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

First topic message reminder :

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:I don't think any one is argueing that the HEC is not a great comp, some are saying that it is not be all & end all & there is more to rugby.
PRL/BT have not stated the amount for Aviva & Europe separately as this would give information to Sky. However PRL have stated that PRL clubs will be better off with just the Aviva under the BT deal than they are now with the present combined Aviva/Europe.
The BT deal is for Aviva with an agreement that BT will have PRL's rights in any European comp.

It sounds like they have. The quote from Sin e suggests the BT part is worth about 20-odd million per year. Assuming he's talking in Euros and that 20-odd is about 20 (certainly reads that way). Over three years so thats 60 million. So that's about £50MM. Assuming that's top amount and therefore releases the whole "up to" £152M it means there is between £102M for the Premiership over four years. So thats £25M per year. Previous Sky/ESPN deal was for around £54M for 3 years, or about £18M per year. So that's an extra £7M a year for the Premeirship.

About

Thats working out ok so for the AP clubs. They now have a little over £2m for tv rights this year. Last year they got £1.9m (between AP & ERC).

Down guarantee of 3 home sell-out games (plus corporate entertainment ect).

They weren't sell outs. Even Tigers didn't sell out all the ERC games. But they can replace it with an English cup. Won't make as much but will probably make enough. Would be great if the Championship sides got involved and got an equal share (per team).

I wouldn't expect Tigers to sell out as they have a fairly big stadium, but clubs like Exeter were selling out (average 10k for HCup). Average about 7K for Aviva Premiership last year.

No HC sell-outs at Sandy Park last year (not even for Leinster), and the AP average was a little higher.

Last season:

Sale Sharks 5,568
Saracens 6,141
Quins 8,472
Warriors 7,295
Wasps 7,557
L Irish 7,557
Bath 10,744
L Welsh 7,317

etc. etc..

Heineken Cup
Clermont 9,819
Scarlets 9,258
Leinster 10,198

At least 2k more per game (and tickets are also more expensive).

Wanting something and deserving something are very different things quins.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
seeding is required in pool-based tournaments by the broadcasters firstly. and secondly, it is necessary when not all teams qualify on merit, ie if a random draw you could have all 4 irish teams in 1 pool, and 2 italian and 2 scots in another pool. now that would be embarrassing and a commercial disaster.

Well, the seeding was only introduced in 2007, are you sure about that being a requirement from broadcasters? They just made sure that the nations were mixed up (and teams from the same countries were kept separate). It was a bit of a joke that Biarritz always got the Italian team actually!

Countries nominated their teams. Its only recently that Ireland have used the league positioning.

re broadcasters, yes, and its no coincidence that the TV money really took off since 2007. broadcasters always try to implement what they see working in other sports and formats that they cover elsewhere.

It took off in 2007 because Sky bought exclusive Irish broadcasting rights. Up to that it was on FTA.

like i said. professional broadcasters, who pay proper money, and have proper experience, demand proper tournament formats.

Notch wrote:Wanting something and deserving something are very different things quins.

pretty clear that the average quality of teams in the HC will go up is the weakest 3 or 4 from the Rabo are dropped. I would say that fits into my understanding of deserve.

quinsforever wrote:we have no way to know that. if my team can crush the star-studded Racing at home with less than half the salary bill, who is to say that money builds a more successful team? ireland have a great recipe that will stand them in great stead in club rugby for a long time. that is no reason to begrudge other clubs changes that they want and deserve.

Want yes

Deserve - ???????????????????

Quins, I'm not going to repeat all I said in the post you mention but I stand by every word.  Every word.

You really think PRL have moral highground in the propaganda war that has been fought to date?  The innocent party not slighting the Pro12 at every opportunity? The noble lot not belittling the Pro12 participants? The PRL not slyly suggesting the real reasons why Irish sides succeed in Europe?

You didn't read all that?  No, you didn't because you were too busy looking for offensive remarks coming from ERC or people like me

Yep, but I've done that work for you And I was very tuned into smug comments coming from PRL members - so don't sit on a high moral horse with me please.  I read too much and am not about to say ERC were dirtier in the propaganda war than the pure-as-snow PRL were.  I won't say it because it isn't true.

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:Wanting something and deserving something are very different things quins.

pretty clear that the average quality of teams in the HC will go up is the weakest 3 or 4 from the Rabo are dropped. I would say that fits into my understanding of deserve.

The quality of the tournament will go up if we confine it to those teams who have made the final in the last 4 years - maybe that's the way to go

SecretFly wrote:Quins, I'm not going to repeat all I said in the post you mention but I stand by every word.  Every word.

You really think PRL have moral highground in the propaganda war that has been fought to date?  The innocent party not slighting the Pro12 at every opportunity?  The noble lot not belittling the Pro12 participants?  The PRL not slyly suggesting the real reasons why Irish sides succeed in Europe?

You didn't read all that?  No, you didn't because you were too busy looking for offensive remarks coming from ERC or people like me

Yep, but I've done that work for you  And I was very tuned into smug comments coming from PRL members - so don't sit on a high moral horse with me please.  I read too much and am not about to say ERC were dirtier in the propaganda war than the pure-as-snow PRL were.  I won't say it because it isn't true.

no, i'm saying no-one has the moral high ground, apart in my view from Ian Ritchie. you are the one taking sides. i'm telling you both sides are equally guilty of making public statements. and its interesting that the one example you actually gave is the one that was apparently true - sin e posted something about it being true yday.

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:Wanting something and deserving something are very different things quins.

pretty clear that the average quality of teams in the HC will go up is the weakest 3 or 4 from the Rabo are dropped. I would say that fits into my understanding of deserve.

But thats at cross-purposes with a lot of different, worthy purposes of the tournament that have been explained many times. It's not just about the best rugby its also about preparing players for test level, growing the game across all the nations involved and hopefully one day somehow other nations. This is what the Unions represent, a less blinkered view than just box office. My understanding of deserve is that Italy and Scotland deserve to benefit just as much from this as England and France. We deserve to have a strong international game that benefits from club competition as opposed to being undermined by it and we deserve a competition that can be realistically contested by a number of sides.

geoff999rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:Wanting something and deserving something are very different things quins.

pretty clear that the average quality of teams in the HC will go up is the weakest 3 or 4 from the Rabo are dropped. I would say that fits into my understanding of deserve.

The quality of the tournament will go up if we confine it to those teams who have made the final in the last 4 years - maybe that's the way to go

no, the quality will go up when every team has to meaningfully qualify every year.

your suggestion is so ridiculous i dont know what to say. so you base qualification on who made the last 4 finals? do you realise that means future performance in any competition would be irrelevant? how would that be of any interest to anyone apart from a few irish fans? bet sky would pay the square root of f all for that.

Notch wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:Wanting something and deserving something are very different things quins.

pretty clear that the average quality of teams in the HC will go up is the weakest 3 or 4 from the Rabo are dropped. I would say that fits into my understanding of deserve.

But thats at cross-purposes with a lot of different, worthy purposes of the tournament that have been explained many times. It's not just about the best rugby its also about preparing players for test level, growing the game across all the nations involved and hopefully one day somehow other nations. This is what the Unions represent, a less blinkered view than just box office. My understanding of deserve is that Italy and Scotland deserve to benefit just as much from this as England and France. We deserve to have a strong international game that benefits from club competition as opposed to being undermined by it and we deserve a competition that can be realistically contested by a number of sides.

If it's a club competition, then international preparation is irrelevant. If it's a sub-national training exercise then the exclusion of wider european teams is indefensible.

Notch wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:Wanting something and deserving something are very different things quins.

pretty clear that the average quality of teams in the HC will go up is the weakest 3 or 4 from the Rabo are dropped. I would say that fits into my understanding of deserve.

But thats at cross-purposes with a lot of different, worthy purposes of the tournament that have been explained many times. It's not just about the best rugby its also about preparing players for test level, growing the game across all the nations involved and hopefully one day somehow other nations. This is what the Unions represent, a less blinkered view than just box office. My understanding of deserve is that Italy and Scotland deserve to benefit just as much from this as England and France. We deserve to have a strong international game that benefits from club competition as opposed to being undermined by it and we deserve a competition that can be realistically contested by a number of sides.

you're joking right? none of these goals are even mentioned within the ERC. it is a company set up to make money for the members of the closed club. the fact you view it as an arena to test players doesnt have anything to do with the mission of the tournament.

the sooner they pass this tournament to an organiser with a proper mandate of growth rather than preserving the cosy status quo, the better off rugby will be.

Who says what people across Europe want is quality?  
Quality bought from the poorer sides that can't afford to keep their self-produced players themselves?

Is that the Quality people want?  

Do they want four or five super-teams taking care of business every year with ever increasing funds, ever increasing International standard squads, ever increasing salaries; first into the millions and then into the tens of millions?

Four of five super famous clubs running a yearly jamboree together?  As the little things, that love thinking they are involved, are given an Amlin kind of show to chew on that nobody really wants to watch? ....but God love'em, they'll like the competitiveness of it amongst themselves.  
And if they produce a good player, sure one of the big four or five will give them a nice little price for him and again, everyone will be happy?

Is that the 'quality' we think we all want?

Or is quality participation itself; feeling involved, feeling you have your team to cheer on and not someone else's that some of your players happen to play for.

It seems we always have different philosophies but still we try to say we can have a common goal.  I don't think we can.

No I'm not joking. The reason Unions have to be involved is to preserve exactly that- the balance between international and club rugby. Those are not mentioned by the ERC, but the ERC is run by the Unions and the Unions interest is to keep the game strong at every level. Thats why all of the Six Nations are represented. What are the consequences for the rest of the Six Nations if there are no Italian or Scottish representatives in the top tier? Worse Scotland and Italy sides, less players based in that nation, less interest in the game.

NH rugby is already so completely f'ed. Look at what is happening to Wales. Movement of rugby players worldwide to France and England is hurting the international game. Is it really time to start funneling a bigger share of the money and giving a larger share places to those who are already throwing the game out of balance?

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:Wanting something and deserving something are very different things quins.

pretty clear that the average quality of teams in the HC will go up is the weakest 3 or 4 from the Rabo are dropped. I would say that fits into my understanding of deserve.

But thats at cross-purposes with a lot of different, worthy purposes of the tournament that have been explained many times. It's not just about the best rugby its also about preparing players for test level, growing the game across all the nations involved and hopefully one day somehow other nations. This is what the Unions represent, a less blinkered view than just box office. My understanding of deserve is that Italy and Scotland deserve to benefit just as much from this as England and France. We deserve to have a strong international game that benefits from club competition as opposed to being undermined by it and we deserve a competition that can be realistically contested by a number of sides.

you're joking right? none of these goals are even mentioned within the ERC. it is a company set up to make money for the members of the closed club. the fact you view it as an arena to test players doesnt have anything to do with the mission of the tournament.

the sooner they pass this tournament to an organiser with a proper mandate of growth rather than preserving the cosy status quo, the better off rugby will be.

Laying aside what the mission of ERC is for the moment. People from all sides of this debate recognise how the HEC contributes in helping condition players for test rugby. Including those of PRL.

According company details the purpose of the European Rugby Cup Ltd is: 'The promotion of rugby union football'.

The purpose of Premier Rugby Limited is:
"To promote and foster the interest of the member clubs of the company."

quinsforever wrote:
no, i'm saying no-one has the moral high ground, apart in my view from Ian Ritchie. you are the one taking sides.

Of course I'm taking sides, Quins.  

Do you seriously think that people could read all your contributions to date and not work out pretty quickly which 'side' you support?  You're not Neutral, quins.  Nothing in this world is Neutral - Nothing.  And you certainly aren't.

That's not bad - that's reality.  We believe in different things - mostly in this case because we come from two distinctly different places  
We support our own - and we certainly support those we feel are defending our prefered outcomes.  That again is just reality.

But when you say to me that nobody has a high-moral ground, you prove to me that you haven't really been reading my recent comments or what I've been commenting on.  

I'm the one who first suggested that the ERC knew fully well that PRL couldn't or wouldn't accept their compromises.  
I said it was most probably a ruse.  
Hammer then agreed with me but he used language which suggested ERC proved their underhandedness in the act.
Then I agreed with him again!!! but said, "em...yeah, but everyone was at it - nobody was innocent."  

Then you turn up - and accuse me of being one sided!

I'm the one who first accused 'my side' of a little cheeky underhandedness.  Me............ Moi..................

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:Wanting something and deserving something are very different things quins.

pretty clear that the average quality of teams in the HC will go up is the weakest 3 or 4 from the Rabo are dropped. I would say that fits into my understanding of deserve.

But thats at cross-purposes with a lot of different, worthy purposes of the tournament that have been explained many times. It's not just about the best rugby its also about preparing players for test level, growing the game across all the nations involved and hopefully one day somehow other nations. This is what the Unions represent, a less blinkered view than just box office. My understanding of deserve is that Italy and Scotland deserve to benefit just as much from this as England and France. We deserve to have a strong international game that benefits from club competition as opposed to being undermined by it and we deserve a competition that can be realistically contested by a number of sides.

you're joking right? none of these goals are even mentioned within the ERC. it is a company set up to make money for the members of the closed club. the fact you view it as an arena to test players doesnt have anything to do with the mission of the tournament.

the sooner they pass this tournament to an organiser with a proper mandate of growth rather than preserving the cosy status quo, the better off rugby will be.

Laying aside what the mission of ERC is for the moment. People from all sides of this debate recognise how the HEC contributes in helping condition players for test rugby. Including those of PRL.

Do we, or is this a myth. What is the correlation between the Irish provincial successes and their International achievements? How does the relative failure of the Welsh Regions in HC (and Amlin) lead to the relative success of the Welsh team? How do English players like Joe Launchberry and Christian Wade get even a sniff of international honours when they've never played in HC? Toby Faletau - how good is he and what's his HC record?

Sin é wrote:According company details the purpose of the European Rugby Cup Ltd is: 'The promotion of rugby union football'.

The purpose of Premier Rugby Limited is:
"To promote and foster the interest of the member clubs of the company."

So ERC have failed spectacularly and PRL aren't doing particularly well either.

Notch wrote:No I'm not joking. The reason Unions have to be involved is to preserve exactly that- the balance between international and club rugby. Those are not mentioned by the ERC, but the ERC is run by the Unions and the Unions interest is to keep the game strong at every level. Thats why all of the Six Nations are represented. What are the consequences for the rest of the Six Nations if there are no Italian or Scottish representatives in the top tier? Worse Scotland and Italy sides, less players based in that nation, less interest in the game.

NH rugby is already so completely f'ed. Look at what is happening to Wales. Movement of rugby players worldwide to France and England is hurting the international game. Is it really time to start funneling a bigger share of the money and giving a larger share places to those who are already throwing the game out of balance?

so what do you propose to do about the top14 EUR100m per annum tv deal that looks likely to be struck?

correction for you - since professionalism started, france and england's records against SH teams has improved significantly. i would hardly say that professionalism at the club level has fupped english and french rugby. but i probably have a longer memory and time horizon.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:According company details the purpose of the European Rugby Cup Ltd is: 'The promotion of rugby union football'.

The purpose of Premier Rugby Limited is:
"To promote and foster the interest of the member clubs of the company."

So ERC have failed spectacularly and PRL aren't doing particularly well either.

why not put all the relevant stuff in sin e?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:Wanting something and deserving something are very different things quins.

pretty clear that the average quality of teams in the HC will go up is the weakest 3 or 4 from the Rabo are dropped. I would say that fits into my understanding of deserve.

But thats at cross-purposes with a lot of different, worthy purposes of the tournament that have been explained many times. It's not just about the best rugby its also about preparing players for test level, growing the game across all the nations involved and hopefully one day somehow other nations. This is what the Unions represent, a less blinkered view than just box office. My understanding of deserve is that Italy and Scotland deserve to benefit just as much from this as England and France. We deserve to have a strong international game that benefits from club competition as opposed to being undermined by it and we deserve a competition that can be realistically contested by a number of sides.

you're joking right? none of these goals are even mentioned within the ERC. it is a company set up to make money for the members of the closed club. the fact you view it as an arena to test players doesnt have anything to do with the mission of the tournament.

the sooner they pass this tournament to an organiser with a proper mandate of growth rather than preserving the cosy status quo, the better off rugby will be.

Laying aside what the mission of ERC is for the moment. People from all sides of this debate recognise how the HEC contributes in helping condition players for test rugby. Including those of PRL.

Do we, or is this a myth. What is the correlation between the Irish provincial successes and their International achievements? How does the relative failure of the Welsh Regions in HC (and Amlin) lead to the relative success of the Welsh team? How do English players like Joe Launchberry and Christian Wade get even a sniff of international honours when they've never played in HC? Toby Faletau - how good is he and what's his HC record?

it's a myth from english or french perspective. is the reality from a celtic and italian perspective.

Sin é wrote:According company details the purpose of the European Rugby Cup Ltd is: 'The promotion of rugby union football'.

The purpose of Premier Rugby Limited is:
"To promote and foster the interest of the member clubs of the company."

actually, i call BS on this sin e. Huge BS unless you can back it up with ERC corporate charter or the like. it's sole role is the promotion and commercialisation of european club rugby (with no requirement to even make sure that fringe nations outside the 6N can even afford to play in the competition)

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
no, i'm saying no-one has the moral high ground, apart in my view from Ian Ritchie. you are the one taking sides.

Of course I'm taking sides, Quins.  

Do you seriously think that people could read all your contributions to date and not work out pretty quickly which 'side' you support?  You're not Neutral, quins.  Nothing in this world is Neutral - Nothing.  And you certainly aren't.

That's not bad - that's reality.  We believe in different things - mostly in this case because we come from two distinctly different places  
We support our own - and we certainly support those we feel are defending our prefered outcomes.  That again is just reality.

But when you say to me that nobody has a high-moral ground, you prove to me that you haven't really been reading my recent comments or what I've been commenting on.  

I'm the one who first suggested that the ERC knew fully well that PRL couldn't or wouldn't accept their compromises.  
I said it was most probably a ruse.  
Hammer then agreed with me but he used language which suggested ERC proved their underhandedness in the act.
Then I agreed with him again!!! but said, "em...yeah, but everyone was at it - nobody was innocent."  

Then you turn up - and accuse me of being one sided!

I'm the one who first accused 'my side' of a little cheeky underhandedness.  Me............ Moi..................

and for that SFi salute you.

i don't think you are one-eyed. one and a half eyes

i think the who leaked what argument is a complete sideshow. has zero impact on what actually transpires. but there are always going to be certain people, who if they are putting themselves out on a limb (mccafferty, lux, camou, etc) are going to want to make public statements to give them some "insurance". this has happened since time immemorial. i think we should all ignore it.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:According company details the purpose of the European Rugby Cup Ltd is: 'The promotion of rugby union football'.

The purpose of Premier Rugby Limited is:
"To promote and foster the interest of the member clubs of the company."

actually, i call BS on this sin e. Huge BS unless you can back it up with ERC corporate charter or the like. it's sole role is the promotion and commercialisation of european club rugby (with no requirement to even make sure that fringe nations outside the 6N can even afford to play in the competition)

Its what it says on the duedil site in the company description. (www.duedil.com)

Don't think that aim of commercialisation of european rugby would wash with the Irish tax authorities as it is listed as a tax exempt company.

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:Wanting something and deserving something are very different things quins.

pretty clear that the average quality of teams in the HC will go up is the weakest 3 or 4 from the Rabo are dropped. I would say that fits into my understanding of deserve.

But thats at cross-purposes with a lot of different, worthy purposes of the tournament that have been explained many times. It's not just about the best rugby its also about preparing players for test level, growing the game across all the nations involved and hopefully one day somehow other nations. This is what the Unions represent, a less blinkered view than just box office. My understanding of deserve is that Italy and Scotland deserve to benefit just as much from this as England and France. We deserve to have a strong international game that benefits from club competition as opposed to being undermined by it and we deserve a competition that can be realistically contested by a number of sides.

you're joking right? none of these goals are even mentioned within the ERC. it is a company set up to make money for the members of the closed club. the fact you view it as an arena to test players doesnt have anything to do with the mission of the tournament.

the sooner they pass this tournament to an organiser with a proper mandate of growth rather than preserving the cosy status quo, the better off rugby will be.

Laying aside what the mission of ERC is for the moment. People from all sides of this debate recognise how the HEC contributes in helping condition players for test rugby. Including those of PRL.

i do not agree at all. the only thing that conditions people for test rugby is test rugby. i can see how for the celtalian leagues, only playing in the Rabo would make them feel woefully physically unprepared for 6N and RWC. but i dont feel the same way about AP or top14. look - even Gatland endorses, and roger lewis encourages, welsh squad players to go play for teams that are going to be playing day in day out in top14 and AP. the only difference is the domestic league, they all are as likely to play HC.

An International team is 15 players up front, 23 players including the bench, 30 something for an International series squad.

Of Course France and England can afford to find players of note operating below HEC levels that are potentially good enough to play International.  Of course that situation arises - 12 teams is three times 4.  4 is all some of us have!  Many of you keep and keep on forgetting that simple point.

The Welsh - well they might not succeed in HEC (to date) but they certainly aren't starved of HEC quality sides in their League.  They learn how to compete against those sides as individual players - they learn their trade against top quality HEC sides.

The Irish - our downturn in fortunes isn't exactly something that has been going on for years.  We assumed a certain coach and things began to go downhill - English teams know all about the connection of coach and downtimes.  Nothing to do with the quality of HEC players not being good enough - indeed the HEC players suffered because the International coaching operation was sub-standard to the systems they came from at their Provinces.

HEC matters - it matters to clubs because of earning potential.  
It matters to coaches because they are all ambitious, and many of them (not all of them) have an eye on an International future.  Cotter, Schmidt most recent noteworthy ones.
And it most certainly matters to players who want to put themselves into the frame for International selection.
English clubs perenially in HEC helps English International rugby select many (if not all) of its players - fact.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:According company details the purpose of the European Rugby Cup Ltd is: 'The promotion of rugby union football'.

The purpose of Premier Rugby Limited is:
"To promote and foster the interest of the member clubs of the company."

actually, i call BS on this sin e. Huge BS unless you can back it up with ERC corporate charter or the like. it's sole role is the promotion and commercialisation of european club rugby (with no requirement to even make sure that fringe nations outside the 6N can even afford to play in the competition)

Its what it says on the duedil site in the company description.  (www.duedil.com)

Don't think that aim of commercialisation of european rugby would wash with the Irish tax authorities as it is listed as a tax exempt company.

that is rubbish. somebody at duedil wrote that. it doesnt make any profit so why the hell is it relevant whether they are tax exempt? and given that they distribute all their revenues pre-tax to the different national unions, in addition to tax being irrelevant, this is 100% compatible with the commercialisation of european CLUB rugby.

stop with your (depending which one) inaccurate, misleading, misquoted or completely wrong posts.

quinsforever wrote:

even Gatland endorses, and roger lewis encourages, welsh squad players to go play for teams that are going to be playing day in day out in top14 and AP. the only difference is the domestic league, they all are as likely to play HC.

Does Gatland not see what people like you have seen? Wales International doesn't even need HEC to win 6N cups according to some of you. HEC is irrelevent to them even though it's standards of intensity are higher than AP. Weird logic going on here. Go get yourselves to AP and Top14 Welsh guys, you obviously need to play against stronger opposition than the Irish Provinces.

SecretFly wrote:An International team is 15 players up front, 23 players including the bench, 30 something for an International series squad.

Of Course France and England can afford to find players of note operating below HEC levels that are potentially good enough to play International.  Of course that situation arises - 12 teams is three times 4.  4 is all some of us have!  Many of you keep and keep on forgetting that simple point.

The Welsh - well they might not succeed in HEC (to date) but they certainly aren't starved of HEC quality sides in their League.  They learn how to compete against those sides as individual players - they learn their trade against top quality HEC sides.

The Irish - our downturn in fortunes isn't exactly something that has been going on for years.  We assumed a certain coach and things began to go downhill - English teams know all about the connection of coach and downtimes.  Nothing to do with the quality of HEC players not being good enough - indeed the HEC players suffered because the International coaching operation was sub-standard to the systems they came from at their Provinces.

HEC matters - it matters to clubs because of earning potential.  
It matters to coaches because they are all ambitious, and many of them (not all of them) have an eye on an International future.  Cotter, Schmidt most recent noteworthy ones.
And it most certainly matters to players who want to put themselves into the frame for International selection.
English clubs perenially in HEC helps English International rugby select many (if not all) of its players - fact.

and look at England's lack of success

SecretFly wrote:An International team is 15 players up front, 23 players including the bench, 30 something for an International series squad.

No wonder English teams have a habit of being man-shamed by Irish sides up front. How many do you have in the backs to explain the man-shaming there?

from ERC's own website

"ERC has one guiding ambition.
To lead European club rugby to unparalleled levels of popularity and profile..."

sounds exactly like commercialisation to me. "popularity and profile" sounds like PC speak for money. bit like "tired and emotional" back in the day.

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

even Gatland endorses, and roger lewis encourages, welsh squad players to go play for teams that are going to be playing day in day out in top14 and AP. the only difference is the domestic league, they all are as likely to play HC.

Does Gatland not see what people like you have seen?  Wales International doesn't even need HEC to win 6N cups according to some of you.  HEC is irrelevent to them even though it's standards of intensity are higher than AP.  Weird logic going on here.  Go get yourselves to AP and Top14 Welsh guys, you obviously need to play against stronger opposition than the Irish Provinces.

yes. bit of a glaring logical flaw to your argument SF.

irish provinces rarely turn up in the Rabo because they dont need to. weren't glasgow top until a week ago?

gatland sees exactly and precisely what we have seen. the rabo is rubbish. he even said as much...here

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3825_9019878,00.html

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:An International team is 15 players up front, 23 players including the bench, 30 something for an International series squad.

No wonder English teams have a habit of being man-shamed by Irish sides up front. How many do you have in the backs to explain the man-shaming there?

LOL - long live Brian Moore...  

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:Wanting something and deserving something are very different things quins.

pretty clear that the average quality of teams in the HC will go up is the weakest 3 or 4 from the Rabo are dropped. I would say that fits into my understanding of deserve.

But thats at cross-purposes with a lot of different, worthy purposes of the tournament that have been explained many times. It's not just about the best rugby its also about preparing players for test level, growing the game across all the nations involved and hopefully one day somehow other nations. This is what the Unions represent, a less blinkered view than just box office. My understanding of deserve is that Italy and Scotland deserve to benefit just as much from this as England and France. We deserve to have a strong international game that benefits from club competition as opposed to being undermined by it and we deserve a competition that can be realistically contested by a number of sides.

you're joking right? none of these goals are even mentioned within the ERC. it is a company set up to make money for the members of the closed club. the fact you view it as an arena to test players doesnt have anything to do with the mission of the tournament.

the sooner they pass this tournament to an organiser with a proper mandate of growth rather than preserving the cosy status quo, the better off rugby will be.

Laying aside what the mission of ERC is for the moment. People from all sides of this debate recognise how the HEC contributes in helping condition players for test rugby. Including those of PRL.

Do we, or is this a myth. What is the correlation between the Irish provincial successes and their International achievements? How does the relative failure of the Welsh Regions in HC (and Amlin) lead to the relative success of the Welsh team? How do English players like Joe Launchberry and Christian Wade get even a sniff of international honours when they've never played in HC? Toby Faletau - how good is he and what's his HC record?

Fair question. No. It isn't a myth. The HEC is an obvious step up from any of the 3 leagues, and comes closest to being test level. True that Wales have been performing well against 6N sides, and true that Ireland haven't been great, but then other factors come into play. Remember, I did say contributes. Coaching, injuries and so on, are also factors. The Saints are a good team, and one of the top AP sides, but I doubt anyone would argue against the fact that their HEC game against Leinster was a step up for them. I'm certain the Saints will want make amends for their performance, but to do so they will have to step up to a level themselves. Win or lose, that experience alone helps prepare players for the intensity of test level rugby.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:An International team is 15 players up front, 23 players including the bench, 30 something for an International series squad.

Of Course France and England can afford to find players of note operating below HEC levels that are potentially good enough to play International.  Of course that situation arises - 12 teams is three times 4.  4 is all some of us have!  Many of you keep and keep on forgetting that simple point.

The Welsh - well they might not succeed in HEC (to date) but they certainly aren't starved of HEC quality sides in their League.  They learn how to compete against those sides as individual players - they learn their trade against top quality HEC sides.

The Irish - our downturn in fortunes isn't exactly something that has been going on for years.  We assumed a certain coach and things began to go downhill - English teams know all about the connection of coach and downtimes.  Nothing to do with the quality of HEC players not being good enough - indeed the HEC players suffered because the International coaching operation was sub-standard to the systems they came from at their Provinces.

HEC matters - it matters to clubs because of earning potential.  
It matters to coaches because they are all ambitious, and many of them (not all of them) have an eye on an International future.  Cotter, Schmidt most recent noteworthy ones.
And it most certainly matters to players who want to put themselves into the frame for International selection.
English clubs perenially in HEC helps English International rugby select many (if not all) of its players - fact.

and look at England's lack of success

Lack of success doesn't change what is in the International coach's mind. Lancaster will of course have his eyes on AP - certainly he will. But he sees his players tested harder at HEC level - it's closer to International. And I'm not being smart here, I'm saying the exact same thing about Irish sides. HEC is tougher, it can unearth the true Internationals where domestic Leagues might disguise them and keep them under the radar longer.
It's just the dynamics of ever rising quality levels in rugby union.

SecretFly wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:An International team is 15 players up front, 23 players including the bench, 30 something for an International series squad.

Of Course France and England can afford to find players of note operating below HEC levels that are potentially good enough to play International.  Of course that situation arises - 12 teams is three times 4.  4 is all some of us have!  Many of you keep and keep on forgetting that simple point.

The Welsh - well they might not succeed in HEC (to date) but they certainly aren't starved of HEC quality sides in their League.  They learn how to compete against those sides as individual players - they learn their trade against top quality HEC sides.

The Irish - our downturn in fortunes isn't exactly something that has been going on for years.  We assumed a certain coach and things began to go downhill - English teams know all about the connection of coach and downtimes.  Nothing to do with the quality of HEC players not being good enough - indeed the HEC players suffered because the International coaching operation was sub-standard to the systems they came from at their Provinces.

HEC matters - it matters to clubs because of earning potential.  
It matters to coaches because they are all ambitious, and many of them (not all of them) have an eye on an International future.  Cotter, Schmidt most recent noteworthy ones.
And it most certainly matters to players who want to put themselves into the frame for International selection.
English clubs perenially in HEC helps English International rugby select many (if not all) of its players - fact.

and look at England's lack of success

Lack of success doesn't change what is in the International coach's mind.  Lancaster will of course have his eyes on AP - certainly he will.  But he sees his players tested harder at HEC level - it's closer to International.  And I'm not being smart here, I'm saying the exact same thing about Irish sides.  HEC is tougher, it can unearth the true Internationals where domestic Leagues might disguise them and keep them under the radar longer.
It's just the dynamics of ever rising quality levels in rugby union.

and if the average quality of the HC is improved, and sensible seeding avoids joke groups, then according to you this should be even more the case, no? so why are people fighting it still with some of the rubbish comments here. not yours SF to be fair.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:According company details the purpose of the European Rugby Cup Ltd is: 'The promotion of rugby union football'.

The purpose of Premier Rugby Limited is:
"To promote and foster the interest of the member clubs of the company."

actually, i call BS on this sin e. Huge BS unless you can back it up with ERC corporate charter or the like. it's sole role is the promotion and commercialisation of european club rugby (with no requirement to even make sure that fringe nations outside the 6N can even afford to play in the competition)

Its what it says on the duedil site in the company description.  (www.duedil.com)

Don't think that aim of commercialisation of european rugby would wash with the Irish tax authorities as it is listed as a tax exempt company.

that is rubbish. somebody at duedil wrote that. it doesnt make any profit so why the hell is it relevant whether they are tax exempt? and given that they distribute all their revenues pre-tax to the different national unions, in addition to tax being irrelevant, this is 100% compatible with the commercialisation of european CLUB rugby.

stop with your (depending which one) inaccurate, misleading, misquoted or completely wrong posts.

It takes in more than it spends, so yes its making a profit. It had 9M cash at the end of the year.

You think some bloke in duedil made that bit up about the ERC? More than likely someone looked at the articles of association and that is what they saw.

Anyway, ERC Rugby Ltd is listed as tax exempt, even if they make a profit or not and they would not get that if they were a for profit company.

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

even Gatland endorses, and roger lewis encourages, welsh squad players to go play for teams that are going to be playing day in day out in top14 and AP. the only difference is the domestic league, they all are as likely to play HC.

Does Gatland not see what people like you have seen?  Wales International doesn't even need HEC to win 6N cups according to some of you.  HEC is irrelevent to them even though it's standards of intensity are higher than AP.  Weird logic going on here.  Go get yourselves to AP and Top14 Welsh guys, you obviously need to play against stronger opposition than the Irish Provinces.

yes. bit of a glaring logical flaw to your argument SF.

irish provinces rarely turn up in the Rabo because they dont need to. weren't glasgow top until a week ago?

gatland sees exactly and precisely what we have seen. the rabo is rubbish. he even said as much...here

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3825_9019878,00.html

Spoken like a man who never watches it.  Good man, didn't expect you to.  But you do listen to the English press propaganda about Pro12, I will grant you that  

The Rabo is dangerous enough for your boys (PRL) to want to clip its wings.  Enough please.  This is becoming a Monty Python event.  

On Gatland.  Ah one memory from him - a recent one, a funny one to me.  

He was in the Sky studio for the Leinster v Northampton game.  Did you see it?  And Will Greenwood mischevously isolated O'Driscoll for special praise only to get a nostrilly "Yeah, f**k you too, Will" snort from Gatland.  Will enjoyed that but that's the mood Gatland is in.  No, the League that includes dinosaurs like O'Driscoll and the whimish Leinster outfit isn't high enough standard for his lads.

By the way, thanks too for proving the insults about our League don'tneed PRL stamps of approval

quinsforever wrote:from ERC's own website

"ERC has one guiding ambition.
To lead European club rugby to unparalleled levels of popularity and profile..."

sounds exactly like commercialisation to me. "popularity and profile" sounds like PC speak for money. bit like "tired and emotional" back in the day.

Definition: Popularity is a social phenomenon that dictates who or what is best liked, sometimes referred to as in vogue.

Profile:
a short article giving a description of a person or organisation.

How you can read its all about money from that, I just don't know.

Just as an aside - I see the audit fees of the PRL cost 78K. The ERC was audited for 25K.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:from ERC's own website

"ERC has one guiding ambition.
To lead European club rugby to unparalleled levels of popularity and profile..."

sounds exactly like commercialisation to me. "popularity and profile" sounds like PC speak for money. bit like "tired and emotional" back in the day.

Definition: Popularity is a social phenomenon that dictates who or what is best liked, sometimes referred to as in vogue.

Profile:
a short article giving a description of a person or organisation.

How you can read its all about money from that, I just don't know.

Just as an aside - I see the audit fees of the PRL cost 78K. The ERC was audited for 25K.

LOL. you win selective misquoting of the year award. hands down.

quinsforever wrote:
and if the average quality of the HC is improved, and sensible seeding avoids joke groups, then according to you this should be even more the case, no? so why are people fighting it still with some of the rubbish comments here. not yours SF to be fair.

I'm saying every nation that would face each other in an annual contest called the 6N has a right to attempt to get their players up to speed in the HEC. The right to attempt to get their players up to speed. Fundamental as that. Italian sides have a right to meet Leicester or Toulon or Leinster (with their non-Pro12 players playing ) They have a right to that if English and French have the perenial right to meet each other at club level in the same competition.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:According company details the purpose of the European Rugby Cup Ltd is: 'The promotion of rugby union football'.

The purpose of Premier Rugby Limited is:
"To promote and foster the interest of the member clubs of the company."

actually, i call BS on this sin e. Huge BS unless you can back it up with ERC corporate charter or the like. it's sole role is the promotion and commercialisation of european club rugby (with no requirement to even make sure that fringe nations outside the 6N can even afford to play in the competition)

Its what it says on the duedil site in the company description.  (www.duedil.com)

Don't think that aim of commercialisation of european rugby would wash with the Irish tax authorities as it is listed as a tax exempt company.

that is rubbish. somebody at duedil wrote that. it doesnt make any profit so why the hell is it relevant whether they are tax exempt? and given that they distribute all their revenues pre-tax to the different national unions, in addition to tax being irrelevant, this is 100% compatible with the commercialisation of european CLUB rugby.

stop with your (depending which one) inaccurate, misleading, misquoted or completely wrong posts.

It takes in more than it spends, so yes its making a profit. It had 9M cash at the end of the year.

You think some bloke in duedil made that bit up about the ERC?  More than likely someone looked at the articles of association and that is what they saw.

Anyway, ERC Rugby Ltd is listed as tax exempt, even if they make a profit or not and they would not get that if they were a for profit company.

the sole role of ERC is to make as much money as possible for some, but not all of the unions/leagues that take part in European competitions. they make zero profit, which they clearly consistently do, because they pay out all the revenues to those unions/leagues. that is EXACTLY consistent with making as much money as possible for those unions/leagues.

give it up.

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
and if the average quality of the HC is improved, and sensible seeding avoids joke groups, then according to you this should be even more the case, no? so why are people fighting it still with some of the rubbish comments here. not yours SF to be fair.

I'm saying every nation that would face each other in an annual contest called the 6N has a right to attempt to get their players up to speed in the HEC.  The right to attempt to get their players up to speed.  Fundamental as that.  Italian sides have a right to meet Leicester or Toulon or Leinster (with their non-Pro12 players playing )  They have a right to that if English and French have the perenial right to meet each other at club level in the same competition.

Why just the 6N? It's supposed to be a European Cup, isn't it?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
and if the average quality of the HC is improved, and sensible seeding avoids joke groups, then according to you this should be even more the case, no? so why are people fighting it still with some of the rubbish comments here. not yours SF to be fair.

I'm saying every nation that would face each other in an annual contest called the 6N has a right to attempt to get their players up to speed in the HEC.  The right to attempt to get their players up to speed.  Fundamental as that.  Italian sides have a right to meet Leicester or Toulon or Leinster (with their non-Pro12 players playing )  They have a right to that if English and French have the perenial right to meet each other at club level in the same competition.

Why just the 6N? It's supposed to be a European Cup, isn't it?

I'll leave the planning for Russia, Georgia, Romania and those kind of sides in your capable hands, Dubbelyew  But I warn you........they'll be sides "that don't deserve to be in the same competition as sides of a much higher standard"  That's roughly what the HEC debate sounds like, isn't it?

Treviso ain't worth a slot in HEC but let's have Russia added to the 6N?  By all means, let's add them then.  But if they're added then I'll be demanding that at least two of their clubs get into the HEC too.  

That's right - the more 6N become 7, 8, 9 or 10N, the more my demands will go up for clubs from those nations to be added to HEC. That means that nations with most auto entries will have to sacrifice those positions one by one as the number of Nations increase.

And just to be clear.  NO - not an Amlin cup - the HEC.  If these sides (including Italy) are going to be used as crash test dummies in an expanded 6N, then they deserve their HEC to prepare for the drubbings.

Hmmmm...HEC is becoming very, very big!

Champions League has more than 50 countries competing in and trying to compete in

I also want to see more opportunities for Georgia, Russia et al. ERC competitions, or whoever runs them, can play a part in that but its going to take time.

I think if every European nation commits to play at least one test match a year against another Euro team outside the 6N we'll be taking a big first step. Tbh, that means that the Pacific Islanders will miss out on tests... we need a joined up approach with the SH in this regard to ensure they also get the same amount of gametime. Probably extending the international window in autumn will be needed.

But the most important thing is to get 6N sides playing other European test nations so we can begin the conversation about opening up the Six Nations itself in the future and raise their level. But I really feel its not possible because they need a professional structure behind it and they need to be able to keep their best players in their country to make that feasible... any decent stars breaking through at test level will move to other countries.

The idea of having professional Romanian, Georgian etc. sides in the European Cup alongside the best of the Six Nations is wonderful but its still a long way off- and I'm not sure its even possible.

quinsforever wrote:Champions League has more than 50 countries competing in and trying to compete in

And the richest leagues are limited to just four places each.

quinsforever wrote:Champions League has more than 50 countries competing in and trying to compete in

That's a big number............... ; it'll be unwieldy!!! - but let's do it then.  

But of course, the harsh reality is that when you and Dubbelyew talk about an expanded competition, you of course mean a tiered competition which again announces the idea that some nations will again be more equal than others.  

There is always a solution that would mean five or six English and French clubs get to do the BIG one!  
It's like a dice that keeps landing on six - no matter how you throw it or from what height.  Always six apiece for the Franglos - and the rest divided out amongst ever decreasing Leagues of importance that nobody cares about in European TV viewing terms.

Notch wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Champions League has more than 50 countries competing in and trying to compete in

And the richest leagues are limited to just four places each.

and the weakest leagues have to go through several rounds of qualifying just to get in

Notch wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Champions League has more than 50 countries competing in and trying to compete in

And the richest leagues are limited to just four places each.

its 100% determined by the past performance of representatives of the leagues in the competition., not by money. and its up to 5 places for the most successful by the way. but everyone has a shot. everyone. and if the outlier nationality clubs even make it into the group stage it is a massive payday for them. that is motivation. that is what the HC completely lacks. no aspiration other that for the existing heavyweights. keep everyone else in the amlin aka "play and go bust if you're not already making money" for the non 6N club sides. what kind of freaking motivation is that?!?!?!