally is that both sides give a little and find common ground in the middle. The PRL are giving NOTHING and taking ALL

by **Ozzy3213** Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:21 am

I don't think that's true As. Obviously we only have media reports to go on really, but from what I've read the Celtic nations do not want to budge form the current format. I'm not sure that can be construed as 'giving a little'.

by beshocked Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:36 am

alasbut100 what restructuring do you want to see?

All I have heard is anger at any potential changes.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:57 am

beshocked wrote:alasbut100 what restructuring do you want to see?

All I have heard is anger at any potential changes.

A few points:
1. Ultimately club rugby exists to serve international rugby
2. Restructuring necessitates movement on all sides
3. A minimum of two teams is required by each participating nation to ensure top flight international competitiveness
4. Competition for qualification is healthy
5. The greater the number of participants from a country, the greater their share of $$$
6. The further progression in the competition, the greater the share of $$$

(I recognise that some of these may conflict with one another)

The French want less teams - fine, so 20 it is; they want 2 x 3, instead of 3 x 2 - am sure that can be accommodated; they want earlier semi-final and final - again, np.

So, let's have a three tier European wide competition:
Tier 1 - 20 teams, 6 from AP, 6 from T14, 8 from 3 Celtic unions and Italy; if you insist on last year's winners from Tiers 1&2, then it becomes 5+5+8+2
Tier 2 - 20 teams, 6 from AP, 8 from T14 (may be 10 if they move to a T16 format), 4 from 3CUs&Italy, 2 others
Tier 3 - 20 teams (no idea where funding is coming from for this cos lets be honest those competing in the top two tiers won't want to give any up) from ProD2, RFU Championship, Spain, Italy, Romania, etc.

I'll need to think more about how to fairly share revenue

by beshocked Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:05 pm

1. Does it? I think that's just what you want. Personally I want a balance.
2. Don't disagree but depends what.
3. Why? Surely a level more suited some is better. The problem is the likes of Edinburgh are that they use the English and French as scape goats. They don't look in the mirror and see their own flaws. You think Edinburgh playing their games in Murrayfield is a smart business move? By the way I acknowledge English clubs are far from perfect. Quite a few could have more home grown players for example.

4. I agree. Hence wanting competition for qualification in the Pro12.
5.Don't disagree.
6.Again don't disagree.

Your structure - 6,6, 8. Again time and again I have said I agree with.

by Exiledinborders Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:20 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
beshocked wrote:alasbut100 what restructuring do you want to see?

All I have heard is anger at any potential changes.
A few points:
1. Ultimately club rugby exists to serve international rugby
2. Restructuring necessitates movement on all sides
3. A minimum of two teams is required by each participating nation to ensure top flight international competitiveness
4. Competition for qualification is healthy
5. The greater the number of participants from a country, the greater their share of $$$
6. The further progression in the competition, the greater the share of $$$

(I recognise that some of these may conflict with one another)

The French want less teams - fine, so 20 it is; they want 2 x 3, instead of 3 x 2 - am sure that can be accommodated; they want earlier semi-final and final - again, np.

So, let's have a three tier European wide competition:
Tier 1 - 20 teams, 6 from AP, 6 from T14, 8 from 3 Celtic unions and Italy; if you insist on last year's winners from Tiers 1&2, then it becomes 5+5+8+2
Tier 2 - 20 teams, 6 from AP, 8 from T14 (may be 10 if they move to a T16 format), 4 from 3CUs&Italy, 2 others
Tier 3 - 20 teams (no idea where funding is coming from for this cos lets be honest those competing in the top two tiers won't want to give any up) from ProD2, RFU Championship, Spain, Italy, Romania, etc.

I'll need to think more about how to fairly share revenue

You indicate you are happy with 6 6 8 but I am not sure why if the two winners are guaranteed places this should come from the PRL and LNR's share rather than Rabo's! On this basis if an English and a French team are the two winners they get 6 teams each (i.e. they get back up to 6) but if the winners come from the Rabo they get two places in addition to their 8' i.e. 10 places.

If 6 6 8 was on offer the PRL and LNR would have almost certanly accepted it. I am sure they would accept a money split in the same proportion.

The trouble is the Rabo teams will not budge from the current 6 6 10 and a money split of 24 24 52.

It now looks as though because of their stubbornness in insisting on 52% of the money they may end up with 100% of nothing.

by Jenifer McLadyboy Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:35 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:
If 6 6 8 was on offer the PRL and LNR would have almost certanly accepted it. I am sure they would accept a money split in the same proportion.

The trouble is the Rabo teams will not budge from the current 6 6 10 and a money split of 24 24 52.

It now looks as though because of their stubbornness in insisting on 52% of the money they may end up with 100% of nothing.

The troubble is, the only people insisting that the bold bit is true are the PRL. It may or may not be true. I reckon that the other players are willing to compromise if they are asked rather than dictated to in the media.

Personally I think that if we are going 6 6 8 then the Amlin winners should qualify at the expense of the bottom team from their country. (The HC winners have never failed to be top 6 in any league nor are they likely to)

Get rid of this rule where another (less worthy team) from the winner's country gets dragged in because of their win.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:09 pm

beshocked wrote:1. Does it? I think that's just what you want. Personally I want a balance.
2. Don't disagree but depends what.
3. Why? Surely a level more suited some is better. The problem is the likes of Edinburgh are that they use the English and French as scape goats. They don't look in the mirror and see their own flaws. You think Edinburgh playing their games in Murrayfield is a smart business move? By the way I acknowledge English clubs are far from perfect. Quite a few could have more home grown players for example.

4. I agree. Hence wanting competition for qualification in the Pro12.
5.Don't disagree.
6.Again don't disagree.

Your structure - 6,6, 8. Again time and again I have said I agree with.

So, in reality, it boils down to the requirement for a minimum of two teams competing at the top level to ensure a decent level of competition at international level - and that is the principal upon which the 6 unions all agreed at the founding of the ERC

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:12 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
beshocked wrote:alasbut100 what restructuring do you want to see?

All I have heard is anger at any potential changes.
A few points:
1. Ultimately club rugby exists to serve international rugby
2. Restructuring necessitates movement on all sides
3. A minimum of two teams is required by each participating nation to ensure top flight international competitiveness
4. Competition for qualification is healthy
5. The greater the number of participants from a country, the greater their share of $$$
6. The further progression in the competition, the greater the share of $$$

(I recognise that some of these may conflict with one another)

The French want less teams - fine, so 20 it is; they want 2 x 3, instead of 3 x 2 - am sure that can be accommodated; they want earlier semi-final and final - again, np.

So, let's have a three tier European wide competition:
Tier 1 - 20 teams, 6 from AP, 6 from T14, 8 from 3 Celtic unions and Italy; if you insist on last year's winners from Tiers 1&2, then it becomes 5+5+8+2
Tier 2 - 20 teams, 6 from AP, 8 from T14 (may be 10 if they move to a T16 format), 4 from 3CUs&Italy, 2 others
Tier 3 - 20 teams (no idea where funding is coming from for this cos lets be honest those competing in the top two tiers won't want to give any up) from ProD2, RFU Championship, Spain, Italy, Romania, etc.

I'll need to think more about how to fairly share revenue
You indicate you are happy with 6 6 8 but I am not sure why if the two winners are guaranteed places this should come from the PRL and LNR's share rather than Rabo's! On this basis if an English and a French team are the two winners they get 6 teams each (i.e. they get back up to 6) but if the winners come from the Rabo they get two places in addition to their 8' i.e. 10 places.

If 6 6 8 was on offer the PRL and LNR would have almost certanly accepted it. I am sure they would accept a money split in the same proportion.

The trouble is the Rabo teams will not budge from the current 6 6 10 and a money split of 24 24 52.

It now looks as though because of their stubbornness in insisting on 52% of the money they may end up with 100% of nothing.

No, EiB, it is NOT 6-6-10, nor 24-24-52 - it is 6-6-3-3-2-2 and 24-24-14-14-14-10 (or s/thing similar, not quite sure of the %s for the CUs & Italy, but that's close enough)

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:13 pm

and you can't sensibly put those percentages together with the numbers as you're ignoring the Amlin and you're ignoring maes's point that the split of money also depends on progress in the competition

by maestegmafia Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:17 pm

So who doesn't want a European Cup, state your reason?

by Tattie Scones RRN Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:19 pm

If these clowns in England get their way, you'll see a football scenario where the rich teams get richer and the smaller teams will never have a hope in hell in growing, thus never having even a slight chance of success in Europe.

TBH, get rid of them and the French. The RPD can then concentrate on growing in terms of finance and playing quality.

Perhaps even invite S15 teams into an annual knockout tournament held over a week against the Scots, Irish, Italian and Welsh.

by Scrumpy Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:24 pm

I voted - NO - it is a pointless time waster that I have no interest in.

The Euro cup should only be played by Clubs (not regions etc..) that have a professional league in their own Country and the qualifying rules are the same for everyone.

by Scrumpy Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:25 pm

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
Perhaps even invite S15 teams into an annual knockout tournament held over a week against the Scots, Irish, Italian and Welsh.

by asoreleftshoulder Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:32 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:
You indicate you are happy with 6 6 8 but I am not sure why if the two winners are guaranteed places this should come from the PRL and LNR's share rather than Rabo's! On this basis if an English and a French team are the two winners they get 6 teams each (i.e. they get back up to 6) but if the winners come from the Rabo they get two places in addition to their 8' i.e. 10 places.

If 6 6 8 was on offer the PRL and LNR would have almost certanly accepted it. I am sure they would accept a money split in the same proportion.

The trouble is the Rabo teams will not budge from the current 6 6 10 and a money split of 24 24 52.

It now looks as though because of their stubbornness in insisting on 52% of the money they may end up with 100% of nothing.

Why do England and France deserve 6 yet Ireland only get 3 or 4 max.If it was a truly fair structure Ireland,Scotland,Italy and Wales would have 6 places each,we can't fill them so we'd just put all our teams in and that would make a 24 team competition.

by Jimpy Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:37 pm

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:If these clowns in England get their way, you'll see a football scenario where the rich teams get richer and the smaller teams will never have a hope in hell in growing, thus never having even a slight chance of success in Europe.

TBH, get rid of them and the French. The RPD can then concentrate on growing in terms of finance and playing quality.

Perhaps even invite S15 teams into an annual knockout tournament held over a week against the Scots, Irish, Italian and Welsh.

Yes brilliant, until you consider that the raison d'etre of the RABO is to act as a platform for European rugby and that Tthere was a thought that if SANZAR don't appease the SARU, then South African teams may consider joining the FrEnglish competition in 2016.

by beshocked Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:58 pm

asoreshoulder which professional Irish teams have been overlooked for the HC?

Only 3 or 4 for Ireland? 100% representation this season.

Oh and btw England has 6 sides with win rates in the HC around 60%. That's far above both Ulster and Connacht.

Ulster have a 39% win rate vs English clubs. Despite people thinking Ulster are up on a high pedestal with Leinster and Munster they are not.

Surely Ireland,Wales,Scotland and Italy wouldn't be able to sustain 6 teams each.

The problem with Pro12 fans is they don't look in the mirror.

The club game in Wales is failing. Is that the fault of the English and French? No.

It's a poor business decision by the Scarlets and the Welsh rugby union not to hold onto North.

Edinburgh still persist in playing at Murrayfield. That's a poor business decision.

Blaming the English and French deflects attention.

Taking away auto qualification should hopefully stop Pro12 sides in general from being complacent plus heavily relying on the HC for revenue.

You also increase the value of the competition if qualification applies to more teams.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:05 pm

beshocked wrote:asoreshoulder which professional Irish teams have been overlooked for the HC?

Only 3 or 4 for Ireland? 100% representation this season.

Oh and btw England has 6 sides with win rates in the HC around 60%. That's far above both Ulster and Connacht.

Ulster have a 39% win rate vs English clubs. Despite people thinking Ulster are up on a high pedestal with Leinster and Munster they are not.

Surely Ireland,Wales,Scotland and Italy wouldn't be able to sustain 6 teams each.

The problem with Pro12 fans is they don't look in the mirror.

The club game in Wales is failing. Is that the fault of the English and French? No.

It's a poor business decision by the Scarlets and the Welsh rugby union not to hold onto North.

Edinburgh still persist in playing at Murrayfield. That's a poor business decision.

Blaming the English and French deflects attention.

Taking away auto qualification should hopefully stop Pro12 sides in general from being complacent plus heavily relying on the HC for revenue.

You also increase the value of the competition if qualification applies to more teams.

Based on what? You have an idea in your head that no atmosphere at games and small crowds = a 'poor business decision'. Have you any idea about the alternatives? None, absolutely none - in fact, you have no clue whether it is a good or bad business decision, but it suits your case to declare it poor. Bravo steam

And as for your second piece of nonsense, where is this evidence of universal complacency? And where does our revenue come from if not the ERC tournaments? You'd prefer to see the other unions go broke and the game in the NH go to rack and ruin - some Rugby fan, you mad

by Scrumpy Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:12 pm

Why do the Celtic nations always blame the English for their failings at running a rugby club as a business?

by maestegmafia Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:15 pm

Scrumpy wrote:Why do the Celtic nations always blame the English for their failings at running a rugby club as a business?

Thats a very obscure tangent...!

by SecretFly Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:17 pm

Cameron has proven himself a hypocrite when he allowed the PRL to declare war on the habitual 'little folk' without bringing it all back to the Commons for a proper vote. Whistle

We had no chemical weapons, promise Wink

There is a sweet (almost too sweet in a flowery, girlish, perfumy way) scent of smugness in these parts. Some are really enjoying the idea of habitual 'big lads' flexing muscle. Pity the muscle flexing hasn't worked out in recent years where it is most appropriate - ie, the end game of HEC itself.... players on a field proving worth rather than collecting their much published 'worth' from a TV broadcasting company.

Let the English and French clubs have their exclusive, elitist private party, where HEC natural "ability" is the entrance fee. Let them go it alone. Call their bluff. They'll still eventually have to prove themselves the best in Europe by finally asking to have a game or games with the Pro12 top dog sides in order to prove it. That pressure would always be there commercially at the end of every year. And when they'd eventually come calling again ...Pro12 would name its terms again. Wink

by Scrumpy Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:23 pm

Mate the Pro12 teams will be broke in a couple of years without English and French money.

remember you need us more than we need you!

by SecretFly Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:27 pm

Scrumpy wrote:Mate the Pro12 teams will be broke in a couple of years without English and French money.

remember you need us more than we need you!

English and French clubs have no money to give us. The money you all talk so freely about is advertising money/ broadcaster money. That doesn't belong to English clubs or French clubs but to a potential European audience...that's where the money comes from...not the clubs.

by Tattie Scones RRN Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:27 pm

Scrumpy wrote:Why do the Celtic nations always blame the English for their failings at running a rugby club as a business?

I think a more apt question is why do the English always try and feck things up for everyone else? Greed is your honest answer.

How the other Unions run their 'business' is not the reason for the wanted break away.

by Tattie Scones RRN Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:30 pm

Jimpy wrote:
Tattie Scones RRN wrote:If these clowns in England get their way, you'll see a football scenario where the rich teams get richer and the smaller teams will never have a hope in hell in growing, thus never having even a slight chance of success in Europe.

TBH, get rid of them and the French. The RPD can then concentrate on growing in terms of finance and playing quality.

Perhaps even invite S15 teams into an annual knockout tournament held over a week against the Scots, Irish, Italian and Welsh.
Yes brilliant, until you consider that the raison d'etre of the RABO is to act as a platform for European rugby and that Tthere was a thought that if SANZAR don't appease the SARU, then South African teams may consider joining the FrEnglish competition in 2016.

That's not the reason for the RABO - in Scotland anyway. You'll see that the Scottish Pro teams put just as much effort into both.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:43 pm

There does seem to be this idea that the Pro12 sides just lark about playing touch rugby most of the time and only care about the Heino. The fact is that it's a competitive league and winning it matters. The playoff game last season between Leinster and Glasgow was as intense as any European game I've seen.

by maestegmafia Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:46 pm

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:Why do the Celtic nations always blame the English for their failings at running a rugby club as a business?

I think a more apt question is why do the English always try and feck things up for everyone else? Greed is your honest answer.

How the other Unions run their 'business' is not the reason for the wanted break away.

The RFU thought the PRL and BT were acting Illegally last I read.

by Scrumpy Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:50 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:There does seem to be this idea that the Pro12 sides just lark about playing touch rugby most of the time and only care about the Heino. The fact is that it's a competitive league and winning it matters. The playoff game last season between Leinster and Glasgow was as intense as any European game I've seen.

That was a play off game!

by SecretFly Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:53 pm

Scrumpy wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:There does seem to be this idea that the Pro12 sides just lark about playing touch rugby most of the time and only care about the Heino. The fact is that it's a competitive league and winning it matters. The playoff game last season between Leinster and Glasgow was as intense as any European game I've seen.
That was a play off game!

That was rugby. They play it in Pro 12..they play it in HEC, they play it in Amlin. Pro12ers know how to play rugby. English and French club execs telling us how to play things better is a little curious and a little funny.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:04 pm

Scrumpy wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:There does seem to be this idea that the Pro12 sides just lark about playing touch rugby most of the time and only care about the Heino. The fact is that it's a competitive league and winning it matters. The playoff game last season between Leinster and Glasgow was as intense as any European game I've seen.
That was a play off game!

Yes, it was a play-off game. To play in a play-off game, you need to finish in the top four; so guess what? You have to play well all season, i.e. not lark about playing touch rugby.

by beshocked Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:13 pm

Secretfly if that's the case you would think that Pro12 sides would win more games in the HC.

Who in your opinion are the Pro12 top dogs? Who are the sides to fear? Leinster and Munster - sure. I could agree to that argument. The rest - well I'll need quite a bit of convincing.

alasbut100 no atmosphere at games and small crowds is obviously not a good thing no matter how you spin it. You are right. I don't have a solution. I don't work for Edinburgh rugby!

Do you think that playing at Murrayfield is not a problem?

Do Edinburgh have a credible solution?

Complacency comes from believing that the English clubs are bluffing. Not taking the English negotations seriously. Expecting that English and French will bow down to the status quo.

I am sure someone said on another article that the poor Italians need to pay their fellow Pro12 £3 million a year to play in the Pro12. Sounds like there's a lot of solidarity in the Pro12 ranks.

Your revenue should come from home games in the Pro12, not just relying on the ERC for pay outs.

by Scrumpy Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:19 pm

beshocked wrote:
Your revenue should come from home games in the Pro12, not just relying on the ERC for pay outs.

Well said and so true, but that is the problem only a few Pro12 teams can survive without ERC hand outs, yet those fans bang on about how greedy the English money men are and how misguided us English fans are as they take the moral high ground, yet their clubs aren't willing to share their wealth.

The simple fact is four unions playing in one league doesn't work, these unions should be concentrating on setting up Pro leagues in their own Countries before they start worrying about the European game.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:25 pm

Four unions playing in one league works perfectly well, actually. Your problem is that you think we should determine who plays in Europe based on where they finish in said league. Unfortunately, and as you've been told plenty of times, it's for each union to decide how it allocates its European places.

by Scrumpy Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:33 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Four unions playing in one league works perfectly well, actually. Your problem is that you think we should determine who plays in Europe based on where they finish in said league. Unfortunately, and as you've been told plenty of times, it's for each union to decide how it allocates its European places.

Not my problem, but this is why the English and French clubs want out of the HC as they want a fair deal, and who can blame them.

It doesn't work by the way as very few fans pay to watch it, hence why they rely on hand outs from ERC.

by nathan Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:34 pm

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:
If 6 6 8 was on offer the PRL and LNR would have almost certanly accepted it. I am sure they would accept a money split in the same proportion.

The trouble is the Rabo teams will not budge from the current 6 6 10 and a money split of 24 24 52.

It now looks as though because of their stubbornness in insisting on 52% of the money they may end up with 100% of nothing.
The troubble is, the only people insisting that the bold bit is true are the PRL. It may or may not be true. I reckon that the other players are willing to compromise if they are asked rather than dictated to in the media.

Personally I think that if we are going 6 6 8 then the Amlin winners should qualify at the expense of the bottom team from their country. (The HC winners have never failed to be top 6 in any league nor are they likely to)

Get rid of this rule where another (less worthy team) from the winner's country gets dragged in because of their win.

it's comments like these that urine me off, you have no way (unless your sat in the meetings) to know if they were asked nicely or not and yet we get comments like that as if your talking fact.

by beshocked Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:36 pm

Scrumpy I think the biggest difficulty is the differing priorities.

Pro12 fans from particularly Scotland and Italy see the HC as a development tournament. AP fans want to see the HC as a competition with the best teams.

The Pro12 is also a development league for internationals. The AP in comparison is more balanced - both internationals and club are just as important. The Top 14 are leaning more towards club rugby.

I do think that that the Pro12 sides can co-exist but they think that because there are 4 unions they can push the English and French around.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:41 pm

beshocked wrote:Pro12 fans from particularly Scotland and Italy see the HC as a development tournament.

How many have you canvassed? How's your Italian?

by maestegmafia Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:46 pm

beshocked wrote:Scrumpy I think the biggest difficulty is the differing priorities.

Pro12 fans from particularly Scotland and Italy see the HC as a development tournament. AP fans want to see the HC as a competition with the best teams.

The Pro12 is also a development league for internationals. The AP in comparison is more balanced - both internationals and club are just as important. The Top 14 are leaning more towards club rugby.

I do think that that the Pro12 sides can co-exist but they think that because there are 4 unions they can push the English and French around.

You are so far off the mark...

Scotland and italy have very competitive teams that cause problems for all sides, they might not win the HEC but they are more deserving of being there than many other teams in Europe.

The Pro 12 is as competitive a league as any other in Europe from bottom to top and is just as tough, just look at how many teams have made the later stages of Europe from that league...!

The RP12 teams Unions are not looking to push anyone around, they are not bullying or threatening anyone they are just looking for a way to survive.

by Scrumpy Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:51 pm

"The RP12 teams Unions are not looking to push anyone around, they are not bullying or threatening anyone they are just looking for a way to survive.."

Which they can't do without the English or French therefore they need to agree to changes on how teams qualify for the HC and sit around a table and discus it.

by Guest Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:52 pm

beshocked wrote:Scrumpy I think the biggest difficulty is the differing priorities.

Pro12 fans from particularly Scotland and Italy see the HC as a development tournament. AP fans want to see the HC as a competition with the best teams.

The Pro12 is also a development league for internationals. The AP in comparison is more balanced - both internationals and club are just as important. The Top 14 are leaning more towards club rugby.

I do think that that the Pro12 sides can co-exist but they think that because there are 4 unions they can push the English and French around.

So are you saying that the HEC doesn't have the best teams, or is it that you want more PRL 'best teams', rather than each union actually being able to represent their best in the HEC?

by beshocked Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:58 pm

Maestegmafia please humour me.

More deserving than other teams in Europe.... Like whom? By the way please don't say sides that aren't in the HC this season.....

2 wins in 24 matches for Italian and Scottish sides last season was competitive in the HC?

Some Pro12 sides should make the latter stages of Europe when there have been 11 of them. Plus most of them have taken part in the HC for the last 10 years.

If the Pro12 is such a competitive league then why is there a heavy reliance on Munster and Leinster in the HC?

The Pro12 sides have a situation that heavily benefits them. Why would they look for change?

Munchkin I want 6,6,8 - that cuts out of two of the weaker Pro12 sides. Sends them down to the Amlin.

The best in Scotland is currently Glasgow. The best in Italy is currently Treviso. I would say they should both be in the HC. Not Edinburgh and Zebre though.

by Jimpy Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:59 pm

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
Tattie Scones RRN wrote:If these clowns in England get their way, you'll see a football scenario where the rich teams get richer and the smaller teams will never have a hope in hell in growing, thus never having even a slight chance of success in Europe.

TBH, get rid of them and the French. The RPD can then concentrate on growing in terms of finance and playing quality.

Perhaps even invite S15 teams into an annual knockout tournament held over a week against the Scots, Irish, Italian and Welsh.
Yes brilliant, until you consider that the raison d'etre of the RABO is to act as a platform for European rugby and that Tthere was a thought that if SANZAR don't appease the SARU, then South African teams may consider joining the FrEnglish competition in 2016.
That's not the reason for the RABO - in Scotland anyway. You'll see that the Scottish Pro teams put just as much effort into both.

Yeah, and they're still garbage.

by maestegmafia Wed Sep 11, 2013 4:27 pm

Scrumpy wrote:Which they can't do without the English or French therefore they need to agree to changes on how teams qualify for the HC and sit around a table and discus it.

Scrumpy if English teams just play French teams they will get stronger, they can attract more money than the English game can and England will end up being their whipping boys..

by Tattie Scones RRN Wed Sep 11, 2013 4:36 pm

Jimpy wrote:
Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
Tattie Scones RRN wrote:If these clowns in England get their way, you'll see a football scenario where the rich teams get richer and the smaller teams will never have a hope in hell in growing, thus never having even a slight chance of success in Europe.

TBH, get rid of them and the French. The RPD can then concentrate on growing in terms of finance and playing quality.

Perhaps even invite S15 teams into an annual knockout tournament held over a week against the Scots, Irish, Italian and Welsh.
Yes brilliant, until you consider that the raison d'etre of the RABO is to act as a platform for European rugby and that Tthere was a thought that if SANZAR don't appease the SARU, then South African teams may consider joining the FrEnglish competition in 2016.
That's not the reason for the RABO - in Scotland anyway. You'll see that the Scottish Pro teams put just as much effort into both.
Yeah, and they're still garbage.

Well done for further confirmation that you're clueless.

Edinburgh are crap yes.

Glasgow (at the moment) however would easily push for a top four position in the English league and top 6 French.

by tigerleghorn Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:51 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:Which they can't do without the English or French therefore they need to agree to changes on how teams qualify for the HC and sit around a table and discus it.
Scrumpy if English teams just play French teams they will get stronger, they can attract more money than the English game can and England will end up being their whipping boys..

The reason the French are so strong could be down to their salary cap which is far higher than Englands. With parity would English Clubs be whipping boys?

by SecretFly Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:45 pm

tigerleghorn wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:Which they can't do without the English or French therefore they need to agree to changes on how teams qualify for the HC and sit around a table and discus it.
Scrumpy if English teams just play French teams they will get stronger, they can attract more money than the English game can and England will end up being their whipping boys..
The reason the French are so strong could be down to their salary cap which is far higher than Englands. With parity would English Clubs be whipping boys?

Strong in what sense? How does that salary cap issue explain away Pro12 successes in the same competition? French rugby is good because they have mililions upon millions to spend on foreign hordes... Pro12 sides have achieved what they've achieved because they keep their best players in cotton wool for most of the season and play lightweight tag rugby when they do show up. Wink

There's always 'reasons' why some teams outshine others, and it never seems to involve simply the quality of rugby played on the day for 80 minutes at a time - when it matters.

by Sponsored content

Yes or no to a European rugby cup.