If the Welsh leave the Rabo?

First topic message reminder :

If the Welsh leave the Rabo what is the alternative for the other teams?
Can they actually leave as surely there is contract issues but primarily how will we fill the gap, do we stick with 8 teams and go to three rounds rather than two or add more teams from the other countries, or perhaps add Eastern European teams.

geoff998rugby wrote:But the Regions do not own Parc y Scarlets or Liberty Stadium.

Part Council part Private I believe.
Do these grounds meet the PRL criteria for entry into the Aviva.
If they don't then them getting places ahead of Championship teams that meet the criteria could open up another can of worms.

Also the CAP and Rodney are owned by the club team not the Region I believe. How would ownership transfer and I would guess Newport and Cardiff would go under as clubs.
WRU would not sanction Regions playing on grounds owned by its members.

Lawyers are going to make a mint of of this

They have long term leases, if the WRU want to pay millions to get them out of those stadia then feel free to offer.   

Well that might get round the Cardiff and Newport situations but what about the other two, possibly, not meeting AP's entry criteria?

No9 wrote:Don't do anything by halves in Wales do we... 1st our star players leave Wales, now our top 4 clubs going to leave Welsh rugby....

Half-arsed and half-baked are phrases that have sprung to mind over the years.

Out of curiousity, in what way does the Parc y Scarlets not meet the entry? Same with the Liberty. Remember the Criteria has changed following the London Welsh case. If they could get in the Ospreys could.

But again, there's no point picking on these issues. IF it does happen, it will happen with the WRU, RFU, English clubs (in both Tiers) and the Regions on board and agreeing. So the IRB don't come into it. The Minimum Criteria don't come into it. None of that does.

Do London Irish or Wasps meet the criteria - their situation is the same as Ospreys who I beleive did not meet the criteria but were allowed to stay as they were already there.

For Scarlets the only issue is ground ownership

Bottom line I suppose is what are the current criteria?

We don't really know but London Welsh got promoted sharing with Oxford. You never needed to own the ground. You were supposed to have first dibs on the ground (which Ospreys definately don't but would think Scarlets did). But with Welsh they challenged because Irish didn't have the agreement (and possibly Wasps). I know they've been changed to meet the standards require by the court. Maybe they just need to have suitable contingency plans in case of a clash.

But it wouldn't happen with them just being put in. There would be some form of ring-fencing and the Minimum Criteria would be irrelevant. There would be a whole new thing.

God this is depressing

How these people find themselves in what I would call a dream job - living working breathing rugby - and manage to c....k it up so badly

I think each country has fault in this, with some more that others.

My suggestions

 
Rabo - needs to be fixed, as can be a little bit of a 'after thought' - needs re-legation to make it more interesting (and teams focus on it) - Link it to a division 2 Rabo league (same countries) and let them fight it out

HC / RCC / 'Pis ss in a cup' cup - Competitive Rabo, now means that teams have to fight for it. Only top 8 teams get it - sod it, if a Scotland team does not get into top 8, then they do not get in - nothing for free in this world

Money split - All TV money goes into the prize pot and the better you get the more you win - sod this split by region

Ownership - Me

Riskysports wrote:
I think each country has fault in this, with some more that others.

Really? In what way would this mess be attributed to the Irish, Scots or Italians?

This mess has been caused by the English and Welsh Unions failing to implement sustainable domestic structures which facilitate both the needs of the club and international game at the advent of professionalism and indirectly by the growing financial disparity between the French clubs and everyone else in Europe.

I don't think the Rabo is a bad league or rather it wasn't until the regions started going down the toilet. We have 4 good teams in the top 4, 3 of which are amongst the top tier in Europe. If we had at least two competitive regions from Wales I would suggest we would have as much if not more competition at the top of any league. What I do agree with is the meritocracy angle and qualification for Europe based on league position. 

Adding another league or relegation will just make for cannon fodder when at least now we have zebre improving massively and connacht just beating Toulouse in France

Why does the Rabo need relegation? American football doesn't. super 15 doesn't. does the Currie cup?

Relegation only exists to facilitate a demand for other teams to join - which the Rabo doesn't have. If Zebre or Connacht drop out, who replaces them? An Isle of man select XV?

The Rabo is a great league which contains some of the best players in Europe. Greater financial rewards which can only come from TV money is what's needed, maybe extending the play off to the top 6 might help too.

rodders wrote:Relegation only exists to facilitate a demand for other teams to join - which the Rabo doesn't have. If Zebre or Connacht drop out, who replaces them? An Isle of man select XV?

The Rabo is a great league which contains some of the best players in Europe. Greater financial rewards which can only come from TV money is what's needed, maybe extending the play off to the top 6 might help too.

Yeah but the strength of the AP and Top14 is directly due to their fight to stay in the top flight every year. Think of last year’s HC final, the mealy mouthed soliders of destiny Toulon turned up, tempered in the fires of battle with such heavyweights as Bordeaux Bègles and Agen and having fought for their survival every single tantalizingly entertaining step along the way.

And think of poor Leicester Tigers, cowered annually by the terrifying fear that if they slip up against the might of Worcester Warriors or the the titans of Sale Sharks they’ll be slogging it out in the NL1 with the likes of Coventry, Esher or Henley Hawks.

Relegation is what has made England and France the dominant forces in world rugby that they are today

Apart from england is not a dominant force. the AP is a poor league prociding poor rugby and england haven't won a lot for a long time. 6N or WC. Relegation makes teams look short term. Buy in established players not grow thier own. Must win every game - cannot afford to look for the future. Why is Irish rugby so strong now? because of no relegation has allowed them to plan for the future and develop great players.

The Top 14 is pretty garbage to be honest. For all the huge names in there it really comes down to a load of massive packs rolling about the place and teams kicking the leather off the ball.

the oft repeated phrase seems to be: adopt our way and you'll be better (PRL v Pro12).

Funny as it's the Pro12 that have been dominating Europe for the last number of years.

The two realities just don't compute.

AP better quality rugby?  AP second ranked side obliterated by the Pro12 one.

No, correct there is no guarantee that will happen at the weekend! ...but's it has been happening - year in and year out for a good while now.

Just what about the AP would invite the Pro12 to think the AP have their systems running to perfection and that they should be mimicked? Just why should Pro12 remotely follow APs blueprint of 'success'.

The condundrum really actually is that the sides of Leagues that think MONEY is winning are actually struggling - and the sides that think WINNING in winning are succeeding.

I think mick may have been taking the .....

You know what I mean. 

We are potentially a step closer to a British and Irish league or indeed a European super league but the only format that could work would be a divisional structure

TJ wrote:Apart from england is not a dominant force.  the AP is a poor league prociding poor rugby and england haven't won a lot for a long time.  6N or WC. Relegation makes teams look short term.  Buy in established players not grow thier own.  Must win every game - cannot afford to look for the future.  Why is Irish rugby so strong now?  because of no relegation has allowed them to plan for the future and develop great players.

Well if you look over the last 1 year, 2 years, 4 years (whichever you like) then you'll find that in terms of results England is the best performing home nation, despite us England fans not considering it a particularly strong period. And who are these established players we regularly bring in? I'd say there are only a handful at the most. I think you would struggle to name me 10 and considering there are around 420 first team squad players in the AP this number would need to be around 50 to be significant.

I won't deny Ireland are performing incredibly at club level but can you honestly say this has made them strong on the international stage?

I cant believe how bads the T14 has been this year - utter dross

Only 7 away wins in 91 games ! and 3 them were at Bairritz.
The number of away teams even bothering has been very low

The word crap comes to mind - imo the least interesting of the 3 leagues by a country mile

Toadfish wrote:.

Well if you look over the last 1 year, 2 years, 4 years (whichever you like) then you'll find that in terms of results England is the best performing home nation,

Really? How many WCs? How many 6N. how many european cups? Scotland has beaten more SH teams than england has.

The solution for Pro12 is for all its members not to seek to jump ship...but to actually follow the Irish rather than the English blueprint much more closely (I'm looking at you, proud Welsh regions)  Welsh regions giving more of themselves to Irish structures would do two things:

It would make them much more money!  Fact! Winning makes money! Even though they don't believe it now.
And - it would make the Pro12 even more potent as a League that provides winners to the European framework rather than talkers.

Our goal should not be to try to placate the English and the french but to really attack both Leagues and offer Europe a much more heady mix of SH style rugby for the true affectionados sitting under their European chimney pots to watch and be mesmerised by.

And all of us together have those tools to do that.  Then we demand the broadcasting attention rather than the rumblebutt sides from France and England.  Then we make our demands for how Europe is carved up.

There is too much running scared in this debate.  Pro12 should stand its ground and fight.  

It's already a league the others fear, whether they are prepared to admit that publically or not.  But it's only really beginning, if we held together and allowed our systems to show Europe what Welsh and Irish style fast rugby can give to Europe...we'd be the ones in the driving seat for the hearts and minds of those chimney pots we all hear about.

Agreed Geoff 

Toadfish

If we actually look at the last four years Ireland has a grand slam and an RWC QF. 
In the same period England has a championship and an RWC QF. 

England are unquestionably a better team at present but that could be argued is due to Johnson going before Kidney did. Im not sure itsq entirely relevant anyway.

Toadfish wrote:
Well if you look over the last 1 year, 2 years, 4 years (whichever you like) then you'll find that in terms of results England is the best performing home nation, despite us England fans not considering it a particularly strong period.

Well that depends on the measurable you use because with 3 championships in said period Wales would have a case to be the best performing side.

Ireland have been a declining force in recent seasons, in contrast to the provincial sides. On recent evidence there are green shoots of a recovery showing through on both fronts.

TJ wrote:

Toadfish wrote:.

Well if you look over the last 1 year, 2 years, 4 years (whichever you like) then you'll find that in terms of results England is the best performing home nation,

Really? How many WCs?  How many 6N. how many european cups? Scotland has beaten more SH teams than england has.

No you haven't.

rodders wrote:

Toadfish wrote:
Well if you look over the last 1 year, 2 years, 4 years (whichever you like) then you'll find that in terms of results England is the best performing home nation, despite us England fans not considering it a particularly strong period.

Well that depends on the measurable you use because with 3 championships in said period Wales would have a case to be the best performing side.

Ireland have been a declining force in recent seasons, in contrast to the provincial sides. On recent evidence there are green shoots of a recovery showing through on both fronts.    

It does indeed depend on the measure but I was looking at (admittedly simplistic) results.  I looked at the last 4 years which should be a good enough cycle so that everyone has played everyone a fairly even number of times and England has won 65% of matches over that period, the next closest is Wales with 46%.  Given this is has been a golden period for Wales with their six nations/grand slam titles and world cup semi I think it's a reasonable measure.  

As I say I'm not cherry picking, you can look at the last year, 2 years, 3 years and England still come out on top.  No it's not a perfect measure and yes I would rather we won some more things in there but clearly shows we aren't in bad shape compared to the other home nations, despite most fans even considering it a pretty poor period for us.

Toadfish wrote:

TJ wrote:

Toadfish wrote:.

Well if you look over the last 1 year, 2 years, 4 years (whichever you like) then you'll find that in terms of results England is the best performing home nation,

Really? How many WCs?  How many 6N. how many european cups? Scotland has beaten more SH teams than england has.

No you haven't.

really? Beat Aus twice and SA once did we not. 3 wins. England got more than that? aus this year and NZ last year. More I have forgotton about? anyway the main point is correct. Look over the last few years and england have a fairly mediocre record. Certainly hard to make the case they are the best performing NH nation. How many WC? How many 6N? How many european cups? even beaten finalists are hard to find in the cups.

Perhaps the English professional tier should be four teams. Fifteen of the current Test twenty three should be put into one team and call it a club. The other three clubs could be groomed with the Saxon players split amongst them and the RFU could get on bended knee to beg entry to the R12.

Perhaps that would make some folk on here happy.   

No I don't think it is an accurate measure.

The 6N is the one constant in the NH calendar, everything else varies depending on the fixtures, so therefore is the best yardstick. On this Wales have clearly been superior.

England have more depth so their win loss ratio is going to be better over a given period when you allow for summer tours when there are often players rested or injured.

How you arrange your rugby below International rugby is entirely up to you Recwatcher - be my guest go ahead.

We have a nation of 7 million supporting 4 top flight teams

You have a nation of 50+million supporting 12 top flight teams - you really should be able to compete   


Also hardly Leinsters fault for being successful

rodders wrote:No I don't think it is an accurate measure.

The 6N is the one constant in the NH calendar, everything else varies depending on the fixtures, so therefore is the best yardstick. On this Wales have clearly been superior.

England have more depth so their win loss ratio is going to be better over a given period when you allow for summer tours when there are often players rested or injured.

Hey it's a subjective measure so think what you like and I'm not trying to force my opinion down anyone's throat. Just responding to a jibe which I probably should have ignored.

For me though I would never want the six nations to be the yardstick, it's too narrow minded. No that doesn't mean I don't want to win it every time but you can't be that insular. I'll stand by my stats though that 4 years is a good enough sample and to be 19% better than your nearest competitor and highest ranked out of the home nations is enough for me. Since you bring it up though if you combine the results in the six nations for the last 4 years England also come out on top...

Recwatcher wrote:Perhaps the English professional tier should be four teams.  Fifteen of the current Test twenty three should be put into one team and call it a club. The other three clubs could be groomed with the Saxon players split amongst them and the RFU could get on bended knee to beg entry to the R12.

Perhaps that would make some folk on here happy.   

Do it...for sure, that would uncomplicate things.... and then ask France to do the same. Yep, regionalise - it's the only solution to everyone feeling they have an equal slice of any admin/participation pie. You think we'd all run scared away from that one? I'd welcome it.

I entirely agree Geoff but some appear to want a 'level' playing field so surely that is the best way. It would mean a euro competition wouldn't happen because there would be no critical mass in numbers of teams to create a euro competition, but the RFU could easily fund four teams not to worry.

Oh... wait a minute, that would mean the RFU would then have an unfair economic advantage....

Of all the bad excuses the English have come up with the whole "you only have 4 teams" has to be the worst one yet. Leicester had just as many lions as Leinster had.

Just look at the different in popualtion you can support 12 teams we cant.

Go ahead and make it 4 teams that is your progrative but dont come winging about unfair advantage.

Leinster may well have a high % of Internationals but they are hardly unbeatable and both Munster and Ulster are perfectly capable of beating them on their day. There may be a difference but it isn't much.
 
Or are you suggesting its not fair all the Irish provinces are too good ?
(Then again you might have a point Connaught did put Toulouse to the sword in their own back yard   )

TJ wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

TJ wrote:

Toadfish wrote:.

Well if you look over the last 1 year, 2 years, 4 years (whichever you like) then you'll find that in terms of results England is the best performing home nation,

Really? How many WCs?  How many 6N. how many european cups? Scotland has beaten more SH teams than england has.

No you haven't.

really?  Beat Aus twice and SA once did we not.  3 wins.  England got more than that?  aus this year and NZ last year.  More I have forgotton about?  anyway the main point is correct.  Look over the last few years and england have a fairly mediocre record.  Certainly hard to make the case they are the best performing NH nation.  How many WC?  How many 6N?  How many european cups?  even beaten finalists are hard to find in the cups.

Over the last 4 years you've only beaten Australia once I believe making that 2 wins. We've got 4 wins and a draw so yes, that is better. Still not good enough but better. As for the rest, see my other responses.

Recwatcher wrote:I entirely agree Geoff but some appear to want a 'level' playing field so surely that is the best way. It would mean a euro competition wouldn't happen because there would be no critical mass in numbers of teams to create a euro competition, but the RFU could easily fund four teams not to worry.

Oh... wait a minute,  that would mean the RFU would then have an unfair economic advantage....

What are you on about Rec with the critical mass lingo?  4 English regions, 4 French ones, 4 Irish ones, 4 Welsh ones, perhaps 1 Scottish one, 1 Italian one

And if that's not enough...I'm sure a few other exotics would dance at the chance of being part of the party?  They are all out there, aren't they?  Just ready, willing and able to be given the green light to join us?  Or so the publicity goes about widening the net on Nations involved in an overly exclusive private members club. No problems at all. Proceed.

I take my hat off LF4L, a diversionary response using a once every four year invitation side. I like it.

Results come and go in cycles.  I suggest four teams with players predominantly with international experience to create the intense competition folk want in one league and that is not good enough either.

Toadfish wrote:
Hey it's a subjective measure so think what you like and I'm not trying to force my opinion down anyone's throat.  Just responding to a jibe which I probably should have ignored.

For me though I would never want the six nations to be the yardstick, it's too narrow minded.  No that doesn't mean I don't want to win it every time but you can't be that insular.  I'll stand by my stats though that 4 years is a good enough sample and to be 19% better than your nearest competitor and highest ranked out of the home nations is enough for me.  Since you bring it up though if you combine the results in the six nations for the last 4 years England also come out on top...

That's the point though, there are a number of subjective measures - the 6N, IRB rankings, win loss ratio etc. - and they are all flawed to some degree. The 6N may be insular but it's consistent format makes it the best yardstick in my opinion and the table rarely lies.

By contrast the AI's and Summer tours are very inconsistent due to the overlapping seasons in the NH and SH and varying fixture list.

If you want to manipulate the stats - 4 years as an arbitrary figure for example - to help you believe England have been the dominant force in Europe then that's fair enough but I think most neutrals would concede that Wales 6N results in recent years (plus dominance of the lions squad) put them to the top.

Toadfish wrote:

TJ wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

TJ wrote:

Toadfish wrote:.

Well if you look over the last 1 year, 2 years, 4 years (whichever you like) then you'll find that in terms of results England is the best performing home nation,

Really? How many WCs?  How many 6N. how many european cups? Scotland has beaten more SH teams than england has.

No you haven't.

really?  Beat Aus twice and SA once did we not.  3 wins.  England got more than that?  aus this year and NZ last year.  More I have forgotton about?  anyway the main point is correct.  Look over the last few years and england have a fairly mediocre record.  Certainly hard to make the case they are the best performing NH nation.  How many WC?  How many 6N?  How many european cups?  even beaten finalists are hard to find in the cups.

Over the last 4 years you've only beaten Australia once I believe making that 2 wins.  We've got 4 wins and a draw so yes, that is better.  Still not good enough but better.  As for the rest, see my other responses.

Scotland beat Aus home and away - was it more than 4 years ago - I don't think so.  If you think england is the best performing country then its a funny best performing when they haven't won anything ( or was it one 6N) compared to wales 3.  No european cups etc.  its a record that is better than some countries in one way. worse in others.

Edit - scotlands other victory over aus was nov 2009 so just outside your 4 years

Recwatcher wrote:Perhaps the English professional tier should be four teams.  Fifteen of the current Test twenty three should be put into one team and call it a club. The other three clubs could be groomed with the Saxon players split amongst them and the RFU could get on bended knee to beg entry to the R12.

Perhaps that would make some folk on here happy.   

I would love to see that happen. We'd still hocky ya...

The work being carried out at Cern at the moment - as the particle accelerator gets its rest - is designed to work out the reasons why Irish sides (only four of us in Pro12) win given that the theoretical conclusion is that it has nothing to do with the vague idea that they're good enough to.  
They're trying to find the particle that causes the winning.

Meanwhile, Welsh regions (only four of them in the Pro12) don't have a history of winning in HEC, so they're alright and need no experiments done on the reasons the very same conditions enjoyed by the Irish don't work for them.

It's a tough one.  Brian Cox is in charge so there'll be a docu on it next summer.

Recwatcher wrote:I take my hat off LF4L, a diversionary response using a once every four year invitation side. I like it.

Results come and go in cycles.  I suggest four teams with players predominantly with international experience to create the intense competition folk want in one league and that is not good enough either.

aw you still a little bit upset from the last time Bath came to the Aviva?  

TJ wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

TJ wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

TJ wrote:

Toadfish wrote:.

Well if you look over the last 1 year, 2 years, 4 years (whichever you like) then you'll find that in terms of results England is the best performing home nation,

Really? How many WCs?  How many 6N. how many european cups? Scotland has beaten more SH teams than england has.

No you haven't.

really?  Beat Aus twice and SA once did we not.  3 wins.  England got more than that?  aus this year and NZ last year.  More I have forgotton about?  anyway the main point is correct.  Look over the last few years and england have a fairly mediocre record.  Certainly hard to make the case they are the best performing NH nation.  How many WC?  How many 6N?  How many european cups?  even beaten finalists are hard to find in the cups.

Over the last 4 years you've only beaten Australia once I believe making that 2 wins.  We've got 4 wins and a draw so yes, that is better.  Still not good enough but better.  As for the rest, see my other responses.

Scotland beat Aus home and away - was it more than 4 years ago - I don't think so.  If you think england is the best performing country then its a funny best performing when they haven't won anything ( or was it one 6N) compared to wales 3.  No european cups etc.  its a record that is better than some countries in one way. worse in others.

Edit - scotlands other victory over aus was nov 2009 so just outside your 4 years

According to ESPN stats it was more than 4 years.  Happy to be proved wrong.

Let me ask you a question.  What have South Africa won in the last 4 years?  Nothing I believe.  Does that mean they can't possibly be the 2nd best team in the world right now?  Should that be Wales as they have won some six nations titles?

Recwatcher wrote:I take my hat off LF4L, a diversionary response using a once every four year invitation side. I like it.

Results come and go in cycles.  I suggest four teams with players predominantly with international experience to create the intense competition folk want in one league and that is not good enough either.

You're ignoring the people who are saying Let's do it, Rec! let's do this..write to the PRL or the RFU. Let's not waste anymore time...it's settled, equal rights, mostly equal sides, equal participation rights, equal monies divided. At last the word Equal makes an honest appearance for once.

I believe a South African team won the Currie Cup.

rodders wrote:

Toadfish wrote:
Hey it's a subjective measure so think what you like and I'm not trying to force my opinion down anyone's throat.  Just responding to a jibe which I probably should have ignored.

For me though I would never want the six nations to be the yardstick, it's too narrow minded.  No that doesn't mean I don't want to win it every time but you can't be that insular.  I'll stand by my stats though that 4 years is a good enough sample and to be 19% better than your nearest competitor and highest ranked out of the home nations is enough for me.  Since you bring it up though if you combine the results in the six nations for the last 4 years England also come out on top...

That's the point though, there are a number of subjective measures - the 6N, IRB rankings, win loss ratio etc. - and they are all flawed to some degree. The 6N may be insular but it's consistent format makes it the best yardstick in my opinion and the table rarely lies.

By contrast the AI's and Summer tours are very inconsistent due to the overlapping seasons in the NH and SH and varying fixture list.

If you want to manipulate the stats - 4 years as an arbitrary figure for example - to help you believe England have been the dominant force in Europe then that's fair enough but I think most neutrals would concede that Wales 6N results in recent years (plus dominance of the lions squad) put them to the top.

I told you I didn't manipulate the stats, if you choose any of a 1 to 4 year periods on the basis I am looking at England come out on top. Didn't look any further back. I also caveated that it's not a perfect measure btu neither would be to simply look at the results of the six nations.

toadfish - nov 2009. I am merely pointing out it very subjective which country is the best- thats all

The particle that causes the winning doesn't actually exist Fly, its just been hypothesised to help explain why current models don't explain why some teams win more than others relative to the amount of TV money they generate.

SecretFly wrote:The work being carried out at Cern at the moment - as the particle accelerator gets its rest - is designed to work out the reasons why Irish sides (only four of us in Pro12) win given that the theoretical conclusion is that it has nothing to do with the vague idea that they're good enough to.  
They're trying to find the particle that causes the winning.

Meanwhile, Welsh regions (only four of them in the Pro12) don't have a history of winning in HEC, so they're alright and need no experiments done on the reasons the very same conditions enjoyed by the Irish don't work for them.

It's a tough one.  Brian Cox is in charge so there'll be a docu on it next summer.

The mythical 'paddy' particle!   

Secret, I seem to remember a while back you were against equal money and participation in a euro competition saying it was the thin edge of the wedge.

You may be right but regardless a top down centralised structure is and will be a huge strategic risk which has limits to how far it can be sustainable. The Unions would have you believe there is no alternative but there always is.

The professional era has lifted the lid and there is no going back. Rugby will survive because fans like me enjoy the game, which doesnt always have to have consequences for the state of the nation.

I am starting to ramble like others on here. That's it for me.

Merry Xmas, see you in January when the French back out of the HC.... only joking.... maybe.

Recwatcher wrote:Secret,  I seem to remember a while back you were against equal money and participation in a euro competition saying it was the thin edge of the wedge.  

You may be right but regardless a top down centralised structure is and will be a huge strategic risk which has limits to how far it can be sustainable.  The Unions would have you believe there is no alternative but there always is.

The professional era has lifted the lid and there is no going back. Rugby will survive because fans like me enjoy the game,  which doesnt always have to have consequences for the state of the nation.

I am starting to ramble like others on here. That's it for me.

Merry Xmas, see you in January when the French back out of the HC.... only joking.... maybe.

You seem to remember wrongly, Rec - as in the first instance, the money argument was never really my interest or my arguing cup of tea.  Participation rights amongst nations is my main point (that can generate its own money) - I shy away mostly from the money debate - has little significance for me as long as it's basically a fair enough breakdown.  Not my issue.

On the regionalisation of all European 6 Nations?  Ahhh...so that was only a joke?  You don't really want it or believe in it?  Thought so

Yeah, have a good Christmas...get very drunk, coz I think we'll all need to be in January as I don't think any of this will be settled by then.