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.

beshocked wrote:

TJ wrote:beshocked - the money goes to the unions who share it around as they see fit.  the scots teams do not get it all, like the english its sperad wider than the 2 or 6 teams who earn it..  its the smae basic amount per team entered goes to the unions.  Its not our fault you give a lot of yor share to teams who don't earn it and its simply wrong to say the scots teams get it all - they do not.

You keep talking about unions. It is English and French clubs who are in the HC currently. Scotland does not play in the HC - Glasgow and Edinburgh do.

England does not play in the HC. Why should for example Leicester get far less money than Edinburgh when they generate far more?

they do not.  the unions get the money and distribute it to the clubs. the same amount per entrant.  The reason Leicester get less is because the rfu take some and the prl distribute the rest to 12 clubs not the 6 who earn it.  same as the SRU take the money and distribute it as they see fit.  It does not all go to the two pro clubs

lostinwales wrote:

Biltong wrote:when does this all come to an end now?

On page 1 I wrote this...

Too much to go through. It is hurting my head.

Biltong wrote:

TJ wrote:

Biltong wrote:when does this all come to an end now?

I did try to take it back to looking to the future and seeing wehat solutions are possible.  Its just galling when people keep on harping about the same false premise.  Its a basic fact that all unions get the same mount of money per team entered in the HC ( bar the scots who get a bit more)  the unions then use that money in differnet ways.  In scotland it goes into a central pot which is then used to support the game at all levels.  It does not all go to glasgow and Edinburgh

You guys are making my head hurt.  

I meant the negotiations.

 havent heard a deadline. ERC meeting oct 23rd would be the only fixed date. suspect we will hear something meaningful before then given that every big ERC announcement in the last 18months has seen prl/lnr try to make a big press release immediately prior.

Thats interesting if its all about revenue then the French can play with themselves which might be acceptable to all parties

However if you want to have rugby based on cash considerations only we will end with what we have in football - which is for example english football 70pc played by foreigners, a regime which will reward players for playing for exclusively for cash with no other motivation and as a consequence of all that brings - jumping national allegiances even more than we have now.

Is that what anyone wants here ?

Shockingly enough if Ireland decided to have more than their current number of teams they would all get less money as the cash would be split more than four ways.

This argument that English sides get less money is a bit of a straw man. The reason they get less money is they have more sides. The reason they have more sides is- they've decided to have more professional teams.

It's not a good argument. They also benefit financially and in rugby terms from having more teams in other ways, such as having more local derbies, making it easier for traveling fans to get to away games and having more games to sell the TV rights to as part of their domestic league. The drawback is that any funding the RFU may allocate to teams for having English internationals is split across a larger number of sides, as is European money.

This argument about teams is a case of wanting to have their cake and eat it too. However, its probably something that will be compromised on IF an agreement can be made that guarantees each of the six major European rugby powers representation in the top flight competition each year.

Next big announcement is due from PRL office within days.

I hear its along the line of them declaring that they now have first refusal rights on all South African academy players with serious International potential - and that the South African Union must hand over all documentation pertaining to said future players of potential to the PRL on or before the 15th of December or legal proceedings will be enacted to enforce PRL rights.

 

Notch wrote:Shockingly enough if Ireland decided to have more than their current number of teams they would all get less money as the cash would be split more than four ways.

This argument that English sides get less money is a bit of a straw man. The reason they get less money is they have more sides. The reason they have more sides is- they've decided to have more professional teams.

It's not a good argument. They also benefit financially and in rugby terms from having more teams in other ways, such as having more local derbies, making it easier for traveling fans to get to away games and having more games to sell the TV rights to as part of their domestic league. The drawback is that any funding the RFU may allocate to teams for having English internationals is split across a larger number of sides, as is European money.

This argument about teams is a case of wanting to have their cake and eat it too. However, its probably something that will be compromised on IF an agreement can be made that guarantees each of the six major European rugby powers representation in the top flight competition each year.

good point  

PRL have also announced intention to drop the residency rule from 3 years to 3 mins.

Visa and new passport on arrival.  

SecretFly wrote:Next big announcement is due from PRL office within days.

I hear its along the line of them declaring that they now have first refusal rights on all South African academy players with serious International potential - and that the South African Union must hand over all documentation pertaining to said future players of potential to the PRL on or before the 15th of December or legal proceedings will be enacted to enforce PRL rights.

Which country has project players from SA? Let me think

alive555 wrote:PRL have also announced intention to drop the residency rule from 3 years to 3 mins.

Visa and new passport on arrival.  

the football nightmare scenario is completely bogus.

which 3 football leagues have great records of both i) international national team success and ii) international club team success in Champions League

answers:

Germany, Spain and Italy. undeniably strong records in both.

its total bs to look at the english football example and say this is the inevitable conclusion to professionalism. complete and utter bs. in fact, england's mismatch of pro team and national team performance is very much in the minority amongst the strong european footballing nations. so why wouldnt rugby fans look at what is done well in spain and germany particularly as a model for development? they of course would.

What annoys me the most is we may now have a 'European' Cup where between 12 and 14 teams out of 20 are from just 2 countries  

Even if a settlement is likely, enjoy this years tournament because next year;

1) There will be less diversity in the teams leading to a less interesting tournament.
2) It's likely that we will have either two broadcasters or a broadcaster with a less impressive track record in presenting the competition

Unfortunate on both counts. Hopefully we'll see a split of 6/6/8 because Anglo-French over-representation won't do anyone any favours.

alive555 wrote:

Notch wrote:Shockingly enough if Ireland decided to have more than their current number of teams they would all get less money as the cash would be split more than four ways.

This argument that English sides get less money is a bit of a straw man. The reason they get less money is they have more sides. The reason they have more sides is- they've decided to have more professional teams.

It's not a good argument. They also benefit financially and in rugby terms from having more teams in other ways, such as having more local derbies, making it easier for traveling fans to get to away games and having more games to sell the TV rights to as part of their domestic league. The drawback is that any funding the RFU may allocate to teams for having English internationals is split across a larger number of sides, as is European money.

This argument about teams is a case of wanting to have their cake and eat it too. However, its probably something that will be compromised on IF an agreement can be made that guarantees each of the six major European rugby powers representation in the top flight competition each year.

good point  

Yeah, +1. That's as good a summary as I've read on here.

Every so often, for no apparent reason, words of wisdom break out on 606v2.

secretfly wrote:I hear its along the line of them declaring that they now have first refusal rights on all South African academy players with serious International potential - and that the South African Union must hand over all documentation pertaining to said future players of potential to the PRL on or before the 15th of December or legal proceedings will be enacted to enforce PRL rights

Perhaps my head is too flat, but please explain that again?

Notch which do you think raises your chances of winning a competition?

Being in a competition for 17 times in a row or playing in perhaps 8 or 9 sporadically?

You decided to have just 4 sides as we decide to have 12 teams. It's two opposing stand points - unions vs clubs, auto qualification vs meritocracy, focus on international rugby vs focus on a balance between club and country, more money for unions vs money for clubs who generate more revenue, wanting a competition involving clubs to continue to be controlled by unions vs a club competition run by clubs.

quinsforever wrote:

TJ wrote:you are wrong on that quins.  the solidarity is about more than just holding out for the best deal for themselves,  if the irfu had joined the RCC it would go ahead and the Irish would be better of finacially.  fortunatly the irfu understand its not all about money

best deal financially and for their national rugby product. didnt say it was just about finances for unions. i agree the financial incentive is strong to join rcc, but they were indeed worried about implications for their union's power (and hence their ability to control the national team players in irish club teams, etc) of simply caving to the prl/lnr proposal.

It basically comes down to short term vs long term thinking. The businessmen in charge of the clubs are thinking short term profits while the IRFU are thinking long term and the overall health of the game. Putting money into Italy for example is seen as long term investment that will pay dividends in years to come.


Its not so much about making money for the Pro 12 teams. They just want to make enough to keep their internationals at home and be able to put money into player development. Fro the IRFUs point of view it looks like this, if the provinces don't have enough money they'll lose their Irish players. The clubs on the other hand are in a rat race and want to sign up the best players in the world to make their club stronger eg Toulon. Its another example of short term vs lone term outlook.

Notch wrote:What annoys me the most is we may now have a 'European' Cup where between 12 and 14 teams out of 20 are from just 2 countries  

Looking at France alone its a damn site more than 2 countries....

quinsforever wrote:sin e

"He talks about selling tickets to international games - he doesn't mention no Heineken Cup."

go to the next page of the treasurer's report. last 4 paragraphs:

"However the future outlook has in my opinion disimproved
significantly"

It's a perfectly cromulent word, but why couldn't he just have said 'worsened'?

beshocked wrote:Notch which do you think raises your chances of winning a competition?

auto qualification vs meritocracy,

so where is the meritiocratic part in having 6 english clubs automatically qualifying?  is the 6th english club really better than the 7th rabo one?

edit - begger me - ruddy Exeter blew that one for me. Exeter were 6th in the Ap and Cardiff 7th in the Rabo  

If the Irish care so much about their regions why not give so more money to Connacht? You have been happy to keep them as your poor unfortunate cousins.

There is this perception from the Pro12 supporters that unions are rays of shining light. They are not. They are just as greedy as the PRL and have their own interests at heart.

The Scottish rugby union destroyed the borders for example. Do you think Scottish rugby is run well? I don't.

The WRU only seem to care about the international game in Wales. Their goal is money, money and more money in my opinion.

The thing is you like to talk as if you are on a moral high ground but as of now the PRL are protecting the interests of all 12 clubs in the AP, not just the ones like Leicester and Saints.

beshocked wrote:Notch which do you think raises your chances of winning a competition?

Being in a competition for 17 times in a row or playing in perhaps 8 or 9 sporadically?

You decided to have just 4 sides as we decide to have 12 teams. It's two opposing stand points - unions vs clubs, auto qualification vs meritocracy, focus on international rugby vs focus on a balance between club and country, more money for unions vs money for clubs who generate more revenue, wanting a competition involving clubs to continue to be controlled by unions vs a club competition run by clubs.

If you look at the Pro12 sides who have actually won the Heineken Cup, they would have all qualified under any proposal made so far pretty much every year and the smart money is on that trend continuing. Only Ulster would have had a few years where they missed out. Do we have an advantage with it being easier to qualify each year? Yes. But we also have other disadvantages too.

We decided to have 4 teams and we live with that decision. It's therefore very annoying that things like relegation and qualification get dredged up in this debate as these are simply the disadvantages of the system English rugby has chosen. It has nothing to do with us, except now you want to force us to adapt our system to be closer to your own to create 'a level playing field'.

I'm all for a level playing field- tell you what, we'll have the same qualification regime as the English and French sides and the big English and French clubs can have the same restrictions as us on foreign players! 4 players who are not qualified for England/France in your entire squad plus one guy who can qualify on residency in the future and every signing of a player who isn't qualified for your national side needs to be directly approved by the RFU/FFR.

Deal?

TJ wrote:

beshocked wrote:Notch which do you think raises your chances of winning a competition?

auto qualification vs meritocracy,

so where is the meritiocratic part in having 6 english clubs automatically qualifying?  is the 6th english club really better than the 7th rabo one?

Notch they don't automatically qualify.

Top 6 in a league of 12 is not automatic qualification is it? 11 out of 12 in a league - well that's practically auto qualification.

Surely the question was answered on the weekend? The 6th English club beat the 7th rabo one - 44-29.

Notch wrote:What annoys me the most is we may now have a 'European' Cup where between 12 and 14 teams out of 20 are from just 2 countries  

Contrast that to the fact that we now do have a "European" Challenge Cup where between 12 and 14 teams out of 20 are from just 2 countries (and that only 14 of those 20 are professional level), and that we've had that for years with no significant efforts to improve it.

beshocked wrote:

The Scottish rugby union destroyed the borders for example. Do you think Scottish rugby is run well? I don't.

Errmm - You don't actually seem to understand how scottish rugby is run
The SRU have twice tried to set up a borders team. the locals don't want one and won't go to watch one.
Scottish rugby is much better run in one respect - teams do not have to run huge deficits to be competitive - indeed the two Pro teams cannot - they have a budget and that is it. they cannot buy their way out of trouble by having a rich benefactor. Tey do OK considering their budget is a fraction of the spend in other leagues

this is one of the english leagues issues - many teams run at huge losses because they spend beyond their means

TJ wrote:

beshocked wrote:Notch which do you think raises your chances of winning a competition?

auto qualification vs meritocracy,

so where is the meritiocratic part in having 6 english clubs automatically qualifying?  is the 6th english club really better than the 7th rabo one?

edit - begger me - ruddy Exeter blew that one for me.  Exeter were 6th in the Ap and Cardiff 7th in the Rabo    

good point

last 5 years finalists

Rabo - 4
Top 14 - 4
PRL - 2

last 10 years finalists

Rabo - 6
Top 14 - 9
PRL - 5

beshocked wrote:

TJ wrote:

beshocked wrote:Notch which do you think raises your chances of winning a competition?

auto qualification vs meritocracy,

so where is the meritiocratic part in having 6 english clubs automatically qualifying?  is the 6th english club really better than the 7th rabo one?

Notch they don't automatically qualify.

Top 6 in a league of 12 is not automatic qualification is it? 11 out of 12 in a league - well that's practically auto qualification.

Surely the question was answered on the weekend? The 6th English club beat the 7th rabo one - 44-29.

yeah I corrected my post. Ruddy Exeter.

the english clubs still get 6 automatic places. its not meritocratic as they get six places no mater how poor they are. I am going to send Exeter a stiff letter tho.

[quote="profitius"] Fro the IRFUs point of view it looks like this, if the provinces don't have enough money they'll lose their Irish players. The clubs on the other hand are in a rat race and want to sign up the best players in the world to make their club stronger eg Toulon. Its another example of short term vs lone term outlook.
[/quote

Not only that, but the money the IRFU will be losing will be going to the likes of Toulon so that they can tempt IRFU developed players like Sean O'Brien to play in France.

I'd imagine the NZRU & SARU will not be happy about this trend continuing either.

Or if you want meitocratic - take Edinburgh. One year 1/4 finalists, next year they would not have qualified, next year beat one of the top teams.

You cannnot have meritiocratic unless the various leagues compete for places. I have no real issue with the rabo losing a couple of places tho -

Sin é wrote:

profitius wrote: Fro the IRFUs point of view it looks like this, if the provinces don't have enough money they'll lose their Irish players. The clubs on the other hand are in a rat race and want to sign up the best players in the world to make their club stronger eg Toulon. Its another example of short term vs lone term outlook.
[/quote

Not only that, but the money the IRFU will be losing will be going to the likes of Toulon so that they can tempt IRFU developed players like Sean O'Brien to play in France.

I'd imagine the NZRU & SARU will not be happy about this trend continuing either.

thats exactly the point i made above and its the one id put up as being most important that we make sure this isnt allowed to happen.

Notch wrote:

beshocked wrote:Notch which do you think raises your chances of winning a competition?

Being in a competition for 17 times in a row or playing in perhaps 8 or 9 sporadically?

You decided to have just 4 sides as we decide to have 12 teams. It's two opposing stand points - unions vs clubs, auto qualification vs meritocracy, focus on international rugby vs focus on a balance between club and country, more money for unions vs money for clubs who generate more revenue, wanting a competition involving clubs to continue to be controlled by unions vs a club competition run by clubs.

If you look at the Pro12 sides who have actually won the Heineken Cup, they would have all qualified under any proposal made so far pretty much every year and the smart money is on that trend continuing. Only Ulster would have had a few years where they missed out. Do we have an advantage with it being easier to qualify each year? Yes. But we also have other disadvantages too.

We decided to have 4 teams and we live with that decision. It's therefore very annoying that things like relegation and qualification get dredged up in this debate as these are simply the disadvantages of the system English rugby has chosen. It has nothing to do with us, except now you want to force us to adapt our system to be closer to your own to create 'a level playing field'.

I'm all for a level playing field- tell you what, we'll have the same qualification regime as the English and French sides and the big English and French clubs can have the same restrictions as us on foreign players! 4 players who are not qualified for England/France in your entire squad plus one guy who can qualify on residency in the future and every signing of a player who isn't qualified for your national side needs to be directly approved by the RFU/FFR.

Deal?

Notch yes they would have qualified because of the lack of competitiveness.

I sincerely doubt that Edinburgh have those restrictions you suggest!

Look, I have not been on here all weekend, I just wanted to watch all the HC that was on offer, and forget all this nonsense that is going on behind the scenes, I have just now come on here and even this thread is on it's way into twelve pages. The thing is, the Rabo nations see rugby union as something totally different to the English and French, yes we all love our clubs/regions/provinces in the Rabo and we do have our arguments, but when the internationals are on we all come together as one to support our country, and because we see our national team as the pinnacle of our rugby we all know and care about all levels of rugby within our countries, this is what us Celts on here are trying to put to the English, the unions get the money for all the tele and the what not, and use it to finance all rugby in our countries, from grass roots and schools to district and academies and the regions as well, what I seem to get from the English supporters on here is, that their clubs that they support should get all the money and none for anything else, which is a fair point as you see rugby differently in your country, so until we can all empathise with each other on here on how we see the BIG picture then we will never agree, but, just because we see things in a wider view in Wales/Scotland/Ireland does not mean we are all wrong, then English want their clubs to have more money, we want our unions to not lose any money, I would not like to be in a position where the Regions get all the money to the detriment of every one else.

alive555 wrote:

TJ wrote:

beshocked wrote:Notch which do you think raises your chances of winning a competition?

auto qualification vs meritocracy,

so where is the meritiocratic part in having 6 english clubs automatically qualifying?  is the 6th english club really better than the 7th rabo one?

edit - begger me - ruddy Exeter blew that one for me.  Exeter were 6th in the Ap and Cardiff 7th in the Rabo    

good point

last 5 years finalists

Rabo - 4
Top 14 - 4
PRL - 2

last 10 years finalists

Rabo - 6
Top 14 - 9
PRL - 5

Yup - PRL teams have a fairly poor record. should they lose places? do they deserve 6 on merit?

beshocked wrote:If the Irish care so much about their regions why not give so more money to Connacht? You have been happy to keep them as your poor unfortunate cousins.

But sure we don't have enough money to give too much to Connacht.... but by your list, maybe Leicester (a 'little' club) might have enough on its own to fund a region like Connacht??...maybe Quins or Gloucester might have enough??? ...they're on that revenue list...

I think the top five English clubs should fund two more English clubs and grow the AP to AP14..........

TJ wrote:

alive555 wrote:

TJ wrote:

beshocked wrote:Notch which do you think raises your chances of winning a competition?

auto qualification vs meritocracy,

so where is the meritiocratic part in having 6 english clubs automatically qualifying?  is the 6th english club really better than the 7th rabo one?

edit - begger me - ruddy Exeter blew that one for me.  Exeter were 6th in the Ap and Cardiff 7th in the Rabo    

good point

last 5 years finalists

Rabo - 4
Top 14 - 4
PRL - 2

last 10 years finalists

Rabo - 6
Top 14 - 9
PRL - 5

Yup - PRL teams have a fairly poor record.  should they lose places?  do they deserve 6 on merit?

What? in the last 10 years, PRL teams have made 5 finals WITH ONLY 6 TEAMS and Rabo 6 finals with ON AVERAGE 11 TEAMS!

that is a bad record for the Rabo. very bad, especially as those teams dont have to compete in their rabo league and can focus on the tournament which makes them all the money - HC!

Notch
Absolutely I would love a closed shop for only English players in the league - not sure the IRB would though.....

My view many many months ago would be that the French and English would concede on money and the R12 on qualification. I haven't seen anything to change that view.

The clubs now both have self financing leagues, the English problem is investment in stadia - everyone else seems to acquire local govt. subsidies. The French problem is no agreement on an equal salary cap and FQ players in their league, hence the FFR stance . The R12 don't have a self financing league despite four teams of international players.

I don't see any of that changing anytime soon.

Biltong wrote:

secretfly wrote:I hear its along the line of them declaring that they now have first refusal rights on all South African academy players with serious International potential - and that the South African Union must hand over all documentation pertaining to said future players of potential to the PRL on or before the 15th of December or legal proceedings will be enacted to enforce PRL rights

Perhaps my head is too flat, but please explain that again?

I think that was a joke, Bilt.... along the lines of "Be careful what you wish for" when enquiring about how the PRL/LNR/ERC talks are going.  

The map on that one is changing so quickly and 'rights' are on the table and off the table so fast that I wouldn't actually be all that shocked to hear a statement like that from one of the party's around the table..... power is addictive.

TJ wrote:

alive555 wrote:

TJ wrote:

beshocked wrote:Notch which do you think raises your chances of winning a competition?

auto qualification vs meritocracy,

so where is the meritiocratic part in having 6 english clubs automatically qualifying?  is the 6th english club really better than the 7th rabo one?

edit - begger me - ruddy Exeter blew that one for me.  Exeter were 6th in the Ap and Cardiff 7th in the Rabo    

good point

last 5 years finalists

Rabo - 4
Top 14 - 4
PRL - 2

last 10 years finalists

Rabo - 6
Top 14 - 9
PRL - 5

Yup - PRL teams have a fairly poor record.  should they lose places?  do they deserve 6 on merit?

The answer to that would probably be indicated by a similar analysis of the last 5 and 10 year last place in the pools, unless the elite competition becomes truly elite and includes only those teams that have a realistic chance of winning - an 8 team competition, say.

alive555 wrote:

TJ wrote:

beshocked wrote:Notch which do you think raises your chances of winning a competition?

auto qualification vs meritocracy,

so where is the meritiocratic part in having 6 english clubs automatically qualifying?  is the 6th english club really better than the 7th rabo one?

edit - begger me - ruddy Exeter blew that one for me.  Exeter were 6th in the Ap and Cardiff 7th in the Rabo    

good point

last 5 years finalists

Rabo - 4
Top 14 - 4
PRL - 2

last 10 years finalists

Rabo - 6
Top 14 - 9
PRL - 5

Remember Rabo has 10/11 teams. AP has 6/7. Top 14 has 6/7. Sorry I am trying to understand your point.

Also how many of those Rabo teams are not Ulster,Munster or Leinster? Hanging onto their coat tails again I see.


Secretfly I thought that Leinster (according to TJ) were the biggest drawing power in Europe? Surely with their vast revenue that they generate every season they could put some towards Connacht.

Lorddowlais a wider way?  I haven't heard any input from yourself to involve anyone outside your little union club of Ireland,Italy,Scotland and Wales. Yes you are right, we are different. I don't not want to see club rugby being crushed by unions. I don't want to see club rugby dying England like it has in Wales and how it's currently like in Scotland.

In Wales the emphasis is on international rugby which damages the identity of club rugby in Wales. The likes of George North and Jamie Roberts are allowed to leave Wales. You could have kept them if you wanted in my opinion. You talk about the lack of money on one hand then talk about how much money the WRU makes!

French sides and the big English and French clubs can have the same restrictions as us on foreign players! 4 players who are not qualified for England/France

That's a self imposed quota and only works because the Irish Provinces are just offshoots of the IRFU.

If the RFU tried to limit the English clubs (which are self sufficient legal entities) fielding players based on nationality the RFU would be up in court faster than you can blink. They can however reward teams for playing EQ players, but that's as draconian as they can go.

This is part of the problem that we ('we' as in the HC closed shop nations) have teams playing each other that are based on a different organisation model.

This mismatch has creaked along now for a few years but now two of the participants have called time (some of us keep forgetting the French have handed in their notice as well). Both the French and English feel that the current setup does not meet their needs will not participate any further. That's it, game over.

There are a few posters on here trying to rebuild the HC by tweaking the old format - can't see it happening myself.

One thing I CAN guarentee though, if a new European competition is organised, both sides of the fence will claim victory.

Quins - just poking fun but a serious point. How can you have meritocratic entry with no objective comparison between the leagues?

Perhaps if the top 4 from each league qualify as of right and the next 4 play off for the remaining places?

really just pointing out the meritocratic line is nonsense

Will anyone else miss all this my dads bigger than your dad if a deal is done?

Secretfly I thought that Leinster (according to TJ) were the biggest drawing power in Europe? Surely with their vast revenue that they generate every season they could put some towards Connacht.

they do. the 3 teams in the Euro cup earn the money. some of it goes to Connacht. same as the 6 english clubs in the HC earn the money and some of it goes tot eh RFU and the rest is shared with all 12 AP teams

beshocked wrote:


Secretfly I thought that Leinster (according to TJ) were the biggest drawing power in Europe? Surely with their vast revenue that they generate every season they could put some towards Connacht.

They ain't on your quoted list, beshocked.  They ain't on your list

Sorry but the big lads 'money-wise' are all either in France (who say they have a right to spend as much as they like and still call it 'just being better than the rest.... naturally') and in England (where they'd prefer Top14 didn't get to spend so much and Pro12 didn't get to spend any.)

Nah...two more sides for AP I say...top six money-bags clubs to do the funding.

i have a new proposal:

each country negotiates their own TV rights to euro cup games
all those monies go into a communal pot
each country's teams get money according to the following formula: 50% of their own nations contribution from tv rights to the communal pot, 50% from performance within the competition
no nation gets any guaranteed qualification spots to top-tier competition, but in the first year we go with 6/6/8 (8 for rabo)
each year after that, the allocation of spaces per league varies according to how the teams from each league performed against each other in a rolling average of previous years, with the proviso that no league gets less than 4 teams into the top tier competition.
every team must have a minimum of 8 (or whatever can be agreed) domestic players in every european matchday squad.

value of tv rights per nation to be determined by the broadcasters who win the rights in various countries, or whomever they on-sell the rights to in the case where they have no means to broadcast in a country (eg SKY in France).

very meritocratic. very dynamic. real consequences for a league's teams underperforming. real consequences in terms of performance money for teams in the competition each year. allocation of places has to start somewhere but then it evolves. real incentive for proper maximisation of TV rights in each country.

Beshocked, you really are insular when it comes to understanding other people points of view, I understand that you see you club as the pinnacle of your rugby, do I mock you or tell you that you are wrong ? No, I do not. International rugby does not in anyway damage the identity of the clubs in Wales, what evidence do you have of this ? The WRU at the moment do not make anywhere near enough money to keep all the starts in Wales, not with what a dozen or so very rich clubs can offer anyway, I have never talked about lack of money, and I can see the argument that each region will have more money than they do now if they went along with the PRL's idea, but we do not see it this way in Wales, the regions know that the WRU needs the money so they can use it on ALL area's of Welsh from the bottom up, thus the George Norths of this world can be replaced with other off the production line.

TJ wrote:Quins - just poking fun but a serious point.  How can you have meritocratic entry with no objective comparison between the leagues?

Perhaps if the top 4 from each league qualify as of right and the next 4 play off for the remaining places?

really just pointing out the meritocratic line is nonsense

i hadnt seen this when i posted my whacky idea. good timing.

Big wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Not sure I favour the '+2" concept.  Seems to reward a team which finished lower in their league's table as consequence of a better team winning the Championship.  The only caveat would be if the winning team actually finished down their league table and would not qualify for the Heineken Cup (or its nouveau equivalent).  I don't know and frankly don't have time to look, but I tend to doubt it actually happened.  

Didn't something similar come close when Saints got relegated?  I thought they came close to winning the Amlin that year - which could have caused a few headaches.  And of course Wasps didn't even make the play offs in 2007 when they won the main event - they finished 5th so would still have qualified, but only just.

Just catching up after breakfast - seems like everyone was drinking their Red Bull and mescaline this morn.......

You are right - and as a Saints supporter I should have mentioned it.  In 2007 Saints made it to the semi-finals beating Biarritz 7-6 in the Quarterfinals.  Then they got pasted by Wasps.  That is the farthest I can remember a poor team going in the Heineken Cup.  Not only did they fail to qualify for the next season's Heineken Cup, they finished bottom of the league and were indeed relegated.  At the time it raised a number of concerns about the possibility of a National 1 (now Championship) club in the Heineken Cup.

I think the money issue could be solved by making it more pay by results and less per entrant.
2% per team for entering, 2% for second in group. 4% for winning group. etc etc

Of course Edinburgh got to the semi-finals, and deservedly so, in 2012 but had a nightmare domestic season. It's not unheard of for an average team to have an excellent Cup run. It's part of the romance and magic of Cup rugby.