If the Heinekin Cup ends should the English/French club players be ineligable for International rugby?

First topic message reminder :

Here's the deal. French and English clubs have a new television deal, with lots of cash. It allows them to separate from the existing tournament when it ends early next year. However, multinational rugby tournaments are governed by the IRB and the nations involved are less than supportive of the clubs moves. If the English/French clubs thumb their collective noses at the IRB one option is to remove the rights of players, playing for those clubs, to be involved in 6 nations and world cup.

So why are you talking about unions?

What point are you trying to make here?

"Until you understand that shouting "its unfair on us we want more and we want everything or we go home" is not a negotiation and until you understand that 6/6/6 is NEVER going to be acceptable then you will continue to fail to see what is happening"
Who is shouting?

mystiroakey wrote:I think what Guns can't and possibly will never understand is that its very easy for england to remain in contention in the international world of cricket and rugby as both are very much minor sports with less competition over football..

For anyone to assume we should compete at the highest level in so many sports is pushing the boundaries of reality and football is the main sport for 150 nations world wide! so what does anyone expect!

I think you possibly dont understand is the point I was making is that international football in general has deteriorated to the point that most matches are meaningless and the WC isnt the spectacle it once was. It isnt necessarly an English phenomonen but the way I see it is club football is largely to blame for many reasons a lot of which are related to wealth. England happens to have the wealthiest league in the world.

mystiroakey wrote:So why are you talking about unions?

What point are you trying to make here?

Because the unions run the game and most of the Rabo teams

"Currently, the Scottish sides - Edinburgh and Glasgow Warriors - are both guaranteed a spot in the Heineken Cup regardless of form in the PRO12. But Dodson admits this may have to change and they will have to qualify through finishing in the top six of the league.
"We cannot be frightened of it," Dodson said. "I'm not frightened of making sure that we can qualify into a merit-based competition. We would prefer to have one club guaranteed but the fact of the matter is that if we are going to compete in Europe and be serious about the Heineken Cup then we have to have teams that can play at that standard.""


This scot speaks sense!!

I think the rest of you need to understand that 'merit' is the only way forward

TJ wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:So why are you talking about unions?

What point are you trying to make here?

Because the unions run the game and most of the Rabo teams

so what, they dont run the HC do they!!!

the unions are there for the international game not the club game! Untill you understand that i suppose we wont really get anywhere will we!! They just see it as a nice guaranteed hand out at present i suppose(yet they dont have to get better to get the money !)

GunsGerms wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:I think what Guns can't and possibly will never understand is that its very easy for england to remain in contention in the international world of cricket and rugby as both are very much minor sports with less competition over football..

For anyone to assume we should compete at the highest level in so many sports is pushing the boundaries of reality and football is the main sport for 150 nations world wide! so what does anyone expect!

I think you possibly dont understand is the point I was making is that international football in general has deteriorated to the point that most matches are meaningless and the WC isnt the spectacle it once was. It isnt necessarly an English phenomonen but the way I see it is club football is largely to blame for many reasons a lot of which are related to wealth. England happens to have the wealthiest league in the world.

The football world cup is still the biggest sporting event on the planet- so whats your point again?

and we also have the CL- the best annual sporting contest in the world as well!!

mystiroakey wrote:

TJ wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:So why are you talking about unions?

What point are you trying to make here?

Because the unions run the game and most of the Rabo teams

so what, they dont run the HC do they!!!

the unions are there for the international game not the club game! Untill you understand that i suppose we wont really get anywhere will we!! They just see it as a nice guaranteed hand out at present i suppose(yet they dont have to get better to get the money !)

actually they do run the HC. The rfu gave some of their votes to the PRL but the unions run the hc / european cup.

wow, well you have just established the problem then haven't you!
(at least the RFU have done the right thing!)

And why a split or shake up is needed urgently.

mystiroakey wrote:"Currently, the Scottish sides - Edinburgh and Glasgow Warriors - are both guaranteed a spot in the Heineken Cup regardless of form in the PRO12. But Dodson admits this may have to change and they will have to qualify through finishing in the top six of the league.
"We cannot be frightened of it," Dodson said. "I'm not frightened of making sure that we can qualify into a merit-based competition. We would prefer to have one club guaranteed but the fact of the matter is that if we are going to compete in Europe and be serious about the Heineken Cup then we have to have teams that can play at that standard.""


This scot speaks sense!!

I think the rest of you need to understand that 'merit' is the only way forward

Merit based. So on what "merit basis" is the 6th English team better than the rabo teams that will be excluded under the PRL proposals? What "merit basis?" is there for 2 unions to have 6 teams each and 4 unions to have only 6 between them?

the PRL proposals are not merit based as a medicre english team would get in when a better Irish team could be exluded

mystiroakey wrote:wow, well you have just established the problem then haven't you!
(at least the RFU have done the right thing!)

And why a split or shake up is needed urgently.

~Why?

TJ wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"Currently, the Scottish sides - Edinburgh and Glasgow Warriors - are both guaranteed a spot in the Heineken Cup regardless of form in the PRO12. But Dodson admits this may have to change and they will have to qualify through finishing in the top six of the league.
"We cannot be frightened of it," Dodson said. "I'm not frightened of making sure that we can qualify into a merit-based competition. We would prefer to have one club guaranteed but the fact of the matter is that if we are going to compete in Europe and be serious about the Heineken Cup then we have to have teams that can play at that standard.""


This scot speaks sense!!

I think the rest of you need to understand that 'merit' is the only way forward

Merit based.  So on what "merit basis" is the 6th English team better than the rabo teams that will be excluded under the PRL proposals? What "merit basis?" is there for 2 unions to have 6 teams each and 4 unions to have only 6 between them?

the PRL proposals are not merit based as a medicre english team would get in when a better Irish team could be exluded

why would the irish team be excluded? if they are good enough they get in based on merit

TJ?

what is your solution to this?

basically its clear to me the problem is the unions wiuthin the pro12

you see they all want a guaranteed team in the cup, but that is illogical if 4 unions all play club rugby in one league!

if we just allocated the top teams from that league then there wouldn't be a problem would there.

Yes if the pro12 is ranked higher than the PRL they should get more spots ,IF the French league is better than both they should get more spots..


The whole union split thing is the problem!

If the PRL only had 5 teams, the pro 12 7 and the french 6 next year based on the facts of the qualities of the league- you would not see me complaining at all!!

BUt at least then we are in a healthy situation and there is no reason why the PRL cant increase there coefficient in later years to get more guaranteed spots(the way the CL operates)

If we're going to have a meritocratized Euro Cup, then based on the teams that would produce the best tournament (taking into account performance, fanbase, competitiveness, media attention, geo-political profile etc) then the draw pretty much picks itself.

Toulon, Toulouse, Stade, Clermont, Perpignan, Racing
Leicester, Sarries, Quins
Ulster, Munster, Leinster
Glasgow, Edinburgh
Ospreys
Cardiff or an Italian one.

End the bickering and set it up.

mystiroakey

Yuo are claiming the PRL proposals are a meriticracy. What meritocratic decision making process shows the 6th English team to be better and more worthy of a place than the 7th Rabo team?

Why do 4 countries have to share the same number of entrants as one country?

Casartelli wrote:If we're going to have a meritocratized Euro Cup, then based on the teams that would produce the best tournament (taking into account performance, fanbase, competitiveness, media attention, geo-political profile etc) then the draw pretty much picks itself.

Toulon, Toulouse, Stade, Clermont, Perpignan, Racing
Leicester, Sarries, Quins
Ulster, Munster, Leinster
Glasgow, Edinburgh
Ospreys
Cardiff or an Italian one.

End the bickering and set it up.

that is just nonsense- so you suggest just stick to certain teams and be done with it. Yeah thats gonna work!!

no the teams have to get in on merit

TJ wrote:mystiroakey

Yuo are claiming the PRL proposals are a meriticracy.  What meritocratic decision making process shows the 6th English team to be better and more worthy of a place than the 7th Rabo team?

Why do 4 countries have to share the same number of entrants as one country?

because its the only way it works!! its the only way we can put teams in on merit(based on the league)- the place in the league must determine who goes forward. I have no problem having less teams in the comp(english) if there are rated worse on a coefficient- but that coefficient has to be able to change and we need the best teams from the pro 12 in there not just pick and choose based on nationality!!

Forget unions think leagues, yes i have no problem the pro 12 having more teams in - but this amount has to be able to fluctuate based on previous performance within the ERC . we shouldn't have a solid number guaranteed in and if you want to play in one league(just like the welsh play in the EPL) you have to understand that you lose a guaranteed ERC spot and you work as one league not 4!!

mystiroakey wrote:

Casartelli wrote:If we're going to have a meritocratized Euro Cup, then based on the teams that would produce the best tournament (taking into account performance, fanbase, competitiveness, media attention, geo-political profile etc) then the draw pretty much picks itself.

Toulon, Toulouse, Stade, Clermont, Perpignan, Racing
Leicester, Sarries, Quins
Ulster, Munster, Leinster
Glasgow, Edinburgh
Ospreys
Cardiff or an Italian one.

End the bickering and set it up.

that is just nonsense- so you suggest just stick to certain teams and be done with it. Yeah thats gonna work!!

no the teams have to get in on merit

Exactly, so you can't possibly have the likes of Connacht, Worcester, London Irish, Newcastle or the Dragons in there just because they finished higher up a different league, in a different country, to a fundamentally better team elsewhere. Attempting to meritocratize completely separate leagues is futile folly - you have to apply a much more sophisticated meritization formula.

As I've done, above.

You re not getting the point. Its not a meritocracy if 6 english teams get in even if they are worse that Rabo teams excluded. So what is the logical basis for 6/6/6.


Its not about leagues - its about counties. the rabo have no entrants into the HC, the irish have 3, the welsh 3, the scots 3 and the Italians 2, the english 6 and the french 6

Why should all the reduction come from 4 countries and non from 2 countries?

It is run by eh unions with places allocated on a per union basis.

Casterilli

I have since gone past the PRL and french proposal and the HEC proposal and worked out my own..(which is just based on the best annual cup in the world(the CL)

TJ wrote:You re not getting the point.  Its not a meritocracy if 6 english teams get in even if they are worse that Rabo teams excluded.  So what is the logical basis for 6/6/6.  


Its not about leagues - its about counties. the rabo have no entrants into the HC, the irish have 3, the welsh 3, the scots 3 and the Italians 2, the english 6 and the french 6

Why should all the reduction come from 4 countries and non from 2 countries?

It is run by eh unions with places allocated on a per union basis.

Have you literally read nothing i have posted over the last 30mins?

Is this what this forum has become!!

But to go back to the OP instead of going round in circles. Only if the PRL breakaway from the union and try to run a tournament without union agreement should they players be excluded. Not merely for rtefusing to play in the HC but only if they play in a breakaway tourney

mystiroakey wrote:Casterilli

I have since gone past the PRL and french proposal and the HEC proposal and worked out my own..(which is just based on the best annual cup in the world(the CL)

Does it, by any chance, produce a result of 8 English teams in the quarter finals?

mystiroakey wrote:

TJ wrote:You re not getting the point.  Its not a meritocracy if 6 english teams get in even if they are worse that Rabo teams excluded.  So what is the logical basis for 6/6/6.  


Its not about leagues - its about counties. the rabo have no entrants into the HC, the irish have 3, the welsh 3, the scots 3 and the Italians 2, the english 6 and the french 6

Why should all the reduction come from 4 countries and non from 2 countries?

It is run by eh unions with places allocated on a per union basis.

Have you literally read nothing i have posted over the last 30mins?

Is this what this forum has become!!

Yes - I simply disagree with you and point out the logical flaws in your position. You keep saying this and that is right and logical but all you are doing is asserting without actually any reasoning shown. You seem unable to listen to others viewpoints at all.

TJ wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

TJ wrote:You re not getting the point.  Its not a meritocracy if 6 english teams get in even if they are worse that Rabo teams excluded.  So what is the logical basis for 6/6/6.  


Its not about leagues - its about counties. the rabo have no entrants into the HC, the irish have 3, the welsh 3, the scots 3 and the Italians 2, the english 6 and the french 6

Why should all the reduction come from 4 countries and non from 2 countries?

It is run by eh unions with places allocated on a per union basis.

Have you literally read nothing i have posted over the last 30mins?

Is this what this forum has become!!

Yes - I simply disagree with you and point out the logical flaws in your position.  You keep saying this and that is right and logical but all you are doing is asserting without actually any reasoning shown.  You seem unable to listen to others viewpoints at all.

You haven't even read a thing i have said(that is proven by the 6/6/6 commment and the why should that league have the same as this league!!)

If i was you I would try and calm down and read and then reply!

By the way i just read this thread

https://www.606v2.com/t48662p50-lux-said-the-rfu-had-promised-him-it-would-not-support-a-new-tournament

i dont really need to waste my time on you anymore- it seems thats all anyone does. You have an agenda on this, and your comments are clearly projecting!

Why punish the players from test rugby... A guy like George north signed a contract before any of this came about, why should you punish individual players if the IRB refuse to rectify the competition.

If their is a new competition I doubt it won't be ratified by the irb, the pro12 don't have that much power.

fa0019 wrote:Why punish the players from test rugby... A guy like George north signed a contract before any of this came about, why should you punish individual players if the IRB refuse to rectify the competition.

If their is a new competition I doubt it won't be ratified by the irb, the pro12 don't have that much power.

TJ just wants the PRL clubs left out in the cold. he cares about nothing else

I have read and replied.  the PRL proposal is 6/6/6 and you are defending the PRL resolutly
You have not shown any reason why allt eh reduction in entrants comes from 4 countries adn none from 2

You have not show any form of meritocratic qualification process.

You keep asserting that it must be clubs not unionsbut can give no reason why.

I shall leave you to your futile circular arguments " its right because I said its right and thats what we want"

mystiroakey wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Why punish the players from test rugby... A guy like George north signed a contract before any of this came about, why should you punish individual players if the IRB refuse to rectify the competition.

If their is a new competition I doubt it won't be ratified by the irb, the pro12 don't have that much power.

TJ just wants the PRL clubs left out in the cold. he cares about nothing else

No - I want a high quality european cup that is fair to all. I am prepared to accept compromises and hope the English teams stay on board. however it is not worth any cost to keep them and certainly the PRLK proposals are simply not acceptable as they well know

TJ wrote:I have read and replied.  the PRL proposal is 6/6/6 and you are defending the PRL resolutly
You have not shown any reason why allt eh reduction in entrants comes from 4 countries adn none from 2

You have not show any form of meritocratic qualification process.

You keep asserting that it must be unions not clubs but can give no reason why.

I shall leave you to your futile circular arguments " its right because I said its right and thats what we want"

i stated very clearly the only way it could work fairly is by taking the unions out of the process(if certain ones are within one league) and then basing it on variable coefficients. The pro 12 can have more teams if it deserves more teams.

If you can't understand that then you are pretty stupid!

I've thought about nothing else for days now, but I still don't understand how anyone can calculate the relative 'merit' applicable to finishing placings in different leagues. A team could finish 6th in the Aviva yet be a much worse team than the 7th, 8th, 9th...etc in the Rabo or Top 14.

How could you ever compare between diff...

Play Offs!!!!!

That would generate even MORE cash. S4C would offer big bucks for a Scarlets v Worcester eliminator.

thats an assertion.  Now WHY is that the case? that you have to take the unions out of it?

Back to childish insults.  yawn.

Casartelli wrote:I've thought about nothing else for days now, but I still don't understand how anyone can calculate the relative 'merit' applicable to finishing placings in different leagues.  A team could finish 6th in the Aviva yet be a much worse team than the 7th, 8th, 9th...etc in the Rabo or Top 14.

How could you ever compare between diff...

Play Offs!!!!!

That would generate even MORE cash.  S4C would offer big bucks for a Scarlets v Worcester eliminator.

You do it the way the CL does it- you have to use historical coefficients .. its just a league ranking system within european competitions. The better one league performs the more spots they get.. the only problem we have in this case is that the PRO 12 have confused the issue by having 4 unions fighting over who will go through

Historical coefficients is definitely the future.

Slightly unfair though on teams which have to qualify compared to say Edinburgh who will always be in the running as they have an automatic place.

Wasps have won 2 HCs, done more then Edinburgh have ever achieved in the HC, but they can't get in the tournament for love or money at the moment.

Their historical coefficient would be less then edinburgh's.

TJ wrote:thats an assertion.  Now WHY is that the case? that you have to take the unions out of it?

Back to childish insults.  yawn.

taking the unions out of it(and allocating the leagues a number of teams instead) allows us to use a coefficient system- which is fairest way of allocating spots to each league. The union thing(allocation to unions) truly confuses the issue if we went down this path

fa0019 wrote:Slightly unfair though on teams which have to qualify compared to say Edinburgh who will always be in the running as they have an automatic place.

Wasps have won 2 HCs, done more then Edinburgh have ever achieved in the HC, but they can't get in the tournament for love or money at the moment.

Their historical coefficient would be less then edinburgh's.

it should be based on the league only not team.

mystiroakey wrote:

TJ wrote:thats an assertion.  Now WHY is that the case? that you have to take the unions out of it?

Back to childish insults.  yawn.

taking the unions out of it(and allocating the leagues a number of teams instead) allows us to use a coefficient system- which is fairest way of allocating spots to each league. The union thing(allocation to unions) truly confuses the issue if we went down this path

Why do you have to take the unions out of it to go down this road? again asserting without any evidence or reasoning

mystiroakey wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Slightly unfair though on teams which have to qualify compared to say Edinburgh who will always be in the running as they have an automatic place.

Wasps have won 2 HCs, done more then Edinburgh have ever achieved in the HC, but they can't get in the tournament for love or money at the moment.

Their historical coefficient would be less then edinburgh's.

it should be based on the league only not team.

Why? assertion again

I cant explain it any better dude.. It seems perfectly obvious and has been completely explained.


Explain to me how a coefficient would work whilst still trying to guarantee celt and italian  teams in the ERC?

I mean dont get me wrong we could allow you the pro12 to split up its allocation however it wants i suppose! so it could work in that respect- but I would think thats a bit unfair on some of your teams that miss out on the ERC but finish above another that gets in!!

TJ wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Slightly unfair though on teams which have to qualify compared to say Edinburgh who will always be in the running as they have an automatic place.

Wasps have won 2 HCs, done more then Edinburgh have ever achieved in the HC, but they can't get in the tournament for love or money at the moment.

Their historical coefficient would be less then edinburgh's.

it should be based on the league only not team.

Why?  assertion again

you dont understand how a coefficient system works if you are asking that question mate..

TJ i think you are going to have to accept that the PRO12 is only going to get 8 teams next year and that the HEC will remain.

However for the future i think allocating coefficients to each league is the way to go and that includes other european nations as well. so you may get more- you will probably get less if it pays off. Because what we want is the other leagues being represented more which will truly expand the game

Nonense - it matters not if the unions or the clubs run it to have a qualification system like that

You merely assert things - you do not explain or justify.

8 would be acceptable to me and I believe to most. be better with 5/5/8+2 If the PRLK will accept this then a deal could be near.. hut so far all they ave done is state what they want and refuse to consider anything else

We will see won't we.. But should that 8/5/5 remain without a coefficient system in place?. Then we wouldn't have to get this nonsense being brought up again but the individual leagues spots would be based on form!

TJ i take it there is no debate with you then. I am suprised!!

You truly dont care do you, you are just annoyed that the PRL has so much power to do this in the first place. It hurts your pride!

you see if we just stick with another non variable (no merit based) allocation this situation will just happen again and again and again!!

mystiroakey wrote:TJ i take it there is no debate with you then. I am suprised!!

You truly dont care do you, you are just annoyed that the PRL has so much power to do this in the first place. It hurts your pride!

you see if we just stick with another non variable (no merit based) allocation this situation will just happen again and again and again!!

Have to admit I'm a bit confused by your comments, mystiroakey. Are you really suggesting that the Unions stay out of the Rabo?