End in sight to Euro Mess?

First topic message reminder :

Reports in the Times today that agreement may be close for pan-European competitions for the next 8 seasons including Pro12/AP/T14 teams. (cannot link due to paywall).

It seems that in the last few weeks Ian Ritchie has been hosting a series of private meetings with all relevant parties to try and thrash out a deal. Interestingly PRLs representative in these meetings has been Bruce Craig - Mark McCafferty being sidelined?
Any way it seems that compromises have been reached on qualification methods, division of finances and management of the new competition. It would seem ERC are out, but the clubs will only have a say in the new competition not the full control they demanded. It even suggests we may see BT and SKY operate as joint broadcasters!!

Supposedly this new competition is almost agreed by all the relevant stakeholders (primarily the 6 Unions but also PRL/LNR). It may all be journalistic bluster - but I see no reason why a NewsCorp paper should be peddling this line if they did not believe it. After all until very recently their stories have always been heaping the utmost scorn on PRL/RFU.


So if a deal is struck that gives us a true set of pan-European competitions I can only be really pleased. I do hope that the story is true about the private meetings - as there has been far too much public posturing from people that only serves to antagonise. A public argument is much harder to heal than a private one.

So if true I guess congrats to Ian Ritchie who has kept RFU out of the limelight. Accused of sticking his head in the sands, it would suggest that he has actually been doing something useful away from the glare of the press and internet.

I need a shower now, cannot believe I just said something decent about the RFU.

Why should 2 Unions get 100% & 2 Unions get 75% of their top level teams get guaranteed entry while 2 get 50% or less in. Dont say that we should reduce our top level teams as some unions have,doesn't seem very sporting to change circumstances after entering a comp to gain advantage.

So no answer to my question then Broadlandboy?

broadlandboy wrote:Why should 2 Unions get 100% & 2 Unions get 75% of their top level teams get guaranteed entry while 2 get 50% or less in. Dont say that we should reduce our top level teams as some unions have,doesn't seem very sporting to change circumstances after entering a comp to gain advantage.

We changed the format several times to allow Engliush clubs to enter and then to have more entrants

"When people say it is not about the money, what they always mean is that it's about the money." - Nigel Wray in cnbc interview 3 days ago.

prl/lnr and rfu and ffr have a different view on fairness from you TJ. neither they nor you are wrong. why cant you accept that there are a range of opinions whcih could be viewed as fair depending whose perspective is taken?

IIRC the format was changed due to a reduction in the number of teams that the Welch/Scotish/Italians entered.

I can quins nad have said so many times. "fair depends upon your viewpoint"
I would still like somone to justify the 6/6/6 proposal as fair tho

Each league should have the same number of clubs qualify for the same amount of money. Shame the Celtic clubs are so greedy and stupid.

TJ wrote:I can quins nad have said so many times.  "fair depends upon your viewpoint"
I would still like somone to justify the 6/6/6 proposal as fair tho

finally, i'm glad you agree TJ.

I am getting fed up with the accusation of greed when those owners have put alot of money into developing rugby with very little chance of seeing it again let alone a return on it.

TJ wrote:I can quins nad have said so many times.  "fair depends upon your viewpoint"
I would still like somone to justify the 6/6/6 proposal as fair tho

So 6/6/6 isn't fair? How does that work then?

quinsforever wrote:

TJ wrote:I can quins nad have said so many times.  "fair depends upon your viewpoint"
I would still like somone to justify the 6/6/6 proposal as fair tho

finally, i'm glad you agree TJ.

This is the crux of the problem isn't it?

TJ 50% of top level teams from each Union How is that not Fair?

I would have thought after all the hysteria on here that most would realise that both sides do not want to lose their advantages from their structure.

The R12 like a Union basis as that means they gain a sixth of the HC proceeds rather than on their contribution of teams. They also get a guarantee of either 75 or 100 % of the same teams qualifying.

The PRL/LNR prefer a league basis as they have supported a number of teams many of whom have very few current internationals and believe this has created a critical mass for subsequent euro competitions on top of a (now) self financing league.

The two sides are irreconcilable and one side has had enough. I don't necessarily agree with it but it has been coming for a while with sadly predictable consequences.

Trevor40 wrote:

TJ wrote:I can quins nad have said so many times.  "fair depends upon your viewpoint"
I would still like somone to justify the 6/6/6 proposal as fair tho

So 6/6/6 isn't fair? How does that work then?

Oh no! I can feel another big circular argument coming on. Trevor - just read back a couple of pages it's all there if you really want that answered!

Trevor40 wrote:

TJ wrote:I can quins nad have said so many times.  "fair depends upon your viewpoint"
I would still like somone to justify the 6/6/6 proposal as fair tho

So 6/6/6 isn't fair? How does that work then?

go on then.. Yo justify it. at the moment representation in the HC is 6 english teams, 6 french, 3 Irish, 3 welsh, 2 scots, 2 Italians

Now how can you justify the 2 countries with the most representation having no reduction and the 4 countries with the least representation having a 40% reduction?

Not just an assertion - a logical case for this being fair.

Recwatcher wrote:I would have thought after all the hysteria on here that most would realise that both sides do not want to lose their advantages from their structure.

The R12 like a Union basis as that means they gain a sixth of the HC proceeds rather than on their contribution of teams. They also get a guarantee of either 75 or 100 % of the same teams qualifying.

This is wrong. Money is split on a representation basis. England gets 25%, Scotland 12% which is an anomoly

PRL put 6 teams into the HEC(+6 into the Amlin)& get 24% while Scotland put in just 2 & get 12%

"fair" oed online

adjective
1 treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination:
the group has achieved fair and equal representation for all its members
a fairer distribution of wealth

TJ u see the group above as being unions in terms of qualification and payout. prl/lnr and all other professional sports as examples would define the group as leagues.

neither is wrong. both are fair.

As I said - that is an anomaly from when scotland entered 3 teams.

Qyuins - but why is it fair that all the reduction in entrants comes from 4 countries?

TJ wrote:

hawalsh wrote:

TJ wrote:Yes they do lose representation - at the top table.   and it is about countries not leagues - this is the point you have to understand.  You cannot penalise us for modifying our structures and you cannot disadvantage us for our success.

I am still await a rational explantation as to why this is fair.  the four  countries with the lest representation loose 40% of their representation at the top table, the two countries witht eh most representation lose none.

Can anyone make any logical case for this being fair?

Yes, that's exactly what I said, they lose out at the top tier, but they don't lose out on Europe.

I never said it wasn't about countries, just that the countries won't lose 40%, the league would lose 20-40% and that will translate differently to each of the 4 countries.

As I said, the reasoning is that those 20-40% who would miss out are no better (or in fact are worse) than the English and French sides who also have to miss out on the top tier.

So WHY IS THIS FAIR? that is the question.  why should 4 unions bear the whole brunt of the reduction.  

Why are you still asking this question?  The answer has been explained several times.  Not liking the answer isn't reason to ignore it, just say you think it's nonsense and move on.

Quite simply and one last time.  The top six sides from each league are roughly equivalent in ability, those below are not.  The worst sides in the Heineken are overwhelmingly from the PRO12 (bottom placed in 5 of the 6 pools last season) because it's providing places to it's bottom sides.  Not only does this selection process make the Heineken pools unbalanced but it also means that better sides who play in the Amlin also have a reduced competiton.  You may think that is fair, the French and English don't.

firstly there is no reduction in overall euro cup competition.

secondly, because they are in 1 league now.

u cant cling to history as an excuse for refusing to change. well i suppose you can try, but only if you have a strong enough negotiating position to prevent any change.

Recwatcher wrote:I would have thought after all the hysteria on here that most would realise that both sides do not want to lose their advantages from their structure.

The R12 like a Union basis as that means they gain a sixth of the HC proceeds rather than on their contribution of teams. They also get a guarantee of either 75 or 100 % of the same teams qualifying.

The PRL/LNR prefer a league basis as they have supported a number of teams many of whom have very few current internationals and believe this has created a critical mass for subsequent euro competitions on top of a (now) self financing league.

The two sides are  irreconcilable and one side has had enough. I don't necessarily agree with it but it has been coming for a while with sadly predictable consequences.

Facts are that
1) England were not involved in the first negotiations in '95. They were a year late to the table. The Irish, Welsh & French set it up in the first place.
2) Negotiations in '99 - England trying to take over the competition because it was successful. Told where to go at that stage by the other unions. Worth noting that the Celtic League didn't exist then, so the unions were negotiating for their countries.
3) 2007, France tried to take over (using the upcoming world cup as a bullying tactic. Their tactic didn't work. The Celtic League had been formed at this stage, but Italy were not involved. It was just the celtic nations. The Italians had 2 spots in their own right.

Now it seems the Celts are to be punished by the PRL/LNR for trying to help spread rugby in Europe and for basically setting up a competition which is regarded as the best rugby competition in world rugby.

You couldn't make it up.

Sin é, well said mate! Now I see why that pub in Cork was named after you .

Sin, I don't disagree with any of the history lesson but it doesn't change the current situation.

So no one is prepared to even attempt to answer the question with anything but meaningless assertions. No logical reason why all the reduction in entrants has to come from the 4 unions with the fewest entrants and the to unions with the most entrants do not have to lose any places.

all we get is "might is right" and meaningless assertions about quality of teams

TJ wrote:

Trevor40 wrote:

TJ wrote:I can quins nad have said so many times.  "fair depends upon your viewpoint"
I would still like somone to justify the 6/6/6 proposal as fair tho

So 6/6/6 isn't fair? How does that work then?

go on then.. Yo justify it.  at the moment representation in the HC is 6 english teams, 6 french, 3 Irish, 3 welsh, 2 scots, 2 Italians

Now how can you justify the 2 countries with the most representation having no reduction and the 4 countries with the least representation having a 40% reduction?

Not just an assertion - a logical case for this being fair.

One of the alternatives suggested has been 5/5/8 +2. Based on last year's league finishing that would have seen Exeter in the Amlin but Cardiff remain in the Heineken. Do you think that is representative of those sides' competitiveness on the European stage?

Its all kicking off again i see.

TJ its about leagues not unions. The sooner you work this one out the sooner you are going to start mellowing out on this position.

Before todays game I would have said so ;-)

We can all point out anomolies. if 6/6/6 had been the qualification this year one of the previous years 1/4 finalists would not have been in.

How long since and england team won it? surely the quality of the english teams is so poor they do not deserve 6 places? ireland should have more thn 3 places as they keep on winning it?

mystiroakey wrote:Its all kicking off again i see.

TJ its about leagues not unions. The sooner you work this one out the sooner you are going to start mellowing out on this position.

You keep asserting this nonsense. Its clearly about countries as can be seen from the current qualification which is on a union basis Justify your assertion please adn justify why 4 coutries lose 40% of their representation an two countries none?

Could this not work ?

Premiership - 7 teams
Rabo 12 - 7 teams (auto 1 scot wal ire it, plus the best next in the league)
Top 14 - 7 teams

the next 3 teams come from whatever league wins last 3 cups

so that would be

2012 - Top 14
2011 - Rabo
2010 - Rabo

meaning this year would be

Premiership - 7 teams
Rabo 12 - 9 teams
Top 14 - 8 teams

Prize money (x amount for winning, semi or qf and the rest shared pro rata per league)

The Rabo to introduce demotion and promotion, and up to them if they want to put in auto 1 team per country

(otherwise you wont get any growth in the game in for example Italy)

Is that not about as good as you are going to get whilst still growing the game outside of only Eng and France which is kinda very important ?

5/5/8+2 seems fairest to me assuming that we actually need a reduction in entrants

Rabo cannot have promotion and relegation. where would they go to and come from

Again TJ, you have to get the fact that the allocations will and can only be based on leagues(its the only way to get a fair system on the go) , and until you understand that you will keep banging your head into a wall..

TJ wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Its all kicking off again i see.

TJ its about leagues not unions. The sooner you work this one out the sooner you are going to start mellowing out on this position.

You keep asserting this nonsense.  Its clearly about countries as can be seen from the current qualification which is on a union basis  Justify your assertion please adn justify why 4 coutries lose 40% of their representation an two countries none?

And you keep asserting this nonsense. 4 counties do not lose 40%. Worst case scenario is that the PRO12 league would lose 40%, the individual countries could lose none depending on how well their sides perform. And if they perfrom well enough in Europe the league would only lose out on 20%.

We can all shout 'its about leagues not unions' and 'its about unions not leagues' until we are blue in the face. You can't change someones mind that way.

Clearly what we need is a settlement which includes a more meritocratic qualification process while at the same time guaranteeing there will be teams from all six nations in the top tier every season. A compromise like 6/6/8, with the two extra Rabo places being allocated to nations who have no representation in the top tier, or the next highest placed sides if everyone is represented. The two teams that finish outside the Top 6 in the Pro12 are automatically bottom seeds.

As for the split of money, the majority of it should be split per team with two smaller pots; one that is split per union and one that is split between the teams that progress to the knockout stages depending on how far they go.

It seems like everyone is slowly realizing that without such a compromise, everyone will lose. The details may vary, but something like that will come out. I think it's sad for European rugby but it's unavoidable.

TJ wrote:So no one is prepared to even attempt to answer the question with anything but meaningless assertions.   No logical reason why all the reduction in entrants has to come from the 4 unions with the fewest entrants and the to unions with the most entrants do not have to lose any places.

all we get is "might is right" and meaningless assertions about quality of teams

Guys, I would have thought you would have learnt it's pointless arguing with this guy by now, he only hears what he wants to. The conversation should clearly end when he suggests the quality of teams shouldn't have a bearing on what level of competiton they play in. Best just to ignore him and walk away, this sort of pointless arguing only causes bad blood on these boards. Thankfully it seems those involved in the more recent behind the scenes meetings are better at understanding each other than some on here.

TJ wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Its all kicking off again i see.

TJ its about leagues not unions. The sooner you work this one out the sooner you are going to start mellowing out on this position.

You keep asserting this nonsense.  Its clearly about countries as can be seen from the current qualification which is on a union basis  Justify your assertion please adn justify why 4 coutries lose 40% of their representation an two countries none?

And when, after the new organisation is sorted, and qualification becomes about leagues, will you then agree its about leagues?

"might is right" that you mention is not about fairness at all, but does give a strong clue what is likely to happen.

TJ wrote:5/5/8+2 seems fairest to me  assuming that we actually need a reduction in entrants

Rabo cannot have promotion and relegation. where would they go to and come from

So as per my earlier post you think Cardiff would have been more deserving than Exeter of a place in the Heineken cup this season?

And why should those 4 unions get more than the rest? How is that fair?

TJ wrote:5/5/8+2 seems fairest to me  assuming that we actually need a reduction in entrants

Rabo cannot have promotion and relegation. where would they go to and come from

this is another reason why the current structure is unfair. quins are definitely going to focus on their domestic league this season in order to avoid relegation. HC games are nice to have but if poor domestic form continues, HC games will take a big back seat.

Metal Tiger wrote:And why should those 4 unions get more than the rest? How is that fair?

tehy do not - they get less. at the momnet its 6 english, 6 french, 3 irish, 3 welsh, 2 scots, 2 italian

quinsforever wrote:

TJ wrote:5/5/8+2 seems fairest to me  assuming that we actually need a reduction in entrants

Rabo cannot have promotion and relegation. where would they go to and come from

this is another reason why the current structure is unfair. quins are definitely going to focus on their domestic league this season in order to avoid relegation. HC games are nice to have but if poor domestic form continues, HC games will take a big back seat.

Well you can sort that out yourselves. No need to try to handicap us because your structures handicap you.

mystiroakey wrote:Again TJ, you have to get the fact that the allocations will and can only be based on leagues(its the only way to get a fair system on the go) , and until you understand that you will keep banging your head into a wall..

I am abnging my head on the wall listening to you keeping on making assertions with no justification.

quinsforever wrote:

TJ wrote:5/5/8+2 seems fairest to me  assuming that we actually need a reduction in entrants

Rabo cannot have promotion and relegation. where would they go to and come from

this is another reason why the current structure is unfair. quins are definitely going to focus on their domestic league this season in order to avoid relegation. HC games are nice to have but if poor domestic form continues, HC games will take a big back seat.

Yeah, but its only unfair because you've chosen a system where you have relegation!

It's a bit like going into a boxing match with one hand tied behind your back and insisting that your opponent does the same. Er, no thanks, we'll stick with whats worked for us so far thank you! Just because your league has relegation there's no point in us trying to emulate that- we have a different system and it's working well, so we don't really care about the disadvantages that exist in your system. They are your internal problems.

If the PRL doesn't want relegation, they should probably get rid of relegation. Its really got nothing whatsoever to do with the European debate or the Pro12.

more places per league and more money per team, and a less competitive "domestic" league than AP and top14, and no domestic league relegation.

no wonder prl/lnr were prepared to walk away and not take part in any competition at all rather continue such a patently unfair setup.

"Clearly what we need is a settlement which includes a more meritocratic qualification process while at the same time guaranteeing there will be teams from all six nations in the top tier every season. A compromise like 6/6/8, with the two extra Rabo places being allocated to nations who have no representation in the top tier,"


So you want it to be about unions so why make the comment


"You can't change someones mind that way"


Yes you are right we can't change your mind.. But when it is about leagues only you are going to have to accept it 

A big reason for the 4 unions loosing places at the top tier is that between them they can raise 6 or so very good teams and 6 or so less good - just like the AP and LNR

Things should/will work - because with some effort the tier 2 competition should be a lot better than it is now. Teams in the bottom half of the 3 leagues are not being cast out into darkness.

timhen wrote: when he suggests the quality of teams shouldn't have a bearing on what level of competiton they play in.  .

where have I said that. I said its meaningless assertions about the quality of teams. are Edinburgh worse than Sale? are Worcester better than Cardiff? who knows.

I have asked a pertinent question looking for some logical reasoning why the reduction in entrants for the European cup comes all from 4 unions and not from 2. No one has been able to justify this

TJ wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:And why should those 4 unions get more than the rest? How is that fair?

tehy do not - they get less.  at the momnet its 6 english, 6 french, 3 irish, 3 welsh, 2 scots, 2 italian

In the current ERC structure the Rabo gets the controlling votes (4 unions v 2), the lions share of the money whilst fielding the fewest teams and generating the least revenue.

[quote="lostinwales"]A big reason for the 4 unions loosing places at the top tier is that between them they can raise 6 or so very good teams and 6 or so less good - just like the AP and LNR

Really? Justify that. I can say the english clubs should have their representation reduced ads jubblies a long time since they won it.