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.

TJ wrote:Actually maesteg most of this has been informative and well tempered.  No one bar a couple of childish trolls have made personal attacks on me.  Lots of attacks on the points I made and my reasoning in getting there but that is fair enough.

Beshocked and I have had a fair old row but I do not think less of him for it for example.  

I agree in most part those interested in rugby creat good debate and thoughtful supposition. Although unnecessarily aggressive and frequently impertinent for little reason VS is just a passionate rugby fan that very often has good argument. He will also admit when he is wrong.

It is the band who are on multiple I.Ds and have previously been banned a good number of times that I can't abide. Best ignored.

What BT deal? BT has no deal, they simply fund the PRL proposal. PRL are the ones asking for this change and that change and more control here and less control there (and now joined by the LNR in those declared conditions).

That's not a deal - that's a BT money promise with PRL/LNR strings attached.

The strings attached is the sticking point in the debate.... not BT money.

TJ i have to confess mate you are talking nonsense and do not have the moral high ground on me or others in the slightest.

If i was you i would just come of your high horse mate and try and discuss the topics rationally and stop escalating potential issues.

So, have Phil Bennett's views been discussed? (Rather scared to try reading back)

Not sure he has huge relevance, but another voice worrying about the future of the regions without a pan-european tournament is a worry.

SecretFly wrote:What BT deal?  BT has no deal, they simply fund the PRL proposal.  PRL are the ones asking for this change and that change and more control here and less control there (and now joined by the LNR in those declared conditions).

That's not a deal - that's a BT money promise with PRL/LNR strings attached.

The strings attached is the sticking point in the debate.... not BT money.

The PRL have a deal right now with the BT over broadcast rights for the AP. There have been strong suggestions that if the PRL do not deliver european rugby it may adversely effect the domestic deal as well- mainly because people do not differentiate between these points in the discussion. Its something that Maes was picking up on a lot. The question is aimed at him.

After I wrote a few lines about his comments about the PRL BT deal, that apparently Maes failed to understand he basically accused me of being dyslexic. When picked up on this he said he was trying to show sympathy as he was dyslexic himself.

Then he wrote this

maestegmafia wrote:TJ it doesn't matter whether that is your intention or not, the first thing most of these guys will do is attack you and your credibility before answering your point.

It is pathetic.

There are times when I cant help feeling that he was showing sympathy to LT when he called him a moron.

WE dont know what the deal is yet. So it is fruitless to discuss if anyone wants it if we dont know anything about it .. Surely!!

Sorry I have kind of lost the point of this discussion now.

I hope that vietgwentrevisted is indeed correct and a compromise can be reached. I don't want particularly want joint broadcaster rights like you find in formula 1 with BBC and SKY but if it means a resolution then I would accept it as long as the deal of getting both on board means there is more money to share around.

I don't have SKY so don't watch HC rugby unless it is live anyway so personally watching a game or two that I wouldn't have would be a bonus.

TJ I apologise you are right. You don't deliberately frustate but sometimes you do frustate nonetheless. I am guilty of that too. You hold stubborn views as do I - we must find common ground.

mystiroakey wrote:TJ i have to confess mate you are talking nonsense and do not have the moral high ground on me or others in the slightest.

If i was you i would just come of your high horse mate and try and discuss the topics rationally and stop escalating potential issues.

Your should invoke Hattersleys rule " when in a hole stop digging"

All the substantive issues are well exhausted in multiple threads.  I have had a good old ding dong with several posters - and those who avoid personal insults have my respect even if I think their views wrong. Beshocked - the common ground is the attempt to remain civil.

BeShocked sky has all of f1!

bt doesn't have any of it. BBC has some races live and others not live..

This would be more like the CL scenario where half the games are shown on one channel and half on another.

This situation doesn't bother me and never willl as i allways have every sports channel but i can understand why people will get annoyed.. But if it gives rugby more money how can i be against it

TJ wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:TJ i have to confess mate you are talking nonsense and do not have the moral high ground on me or others in the slightest.

If i was you i would just come of your high horse mate and try and discuss the topics rationally and stop escalating potential issues.

Your should invoke Hattersleys rule " when in a hole stop digging"

All the substantive issues are well exhausted in multiple threads.  I have had a good old ding dong with several posters - and those who avoid personal insults have my respect even if I think their views wrong.  Beshocked - the common ground is the attempt to remain civil.

Yes and you need to try and remain civil rather than making false allegations which in fairness is the lowest of the low and therefore those posters to not command my respect!

All you are doing here is escalating a situation. Please just zip and and move on!

mystiroakey wrote:WE dont know what the deal is yet. So it is fruitless to discuss if anyone wants it if we dont know anything about it .. Surely!!

That's many oceans of print by people who know nothing about nothing and not a blessed thing about anything, oakey!!

Of course nobody knows what the deal is yet - it ain't a deal till it's signed.  ............ but we've had some nicely worded clues coming from exec comments and media assessments through the months.  So, it might be fruitless to waffle at times such as these but.......................... let's carry on all the same.

SF does anyone not want the BT deal because its a 'bt deal'

Only an idiot would dismiss a deal when they dont know what a deal is..

If the deal is to pay out more money than sky- take it(As long as there credit worthiness is ok-Fingers crossed BT wont become the latest santander- but we never know do we!!)

If its a split deal with sky- then its a tough call even if it produces more money!

If people are starting to use  the words 'bt deal' as another term for the prl's deal etc. then they need to get there feet back on the ground.

The TV deals should be secondary to any european deal between the nations!


However the BT deal just strengthened the PRL's position thats all.  At this present time all it is doing is providing the PRL with a bit more bargaining power(ie if you dont accept this deal we can just go to BT anyway)

mystiroakey wrote:SF does anyone not want the BT deal because its a 'bt deal'

If the deal means listening to Craig Doyle, Austin Healy and Ben Kay rather than Will Greenwood and Shane Horgan then no, I'll give the BT deal a miss.

I like BT's rugby shows!!

Maybe I am in a minority on that then. But anything over Inverdale!! ANYTHING!!!!!

mystiroakey wrote:Maybe I am in a minority on that then. But anything over Inverdale!! ANYTHING!!!!!

We've finally all got some common ground    

Good BARD data. I gave a few v basic qns:

Is this just sky data?
Does it include France?
Where does free to air numbers get recorded?
Free to air makes money via advertising - anyone got any idea if value (I know this is tricky) ie 500,000 sky viewers of an event are "worth" 2.5m free to air viewers?
Anyone know what Bt plan to do with HC - is it just about increasing broadband for them or do they have sports packages etc like sky.

Am away from puter so can't look up any of the above easily. Apols.

rodders wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:SF does anyone not want the BT deal because its a 'bt deal'

If the deal means listening to Craig Doyle, Austin Healy and Ben Kay rather than Will Greenwood and Shane Horgan then no, I'll give the BT deal a miss.

I think the BT team pundits are actually pretty good.


As long as there's no Jonathan Davies or Stuart Barnes either I am pretty happy.

mystiroakey wrote:SF does anyone not want the BT deal because its a 'bt deal'

Only an idiot would dismiss a deal when they dont know what a deal is..


If the deal is to pay out more money than sky- take it(As long as there credit worthiness is ok-Fingers crossed BT wont become the latest santander- but we never know do we!!)

If its a split deal with sky- then its a tough call even if it produces more money!

If people are starting to use  the words 'bt deal' as another term for the prl's deal etc. then they need to get there feet back on the ground.

The TV deals should be secondary to any european deal between the nations!


However the BT deal just strengthened the PRL's position thats all.  At this present time all it is doing is providing the PRL with a bit more bargaining power(ie if you dont accept this deal we can just go to BT anyway)

That just doesn't work on any level,oakey.

Accept a 'deal' because it's the most money?  Be sensible and accept the BT money as it's unconnected to PRL demands?

That's just not right.  The reality doesn't work that way.

I said before - BT money is not a 'deal' - it's part of a proposal - a proposal initially coming from PRL.  PRL claimed not only to bring the proposals for a new European competition structure but the very money that would fund those proposals.  So, in truth, PRL were adjudged to be simply BT's agent at the ERC table, fighting for its own interests but also fighting too for the interests of BT in any new event.

So, no - the BT money is not separate from PRL proposals (the things people have been disagreement with) but very much part of a take-it or leave it all-encompassing BT/PRL(LNR) package.

On that level, no - other partners at the ERC table do not just say well more money is always the best deal, let's go with the PRL/BT plan.

The better approach in the very beginning would have been for BT to do its domestic deal with PRL for the AP (none of our business and the best of luck to both in the new venture)

Then, and only then, should BT have independently (without PRL as partner) gone around to all parties involved in ERC and debate with them their views for a new European competition with BT as main broadcaster.  

BT should have isolated its AP domestic deal with PRL from any and all discussions about a European competition.  But they didn't.  Instead they gave PRL the exclusive rights to bring the BT European proposal to the table - which the PRL claimed they had already given BT rights to.

That was simply an agressive buy-out attempt - clinical market habits at work from Mr McCafferty and BT.
But we'll see how it has all panned out when they all finally decide on a conclusion to the negotiations.  We'll see if somebody rolled over and died under the strain of lovely BT money or if people who came with big demands had to pull back dramatically on them to make any progress.

The future is out there.  There is no 'deal' until it's signed.

Is Craig Doyle with BT????

Scrap everything I've said over the last half year!!!! I don't care if BT offer one hundred million now to each league...it's a no from me.

Austin Healy? The price has just gone up...now I wouldn't even accept £200 million

http://www.eurorugby.com/modules.php?name=Rcurrent

Thought I would post the unofficial European rankings link. The table has an interesting look to it.

Top 20

7 English sides
8 French
3 Irish
1 Welsh
1 Scottish

Secretfly what's wrong with Craig Doyle and Austin Healey?

beshocked wrote:http://www.eurorugby.com/modules.php?name=Rcurrent

Thought I would post the unofficial European rankings link. The table has an interesting look to it.

Top 20

7 English sides
8 French
3 Irish
1 Welsh
1 Scottish

Go Bath go. 

VietGwentRevisited wrote:So, have Phil Bennett's views been discussed? (Rather scared to try reading back)

Not sure he has huge relevance, but another voice worrying about the future of the regions without a pan-european tournament is a worry.

The Western Mail allowed him a quick ramble yesterday. Didn't read it all - usual stuff about Llanelli and sidestepping in the 70s.

Not sure why they wheel the Welsh old boys out for this sort of stuff. Administration of tournaments was never their thing - and they'd all retired years before pro rugby came along.

beshocked wrote:http://www.eurorugby.com/modules.php?name=Rcurrent

Thought I would post the unofficial European rankings link. The table has an interesting look to it.

Top 20

7 English sides
8 French
3 Irish
1 Welsh
1 Scottish

Interesting in what way?

interesting in the fact that based on those rankings this place will explode again 

Secretfly Glasgow are 6th in the table that's interesting.

That 15 English and French clubs are in the top 20 is interesting also.

I suppose it's not surprising as the table is based on form. It's not like the hopeless ERC rankings where you have teams like Biarritz,Stade Francais and Cardiff ranked above ones like Leicester and Sarries.

beshocked wrote:Secretfly what's wrong with Craig Doyle and Austin Healey?

Em..................... personal likeability?  As in I personally don't like either.

No that's not altogether accurate.  I don't like Craig Doyle...or rather I don't like his TV personality (can't really dislike someone I don't know)  His style I've always found vacuous and.... just not a TV personality I can warm too.

Austin, well it's not so much that I don't like him as much as it is that I just rarely listen to him.  He has often been up in his perch during games and giving some snippets of info during ongoing games and I just don't listen to him to be honest.

Some people you warm to.. some you don't.

beshocked wrote:http://www.eurorugby.com/modules.php?name=Rcurrent

Thought I would post the unofficial European rankings link. The table has an interesting look to it.

Top 20

7 English sides
8 French
3 Irish
1 Welsh
1 Scottish

How are these calculated? Coefficient wise? Can they be deemed fully meritocratic? Has Phil Bennett seen them?

Another intersting fact is that the top of the HEC pools as it stands are -:

English 0 (0%)
French - 3 (42.9%)
Irish - 1 (25%)
Italian - 0 (0%)
Scottish -1 (50%)
Welsh - 1 (33%)


Or if you want to argue the other side, the only sides to have not picked up any points in the openning weekend are Ospreys, Treviso, Zebre.

I like Healey. Good lad- Maybe a bit cheesy as they actually all do seem(a bit cheesy ) on BT.

But there are inexperienced - they will grow into their roles!

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Another intersting fact is that the top of the HEC pools as it stands are -:

English 0 (0%)
French - 3 (42.9%)
Irish - 1 (25%)
Italian - 0 (0%)
Scottish -1 (50%)
Welsh - 1 (33%)


Or if you want to argue the other side, the only sides to have not picked up any points in the openning weekend are Ospreys, Treviso, Zebre.

and thats interesting because its based on 1 game each and everyone hasn't played everyone yet!! is it?  and originally based on ludicrous seedings:erm:

mystiroakey wrote:I like Healey. Good lad- Maybe a bit cheesy as they actually all do seem(a bit cheesy ) on BT.

But there are inexperienced - they will grow into their roles!

Cheese rolls  

beshocked wrote:

Thought I would post the unofficial European rankings link. The table has an interesting look to it.

Top 20

7 English sides
8 French
3 Irish
1 Welsh
1 Scottish

Methodology:

The Eurotable, a computer-generated ranking of Europe's top rugby clubs, is based on each club's performance over its past 30 games (domestic and European)

Each week, the results of all domestic league and cup games (2) as well as European ties are fed into the computer. As with any league, points are awarded to teams for winning or drawing a match. The Eurotable, however, takes account of many other factors:

Points scored and points conceded (the points system encourages attacking rugby but it also rewards sides who lose a match by a narrow margin.).
Whether the game was played at home or away (bonus awarded to the away team).
Strength of the opponent (more points are awarded when playing against a top-ranked opponent as opposed to a weaker one).

Strength of the domestic league (Account is taken of the differences in playing standards of the various domestic leagues by applying coefficients (this one's for you Casartelli  ) for each country. These are based on the performance of each country's clubs in the Heineken Cup (and to a much lesser extent, the European Challenge Cup) over the previous three seasons. The approach is similar to that used by UEFA to calculate their football rankings for each country.  
Importance of the game (more points are awarded for European Cup games and at the latter stages of all cup competitions).
Recent form feature (a unique weighting of the results ensures that a team's more recent performances are given more credit than those of earlier games. As a result, the rankings will usually reflect current form rather than a team's standing over its last thirty games.

seems a lot fairer than the ERC rankings (bit silly to only include ERC results over 5 years when 11/12 Rabo teams get in every year - but i am guessing this issue has been done to death on this website, no?)

ercrugby.com/eng/erc/europeanranking/index.php

put httpbits in front of the above to see the erc rankings.

I suppose that's fair secretfly. I don't think Craig Doyle is the best most charismatic TV presenter out there. He's functional without being that engaging in my opinion. Just alright in my opinion.

You should try listening to Austin. Even though he can come across as a little gobby so and so up his own backside I think he's actually quite insightful. I think he's improved - seems a lot less biased in my opinion.

mystiroakey wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Another intersting fact is that the top of the HEC pools as it stands are ....

and thats interesting because its based on 1 game each and everyone hasn't played everyone yet!! is it?  and originally based on ludicrous seedings:erm:

To be fair the Eurotable standings are not exactly relevant to the HEC at the moment either for exactly the same reason, they are based on how the teams are doing in their own leagues, and which doesn't factor in for whether on league is stronger than another etc.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Another intersting fact is that the top of the HEC pools as it stands are -:

English 0 (0%)
French - 3 (42.9%)
Irish - 1 (25%)
Italian - 0 (0%)
Scottish -1 (50%)
Welsh - 1 (33%)


Or if you want to argue the other side, the only sides to have not picked up any points in the openning weekend are Ospreys, Treviso, Zebre.

1 game vs 30 games?

correct Scarlet- its not really material, the rankings for a euro cup- should only be based on euro cup games!

But lets not base it on 1 GAME!!

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Another intersting fact is that the top of the HEC pools as it stands are ....

and thats interesting because its based on 1 game each and everyone hasn't played everyone yet!! is it?  and originally based on ludicrous seedings:erm:

To be fair the Eurotable standings are not exactly relevant to the HEC at the moment either for exactly the same reason, they are based on how the teams are doing in their own leagues, and which doesn't factor in for whether on league is stronger than another etc.

actually it does. see methodology i posted above. i will try to find what the coeffecients are currently

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Another intersting fact is that the top of the HEC pools as it stands are ....

and thats interesting because its based on 1 game each and everyone hasn't played everyone yet!! is it?  and originally based on ludicrous seedings:erm:

To be fair the Eurotable standings are not exactly relevant to the HEC at the moment either for exactly the same reason, they are based on how the teams are doing in their own leagues, and which doesn't factor in for whether on league is stronger than another etc.

Actually it does, based on HEC (and challenge cup) performance. 'Apparently'

Coefficients are determined thusly:

Strength of the domestic league (Account is taken of the differences in playing standards of the various domestic leagues by applying coefficients for each country. These are based on the performance of each country's clubs in the Heineken Cup (and to a much lesser extent, the European Challenge Cup) over the previous three seasons. The approach is similar to that used by UEFA to calculate their football rankings for each country.

quinsforever wrote:Coefficients are determined thusly:

Strength of the domestic league (Account is taken of the differences in playing standards of the various domestic leagues by applying coefficients for each country. These are based on the performance of each country's clubs in the Heineken Cup (and to a much lesser extent, the European Challenge Cup) over the previous three seasons. The approach is similar to that used by UEFA to calculate their football rankings for each country.  

To be honest, I now think it would be best if the whole fekkin thing were decided by coefficient calculations on a laptop.

It would save a lot on travelling costs.

beshocked wrote:Secretfly Glasgow are 6th in the table that's interesting.

That 15 English and French clubs are in the top 20 is interesting also.

I suppose it's not surprising as the table is based on form. It's not like the hopeless ERC rankings where you have teams like Biarritz,Stade Francais and Cardiff ranked above ones like Leicester and Sarries.

Interesting.  Hmm, it's reflective of three leagues in Europe.  Apart from that I don't see the interest...particularly as it might pertain to the present debate?

English 12 teams (6 HC places) 7 in the top 20
French 14 teams (6 HC places) 8 in the top 20
Irish 4 teams (3 HC places) 3 in the top 20
Welsh 4 teams (3 HC places) 1 in the top 20
Scottish 2 teams (2 HC places) 1 in the top 20

Or:

English 7
French 8
Pro12 5

Pro12 run in 2 short of England

Now do a top10:

English 12 teams (6 HC places) 3 in the top 10
French 14 teams (6 HC places) 4 in the top 10
Irish 4 teams (3 HC places) 2 in the top 10
Welsh 4 teams (3 HC places) 0 in the top 10
Scottish 2 teams (2 HC places) 1 in the top 10

Or:

English 3
French 4
Pro12 3

Interesting that all leagues prove their average worth in HC

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Another intersting fact is that the top of the HEC pools as it stands are ....

and thats interesting because its based on 1 game each and everyone hasn't played everyone yet!! is it?  and originally based on ludicrous seedings:erm:

To be fair the Eurotable standings are not exactly relevant to the HEC at the moment either for exactly the same reason, they are based on how the teams are doing in their own leagues, and which doesn't factor in for whether on league is stronger than another etc.

Scarletspiderman it does give you an indication and perceived qualities of sides.

Also you might say Exeter don't deserve to be 13th but when you look at the stats their last 3 losses in all competitions were Leicester x 2 and Saints.

beshocked wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Another intersting fact is that the top of the HEC pools as it stands are ....

1 game vs 30 games?

Surely being the one game in the competition makes it more relevant?   And with no lopsded weighting to cetrain leagues etc, it is actually the only accurate way of telling how the teams from each nation far against each other isn't it?

The Eurotable is not a perfect system, and it admits to

"Strength of the domestic league (Account is taken of the differences in playing standards of the various domestic leagues by applying coefficients for each country"

so to be fair it is not really a fair measuring stick either, as for so teams (like Exeter) the majority of their last 30 games have been in the Jeff, where as Glasgow's have been in the Rabo. If these matches are weighted differently, all the Eurotable shows us is how, who ever programmed it, sees things.

I think 33 games would give a better coefficient than 30.

Do teams get to pick which 30 games are included? If so, it's probably advantageous to pick games that your team won.

quins your league coefficients and initial post contradict each other.

Domestic games shouldn't have any bearing on working out league coefficient allocations. The only time that domestic standing matters is dishing out the allocations at the end of the year.

Casartelli wrote:I think 33 games would give a better coefficient than 30.

Do teams get to pick which 30 games are included?  If so, it's probably advantageous to pick games that your team won.

I should think so! Damn tootin!

mystiroakey wrote:quins your league coefficients and initial post contradict each other.

Domestic games shouldn't have any bearing on working out league coefficient allocations. The only time that domestic standing matters is dishing out the allocations at the end of the year.

both posts came from the same website. none was my opinion. all was quoted directly.

SecretFly wrote:

Casartelli wrote:I think 33 games would give a better coefficient than 30.

Do teams get to pick which 30 games are included?  If so, it's probably advantageous to pick games that your team won.

I should think so!  Damn tootin!

do we have records going back that far for some teams?