Do you want a European Cup

First topic message reminder :

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?

Yes, yes I do

beshocked wrote: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.

Actually, I agree with you here, beshocked. I'm not at all opposed to some form of restructuring in the HEC, and possibly the Rabo, but I sense the real issue for the PRL isn't so much about restructuring, a red herring perhaps, but far more about money. PRL want a bigger slice of the cake, and power. I view this as self-serving the business interests of club owners, and not at all in the interest of European rugby.
I'm not saying that clubs shouldn't profit either. It's how they intend to do so that I disagree with.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Yes, yes I do

You like many other fans are in the majority...!

It's about time the PRL and LNR listened to what fans want not club owners accountants.

I've said it many times- I think 6, 6, 8 is the best compromise. I would say Top 6 in the Pro12 automatically qualify for Europe.

If all four nations are represented in the Top 6, then 7th and 8th qualify but only in that case. If there is no representation of a certain nation in that Top 6 their best placed side is entered, up to two places can be given this way.

That would be a compromise on qualification I would be prepared to accept. But I doubt that would be acceptable because I also think the split of money should remain roughly the same and all six nations should remain equal stakeholders in the tournament.

Notch wrote:I've said it many times- I think 6, 6, 8 is the best compromise. I would say Top 6 in the Pro12 automatically qualify for Europe.

If all four nations are represented in the Top 6, then 7th and 8th qualify but only in that case. If there is no representation of a certain nation in that Top 6 their best placed side is entered, up to two places can be given this way.

That would be a compromise on qualification I would be prepared to accept. But I doubt that would be acceptable because I also think the split of money should remain roughly the same and all six nations should remain equal stakeholders in the tournament.

Or you take two from Eng, Ire, Fra, Wales as top qualifiers and one from Scots and Italians. the remaining four from the T14 RP12 and Prem have play offs for Europe at the end of the season before the summer break.

Notch that's fair enough. I certainly agree with the qualification. The rest - well I don't know exactly what the English and French are asking for in regards to money and stakeholders.

It's difficult because we don't have the financial figures/ viewing figures in front of us.

Maestegmafia you'll never get anyone agreeing to that suggestion of yours.

beshocked wrote:Maestegmafia you'll never get anyone agreeing to that suggestion of yours.

Is that not the way to guaranty we get all nations involved? That we get the best teams involved...? The moneys could be distributed on a qualification basis. Split the pot evenly based on progression through the competition and divided by each participant.

The further you go in the Cup the more money you earn and each team involved gets a profit.

Run and managed by the unions, sanctioned by the IRB, all on Tele and with no need for the clubs owners reps to get involved.

Based on their past incompetence I do not want the RFU, SRU or WRU to run anything.

I want a European competition.
I want it open to all.
i want it to be fair.

This last point is the contentious one as we all have different interpretations of fair - and usually that actually involves something that is fairer for us - thus automatically unfair. In my eyes the current competition is unfair. (So is the suggestion from T14/PRL btw)

It means 10 English sides and 12 French sides not involved in that competition.

Do you seriously not see the problem with that?

The HC/any european competition is a club competition. You want to make this about 6 unions.

No it should be run by the clubs not the unions.

That is where we differ.

The 6 nations is a competition that involves unions.

Londontiger well said. 

beshocked wrote:The HC/any european competition is a club competition. You want to make this about 6 unions.

Sorry sunshine, but it already is about 6 unions.

LondonTiger wrote:Based on their past incompetence I do not want the RFU, SRU or WRU to run anything.

Which is why the ERC exists  Independent, not aligned to greedy business men and the mejia

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

beshocked wrote:The HC/any european competition is a club competition. You want to make this about 6 unions.

Sorry sunshine, but it already is about 6 unions.

No. The HC is a club competition. Italy does not take part in the HC - it's Treviso and Zebre.

The 6 nations is a competition about the unions because it involves England,France,Italy,Scotland,Wales and Ireland.

International rugby and club rugby are separate.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Based on their past incompetence I do not want the RFU, SRU or WRU to run anything.

Which is why the ERC exists  Independent, not aligned to greedy business men and the mejia

Funniest thing I have read this week Asbo. Many thanks for cheering me up.

beshocked wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

beshocked wrote:The HC/any european competition is a club competition. You want to make this about 6 unions.

Sorry sunshine, but it already is about 6 unions.

No. The HC is a club competition. Italy does not take part in the HC - it's Treviso and Zebre.

The 6 nations is a competition about the unions because it involves England,France,Italy,Scotland,Wales and Ireland.

International rugby and club rugby are separate.

Yes, Treviso and Zebre, the Italian Federation's clubs in the Heineken Cup. Just as, whether you refuse to accept it or not, the English clubs are the RFU's.

You can say that international rugby and club rugby are separate, but that doesn't make it so.

beshocked wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

beshocked wrote:The HC/any european competition is a club competition. You want to make this about 6 unions.

Sorry sunshine, but it already is about 6 unions.

No. The HC is a club competition. Italy does not take part in the HC - it's Treviso and Zebre.

The 6 nations is a competition about the unions because it involves England,France,Italy,Scotland,Wales and Ireland.

International rugby and club rugby are separate.

BS you are completely wrong. The ERC is the Six Unions, the organisation of the tournament is done through the Unions. Professional club representatives like the PRL, RRW LNR etc etc are also included.

It is an independent IRB recognised organisation, similar to SANZAR that run the Super Rugby.

Well it was originally a club competition, created against the wishes of the majority of the unions.

It proved successful, the unions jumped in, 3 of the countries moved from entering clubs and the whole thing changed.

The make-up of the competition now is very different from that when the current accord was first signed back in 1999. This accord was not altered, despite 3 the changes around it. Some would argue it has changed to favour one group over another. Some would not.

LondonTiger wrote:Based on their past incompetence I do not want the RFU, SRU or WRU to run anything.

I want a European competition.
I want it open to all.
i want it to be fair.

This last point is the contentious one as we all have different interpretations of fair - and usually that actually involves something that is fairer for us - thus automatically unfair. In my eyes the current competition is unfair. (So is the suggestion from T14/PRL btw)

Right, but we have to meet in the middle. The suggestion that other unions could consider a competition that was administered by the PRL/LNR solely is ludicrous. You're right about that, and our big problem is its being framed as a fait accompli. The 'sale' of TV rights to BT Sport by the PRL has not served to convince anyone that they are negotiating in good faith. The PRL acting unilaterally from the start has made this process exponentially more difficult. Plus, the fact the RFU and FFR aren't supporting the moves of the PRL and LNR should be setting off warning bells about future club/country clashes which could be very bad for the game.

For me, your terms are worrying because there is nothing about guaranteeing the role of this competition in developing rugby across Europe or ensuring all six stakeholders are represented.

Luckless pedestrian Treviso and Zebre are representatives of Italy but are not Italy.

Okay fine I will concede that international rugby and club rugby are obviously connected to some extent but they are also separate.

It's more a middling ground than for example cricket and football. Football is far more club orientated. Cricket is basically all about international matches. I am talking about England by the way.

This HC argument is ultimately a club vs union power struggle. Pro12 clubs want to make this argument about unions. Whereas the AP and Top 14 clubs want it to be about clubs.

As the HC is a club competition I completely agree with the PRL. It is the clubs that play in the competition.

The French are the most club orientated hence the English are a natural ally. In terms of clubs the French and English heavily outnumber the Pro12 - 26-12.

In regards to unions - it's 4-2 to the Pro12 alliance but the HC is a club competition.

When talking about the 6 nations - the Pro12 alliance has the upperhand but in a club competition it's about who has the most clubs.

LondonTiger wrote:Well it was originally a club competition, created against the wishes of the majority of the unions.

It proved successful, the unions jumped in, 3 of the countries moved from entering clubs and the whole thing changed.

The make-up of the competition now is very different from that when the current accord was first signed back in 1999. This accord was not altered, despite 3 the changes around it. Some would argue it has changed to favour one group over another. Some would not.

Do you honestly wholeheartedly believe that it is not the teams with the largest budgets, the biggest incomes and therefor the best players are the ones this competition favours rather than those on massively less money, less profit, and less teams entered...?

The PRL are pulling a fast one here. This is about them trying to get a bigger payday for Club owners at the expense of a great and fair competition with no regard for what the fans of the game want....

Notch wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Based on their past incompetence I do not want the RFU, SRU or WRU to run anything.

I want a European competition.
I want it open to all.
i want it to be fair.

This last point is the contentious one as we all have different interpretations of fair - and usually that actually involves something that is fairer for us - thus automatically unfair. In my eyes the current competition is unfair. (So is the suggestion from T14/PRL btw)

Right, but we have to meet in the middle. The suggestion that other unions could consider a competition that was administered by the PRL/LNR solely is ludicrous. You're right about that, and our big problem is its being framed as a fait accompli. The 'sale' of TV rights to BT Sport by the PRL has not served to convince anyone that they are negotiating in good faith. The PRL acting unilaterally from the start has made this process exponentially more difficult. Plus, the fact the RFU and FFR aren't supporting the moves of the PRL and LNR should be setting off warning bells about future club/country clashes which could be very bad for the game.

For me, your terms are worrying because there is nothing about guaranteeing the role of this competition in developing rugby across Europe or ensuring all six stakeholders are represented.

I have agreed with all and sundry that the proposition from T14/PRL is not fair. Hell I even say it in the quote you use.

That does not make the status quo fair either. So far there has been little compromise from anyone and we risk a stand off where everyone loses.

Now while it is right, PRL selling their rights wasnot conducive to harmonious relationships, ERC did exactly the same thing. sold the rights for a tournament that did not exist. But apparently that is OK?

No they were both in the wrong.

Both sides are intrasigent feckers who should be removed from the discussions.

It always really annoys me when the likes of beshocked make sweeping generalisations about the separation of the international game and club game. Treviso is a club, Zebre is a region essentially run by the FIR. The Irish provinces are not clubs at all, but merely regional branches of the IRFU who are responsible for the national side and the provinces. The provinces have restricted access to players who are on central contracts. Glasgow and Edinburgh are run by the SRU. The Welsh regions are run by RRW.

Stop oversimplifying the situation. Only one side in the Pro12 could be defined as a club in the same ways as English and French sides are. Let me break this down for you.

-The ERC competitions are cross-border competitions that feature club and provincial sides from six nations, and a few club/combined club sides from other parts of Europe in the Amlin.
-The Pro12 is a cross-border competition that features club and provincial sides from 4 nations
-The Premiership and Top14 are single nation competitions.

Got that? The Pro12 is an international competition, your league is a national competition. Stop pretending they are equivalent.

maestegmafia wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Well it was originally a club competition, created against the wishes of the majority of the unions.

It proved successful, the unions jumped in, 3 of the countries moved from entering clubs and the whole thing changed.

The make-up of the competition now is very different from that when the current accord was first signed back in 1999. This accord was not altered, despite 3 the changes around it. Some would argue it has changed to favour one group over another. Some would not.

Do you honestly wholeheartedly believe that it is not the teams with the largest budgets, the biggest incomes and therefor the best players are the ones this competition favours rather than those on massively less money, less profit, and less teams entered...?

The PRL are pulling a fast one here. This is about them trying to get a bigger payday for Club owners at the expense of a great and fair competition with no regard for what the fans of the game want....

You want a great and fair competition funded by someone else though it seems.

I suggested my ideas way back - a 16 team competition with 6 national champions automatically in and the rest based on European performance. You told me that was unfair, mocked me, and even called me a deluded fool so in the end I stopped replying to your posts.

LondonTiger wrote:

Notch wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Based on their past incompetence I do not want the RFU, SRU or WRU to run anything.

I want a European competition.
I want it open to all.
i want it to be fair.

This last point is the contentious one as we all have different interpretations of fair - and usually that actually involves something that is fairer for us - thus automatically unfair. In my eyes the current competition is unfair. (So is the suggestion from T14/PRL btw)

Right, but we have to meet in the middle. The suggestion that other unions could consider a competition that was administered by the PRL/LNR solely is ludicrous. You're right about that, and our big problem is its being framed as a fait accompli. The 'sale' of TV rights to BT Sport by the PRL has not served to convince anyone that they are negotiating in good faith. The PRL acting unilaterally from the start has made this process exponentially more difficult. Plus, the fact the RFU and FFR aren't supporting the moves of the PRL and LNR should be setting off warning bells about future club/country clashes which could be very bad for the game.

For me, your terms are worrying because there is nothing about guaranteeing the role of this competition in developing rugby across Europe or ensuring all six stakeholders are represented.

I have agreed with all and sundry that the proposition from T14/PRL is not fair. Hell I even say it in the quote you use.

That does not make the status quo fair either. So far there has been little compromise from anyone and we risk a stand off where everyone loses.

Now while it is right, PRL selling their rights wasnot conducive to harmonious relationships, ERC did exactly the same thing. sold the rights for a tournament that did not exist. But apparently that is OK?

No they were both in the wrong.

Both sides are intrasigent feckers who should be removed from the discussions.

I think there might be legs in that, LT

Maestegmafia you talk about a fair competition.

I don't think it's fair that Edinburgh and Glasgow for example have been in 17 HCs yet only have win rates around 30%.

Continuely rewarding laughably poor performances is not healthy.

It's obvious. If one side plays in 17 HCs they have a higher chance winning one than one that's played in 7. Even if the one that has played in 7 has a far superior win % and a superior head to head it's tougher.

The Irish for example have the security of virtual guaranteed HC rugby every season - imagine over 17 years how much revenue that adds to the coffers!

Notch wrote:It always really annoys me when the likes of beshocked make sweeping generalisations about the separation of the international game and club game. Treviso is a club, Zebre is a region essentially run by the FIR. The Irish provinces are not clubs at all, but merely regional branches of the IRFU who are responsible for the national side and the provinces. The provinces have restricted access to players who are on central contracts. Glasgow and Edinburgh are run by the SRU. The Welsh regions are run by RRW.

Stop oversimplifying the situation. Only one side in the Pro12 could be defined as a club in the same ways as English and French sides are. Let me break this down for you.

-The ERC competitions are cross-border competitions that feature club and provincial sides from six nations, and a few club/combined club sides from other parts of Europe in the Amlin.
-The Pro12 is a cross-border competition that features club and provincial sides from 4 nations
-The Premiership and Top14 are single nation competitions.

Got that? The Pro12 is an international competition, your league is a national competition. Stop pretending they are equivalent.

Fair enough Notch. I suppose that's what muddies the waters. I apologise for oversimplifying. It is complicated hence the big argument.

I just don't agree with the naive perception - that Unions are the shining light in the dark whereas the PRL are the big bad wolf upsetting the happy status quo of the Pro12 clubs.

You would expect sides that get so much help from their unions to do better in the HC.

I think an European competition should be a club competition.

beshocked wrote:Maestegmafia you talk about a fair competition.

I don't think it's fair that Edinburgh and Glasgow for example have been in 17 HCs yet only have win rates around 30%.

Continuely rewarding laughably poor performances is not healthy.

It's obvious. If one side plays in 17 HCs they have a higher chance winning one than one that's played in 7. Even if the one that has played in 7 has a far superior win % and a superior head to head it's tougher.

The Irish for example have the security of virtual guaranteed HC rugby every season - imagine over 17 years how much revenue that adds to the coffers!

There are a larger majority of teams in the HEC with a 30% win ratio than there are above that. It is a tough competition but teams like Glasgow and Edinburgh have as much right to be in the HEC as any team at their level. Exeter, Sale Sharks, Bath, Wasps, Gloucester, Bayonne etc etc etc...

You talk about equality and on another thread i demonstrated a way where all teams could qualify and profit equally and you rubbished the idea...

I think what you want is an unfair league that benefits english clubs and you couldn't give a toss about the quality of the competition.

Gloucester have a win rate around 59% Bath similar. They have 1 HC win.

Wasps have one around 60%.  They have also won the competition twice.


Wasps,Sale and Bath aren't in the HC anyway.

In terms of win rates most English sides are vastly superior to the Pro12 sides bar of course Leinster and Munster.

I do care about the quality of the competition - I want the quality to go up.

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?

Same could be said for the Jeff and T14 having larger caps than the Welsh etc etc.

The truth is there would be monsterous mis-mathes in the 20 team Fr-Anglo thing. Wuss Vrs Toulon, Clermont Vrs Newcastle, Racing Metro Vrs Wasps etc. There would probably be about two or three good 'new' matches between the top Jeff/T14 sides, but the rest of the good games would be T14 v T14 or Jeffv Jeff.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:The truth is there would be monsterous mis-mathes in the 20 team Fr-Anglo thing.

That reminds me of school.  

IMSHO The top tier should be for the best teams regardless of where they come from. The next tier should be the development tier

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:The truth is there would be monsterous mis-mathes in the 20 team Fr-Anglo thing.

That reminds me of school.  

Yeah the mis-mathes will be when the cack sides deside to multiply their scores instead of adding them up, just to try and make the score board read better (Toulon 49(7 tires, 7 cons) - Bath 27 (3 pens))

The mis-matches in the league will be terrible too  

These are the top 20 teams in the current European Rankings

Northampton Saints
Harlequins
London Wasps
Saracens
Leicester Tigers
Toulon
Toulouse
ASM Clermont Auvergne
Biarritz Olympique
Perpignan
Stade Francais Paris
Leinster Rugby
Munster Rugby
Ulster Rugby
Glasgow Warriors
Edinburgh Rugby
Cardiff Blues
Ospreys
Scarlets

Five English, Six French, Three Irish, Two Scots, Three Welsh and no Italians.

Treviso are ranked nine places below the lowest ranked team above. But this Ranking reflects a number of seasons and Treviso are a far better side now than they were five years ago and if these Rankings were to be looked at next season, I am sure that Treviso would have jumped up into the top 20.

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!

Scrumpy I think that's the smugness he was referring to. If we want to play them, we need them as much as they need us. If you just want us to take our ball back and play with the French, fair enough. But it's damn boring in my book.

Hood83 wrote:

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!

Scrumpy I think that's the smugness he was referring to. If we want to play them, we need them as much as they need us. If you just want us to take our ball back and play with the French, fair enough. But it's damn boring in my book.

Scrumpy stated clearly before that he does not want a European Cup.

Scrumpy wrote: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.

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

Beshocked, I promised yesterday to come back with the financial side of my proposed new format.

Just to reiterate the proposed format:
* 3 tier competition – 20 teams in tier 1, 16 teams in tier 2 (revised from above now I've thought about it more), 16 in tier 3 (revised from above now I've thought about it more)
* Total revenue split 50%/35%/15% between the 3 tiers
=> Focussing in on tier 1, 5 from AP, 5 from T14, 8 from Rabo, with last year’s winners of tiers 1&2 (tier 2 has 5 from AP, 6 from T14, 4 from Rabo and the previous year’s tier 3 winner; while tier 3 has 2 from AP, 3 from T14, and 11 others; all adjusted for the movement of tier winners)
=> Within each tier, revenue is awarded on a success & participation basis – so in tier 1, for participating each team gets 4%, for making it to a QF each team gets an additional 1.25%, for making to a semi each team gets an additional 1.25%, the losing finalist gets an additional 1.5% and the winner gets an additional 3.5%
=> This means that the winner gets 10% in total, the losing finalist gets 8%, the other two semifinalists get 6.5% each, the remaining quarterfinalists get 5.25% each, and the other 12 participants get 4% each

The PRL proposal has revenue split 33.3% between the 3 leagues; currently it is split 24%, 24%, 52% between the 6 unions
Based on the last three year’s QFs, semis and finals, and assuming that each of the three leagues had two of the 6 tier winner slots, and using my 5/5/8 proposal, the AP teams would have taken on average 27%, the T14 teams 30%, and the Rabo teams 43%

Your thoughts?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs 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

Beshocked, I promised yesterday to come back with the financial side of my proposed new format.

Just to reiterate the proposed format:
* 3 tier competition – 20 teams in tier 1, 16 teams in tier 2 (revised from above now I've thought about it more), 16 in tier 3 (revised from above now I've thought about it more)
* Total revenue split 50%/35%/15% between the 3 tiers
=> Focussing in on tier 1, 5 from AP, 5 from T14, 8 from Rabo, with last year’s winners of tiers 1&2 (tier 2 has 5 from AP, 6 from T14, 4 from Rabo and the previous year’s tier 3 winner; while tier 3 has 2 from AP, 3 from T14, and 11 others; all adjusted for the movement of tier winners)
=> Within each tier, revenue is awarded on a success & participation basis – so in tier 1, for participating each team gets 4%, for making it to a QF each team gets an additional 1.25%, for making to a semi each team gets an additional 1.25%, the losing finalist gets an additional 1.5% and the winner gets an additional 3.5%
=> This means that the winner gets 10% in total, the losing finalist gets 8%, the other two semifinalists get 6.5% each, the remaining quarterfinalists get 5.25% each, and the other 12 participants get 4% each

The PRL proposal has revenue split 33.3% between the 3 leagues; currently it is split 24%, 24%, 52% between the 6 unions
Based on the last three year’s QFs, semis and finals, and assuming that each of the three leagues had two of the 6 tier winner slots, and using my 5/5/8 proposal, the AP teams would have taken on average 27%, the T14 teams 30%, and the Rabo teams 43%

Your thoughts?

First thing I'll say is I definitely would not want any English sides in tier 3, certainly if there are no pro12 sides there.

I agree with your original 6,6,8 - top 6 AP sides in the league, top 6 Top 14 in the league, top 2 Irish,top 2 Welsh, 1 top Scottish and Italian. The other two places are for who does best in the Pro12 after that.

20 in Tier 2 - 6 AP sides, 8 Top 14 sides, 4 Pro12 sides, 2 other sides.

20 in Tier 3- 20 teams

Financially wise I don't know.

beshocked wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs 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

Beshocked, I promised yesterday to come back with the financial side of my proposed new format.

Just to reiterate the proposed format:
* 3 tier competition – 20 teams in tier 1, 16 teams in tier 2 (revised from above now I've thought about it more), 16 in tier 3 (revised from above now I've thought about it more)
* Total revenue split 50%/35%/15% between the 3 tiers
=> Focussing in on tier 1, 5 from AP, 5 from T14, 8 from Rabo, with last year’s winners of tiers 1&2 (tier 2 has 5 from AP, 6 from T14, 4 from Rabo and the previous year’s tier 3 winner; while tier 3 has 2 from AP, 3 from T14, and 11 others; all adjusted for the movement of tier winners)
=> Within each tier, revenue is awarded on a success & participation basis – so in tier 1, for participating each team gets 4%, for making it to a QF each team gets an additional 1.25%, for making to a semi each team gets an additional 1.25%, the losing finalist gets an additional 1.5% and the winner gets an additional 3.5%
=> This means that the winner gets 10% in total, the losing finalist gets 8%, the other two semifinalists get 6.5% each, the remaining quarterfinalists get 5.25% each, and the other 12 participants get 4% each

The PRL proposal has revenue split 33.3% between the 3 leagues; currently it is split 24%, 24%, 52% between the 6 unions
Based on the last three year’s QFs, semis and finals, and assuming that each of the three leagues had two of the 6 tier winner slots, and using my 5/5/8 proposal, the AP teams would have taken on average 27%, the T14 teams 30%, and the Rabo teams 43%

Your thoughts?

First thing I'll say is I definitely would not want any English sides in tier 3, certainly if there are no pro12 sides there.

I agree with your original  6,6,8 - top 6 AP sides in the league, top 6 Top 14 in the league, top 2 Irish,top 2 Welsh, 1 top Scottish and Italian. The other two places are for who does best in the Pro12 after that.

20 in Tier 2 - 6 AP sides, 8 Top 14 sides, 4 Pro12 sides, 2 other sides.

20 in Tier 3- 20 teams

Financially wise I don't know.

Classic PRL negotiating stance there, beshocked - the idea that 'compromise' on both sides is that the PRL gets exactly what they want!

I'm happy for it to be killed off and a new welsh inter regional cup take its place. We just play each other home and away to replace the heinaken cup pool games.

All this bickering....

Honestly... Maybe I am oversimplifying things but how is equal qualification rules for all 3 leagues and the revenue split evenly between all 3 leagues being unfair?

Every club gets an equal share... am I missing something here?

Of course I do. It's brilliant. But I think it's beyond saving now in it's current (brilliant) form.

It will be a very different thing. I think the Franglo's will get their competition and the Rabo's will simply have to join to survive. The Franglo's will be in control and every decision and TV deal made from now on will be made by them, in their interests. Some Rabo teams may die. The likes of Leinster will survive as professional rugby teams. But the likes of Kearney, Healy, O'Brien will be playing in France and Leinster will never win a HC cup again. Nor will any other Rabo team. Unless they produce an incredibly gifted young team that can win it before they break up and work for higher wages in France.

The four Rabo nations will still be capable of (like Holland in soccer) producing quality international teams, but HC (and it's successors) success will be the exclusive preserve of a few Franglo clubs who claim the majority of TV money as their right. And let's just say they won't be winning it with many local academy boys. It'll be so much more boring. I'm sad that that's the way rugby is going but that's what I think will happen.

All this bickering....

Honestly... Maybe I am oversimplifying things but how is equal qualification rules for all 3 leagues and the revenue split evenly between all 3 leagues being unfair?

Every club gets an equal share... am I missing something here?

Metal Tiger wrote:All this bickering....

Honestly... Maybe I am oversimplifying things but how is equal qualification rules for all 3 leagues and the revenue split evenly between all 3 leagues being unfair?

Every club gets an equal share... am I missing something here?

Because one league contains the majority of the nations involved.

What has come to pass is that we have a euro competition with teams from conflicting structures. That they appear to be going separate ways is a natural evolution.

One side has abandoned their domestic leagues and the focus on the cross border league has not generated the competitive financial security and hence have to rely on additional competition monies to survive. The other side have kept their domestic leagues which are slowly getting stronger but are not there yet but as a consequence are not reliant on euro monies.

You cannot expect one side who have not been accommodated at the 2007 round and to date this time round to continue when they have the perception - true or not, that they are at a disadvantage.

This point has been nearly two years in the making - I dont know why anyone is surprised. Who would you bet against - successful businessmen or old boy network rugby administrators?

I would like to see the AP sides play the championship sides in a FA Cup style competition.

Recwatcher wrote:

You cannot expect one side who have not been accommodated at the 2007 round and to date this time round to continue when they have the perception - true or not, that they are at a disadvantage.

The English and French clubs have already been given a larger share once, now they want more, and they want this competition to be run by the organisation of elite professional clubs owners...

Anyone who wants a fair and even competition that is based on rugby results and not financial turn over would be crazy to back it. If we continue to cave in to them we will have a competition we can't compete in.

The RP12 and ERC should tell the L R and PRL that they will give their competition a go but stipulate that the wage cap has to be at £3.5M and that teams are allowed to field no more than three overseas players.

Recwatcher wrote:What has come to pass is that we have a euro competition with teams from conflicting structures. That they appear to be going separate ways is a natural evolution.

One side has abandoned their domestic leagues and the focus on the cross border league has not generated the competitive financial security and hence have to rely on additional competition monies to survive. The other side have kept their domestic leagues which are slowly getting stronger but are not there yet but as a consequence are not reliant on euro monies.

You cannot expect one side who have not been accommodated at the 2007 round and to date this time round to continue when they have the perception - true or not, that they are at a disadvantage.

This point has been nearly two years in the making - I dont know why anyone is surprised. Who would you bet against - successful businessmen or old boy network rugby administrators?

I would like to see the AP sides play the championship sides in a FA Cup style competition.

+1

maestegmafia wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:All this bickering....

Honestly... Maybe I am oversimplifying things but how is equal qualification rules for all 3 leagues and the revenue split evenly between all 3 leagues being unfair?

Every club gets an equal share... am I missing something here?

Because one league contains the majority of the nations involved.

What have nations got to do with it? It is a club/region/province competition. We already have a competition for nations - the six nations. Quite rightly this is run by the unions not the clubs. Club competitions should be run by the clubs involved.

Good to see that this discussion (argument) is still running and running. At least fans of all sides seem to care.

It strikes me that the battle is lost on this one for the Pro 12 teams and that the four small unions are going to be out-manoeuvred by the combined power of PRL and LNR. It seems unlikely that the RFU or FFR will intervene strongly enough to prevent things going the way of what the English and French clubs want.

It has been interesting to note that McCafferty & Co have been careful to not say what a new competition would look like at this stage. It's all very well saying that they are not going to get involved with ERC again or the current competition, but a line has now been drawn in the sand and there seems no way back for McCafferty even if the Pro 12 clubs were to agree to every piece of the PRL/LNR proposals. It's now too late.

So let's assume for the moment as if the ERC and its two cups never existed, and a new competition or competitions were being planned - what would they look like and who would be involved?

On the face of it, combining the much larger playing pools, finances and TV audiences of England and France with the much smaller pools/resources of Wales, Italy, Ireland and Scotland does not make sense - for either side.

Rather than focussing on what the English and French clubs propose to do, what could the teams/countries involved in the Pro 12 do?

Let's assume that England and France set up their cup, and it starts from next season. And let's assume it's a closed shop and other teams could not enter it, and therefore, England and France are out of the equation.

So what alternatives are there for Pro 12? In my view, I think it presents an opportunity to do something different. To move away from the traditional stomping grounds and look to build a much stronger European league and a cup competition if they wish. The Pro 12 countries have small playing pools (including Italy albeit it has potential to grow over time), have much smaller finances, and a smaller number of teams in each union. Rather trying to combine a mismatch with two big rugby countries, why not look further afield in Europe to bring in European countries of similar rugby size with teams to develop a second division of teams for a proper European league and bring in an element of promotion and relegation? Would it be possible to have two divisions of 10 teams each? Teams that would be invited could come from countries such as Italy, Georgia, Russia, Romania, Spain, Portugal and/or possibly a Samoan, Argentine or Fijian team? Get IRB support and funding for the development of the league that would really help to develop and grow the game and develop a true European international league competition.

Pot Hale,
One thing for sure is everyone does care, perhaps too emotionally as we see here, but everyone does care.  And I appreciate your thoughtful approach. 

I don't think we have crossed the line in the sand and cannot salvage the European Cup, in a modified format taking in account the needs of all parties.  Perhaps there is some wishful thinking on my part.  For the life of me I cannot see how both sides became so intransigent.  

I wonder what Heineken's position is.  No one knows. 

Unfortunately I don't think there are the financial resources in the Celtic League unions to finance a larger Euro competition including Tier 2 countries.  I would really like to see it happen because growing Rugby in Romania, Georgia, Russia, and Spain (for instance) would be great in the long run.  But that might take a decade to make it self sustaining and competitive.  So for the short term we are stuck with each other.

The Irish provinces are not clubs at all, but merely regional branches of the IRFU who are responsible for the national side and the provinces

So are you telling me that there is no such legal entity as Ulster Rugby Football club (or whatever), no profit and loss account made for it, no taxes paid under it name? Who pays the majority of the players - is it the IRFU or Ulster Rugby Ltd?

I can understand that Ulster run their ship under the auspices if the Irish Union, however the Irish Union runs under the control of the IRB, that doesn't invalidate the individuality of the IRFU, so why should Ulster not see itself as a legal entity?