New European Rugby cup (or whatever it is called) - Qualification agreed

by geoff999rugby Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:29 pm

First topic message reminder :

I have heard it is:

6 French
6 English
7 Pro12 (1 guaranteed from each country, 3 on league position)
1 play-off (7th English and 7th French team)

Trying to find out is correct as we speak

by SecretFly Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:26 pm

quinsforever wrote:He is even more my hero now SF

I knew he would be, quins. 'Home advantage' and all that Wink

But beware.......... the fat lady is in the detail. He might prove yet to be the traitor at the PRL party. The triple agent as it were.
A new organisation perhaps and not a club organisation with a vote in the house. Pure Union...all the way, like the old days.

Careful now - don't open the champagne just yet. As you say, this is only an 'agreement' between people who showed up for an ERC meeting. The clubs didn't show. Let's see what the next meeting brings.

by Engine#4 Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:27 pm

geoff999rugby wrote:
brennomac wrote:Nothing on the structure of a 20-team tournament - will it be 5 groups of 4 or 4 groups of 5. Lot of detail still to be revealed - how do go about seeding assuming the ERC 4-year playing record for seeding is dumped.
It will be 5 groups of 4 with 3 Runners up qualifying

That's a pity in my opinion. 4 groups of 5 would require two extra matches to be fit in somewhere granted but it would do away with the farcical situation whereby certain teams can potentially affect qualification by giving up halfway through the group stages.

Also I wonder, if in future years it's Rabo 8th and 9th away to 7th in England and France with the winners facing off for 1 place - who gets home advantage between England 7 and France 7 if both win?

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:27 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Toohey wrote:It's an interesting point about the PRL/LNR not being there. I think you can potentially assume two things out of today’s news though:

- The FFR and RFU have gone in and fought for exactly what the PRL and LNR want which I think should squash the myth that they have been against the PRL/LNR
- The fact they have gone in and fought for exactly what they want implies that it was a joint strategic effort despite the PRL/LNR not being at the meeting.
You mean Mr Ian Ritchie wasn't the honourable, quiet, calm, noble, fence-sitting, honest-broker after all; but just another cloaked henchman for the Private Members Club?

Dear, dear. That'll come as a very big diappointment to some of his champions on these boards.

by Dubbelyew L Overate Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:32 pm

Toohey wrote:
Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:
Toohey wrote:It's an interesting point about the PRL/LNR not being there. I think you can potentially assume two things out of today’s news though:

- The FFR and RFU have gone in and fought for exactly what the PRL and LNR want which I think should squash the myth that they have been against the PRL/LNR
- The fact they have gone in and fought for exactly what they want implies that it was a joint strategic effort despite the PRL/LNR not being at the meeting.
I disagree, the PRL would have done their own fighting with the Celtic Unions at their meetings on Monday.

I think the RFU are still pretty neutral, not that it really matters - dunno about the FFR, though.
So who in the meeting suggested the format that's been presented in the press release? The IRFU?

No feicin idea, and I guess we never will know.
IRFU, SRU and WRU had the meeting(s) with PRL on Monday, or so it's been reported.

We can speculate that the meeting(s) were candid, and PRL expressed their lines in the sand. Unions may have done the same, or may have just listened, and they formulated their responses on Tuesday individually or collectively, and discussed them over the last couple of days with the other parties present at the mediation.

I repeat that is all speculation.

I also speculate that Ritchie, Beaumont and Andrew, who have little to gain and much to lose, are as equally exasperated with PRL as they are with their remaining colleagues at ERC.

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:34 pm

Will the seedings precess now be re-evaluated?

I'd hate to think that relics from the Devonian period of past ERC performances would be excavated to eff up the pools (again).

by Brendan Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:36 pm

So my understand is chages are
Rabo 10 now 7 loss of 3
Aviva 6 now 6 zero loss
T14 6 now 6 zero loss

Then the 2 winners are scraped kind of and we are left with the Rabo teams possibly having to play two away games to quailify

Surely it would have been better to do winnng league gets last spot or win of Tier 2 gets spot.

At least the Rabo wont get any less but expect the PRL wage cap to go up by 1m.

by Toohey Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:37 pm

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:No feicin idea, and I guess we never will know.
IRFU, SRU and WRU had the meeting(s) with PRL on Monday, or so it's been reported.

We can speculate that the meeting(s) were candid, and PRL expressed their lines in the sand. Unions may have done the same, or may have just listened, and they formulated their responses on Tuesday individually or collectively, and discussed them over the last couple of days with the other parties present at the mediation.

I repeat that is all speculation.

I also speculate that Ritchie, Beaumont and Andrew, who have little to gain and much to lose, are as equally exasperated with PRL as they are with their remaining colleagues at ERC.

This is the stuff that cracks me up. It's like there are a bunch of spin doctors on here peddling the myth that the RFU and PRL are at war and the RFU would far rather the PRL just sat back and didn't look for any opportunities to grow their revenue. From my understanding the RFU and PRL currently have a very good working relationship and there has been nothing in this whole episode that has indicated otherwise.

by TJ Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:40 pm

Had a ponder about this while out running errands. As this is yet to go to the PRL unless Ritchie knows what the PRL will settle for or is prepared to say " take it or leave it and face the consequences" its an awful deal - as the PRL will take it as weakness and try to take more.

Its also really not a good deal for the Rabo unions - not quite bad enough to walk away from the deal but very close to it and I guess it will still have to be ratified by the various unions committees. I would have thought. I am very surprised the Rabo unions signed up to this. very weak from them as a compromise should meet in the middle and this does not.

On Ritchie - I still think he is playing as an honest broker - but he will know the PRLs red lines and will be looking for a deal that can actually be accepted by them. I am sutre he will know what that is. Getting a deal is the most important thing to him. the RFU are in a very difficult position

On seeding - its obviously been ridiculous for years. Edinburghs cup run was from a weak group. A better system can surely be managed.

by Brendan Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:46 pm

No matter the cometition in any sport there will be weak groups as people do better than expected or worse than expeced. After all if it was a weak group they would have lost to toulouse. Look at munster and quinns who have both lost at home having 6wins

by Standulstermen Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:50 pm

Toohey wrote:
Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:No feicin idea, and I guess we never will know.
IRFU, SRU and WRU had the meeting(s) with PRL on Monday, or so it's been reported.

We can speculate that the meeting(s) were candid, and PRL expressed their lines in the sand. Unions may have done the same, or may have just listened, and they formulated their responses on Tuesday individually or collectively, and discussed them over the last couple of days with the other parties present at the mediation.

I repeat that is all speculation.

I also speculate that Ritchie, Beaumont and Andrew, who have little to gain and much to lose, are as equally exasperated with PRL as they are with their remaining colleagues at ERC.
This is the stuff that cracks me up. It's like there are a bunch of spin doctors on here peddling the myth that the RFU and PRL are at war and the RFU would far rather the PRL just sat back and didn't look for any opportunities to grow their revenue. From my understanding the RFU and PRL currently have a very good working relationship and there has been nothing in this whole episode that has indicated otherwise.

Nothing except that thhe rfu are negotiating and working with organisations the PRL won't deal with? No one is saying the rfu aren't on the PRL's side but the PRLs focus is much narrower. Also the fact that the RFU haven't publicly endorsed the RCC tells you they aren't 100% behind their proposals

by Brendan Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:55 pm

Who is the statement by at the start. Is it the unions or erc

by Dubbelyew L Overate Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:02 pm

Brendan wrote:Who is the statement by at the start. Is it the unions or erc

From the mediators, so fair to assume there is no spin in it.

Still not sure if this was a formal ERC meeting, or just a meeting of most of the current ERC stakeholders.

by madmaccas Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:04 pm

If the English and French clubs don't take this then they've made it very clear that their entire argument has been based on a lie and that this is a direct attack on the power of the unions.

In that case I would fully expect the the RFU and FFR to come down hard on the clubs. We either have this tournament or outright civil war breaks out between the clubs and the unions.

by TJ Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:06 pm

On the BBC - the PRLs response

But PRL told the BBC that Thursday's developments offer "no more than half a solution" to the crisis.

Remaining stumbling blocks are the rival television broadcasting deals between Sky and BT and the insistence of English and French outfits that clubs should run European competitions, not the unions.

by Standulstermen Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:08 pm

TJ wrote:On the BBC - the PRLs response
But PRL told the BBC that Thursday's developments offer "no more than half a solution" to the crisis.

Remaining stumbling blocks are the rival television broadcasting deals between Sky and BT and the insistence of English and French outfits that clubs should run European competitions, not the unions.

Over to you Mr Ritchie. Time to show some stones.

by Guest Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:09 pm

TJ wrote:On the BBC - the PRLs response
But PRL told the BBC that Thursday's developments offer "no more than half a solution" to the crisis.

Remaining stumbling blocks are the rival television broadcasting deals between Sky and BT and the insistence of English and French outfits that clubs should run European competitions, not the unions.

Fairly predictable. PRL/LNR want their cake, and eat it. Club control over Unions...

by SecretFly Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:19 pm

This is all intricately crafted chess. The ERC announcement knew it would receive the response it got from PRL. This is by no means a complete agreement... just another move in the edgy game.

It proves there is no love lost between Unions and clubs...any of them...and that Ian Ritchie is back on our side.... Yahoo

....for now! Whistle

by wrfc1980 Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:21 pm

As per normal with all things in life the Celtic nations end up bowing down to their bigger more influential brother England. Smile

by broadlandboy Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:25 pm

Little increase in money to PRL/LNR if Sky deal. Hard to see PRL agreeing without BTS involvment

by Standulstermen Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:26 pm

Given we don't know what the BT sport deal is worth or indeed what sky's projected deal is we can't say. All erc said was that their projected revenue would be up for next season

by Guest Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:27 pm

broadlandboy wrote:Little increase in money to PRL/LNR if Sky deal. Hard to see PRL agreeing without BTS involvment

Hard to see PRL/LNR agreeing unless they gain control. Will be an interesting 2 weeks for sure Very Happy

by TJ Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:28 pm

Standulstermen wrote:
TJ wrote:On the BBC - the PRLs response
But PRL told the BBC that Thursday's developments offer "no more than half a solution" to the crisis.

Remaining stumbling blocks are the rival television broadcasting deals between Sky and BT and the insistence of English and French outfits that clubs should run European competitions, not the unions.
Over to you Mr Ritchie. Time to show some stones.

Yup - I think he has some and he either knows what the PRL will accept or is prepared to play hardball withthem. If the PRL reject this they will surely loose any public sympathy they have

by Standulstermen Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:30 pm

Not only that but if the PRL reject this which to all intents and purposes is a similar structure (financially and playing ) to what they proposed. Given that and the fact that the unions have turned up to mediation attempts (whilst the PRL haven't) would this count against them in any legal proceedings. I'm not sure. Just throwing it out there

by SecretFly Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:34 pm

broadlandboy wrote:Little increase in money to PRL/LNR if Sky deal. Hard to see PRL agreeing without BTS involvment

Em...they're trying to own a competition, broadband. They don't own it yet... and too many nations would feel their Unions let them down if the PRL/LNR did gain total control of a competition (to further add even more subtle changes whenever they feel a need to ramp up their chances of winning again Wink

)

In other words, the PRL don't hold all the cards. They can go off and do their Franglelsh competition if they want with their BT money. But if they do it against Union sanction then they become rebels; and IRB would have to step in as regards the International aspirations of players that play in a rebel cup..and any referees that would officiate at such games.

by broadlandboy Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:40 pm

Agree that a very shrewd move by ERC but think it will be very hard to get both TV deals to agree so could be the sticking point

by broadlandboy Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:47 pm

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/25300.php#.UmlNR3BwonQ
Interesting that PRL left off bodies at end yet LNR included with neither being present

by **Biltong** Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:50 pm

From an outsider's perspective.

Rabo still gets same amount of money, but kess teams playing means less expenses, how is the third distributed between the Rabo teams?

I think the 6, 6, 6 guaranteed spots is fair. I know the Rabo supporters won't agree, but consider that Rabo has 12 teams, Aviva has 12 and Top 14, well has 14. So fair distribution there.

Where I would disagree is the guarantee of spots per nation from the Rabo.

It should only be done on merit, nothing better than to be motivated to perform in the Rabo. Let the best 6 teams go through. Yes I know it is about participation as well, but imagine Italy's teams end 11th and 12th on the log, is it fair that a sixth placed team is eliminated from competing?

by Guest Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:54 pm

broadlandboy wrote:http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/25300.php#.UmlNR3BwonQ
Interesting that PRL left off bodies at end yet LNR included with neither being present

Well spotted. Seems a bit odd. Maybe it's a look into the future Very Happy

by Guest Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:59 pm

Biltong wrote:From an outsider's perspective.

Rabo still gets same amount of money, but kess teams playing means less expenses, how is the third distributed between the Rabo teams?

I think the 6, 6, 6 guaranteed spots is fair. I know the Rabo supporters won't agree, but consider that Rabo has 12 teams, Aviva has 12 and Top 14, well has 14. So fair distribution there.

Where I would disagree is the guarantee of spots per nation from the Rabo.

It should only be done on merit, nothing better than to be motivated to perform in the Rabo. Let the best 6 teams go through. Yes I know it is about participation as well, but imagine Italy's teams end 11th and 12th on the log, is it fair that a sixth placed team is eliminated from competing?

It's more than fair that the best of each Union is represented in a European competition. 6, 6, 6 fair? 6 automatic spots for England, 6 automatic spots for France, 1 for each other Union. Aye, suppose it must be.

by broadlandboy Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:59 pm

Can't claim it as saw on another forum. So either LNR relented or ERC hoping which may upset LNR

by BamBam Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:01 pm

Munchkin wrote:
quinsforever wrote:Agree it feels tacky. I would prefer 7th to play each 8th team not in their league (so everyone gets 2 games but there is a small advantage to coming 7th vs 8th) and top 2 out if the 6 get HC spots.

Means rabo only get 6 auto spots though
It should have been 6,6,8. You would probably disagree, but what we can agree on, I think, is that this is a weakness to the structure of the competition for obvious reasons. Meritocracy? How is that a fair contest, and how will that effect the players from either side playing in it? Not forgetting the Rabo fans who may feel cheated out of a Euro spot should their team lose.

Hardly cheated if they lose

by Guest Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:06 pm

BamBam wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
quinsforever wrote:Agree it feels tacky. I would prefer 7th to play each 8th team not in their league (so everyone gets 2 games but there is a small advantage to coming 7th vs 8th) and top 2 out if the 6 get HC spots.

Means rabo only get 6 auto spots though
It should have been 6,6,8. You would probably disagree, but what we can agree on, I think, is that this is a weakness to the structure of the competition for obvious reasons. Meritocracy? How is that a fair contest, and how will that effect the players from either side playing in it? Not forgetting the Rabo fans who may feel cheated out of a Euro spot should their team lose.
Hardly cheated if they lose

Sure. The English teams won't mind playing all their HEC games away then. It wouldn't make a difference to the results of course. Same players playing, and all that.

by Guest Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:07 pm

broadlandboy wrote:Can't claim it as saw on another forum. So either LNR relented or ERC hoping which may upset LNR

Would doubt the LNR have relented at this stage. They might well do so soon though. Maybe an error, or maybe a wind-up, as you suggest Very Happy

by TJ Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:13 pm

Biltong wrote:From an outsider's perspective.

Rabo still gets same amount of money, but kess teams playing means less expenses, how is the third distributed between the Rabo teams?

I think the 6, 6, 6 guaranteed spots is fair. I know the Rabo supporters won't agree, but consider that Rabo has 12 teams, Aviva has 12 and Top 14, well has 14. So fair distribution there.

Where I would disagree is the guarantee of spots per nation from the Rabo.

It should only be done on merit, nothing better than to be motivated to perform in the Rabo. Let the best 6 teams go through. Yes I know it is about participation as well, but imagine Italy's teams end 11th and 12th on the log, is it fair that a sixth placed team is eliminated from competing?

Biltong - the Rabo comprises 4 countries. its no the same as the AP and top 14. Its like us saying only 1 of the sanzar nations can enter in the WC cos they play in the super 15. How can it be a European cup if two countries are excluded. the smaller nations are at a significant disadvantage already. No representaion in the european cup for Sotland or Italy would mean the end of pro rugby in those countries and an end to competative international teams from those countries.

by **Biltong** Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:14 pm

Munchkin wrote:
Biltong wrote:From an outsider's perspective.

Rabo still gets same amount of money, but kess teams playing means less expenses, how is the third distributed between the Rabo teams?

I think the 6, 6, 6 guaranteed spots is fair. I know the Rabo supporters won't agree, but consider that Rabo has 12 teams, Aviva has 12 and Top 14, well has 14. So fair distribution there.

Where I would disagree is the guarantee of spots per nation from the Rabo.

It should only be done on merit, nothing better than to be motivated to perform in the Rabo. Let the best 6 teams go through. Yes I know it is about participation as well, but imagine Italy's teams end 11th and 12th on the log, is it fair that a sixth placed team is eliminated from competing?
It's more than fair that the best of each Union is represented in a European competition. 6, 6, 6 fair? 6 automatic spots for England, 6 automatic spots for France, 1 for each other Union. Aye, suppose it must be.

The reality unfortunately is that Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Italy don't have twelve professional teams each, if that was the case you would most likely have seen three teams per country, but it is what it is.

by BamBam Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:18 pm

Munchkin wrote:
BamBam wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
quinsforever wrote:Agree it feels tacky. I would prefer 7th to play each 8th team not in their league (so everyone gets 2 games but there is a small advantage to coming 7th vs 8th) and top 2 out if the 6 get HC spots.

Means rabo only get 6 auto spots though
It should have been 6,6,8. You would probably disagree, but what we can agree on, I think, is that this is a weakness to the structure of the competition for obvious reasons. Meritocracy? How is that a fair contest, and how will that effect the players from either side playing in it? Not forgetting the Rabo fans who may feel cheated out of a Euro spot should their team lose.
Hardly cheated if they lose
Sure. The English teams won't mind playing all their HEC games away then. It wouldn't make a difference to the results of course. Same players playing, and all that.

Oh you're talking about the home advantage for the playoffs. I agree it should either be home and away, or maybe even a neutral site, one game after the other ..

I guess as the Rabo took an extra guaranteed place compared to what PRL wanted they had to concede something.

by **Biltong** Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:20 pm

TJ wrote:
Biltong wrote:From an outsider's perspective.

Rabo still gets same amount of money, but kess teams playing means less expenses, how is the third distributed between the Rabo teams?

I think the 6, 6, 6 guaranteed spots is fair. I know the Rabo supporters won't agree, but consider that Rabo has 12 teams, Aviva has 12 and Top 14, well has 14. So fair distribution there.

Where I would disagree is the guarantee of spots per nation from the Rabo.

It should only be done on merit, nothing better than to be motivated to perform in the Rabo. Let the best 6 teams go through. Yes I know it is about participation as well, but imagine Italy's teams end 11th and 12th on the log, is it fair that a sixth placed team is eliminated from competing?
Biltong - the Rabo comprises 4 countries. its no the same as the AP and top 14. Its like us saying only 1 of the sanzar nations can enter in the WC cos they play in the super 15. How can it be a European cup if two countries are excluded. the smaller nations are at a significant disadvantage already. No representaion in the european cup for Sotland or Italy would mean the end of pro rugby in those countries and an end to competative international teams from those countries.

tJ, the european structure is different to what we have for Super rugby.

In our case we "created" franchises.

Your competition is derived from club systems in England and France and then from regional trams from other nations.

You are never going to have a system that pleases everyone.

Unless each national union creates new franchises and then agree on equal teams per country.

But then the other stumbling block is France and England won't accept that either as their sheer number of professional players that will mis out will be too big.

Trying to find a balance between 6 participating countries with vastly different professional structures is always going to be a tough ask.

by Guest Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:21 pm

Biltong wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Biltong wrote:From an outsider's perspective.

Rabo still gets same amount of money, but kess teams playing means less expenses, how is the third distributed between the Rabo teams?

I think the 6, 6, 6 guaranteed spots is fair. I know the Rabo supporters won't agree, but consider that Rabo has 12 teams, Aviva has 12 and Top 14, well has 14. So fair distribution there.

Where I would disagree is the guarantee of spots per nation from the Rabo.

It should only be done on merit, nothing better than to be motivated to perform in the Rabo. Let the best 6 teams go through. Yes I know it is about participation as well, but imagine Italy's teams end 11th and 12th on the log, is it fair that a sixth placed team is eliminated from competing?
It's more than fair that the best of each Union is represented in a European competition. 6, 6, 6 fair? 6 automatic spots for England, 6 automatic spots for France, 1 for each other Union. Aye, suppose it must be.
The reality unfortunately is that Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Italy don't have twelve professional teams each, if that was the case you would most likely have seen three teams per country, but it is what it is.

So it's a numbers game? What about these numbers? England get 50% representation. Ireland, and Wales get 25%.

by SecretFly Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:24 pm

Biltong wrote:From an outsider's perspective.

Rabo still gets same amount of money, but kess teams playing means less expenses, how is the third distributed between the Rabo teams?

I think the 6, 6, 6 guaranteed spots is fair. I know the Rabo supporters won't agree, but consider that Rabo has 12 teams, Aviva has 12 and Top 14, well has 14. So fair distribution there.

Where I would disagree is the guarantee of spots per nation from the Rabo.

It should only be done on merit, nothing better than to be motivated to perform in the Rabo. Let the best 6 teams go through. Yes I know it is about participation as well, but imagine Italy's teams end 11th and 12th on the log, is it fair that a sixth placed team is eliminated from competing?

It is fair and was always fair to the extent that its a valuable International training ground - top level European rugby competiton that is - what it was initially created to enhance in the first place - by Unions themselves - it was and is a Union owned contest not a League based event.)

So, as you suggest 'merit' should be used to drop Italian sides out of a European contest, should money and influence then give English and French clubs eternal representation (6 places every year 'guaranteed' regardless of merit) in that elite European contest?

Those 6 'guaranteed' places each gives them an unfair advantage in training and assessing their International potential players in a high quality enviromnent. You think that's all fair and meritorious, Biltong?

If you still do then we might as well say that you should stop complaining about SA players leaving your Nation for Europe, as it's the right of European clubs to offer them much more money than they get at home ..... and if that's tough on the SA International side, who cares. We in Europe certainly don't - business is business.

Just important to emphasise Biltong - that is not my opinion!!! - I've always agreed with you about the preference of home SA players staying in their nation to play club rugby. But I'm outlining the principle that one Nation's International aspirations should suffer so that private clubs can get on with the global business of profit making.

If English International potential players are exposed to high class Irish, Welsh and French opposition - by right, not merit - then it's clear to me that all 6N International players should have that right.

by Guest Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:29 pm

BamBam wrote:Oh you're talking about the home advantage for the playoffs. I agree it should either be home and away, or maybe even a neutral site, one game after the other ..

I guess as the Rabo took an extra guaranteed place compared to what PRL wanted they had to concede something.

At 6,6,8 the Rabo would have been conceding 2 places, and no need for any play-off with the other Leagues, and that is something that I believe the PRL/LNR wouldn't really have had an issue with. They want something much more valuable to them. Control.

The play-off away just seems so strange to me.

by SecretFly Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:31 pm

Munchkin wrote:

So it's a numbers game? What about these numbers? England get 50% representation. Ireland, and Wales get 25%.

It really is a dud deal, the more and more I think of it. I don't know how some of those Union guys could come out of a meeting thinking that was a job well done.

by TJ Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:33 pm

Indeed its a balance BIltong however you need to be clear. there has never been a Rabo entry into the European cup. Indeed the european cup predates the rabo. European cup entry was by unions. 6 from the english, 7 from the french, 3 from the irish, 3 from the welsh, 2 from Italy, 2 from scotland Now some of those teams are a bit weak and not there as of right - however its a msssive shift for 4 unons to lose 30% of their places between them witht eh potential for some to lose 66% or100% if no gurenteed representation

the current proposal is a massive change - and it is like us saying as the 3 sanzar nations have a jont league they should be considered as one entity for representation - thats what the PRL have done.

by broadlandboy Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:35 pm

Because they knew that it was very unlikely that PRL would agree without BTS onboard so appear very reasonable

by TJ Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:36 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Munchkin wrote:

So it's a numbers game? What about these numbers? England get 50% representation. Ireland, and Wales get 25%.
It really is a dud deal, the more and more I think of it. I don't know how some of those Union guys could come out of a meeting thinking that was a job well done.

I suspect they thought it he best they could get and in the end took that rather than playing hardball any more and risking ending up with nothing. I bet the PRL try to water it down more. Its not quite bad enough to walk away from perhpas but its close

I do wonder if the various committees would need to ratify it tho. Might still be ructions there.

by **Biltong** Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:38 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Biltong wrote:From an outsider's perspective.

Rabo still gets same amount of money, but kess teams playing means less expenses, how is the third distributed between the Rabo teams?

I think the 6, 6, 6 guaranteed spots is fair. I know the Rabo supporters won't agree, but consider that Rabo has 12 teams, Aviva has 12 and Top 14, well has 14. So fair distribution there.

Where I would disagree is the guarantee of spots per nation from the Rabo.

It should only be done on merit, nothing better than to be motivated to perform in the Rabo. Let the best 6 teams go through. Yes I know it is about participation as well, but imagine Italy's teams end 11th and 12th on the log, is it fair that a sixth placed team is eliminated from competing?
It is fair and was always fair to the extent that its a valuable International training ground - top level European rugby competiton that is - what it was initially created to enhance in the first place - by Unions themselves - it was and is a Union owned contest not a League based event.)

So, as you suggest 'merit' should be used to drop Italian sides out of a European contest, should money and influence then give English and French clubs eternal representation (6 places every year 'guaranteed' regardless of merit) in that elite European contest?

Those 6 'guaranteed' places each gives them an unfair advantage in training and assessing their International potential players in a high quality enviromnent. You think that's all fair and meritorious, Biltong?

If you still do then we might as well say that you should stop complaining about SA players leaving your Nation for Europe, as it's the right of European clubs to offer them much more money than they get at home ..... and if that's tough on the SA International side, who cares. We in Europe certainly don't - business is business.

Just important to emphasise Biltong - that is not my opinion!!! - I've always agreed with you about the preference of home SA players staying in their nation to play club rugby. But I'm outlining the principle that one Nation's International aspirations should suffer so that private clubs can get on with the global business of profit making.

If English International potential players are exposed to high class Irish, Welsh and French opposition - by right, not merit - then it's clear to me that all 6N International players should have that right.

Fly.

If you want fair then have each country enter 2 or three teams. You know that will never happen.

The PRL and LNR are only about business, they don't give two hoots, the same way they don't give two hoots about Springbok rugby.

They simply buy what they want.

Now either the Rabo accpets that financially they need the PRL and LNR, and ultimately negotiate the best possible deal they can get, or they walk away and find a solution to their financial sustainability.

Like I said, they don't care, they don't care about you or us. It is all about the money, and they have it, you don't and we don't.

by **Biltong** Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:43 pm

TJ wrote:Indeed its a balance BIltong however you need to be clear. there has never been a Rabo entry into the European cup. Indeed the european cup predates the rabo. European cup entry was by unions. 6 from the english, 7 from the french, 3 from the irish, 3 from the welsh, 2 from Italy, 2 from scotland Now some of those teams are a bit weak and not there as of right - however its a msssive shift for 4 unons to lose 30% of their places between them witht eh potential for some to lose 66% or100% if no gurenteed representation

the current proposal is a massive change - and it is like us saying as the 3 sanzar nations have a jont league they should be considered as one entity for representation - thats what the PRL have done.

tJ, the issues you guys have in Europe is not unique, we ad SA supporters are very aware of what part of negotiations from our side of the fence we are not happy with. We have the toughest travel schedule of any of the three nations participating, we bring in the most money, in fact our voewership numbers are more than Australia's and New Zealand's put together, we subsidise them to the effect that we lose players in droves overseas because instrad of funding our own rugby we are funding theirs.

My preferred choice as that we walk away from Super Rugby all together, and just concentrate on developing our own domestic rugby.

by TJ Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:44 pm

Biltong - the french and english need the rest as well- without the rest its not a european cup and is far less marketable

by Casartelli Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:49 pm

If this 'proposal' eventually gets 'signed off' then it will be the undoing of European competition. It's a dismal, botched, compromise.

If there was a genuine appetite to make it 'meritocratic' and elite then work towards 5 French, 4 English, 3 Irish, 2 Welsh, 1 Scottish and 1 Italian.

Mid table French and English dross slugging it out to finish as least-worse-of-the-also-rans isn't going to appeal to anyone - not even their own fans.

by **Biltong** Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:49 pm

TJ, I have heard that a hundred times in the last few months, I don't believe for one second that you or anyone else is entirely correct on that.

Between France and England there are 120 million people, a toilet full of money and more disposable cash than you can throw at the moon.

They don't mind you, in fact they like you, but if they were given total freedom by the IRB and their resoective unions, they wouldn't think twice about going alone if they didn't get exactly what they wanted.

by Guest Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:50 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Munchkin wrote:

So it's a numbers game? What about these numbers? England get 50% representation. Ireland, and Wales get 25%.
It really is a dud deal, the more and more I think of it. I don't know how some of those Union guys could come out of a meeting thinking that was a job well done.

Not sure why the Unions agreed to this. Maybe making an offer that the PRL can't refuse, but knowing they will? Maybe there's more twists, and turns, to the end game.

by Sponsored content