What do the Pro 12 teams do if theres no European cup?

First topic message reminder :

Leaving aside all the talk of surrounding it and the political stuff, I thought I'd start a thread discussing possible alternatives only.


If theres no European cup rugby next season then these are some of the alternatives I heard.

- More international matches
- A Pro 12 division 2 involving teams from developing countries. It would have promotion and relegation.
- Expand the Pro 12 to 14 teams with teams from Scotland or Italy or Spain etc.
- Smaller squads.


Some good ideas in there. I like the idea of a Pro 12 division 2 involving developing nation's teams but it would take a bit of organising. Its certainly not impossible to do though. Go to the unions of those countries and see can they raise the money but with the condition that only the country's union can make decisions.

More international matches would bring in money to each union. Maybe start a tournament involving Georgia, Russia, Romania etc too. Too many internationals would effect crowd size but with no HEC there would be an appetite for more big matches. It would also allow each country more time to strengthen and blend as a team.

Expanding the pro 12 would mean 2 more games per team. The problem here is the quality of the opposition.

Smaller squads would happen anyway. Less games means less need for bigger squads. The problem is who to cut loose. I think NIQs and those not good enough to be internationals would be the ones to go.



Financially, teams would take a hit without a European cup but if every team is concentrating on the Rabo league then it will generate more interest. Also its on sky and going to get a new sponsor next season. Crowds and TV audience are growing at 4 - 5% which is a healthy growth. With no Euro Cup we could see an even greater increase in attendances and TV audience numbers. You'll also have the sky hype machine behind it next season so expect the general view of the league to improve. People are easily fooled by that kind of stuff.

broadlandboy wrote:So much for the altruistic view of trying to help those less fortunate than others. So its a case of its ok for some to get an advantage but only if it is for them

bb, hardly! As my club have been a beneficiary of that in the past, clearly I am grateful - yet it still doesn't give the PRL the right to impose altruism on everyone else. My understanding is that the only club that indirectly does not get quite the same share of the ERC pot as everyone else would be Connacht from the Celtic and Italian unions, and there are reasons for that which aren't relevant to this debate

But some of those teams are getting 3* as much as the PRL/LNR teams for participating in Europe, so not equal between all teams.
The PRL try to equalise the Aviva by having a salary cup & equal distribution of central funds. In Europe a salary cap would be very hard to sort out due to differing tax laws in different countries hence why they have restricted squads which have to be named, after all they can only put 15 on the pitch at one time with 8 on the bench

Aslong - italy get less than Scotland despite the same number of teams. ( or more if you include th amlin) thats not right.

broadlandboy wrote:But some of those teams are getting 3* as much as the PRL/LNR teams for participating in Europe, so not equal between all teams.

Thats the RFU decison tho. they could give the money to the teams that earn it - the 6 in the HC. also as said the scottish teams do not get all the HC money - it is used as a part of the SRU income which goes to teams at all levels.

#so its fine for the rfu to distribute its HC money to level the playing field but not for the ERC to do the same?

TJ wrote:Aslong - italy get less than Scotland despite the same number of teams. ( or more if you include th amlin)  thats not right.

It's not, TJ, but that's a historical artefact of a previous agreement, and I would expect that to be addressed in any future agreement

The PRL collect the TV & EPS money& share it fairly equal between all the clubs,so the likes of Leic/Sar/Harl/Nort who supply the most players get the same as those that don't. With most teams(depending on whether they were an original or not) all getting the same amount.

So the same principle as the ERC distribution then?

Same principle but differently executed so all teams get roughly the same, not some getting 3* as much & not splitting the pot between different competitions with more going to some than others

The PRL and LNR want it to be distributed by club because they have more teams and hence more mouth to feed. But there is nothing stopping them only having 4 teams is there.

In fact as the European Cup is a competition run by 6 unions then why is the income not split 6 ways? Each union can decide how many teams it wants for that money.

This is the exact opposite argument that PRL are using to argue the distribution of funds.

In fact if it is to be based on the same income per club then I suggest Wales, Ireland and Scotland and Italy each enter say 10 teams each. What would the PRL say then? What if we split up the Rabo in to each countries leagues to decide qualification?

doctornickolas wrote:The PRL and LNR want it to be distributed by club because they have more teams and hence more mouth to feed. But there is nothing stopping them only having 4 teams is there.

In fact as the European Cup is a competition run by 6 unions then why is the income not split 6 ways? Each union can decide how many teams it wants for that money.

This is the exact opposite argument that PRL are using to argue the distribution of funds.

In fact if it is to be based on the same income per club then I suggest Wales, Ireland and Scotland and Italy each enter say 10 teams each. What would the PRL say then? What if we split up the Rabo in to each countries leagues to decide qualification?

This is clearly sensible and consequently has no chance of ever happening sadly!

This is the point. Fair is relative depending where you stand

doctornickolas wrote:The PRL and LNR want it to be distributed by club because they have more teams and hence more mouth to feed. But there is nothing stopping them only having 4 teams is there.

In fact as the European Cup is a competition run by 6 unions then why is the income not split 6 ways? Each union can decide how many teams it wants for that money.

This is the exact opposite argument that PRL are using to argue the distribution of funds.

In fact if it is to be based on the same income per club then I suggest Wales, Ireland and Scotland and Italy each enter say 10 teams each. What would the PRL say then? What if we split up the Rabo in to each countries leagues to decide qualification?

So it turns out that the Celtic and Italian unions have been subsidizing the RFU and FFR for all these years?! Will there be a back payment?

Would love to see those unions sustain their own 10 top level teams ,as however they seem only to just be able to sustain 4(or 2) I think that would be a bit of a dream

Unfortunately none of the alternative ideas from the Rabo perspective are nearly as exciting as what the French and English can offer.

I disagree - a European cup where the rabo entrants are fewer in number and financially disadvantaged would soon be dull.

hongkongslong wrote:Unfortunately none of the alternative ideas from the Rabo perspective are nearly as exciting as what the French and English can offer.

But they aren't offering anything? they are saying we are going to run this tournament, we are going to get all the Tv money, you can play if you like to try and give some legitimacy to it. What is in it for the Rabo teams?

TJ so how is your proposal any different from your view of what might happen except that the Rabo teams are on top?

Doc the PRL/LNR are happy to talk to the unions but aren't going to talk to ERC

broadlandboy wrote:Would love to see those unions sustain their own 10 top level teams ,as however they seem only to just be able to sustain 4(or 2) I think that would be a bit of a dream

They don't need 10 top level teams though do they. They could have 5 decent teams and 5 rubbish ones as long as they play in a league. The top 5 will be the same each year and qualify for the HC and the bottom 5 for the Amlin (or whatever equivalents). And they will each get an equal same share as the English and French teams.

Even rubbish teams cost, possibly more as there would be very little interest from fans/sponsers

Can we keep this thread for ideas only? Cheers



Turning to Canada and USA might offer good opportunities. A tournament involving Canadia, USA, Italy, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Georgia, Russia, Romania etc could happen. Have this played every season and it could be split into groups etc. It would give all those teams more international matches too.

profitius wrote:Can we keep this thread for ideas only? Cheers



Turning to Canada and USA might offer good opportunities. A tournament involving Canadia, USA, Italy, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Georgia, Russia, Romania etc could happen. Have this played every season and it could be split into groups etc. It would give all those teams more international matches too.

I think that is the sort of road it will go down. a european cup and maybe more internationals.

doctornickolas wrote:The PRL and LNR want it to be distributed by club because they have more teams and hence more mouth to feed. But there is nothing stopping them only having 4 teams is there.

In fact as the European Cup is a competition run by 6 unions then why is the income not split 6 ways? Each union can decide how many teams it wants for that money.

This is the exact opposite argument that PRL are using to argue the distribution of funds.

In fact if it is to be based on the same income per club then I suggest Wales, Ireland and Scotland and Italy each enter say 10 teams each. What would the PRL say then? What if we split up the Rabo in to each countries leagues to decide qualification?

If France and England did each drop their number of teams to 4 there would be less matches for the broadcasters in the HC and the Amlin would disappear altogether. The revenue the ERC generated would drop significantly, maybe somewhere around a quarter to a third, which would mean less money for everyone rather than similar or more money but a lesser share.

I think that French regional sides could be a great success if they are set up properly. Many French fans want to support teams that have more Frenchman playing in them, and are identify strongly with their regions. I don't know how many sides the FFR could afford to fund to start with but if it is within their power to say that they will draw the French team first from regional sides, and if they have the money to pay them well then there could some strong regional sides within a couple of years.

I don't really believe that the Russians and the Georgians would be able to join. These leagues regularly lose their best players for better pay elsewhere and travel costs are already a huge burden on the Russian teams. However, it is possible.

Expel England from the 6Ns (all the other Unions are singing from the same hymn sheet) and have home and away international games instead.

There would be great money in that for the Unions.

PS - the English would be allowed back when the RFU sorts out their clubs.

The Great Aukster wrote:I like the idea of a 23 team League - home one year away the next (22 games/team/year). The top 16 would go through to 4 groups of four who play home and away (6 games/team/year). Group winners into semis and final .

So the weaker 7 teams in the league get 11 home games and 11 away games to develop against some top opposition but also against their own level.

The top 16 earn a place on merit to the group stages and get another 3 home and 3 away lucrative games.

The elite 4 have end of season knock outs and crown a champion.

It is high time the Irish, Welsh, Scots and Italians capitalised on the strengths of their league, rather than focus on the weaknesses. What they have is diversity. If they get enough Unions involved then they can command big tv audiences through aggregation.

I haven't looked to hard into the numbers and how well it would work in practice, but I have to say in its conception, I really love this idea from Aukster. It has a really nice flow to it making the whole season much more meaningful than it currently is. And best of all it involves expanding the developing nations and club teams in a much more coherent and meaningful process with specific phases throughout the season.

I would love to see one super-team representing the likes of Georgia or Roumania, etc in order to maximize their finances and support. That would also maximize competivity. If these unions can start to retain some of their talent I don't think any team would travel there over-confident. But I also think such a plan would be dependent on 5 year contracts/plans. These teams can't just be signed up and then just hope that they can sustain themselves or be immediately profitable. They should be given all the support possible from IRB, ERC and "home unions" in order to make them competitive... that will then lead to local support and greater viability with time. After 5 years or so then more new teams and new structures can be reviewed again.

Unfortunately, I do think this option is on the far more radical side as far as the powers that be are concerned. And it would only become viable in relation to the original title thread. That is, in a situation where no European Cup compromise involving the English and French proves possible. Ultimately, I think that's unlikely.

Sin é wrote:Expel England from the 6Ns (all the other Unions are singing from the same hymn sheet) and have home and away international games instead.

There would be great money in that for the Unions.

PS - the English would be allowed back when the RFU sorts out their clubs.

What about the French? LNR started all this years ago. PRL are guilty of trying to mirror the LNR, with some of their followers making complete fools of themself in the papers (Craig).

The Saint wrote:

Sin é wrote:Expel England from the 6Ns (all the other Unions are singing from the same hymn sheet) and have home and away international games instead.

There would be great money in that for the Unions.

PS - the English would be allowed back when the RFU sorts out their clubs.

What about the French? LNR started all this years ago. PRL are guilty of trying to mirror the LNR, with some of their followers making complete fools of themself in the papers (Craig).

I wondered about the French too Saint. Also they have been quite vocal too... Maybe Sin e has come to this conclusion because the FFR have been more openly aggressive against the LNR than the RFU have been with PRL?

stub wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Sin é wrote:Expel England from the 6Ns (all the other Unions are singing from the same hymn sheet) and have home and away international games instead.

There would be great money in that for the Unions.

PS - the English would be allowed back when the RFU sorts out their clubs.

What about the French? LNR started all this years ago. PRL are guilty of trying to mirror the LNR, with some of their followers making complete fools of themself in the papers (Craig).

I wondered about the French too Saint. Also they have been quite vocal too... Maybe Sin e has come to this conclusion because the FFR have been more openly aggressive against the LNR than the RFU have been with PRL?

Well, in terms of radical decisions regarding exclusions or inclusions, that's really the crux of the matter isn't it? So Sin has a point. The point is not to proactively seek war with the French and English pro clubs nor to dictate absolutely how rugby should be organised in France and England by the FFR and RFU. Rather it's about the decisions of specific countries not being more and more imposed on other unions who don't suit that model at all well.

So, if the FFR prove themselves to be ultimately in control of the LNR teams as opposed to vice-versa then that should be good enough. IMHO, it should not matter even whether they chose to be fully involved in a new Euro Cup or not. What matters is whether pro club-dominated systems begin to take over rugby as a whole.

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:

stub wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Sin é wrote:Expel England from the 6Ns (all the other Unions are singing from the same hymn sheet) and have home and away international games instead.

There would be great money in that for the Unions.

PS - the English would be allowed back when the RFU sorts out their clubs.

What about the French? LNR started all this years ago. PRL are guilty of trying to mirror the LNR, with some of their followers making complete fools of themself in the papers (Craig).

I wondered about the French too Saint. Also they have been quite vocal too... Maybe Sin e has come to this conclusion because the FFR have been more openly aggressive against the LNR than the RFU have been with PRL?

Well, in terms of radical decisions regarding exclusions or inclusions, that's really the crux of the matter isn't it? So Sin has a point. The point is not to proactively seek war with the French and English pro clubs nor to dictate absolutely how rugby should be organised in France and England by the FFR and RFU. Rather it's about the decisions of specific countries not being more and more imposed on other unions who don't suit that model at all well.

So, if the FFR prove themselves to be ultimately in control of the LNR teams as opposed to vice-versa then that should be good enough. IMHO, it should not matter even whether they chose to be fully involved in a new Euro Cup or not. What matters is whether pro club-dominated systems begin to take over rugby as a whole.

I can see the logic there from that point of view however it would be an attempt to force the RFU to organise English rugby in a way that suited the other unions wouldn't it?

Or the way that suited England rugby and the ERC (the bosses).

I suspect that a setup like that could still work with but with different bosses! By which I mean a differently staffed ERC perhaps...

I've been thinking about this. Here's the conclusion i've come too. Some Of the PRL have been more vocal than others. Wheeler is the director of Leicester he signed the sky deal did he not? Wasps have been very quiet about this all and are in dire financial straights. Bristol are Historically one of the biggest Clubs in England. We invite Leicester, Wasps, Bristol and An Other English club to join the newly formed Euro League. So You straight away have 16 teams you then ask the FFR to nominate 4 French clubs to take part. Teams play each other home and away that 18 Game's a season allows the invited clubs to also participate in a domestic League. As to control each english club would have a vote same as the French. IRFU would have 3 votes Wales 3 votes Scotland 1 VOTE AND Italy 1 VOTE. SO NO COMBINATION OF UNIONS OR CLUBS ON THEIR OWN WOULD HAVE CONTROL

The principle of that voting system seems a good idea to me tecphobe. I guess the only issue could be that there are lots of stalemate situations.

Why do you want to see a re-staffing at the ERC? Because the current board aren't PRL sympathisers?

IIRC Wheeler claims that there was no discussion about the Sky Deal that he attended after LNR/PRL had given notice

The Saint wrote:Why do you want to see a re-staffing at the ERC? Because the current board aren't PRL sympathisers?

From what I have read it would seem that characters like Lux clash with the LNR and PRL. From my perspective if you can remove some of the personalities that clash then there is more hope of compromise and progress which in turn is good for European rugby.

Or maybe it's the PRL/LNR that need a re-staffing. Get some rugby people in charge as opposed to business men.

Isn't it the club owners that represent PRL/LNR? Difficult to change them....

For those that think the PRL/LNR teams are beelzebub incarnate & want to see the RFU/FFR create regional teams the following is a possible outcome. The RFU/FFR set up their teams from 2nd/3rd level players which would probably result in them being well beaten by the RABO teams. There is very little support for the RFU/FFR teams as the fans of the PRL/LNR teams are annoyed at having their teams messed about,precedent how Welsh supporters reacted, & very few people chose to follow a new team that wins very little.Many supporters chose not to support the RWC by not attending matches. The RFU goes bankrupt due to being unable to fulfil its obligation to the IRB for £80million,the IRB due to less money than expected have to downsize its plans,rugby goes into decline as 2 of the financial powerhouses go into decline & rugby goes back into the pack with other sports. For those that say it would never happen it is a possibilty just like their view that the PRL/LNR want to run rugby it would be the end of rugby.

stub wrote:

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:

stub wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Sin é wrote:Expel England from the 6Ns (all the other Unions are singing from the same hymn sheet) and have home and away international games instead.

There would be great money in that for the Unions.

PS - the English would be allowed back when the RFU sorts out their clubs.

What about the French? LNR started all this years ago. PRL are guilty of trying to mirror the LNR, with some of their followers making complete fools of themself in the papers (Craig).

I wondered about the French too Saint. Also they have been quite vocal too... Maybe Sin e has come to this conclusion because the FFR have been more openly aggressive against the LNR than the RFU have been with PRL?

Well, in terms of radical decisions regarding exclusions or inclusions, that's really the crux of the matter isn't it? So Sin has a point. The point is not to proactively seek war with the French and English pro clubs nor to dictate absolutely how rugby should be organised in France and England by the FFR and RFU. Rather it's about the decisions of specific countries not being more and more imposed on other unions who don't suit that model at all well.

So, if the FFR prove themselves to be ultimately in control of the LNR teams as opposed to vice-versa then that should be good enough. IMHO, it should not matter even whether they chose to be fully involved in a new Euro Cup or not. What matters is whether pro club-dominated systems begin to take over rugby as a whole.

I can see the logic there from that point of view however it would be an attempt to force the RFU to organise English rugby in a way that suited the other unions wouldn't it?

This is the bit I'm in complete disagreement with. It comes up every few minutes in this debate (not that I'm blaming you for that Saint.). But not every proposal is secretly centred around personal greed and 'what I have I hold'. This is the type of argument that was often used by Ayn Rand and her accolytes to relativise every argument (i.e. that, at root, all of us are individuals seeking our own personal profit so therefore the only answer is to openly create a system where personal profit is encouraged, greed is good, etc as that best represents human nature).

It is not true that every proposal here is a secret plot for personal or local profit and that all systems are equally fair. Professional club rugby is not set up for the interests of all rugby. And the PRL even less is set up for the interests of all rugby. It is openly and actively seeking the interests of its members. The IRB is constitutionally set up to run rugby worldwide. It may be flawed. It may be archaic in some ways. But it is the only body, in coalition with the unions, that are specifically supposed to seek the expansion and promotion of the game as a whole. (Often they don't do it. And they should be criticised for that. But that doesn't change their supposed role.) But some 'systems' are less or more egalitarian and universalist than others.

So it simply isn't correct to say that the system A (that will inevitably lead to an imbalance in favour of larger populations, larger markets, and bigger profit clubs) is of equal merit and fairness to system B (that emphasises the promotion and support of peripheral clubs/provinces and the expansion of the game into new areas) just because they both are in opposition and seek the dominance of their own system. One leads to a more equal playing field - which is supposed to be the very essence of sport - the other leads to an increasingly unequal and increasingly proposterous playing field (similar to professional soccer).

To finally get back to your main point. The English clubs (with their rugby culture and bigger populations) could and can compete perfectly well within an egalitarian and universalist system if they embraced that system and worked for non-monetary reforms within the schedule, etc. But because the PRL is increasingly in charge, they don't. The PRL are proposing a system change under which certain advantages are increasingly locked into the whole system favouring specific successful regions and certain bigger clubs. Therefore smaller regions and clubs cannot ever hope to compete in their proposed system and will be increasingly sidelined. Those two proposals are not the same.

A question for those that dislike the PRL/LNR model.Who has grown the interest in rugby more the PRL/LNR or ERC/RABO?

broadlandboy wrote:A question for those that dislike the PRL/LNR model.Who has grown the interest in rugby more the PRL/LNR or ERC/RABO?

A question for those who dislike the ERC/RABO model: Who has grown the interest and broad participation in rugby more the PRL/LNR or ERC/RABO?

There is also a clear and undeniable answer to this question in both my country and several others. One that no doubt significantly differs from your implied answer. Does your answer apply to all of these countries or just your own country and your own national league?

Also these questions are all off topic really.

Which of the two proposed expanding into other territories & have helped more players from Tier 2 Unions & below to play professionally? I realise that not all Unions can run their own Pro league so have joined together but dont castigate the PRL/LNR for their model

Which group has reduced the number of top level teams in their own countries?

Nos - It's probably the English and French as the answer to both questions I should think purely for demographic reasons if nothing else (depends how you measure it I guess). However I think that all clubs and Unions work hard to grow the game for a variety of motives.

IMHO Unions are more concerned with their own countries where as most of the PRL/LNR teams are buisinesses & to increase revenue know that a terrirtory has limitations so to keep growing promote interest in other unions.

Yep BB - it might not be a perfect system and decisions may not always be made for purely altruistic reasons (!) but that's not to say that it can't deliver some good to be shared around.

broadlandboy wrote:Which of the two proposed expanding into other territories & have helped more players from Tier 2 Unions & below to play professionally? I realise that not all Unions can run their own Pro league so have joined together but dont castigate the PRL/LNR for their model

 Talk about hypocrisy.

And moreover, I can criticise and castigate all I want. The point of these boards is to express your opinion. If i fervently disagree with a particular direction in a sport I support, participated in for years and still love, then I will say so. And at the end of the day 99.9999% of us on here have no real power in this dispute. So this is the only forum for us to express our otherwise completely worthless opinions.

stub wrote: Nos - It's probably the English and French as the answer to both questions I should think purely for demographic reasons if nothing else (depends how you measure it I guess). However I think that all clubs and Unions work hard to grow the game for a variety of motives.

Exactly. As I said, these answers apply to your own leagues only. The PRL/LNR had nothing to do with expanding rugby outside their own interests. Not mine. Not the Scottish. Not the Italians. Nor even the Welsh I'd guess. Moreover, the English era of professionalism and Sky Sports would have brought new interest and participation regardless of whether it had been set up under the PRL or stayed under the RFU's tighter control. So to try to claim that that is somehow the result of the PRL system is more than a little tendentious.

The reverse would not be true: if the Irish, Welsh, Scots, etc had gone the way of a pro-club dominated system they could not have succeeded and could not have built the participation and interest that they have and which most English would agree creates a much better atmosphere of international competition, etc.

Nos - I was just answering the questions not necessarily saying that one model is better than another. In truth we don't know although we may prefer one more than another. I do however think that all stakeholders have a vested interest in developing the game elsewhere - even the PRL and even if that is for reasons of profit.