Thoughts From Andy Nicol

by **LondonTiger** Fri 04 Oct 2013, 5:38 am

From the Beeb - tack it with as many pinches of salt as you wish :http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24382574

Just the actual quotes - avoiding any journo spin - though I cannot guarantee these are in order:

"It could well be the end of professional rugby in Scotland if the competition wasn't to go ahead," Nicol told BBC Scotland.
"I don't think you can fill a hole of that amount with anything else."
"It happens every few years," he told BBC Scotland. "The English and the French flex their collective muscles when the contract is coming to an end.
"But this year, it's very different, because they've got a television deal on the table and it's a real clear and present danger.
"I think there's an acceptance that the current format of the Heineken Cup will cease and there will be a new competition.
"Then we just need to ensure and hope that Scotland are heavily involved in it."
He added: "Where it's flawed is in the qualification. I don't think the two Scottish sides and the Italian sides or the Irish sides should qualify automatically.
"So let's get qualification sorted out and based on a meritocracy and then the distribution of revenues is for the boardrooms.
"There's a bit of posturing from both sides, but I just hope it's a bit of brinksmanship and they get around the table and sort something out - and we get a competition.
"It might not be the Heineken Cup as we call it now, but hopefully we'll get something like it."

by **LondonTiger** Fri 04 Oct 2013, 5:42 am

I do not have much time for Andy Nicol, feeling the views he expresses on the Beeb are rabidly one-eyed.

I do feel that taken in context with comments from the head of SRU yesterday, that Scotland are really worried about everything - but have very little say in what will happen.

My distaste for the administrators responsible for this mess, continues to grow.

by **rodders** Fri 04 Oct 2013, 9:05 am

Andy is spot on, you could apply the same logic to Ireland and Wales too to some degree.

by Majestic83 Fri 04 Oct 2013, 9:06 am

likewise I don't have much time for Andy Nicol and find when he is on the BBC he just follows the other pundits and doesn't really come
up with his own opinions.
Would prefer he stuck to his day job at the bank!

by DeludedOptimistorjustDave Fri 04 Oct 2013, 9:18 am

Doors close others open.
Scotland need to take a long hard look at themselves and ask how they are in such a predicament.
They must realize the lack of clout they have behind the scenes in rugby politics stems from them being a HAS BEEN,
Scottish rugby is dying they bring nothing to the table in the six nations! at least when Wales had a poor patch thy played an exciting brand but the Scottish can't even offer up a Try, yes Glasgow finish well in the Pro12 but they never win it, when it gets to the business end of the season they get hammered.

Scotland have nothing but themselves to blame, beyond Richie Gray the only exciting things that have come through are a Dutch winger and a South African back row.

As i said though other doors open the likes of Samoa have proved over the last decade they deserve a place in the top table, based out of a European country they could easily offer more than Scotland to the six nations.

by Luckless Pedestrian Fri 04 Oct 2013, 9:23 am

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:Doors close others open.
Scotland need to take a long hard look at themselves and ask how they are in such a predicament.
They must realize the lack of clout they have behind the scenes in rugby politics stems from them being a HAS BEEN,
Scottish rugby is dying they bring nothing to the table in the six nations! at least when Wales had a poor patch thy played an exciting brand but the Scottish can't even offer up a Try, yes Glasgow finish well in the Pro12 but they never win it, when it gets to the business end of the season they get hammered.

Scotland have nothing but themselves to blame, beyond Richie Gray the only exciting things that have come through are a Dutch winger and a South African back row.

As i said though other doors open the likes of Samoa have proved over the last decade they deserve a place in the top table, based out of a European country they could easily offer more than Scotland to the six nations.

Yeah, they just rolled over against Leinster last season. Rolling Eyes

by GunsGerms Fri 04 Oct 2013, 9:27 am

rodders wrote:Andy is spot on, you could apply the same logic to Ireland and Wales too to some degree.

I dont think he is to be honest. The word meritocracy is a big red herring. Whatever happens England and France will always have more qualifiers than everyone else. Where's the merit in that?

There is no way that Scotland and Italy's automatic spots should be taken away.

by beshocked Fri 04 Oct 2013, 9:36 am

Gunsgerms how about a compromise then?

Wales and Ireland lose 1 auto spot each - 2 Irish,2 Welsh, 2 Italian,2 Scottish - 8 Pro12 teams though I doubt you would agree to that!

by Tattie Scones RRN Fri 04 Oct 2013, 9:39 am

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:Doors close others open.
Scotland need to take a long hard look at themselves and ask how they are in such a predicament.
They must realize the lack of clout they have behind the scenes in rugby politics stems from them being a HAS BEEN,
Scottish rugby is dying they bring nothing to the table in the six nations! at least when Wales had a poor patch thy played an exciting brand but the Scottish can't even offer up a Try, yes Glasgow finish well in the Pro12 but they never win it, when it gets to the business end of the season they get hammered.

Scotland have nothing but themselves to blame, beyond Richie Gray the only exciting things that have come through are a Dutch winger and a South African back row.

As i said though other doors open the likes of Samoa have proved over the last decade they deserve a place in the top table, based out of a European country they could easily offer more than Scotland to the six nations.

Intelligent little man aren't you!

picard

by 21st Century Schizoid Man Fri 04 Oct 2013, 9:43 am

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:Doors close others open.
Scotland need to take a long hard look at themselves and ask how they are in such a predicament.
They must realize the lack of clout they have behind the scenes in rugby politics stems from them being a HAS BEEN,
Scottish rugby is dying they bring nothing to the table in the six nations! at least when Wales had a poor patch thy played an exciting brand but the Scottish can't even offer up a Try, yes Glasgow finish well in the Pro12 but they never win it, when it gets to the business end of the season they get hammered.

Scotland have nothing but themselves to blame, beyond Richie Gray the only exciting things that have come through are a Dutch winger and a South African back row.

As i said though other doors open the likes of Samoa have proved over the last decade they deserve a place in the top table, based out of a European country they could easily offer more than Scotland to the six nations.
Intelligent little man aren't you!

What stone did this moron crawl out from under ?

by **rodders** Fri 04 Oct 2013, 9:44 am

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms how about a compromise then?

Wales and Ireland lose 1 auto spot each - 2 Irish,2 Welsh, 2 Italian,2 Scottish - 8 Pro12 teams though I doubt you would agree to that!

I think 50% of each countries top flight teams would be fair:

6 French (ok I know there's 14..)
6 English
2 Irish
2 Welsh
1 Scottish
1 Italian

Additional 2 places based on rabo league position, and for the Amlin and Heino champions to make up the rest.

by 21st Century Schizoid Man Fri 04 Oct 2013, 9:48 am

Agree completely with you Rodders - would sharpen things up for us In Scotland.

by Scrumpy Fri 04 Oct 2013, 9:51 am

rodders wrote:
beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms how about a compromise then?

Wales and Ireland lose 1 auto spot each - 2 Irish,2 Welsh, 2 Italian,2 Scottish - 8 Pro12 teams though I doubt you would agree to that!
I think 50% of each countries top flight teams would be fair:

6 French (ok I know there's 14..)
6 English
2 Irish
2 Welsh
1 Scottish
1 Italian

Additional 2 places based on rabo league position, and for the Amlin and Heino champions to make up the rest.

Seems fair, give PRL a ring.

by Luckless Pedestrian Fri 04 Oct 2013, 9:53 am

It would sharpen things up in Wales too. At the moment all the regions need to do is finish above the worst-placed region (usually the Dragons Crying or Very sad

) and they're in. The added pressure of having to be one of the top two regions could only be a good thing.

by beshocked Fri 04 Oct 2013, 10:07 am

rodders I have been calling for that from the beginning.

6,6,8.

The revenue is something that I am not sure about.

by funnyExiledScot Fri 04 Oct 2013, 10:13 am

1 Scottish? We really ought to just write "Glasgow".

by **rodders** Fri 04 Oct 2013, 10:21 am

beshocked wrote:rodders I have been calling for that from the beginning.

6,6,8.

The revenue is something that I am not sure about.

I think its the revenue that's the real issue, not the format. The big problem now is the rival TV deals that have been agreed...I can't see how this can be resolved without huge damage to the sport in Europe.

by **rodders** Fri 04 Oct 2013, 10:23 am

funnyExiledScot wrote:1 Scottish? We really ought to just write "Glasgow".

If yous hadn't of scrapped the borders you could have had 1.5.

by GunsGerms Fri 04 Oct 2013, 10:26 am

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms how about a compromise then?

Wales and Ireland lose 1 auto spot each - 2 Irish,2 Welsh, 2 Italian,2 Scottish - 8 Pro12 teams though I doubt you would agree to that!

Why should there be futher compromise?

What we have in Europe is a unique situation where there are 6 unions across three leagues. As a result there will always be skewed qualification.

England and France will always have the most teams and the compramise the other way is that the other unions have automatic qualifiers.

This is already the compromise!!!!

This whole debate boils my blood like nothing I have ever come across in rugby.

by beshocked Fri 04 Oct 2013, 10:35 am

rodders I thought the BT deal was bigger than the Sky one?

Gunsgerms do I really have to explain to you yet again?

The French and English clubs perform better in the HC than the Pro12 ones in regards to overall win rate %. They generate more revenue yet get a smaller slice of the pie.

For example Connacht and Edinburgh both get more money than Leicester and Saints - how is that right?

You are being unreasonable - you get a far better deal than you should.

by Luckless Pedestrian Fri 04 Oct 2013, 10:37 am

by **rodders** Fri 04 Oct 2013, 10:38 am

beshocked wrote:rodders I thought the BT deal was bigger than the Sky one?

I mean the original issues were around the revenue rather than the format.

by Bathman_in_London Fri 04 Oct 2013, 10:48 am

It seems to me that the SRU through general incompetence are managing to reduce player numbers and kill off the game in Scotland pretty well without any ERC intervention.

by beshocked Fri 04 Oct 2013, 10:49 am

rodders you are correct. What would be your solution?

by GunsGerms Fri 04 Oct 2013, 10:53 am

beshocked wrote:rodders I thought the BT deal was bigger than the Sky one?

Gunsgerms do I really have to explain to you yet again?

The French and English clubs perform better in the HC than the Pro12 ones in regards to overall win rate %. They generate more revenue yet get a smaller slice of the pie.

What a load of bollix!! No point justifying this nonsense with a response.

beshocked wrote:
For example Connacht and Edinburgh both get more money than Leicester and Saints - how is that right?

You are being unreasonable - you get a far better deal than you should.

We were discussing qualification not money. All the unions get the same amount of money. No issues there either. The revenue from the Hcup is not material to English and French teams whereas its what keeps the Scots and Italians alive. Its perfectly fair and helps maintain equilibrum in European rugby.

by **rodders** Fri 04 Oct 2013, 10:59 am

beshocked wrote:rodders you are correct. What would be your solution?

At this stage I don't have one - either the PRL come back into the ERC and the stakeholders agree to tweak the Heino or the English and French bomb on the Champions Cup and see who follows.

I don't see any European rugby next season at this point.

by TJ Fri 04 Oct 2013, 11:02 am

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms how about a compromise then?

Wales and Ireland lose 1 auto spot each - 2 Irish,2 Welsh, 2 Italian,2 Scottish - 8 Pro12 teams though I doubt you would agree to that!

8 teams' one from each nation and 4 on merit makes some sense. 6 is not enough from 4 unions and is too much of a cut from 10. 5/5/8 +two winners would be the most acceptable compromise all round I think assuming the case for reducing numbers is really made.

by Newsilure Fri 04 Oct 2013, 11:13 am

A meritocracy makes sense but it isn't what the clubs want, what they want is money. The easiest way to achieve a meritocracy would be to have a knock out cup with all teams entered recieving shared funds based on performance ... perhaps after the initial knock out rounds the last 16 or 8 play in round robin groups like the current HC.

Another way to achieve a meritocracy would be to have one European league and select cup entries from top performers in that . Or, more practicaly possibly, to use some kind of ranking table such as http://www.eurorugby.com/index.php .... looking at this table using it would certainly help stimulate some greater effort from the Welsh teams at least!

Unfortunately the idea that funding depends on performace on the field will not appeal to the clubs who want to garuntee and maximise their income source - whatever high ground the French and English clubs say they are chasing a meritocracy is not their ideal outcome.

Whatever happens to the HC the Pro 12 needs to change and in some way or other it has to introduce promotion and demotion because currently few people realy care who wins or looses as there is no great benefit to gain or loss to suffer.

by GunsGerms Fri 04 Oct 2013, 11:18 am

The whole promotion demotion debate is another massive red herring. There is no evidence to prove that it makes a league any better. If anything it makes the quality of rugby worse as teams towards the bottom become ultra conservative. Yet it has very little effect on top on the table clashes the basis by which most leagues are judged.

by beshocked Fri 04 Oct 2013, 11:18 am

Gunsgerms how is it Love sacks? Just because you happen to disagree?

The English and French clubs are a bigger draw than the Pro12 clubs in the HC.

I have written down the win rates of the Pro12 clubs a few times. You might say win rates mean little - surely they show the competitiveness of teams?

Leinster and Munster carry the rest of the Pro12 on their broad shoulders when it comes to the HC.

I thought we were talking more than just qualification.

All unions get the same amount of money? That's the problem surely? How is that right?

Fair for the Pro12 teams in your opinion. For the English and French clubs? No.

Why should Edinburgh get more money than Leicester for example?

by Luckless Pedestrian Fri 04 Oct 2013, 11:23 am

beshocked wrote:Why should Edinburgh get more money than Leicester for example?

Because Edinburgh's a beautiful city.

by GunsGerms Fri 04 Oct 2013, 11:27 am

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms how is it Love sacks? Just because you happen to disagree?

The English and French clubs are a bigger draw than the Pro12 clubs in the HC.

I have written down the win rates of the Pro12 clubs a few times. You might say win rates mean little - surely they show the competitiveness of teams?

Leinster and Munster carry the rest of the Pro12 on their broad shoulders when it comes to the HC.

and Toulouse and Leicester carry the Top14 and AP. Whats your point? You dont really have one.

beshocked wrote:
I thought we were talking more than just qualification.

All unions get the same amount of money? That's the problem surely? How is that right?

Fair for the Pro12 teams in your opinion. For the English and French clubs? No.

Why should Edinburgh get more money than Leicester for example?

I have already commented on this.

by LordDowlais Fri 04 Oct 2013, 11:28 am

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms how is it Love sacks? Just because you happen to disagree?

The English and French clubs are a bigger draw than the Pro12 clubs in the HC.

I have written down the win rates of the Pro12 clubs a few times. You might say win rates mean little - surely they show the competitiveness of teams?

Leinster and Munster carry the rest of the Pro12 on their broad shoulders when it comes to the HC.

I thought we were talking more than just qualification.

All unions get the same amount of money? That's the problem surely? How is that right?

Fair for the Pro12 teams in your opinion. For the English and French clubs? No.

Why should Edinburgh get more money than Leicester for example?

Don't complain to us about it, complain to your RFU, if they want to use the money Leicester earn in the HC to subsidise other clubs in your league it is not the teams from the Rabo's fault.

by flyhalffactory Fri 04 Oct 2013, 11:32 am

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
beshocked wrote:Why should Edinburgh get more money than Leicester for example?
Because Edinburgh's a beautiful city.

It is a beautiful city Hug

by beshocked Fri 04 Oct 2013, 11:38 am

Gunsgerms it's more than just Leicester and Toulouse that have an impact in the HC from the AP and Top 14. At least 6 English sides have better win rates in the HC than every Pro12 side bar Leinster and Munster.

Ignore win rates if you want - I would if I was an Ulster or Connacht fan....

by Luckless Pedestrian Fri 04 Oct 2013, 11:45 am

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms it's more than just Leicester and Toulouse that have an impact in the HC from the AP and Top 14. At least 6 English sides have better win rates in the HC than every Pro12 side bar Leinster and Munster.

All the more reason for those six clubs to speak to the RFU about its allocation of funds.

by **rodders** Fri 04 Oct 2013, 11:47 am

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms it's more than just Leicester and Toulouse that have an impact in the HC from the AP and Top 14. At least 6 English sides have better win rates in the HC than every Pro12 side bar Leinster and Munster.

Ignore win rates if you want - I would if I was an Ulster or Connacht fan....

Well Ulster have reached the KO stages 3 years running, how many English sides have managed the same?

by GunsGerms Fri 04 Oct 2013, 11:47 am

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms it's more than just Leicester and Toulouse that have an impact in the HC from the AP and Top 14. At least 6 English sides have better win rates in the HC than every Pro12 side bar Leinster and Munster.

Ignore win rates if you want - I would if I was an Ulster or Connacht fan....

and how many French sides have better win rates?

So what if some teams have better win rates anyway. All that means is that they already have the resources to be competitive weakening their demands for more money.

by LeinsterFan4life Fri 04 Oct 2013, 11:55 am

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms it's more than just Leicester and Toulouse that have an impact in the HC from the AP and Top 14. At least 6 English sides have better win rates in the HC than every Pro12 side bar Leinster and Munster.

Ignore win rates if you want - I would if I was an Ulster or Connacht fan....

Why do you keep bringing up Connacht? They have only played in the competition twice and have already managed to beat Biarritz and Harlequins. Surely you have a better example. They bring a lot more passion to the comp then some of the french teams.

by flyhalffactory Fri 04 Oct 2013, 11:55 am

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms it's more than just Leicester and Toulouse that have an impact in the HC from the AP and Top 14. At least 6 English sides have better win rates in the HC than every Pro12 side bar Leinster and Munster.

Ignore win rates if you want - I would if I was an Ulster or Connacht fan....

beshocked
Are you saying that over the HC years the English sides have contributed more than Celtic nations?. Are you saying that because a team has won more then they have contributed more to a tournament?.

This is a no-win situation for all nations, if England and France start up a Anglo-French cup, and the rest get together and start a diluted European competition, and bring in many of the lower tier European nations, I believe both will eventually fail, the former because the interest will die between two nations who really have shown an indifference to each other particularly in sport, and the latter because of the monetary and demographic disadvantages.

Its really difficult to understand why a tournament should have say 6-7 teams from one country and then they demand to reduce another countries team input from say 2 to 1 (as in Scotlands case). If this happens then rugby will is already struggling in our neck of the woods will be dead in the water. Its fundamentally flawed on a long term basis.

by TJ Fri 04 Oct 2013, 12:07 pm

beshocked wrote:Why should Edinburgh get more money than Leicester for example?

Ask the RFU. the RFU get given roughly the same per team in the HC as anyone else. There is a historical anomaly with Scotland that needs to be addressed - they get the money for 3 teams in effect.

by Sin é Fri 04 Oct 2013, 12:08 pm

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms it's more than just Leicester and Toulouse that have an impact in the HC from the AP and Top 14. At least 6 English sides have better win rates in the HC than every Pro12 side bar Leinster and Munster.

Ignore win rates if you want - I would if I was an Ulster or Connacht fan....

Why do you keep bringing up Connacht? They have only played in the competition twice and have already managed to beat Biarritz and Harlequins. Surely you have a better example. They bring a lot more passion to the comp then some of the french teams.

Connacht were the kingmakers in their group - Quins failed to qualify that year because of their loss to Connacht Very Happy

by beshocked Fri 04 Oct 2013, 12:10 pm

Gunsgerms I haven't looked up the French stats. I care more about the English ones.

Win rates show they are more competitive, tougher to beat and add to the competition.

rodders credit to Ulster, they've been good in the last 3 years after years of mediocrity.

I am sure my team will do that this year. Plus last time Ulster played English sides in the HC they lost twice.

Leinsterfan4life I bring up Connacht because I feel like they are one team that doesn't add much to the competition. Perhaps you think 4 wins in 12 matches is commendable. I don't. 2 of those wins were vs Zebre too.

Luckless pedestrian you are probably right but then if the pot is bigger there will be more to share around.

flyhaffactory yes I am. It's about competitiveness.

by LeinsterFan4life Fri 04 Oct 2013, 12:18 pm

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms I haven't looked up the French stats. I care more about the English ones.

Win rates show they are more competitive, tougher to beat and add to the competition.

rodders credit to Ulster, they've been good in the last 3 years after years of mediocrity.

I am sure my team will do that this year. Plus last time Ulster played English sides in the HC they lost twice.

Leinsterfan4life I bring up Connacht because I feel like they are one team that doesn't add much to the competition. Perhaps you think 4 wins in 12 matches is commendable. I don't. 2 of those wins were vs Zebre too.

Luckless pedestrian you are probably right but then if the pot is bigger there will be more to share around.

flyhaffactory yes I am. It's about competitiveness.

Please explain to me why they don't bring anything to the comp...compared to a french team who sends over their 3rd/4th string team over like Racing did last year against Munster and like Montpellier did with us in 2012.

by GunsGerms Fri 04 Oct 2013, 12:20 pm

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms I haven't looked up the French stats. I care more about the English ones.

You didnt look them up because it would make your point even more meaningless than it already is.

by **LondonTiger** Fri 04 Oct 2013, 12:24 pm

I suspected when I started this thread we would see the same old arguments time and time again.

I really should have learnt.

by beshocked Fri 04 Oct 2013, 12:29 pm

No gunsgerms it's because I can't be bothered.

Leinsterfan4life Montpellier reached the quarter finals last season.

Racing Metro beat Munster last season. Lost to Sarries after being 17-3 up. They also beat Clermont and Saracens in 2010-11 - two decent scalps.

by TJ Fri 04 Oct 2013, 12:30 pm

beshocked wrote:Why should Edinburgh get more money than Leicester for example?

Or another answer - to retain the wider European flavour of the cup. Same with zebre. Now that is worth something that cannot be counted in money.

by flyhalffactory Fri 04 Oct 2013, 12:37 pm

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms I haven't looked up the French stats. I care more about the English ones.

Win rates show they are more competitive, tougher to beat and add to the competition.

rodders credit to Ulster, they've been good in the last 3 years after years of mediocrity.

I am sure my team will do that this year. Plus last time Ulster played English sides in the HC they lost twice.

Leinsterfan4life I bring up Connacht because I feel like they are one team that doesn't add much to the competition. Perhaps you think 4 wins in 12 matches is commendable. I don't. 2 of those wins were vs Zebre too.

Luckless pedestrian you are probably right but then if the pot is bigger there will be more to share around.

flyhaffactory yes I am. It's about competitiveness.

Quite a ridiculous assessment if I am honest beshocked.

I think you scratch the surface of life as a rule fellar, you need to look back at short term sporting failures...... the Blackburns, Nottingham Forests, Toulouse, even Anzhi Makhachkala who hammered Liverpool last year but have had their budget slashed by 2/3rds by their bored billionaire owner and this week got hammered by Tottenham. All injected with cash, foreign players making the difference between an average and very good team, but with very little foundation as a club.

With your view of life there would be pockets of teams with no history, passion or charisma, operating within an affluent belt or with foreign investment/players winning and being rewarded even further for their advantages............ how short termism can you get.

I think that all the teams in the tournament should get a equal basic pot, and then the further you go in the tournament the more you should be rewarded, I think teams should operate on a promotion / demotion basis and I believe in a balance of competitiveness and development.

by beshocked Fri 04 Oct 2013, 12:50 pm

flyhalffactory who would you suggest has no history? You could perhaps accuse the Welsh regions of that.....

Who in rugby fits your criteria?

I criticise Toulon for their foreign player policy but Mourad Boujella is obviously very passionate about Toulon and you can tell the passion at the club and the area.

I don't feel like they fit that.

My own club have a very passionate chairman who has been investing in Saracens for over 15 years. They now have their own stadium so are on the way of sustainability. Plus as a club that was founded in 1876 it has history.

Some clubs do need financial muscle to reignite the fire.

by Sponsored content