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

First topic message reminder :

"Rugby Union is too complicated to understand to attract a mass audience in the first place."

which is the problem for union fans..

because otherwise league or NFL could overtake rugby and kill it.

Off course the reality is it isnt to complicated and by far the best form, but if union doesn't progress(as at the moment it is by far the biggest global rugby type game) others will over take

HammerofThunor wrote:Sorry As. I might be a bit slow but the final word is 'No'.

Oops!!

I am English and a fan of English club rugby.

I'd like a European tournament that involves sides from all of the 6 Nations. But not if it has an in-built bias towards some participants.

I do feel that the European tournaments need a shake up. I would like to see qualification based on being in the top 50% of teams in your country (or league, at a pinch), so that there is meaningful competition for entries and some teams are not gifted the advantage of entry every year. I'd like that balanced by a meaningful second tier competition that teams are excited to play in and fans are excited to follow. I'd be supportive of a third tier competition and potentially of promotion and relegation into or out of it in the long run (ditto the 6 Nations, but that's another matter)

I would like to see the distribution of revenues and commercial control more closely aligned to the unit of cost (that is, it costs teams money to play in the tournament, so the revenues should be aligned to the teams competing and the teams should not be able to be overruled on commercial issues by the whim of a union). For the foreseeable, I think that distribution of money across teams in the top 2 tiers should be even, because it's more important for the leagues as a whole to remain competitive and smoothing income distribution is the best way to do it.

I'd like to see more honesty and attempts at understanding the other position in the debates on here and less assuming the worst intent in others.

It's unclear how much of that will ever happen.

Do I support the PRL? Broadly. From what I can see, they have made some fairly extreme moves, but they have been given little option by the intransigence of the ERC. They have actually made some significant changes happen, and while I do believe they have their own interests at heart I also feel they recognise that they can best fulfil them by developing rugby as widely as possible while not conflicting with their own interests.

I have very little time for the ERC. I think they have handled the negotiations badly and they have acted like spoilt children on occasion (e.g excluding the RFU from last week's meeting, signing the Sky deal in instant response to the BT deal - which effectively made it "us or them" from that point on - rather than having any exploration of what the deal could offer the other ERC members).

I am worried by the FFR. I think they carry too much power and are every bit as capricious as the ERC. If the proposed reformed HEC goes ahead, I can see the other unions regretting ther choice of partner before too long.

Thanks to you too Poorfour.
That's a very well written and informed reply. I'd have been happy with a yes or no answer

I definately understand where both sides of the arguement are coming from and there is far too much unfounded mistrust floating about mingled with conspiracy theories that together create only one thing....a clusterf**k (can I say that one here, even with the stars?)

I have wanted to see changes in the qualification criteria for some time and if it's to the detriment of my own team (Ulster) then so be it but that's sport, highs and lows must be taken with equal regard. Revenues should be fairly distributed on merit as well with success being rewared but at the cost of the developing minnows.

I am a very simple sort of person (no comments please ) and I adore the six nations and heiniken cup. I worship the damn things and just want them to go on for long after I am gone. I do hope we can see a fair outcome to all of this and it can be put where it deserves to be, in the forgotten past.

I feel that the Celtic unions and ERC have argued from a position of principle ("It's a union-run competition and we'll run it along union lines, thank you") and from wanting to defend a position that is advantageous to the Celtic teams. I can understand that, and I would even support a reasonable bias in the interests of ensuring that smaller unions don't get overwhelmed by the larger ones.

But I also think they failed to recognise in time that the clubs had a reasonable complaint about the current structure and some genuine ideas about how it could be addressed, and also that they had reached a point where the best alternative to not getting change was to walk away. The meaningful concessions were only offered after the competing tv deals had been signed, making reconciliation impossible without much wider reform.

I think that if the ERC had compromised before the PRL negotiated the BT deal (the trigger point for which was I think reaching the last year of their ERC notice period), we might have achieved something that would patch things up for a few years.

I remain hopeful that we will eventually get something that is more stable for the long term - but it looks like the chances are it will take several years to achieve.

The big issue for revenue distribution was whether you should get the same base amount for the ACC as for the HEC. The PRL said yes (because they have teams in it) and to help get this they wanted more Pro12 teams in it too. This all appeared to be agreed (although without the TV stuff being sorted it was irrelevant).

As for the HEC and 6N. I'm not a traditionalist...in as many things as possible. If it still serves a purpose then great but not changing because "we've always done it that way" isn't good enough. There are legitimate reasons not to change (it's stable now, changes could improve things but they could also make things worse) but these need to be clearly set out so they can be addressed.

Poorfour wrote:I am English and a fan of English club rugby.

I'd like a European tournament that involves sides from all of the 6 Nations. But not if it has an in-built bias towards some participants.

I do feel that the European tournaments need a shake up. I would like to see qualification based on being in the top 50% of teams in your country (or league, at a pinch), so that there is meaningful competition for entries and some teams are not gifted the advantage of entry every year. I'd like that balanced by a meaningful second tier competition that teams are excited to play in and fans are excited to follow. I'd be supportive of a third tier competition and potentially of promotion and relegation into or out of it in the long run (ditto the 6 Nations, but that's another matter)

I would like to see the distribution of revenues and commercial control more closely aligned to the unit of cost (that is, it costs teams money to play in the tournament, so the revenues should be aligned to the teams competing and the teams should not be able to be overruled on commercial issues by the whim of a union). For the foreseeable, I think that distribution of money across teams in the top 2 tiers should be even, because it's more important for the leagues as a whole to remain competitive and smoothing income distribution is the best way to do it.

I'd like to see more honesty and attempts at understanding the other position in the debates on here and less assuming the worst intent in others.

It's unclear how much of that will ever happen.

Do I support the PRL? Broadly. From what I can see, they have made some fairly extreme moves, but they have been given little option by the intransigence of the ERC. They have actually made some significant changes happen, and while I do believe they have their own interests at heart I also feel they recognise that they can best fulfil them by developing rugby as widely as possible while not conflicting with their own interests.

I have very little time for the ERC. I think they have handled the negotiations badly and they have acted like spoilt children on occasion (e.g excluding the RFU from last week's meeting, signing the Sky deal in instant response to the BT deal - which effectively made it "us or them" from that point on - rather than having any exploration of what the deal could offer the other ERC members).

I am worried by the FFR. I think they carry too much power and are every bit as capricious as the ERC. If the proposed reformed HEC goes ahead, I can see the other unions regretting ther choice of partner before too long.

I don't really like the bolded part,this just rewards countries that have a large number teams ahead of countries that have a smaller number teams.I could agree with it but I would like to see a mechanism where a country can increase or decrease their number of entrants based on how well or poorly their teams do in the European competitions.

Yep a considered piece but that would be a showstopper.
Also it doesn't fit with the insistence that qualification should be league base - to then bring a Union based qualification level.

No problem with the 6/6/7+1 the Unions came up with at the end of October.

In the end though something like that will not stop the whole thing and as I say a good contribution Poorfour   

Poorfour wrote:I am English and a fan of English club rugby.

I'd like a European tournament that involves sides from all of the 6 Nations. But not if it has an in-built bias towards some participants.

I do feel that the European tournaments need a shake up. I would like to see qualification based on being in the top 50% of teams in your country (or league, at a pinch), so that there is meaningful competition for entries and some teams are not gifted the advantage of entry every year. I'd like that balanced by a meaningful second tier competition that teams are excited to play in and fans are excited to follow. I'd be supportive of a third tier competition and potentially of promotion and relegation into or out of it in the long run (ditto the 6 Nations, but that's another matter)

I would like to see the distribution of revenues and commercial control more closely aligned to the unit of cost (that is, it costs teams money to play in the tournament, so the revenues should be aligned to the teams competing and the teams should not be able to be overruled on commercial issues by the whim of a union). For the foreseeable, I think that distribution of money across teams in the top 2 tiers should be even, because it's more important for the leagues as a whole to remain competitive and smoothing income distribution is the best way to do it.

I'd like to see more honesty and attempts at understanding the other position in the debates on here and less assuming the worst intent in others.

It's unclear how much of that will ever happen.

Do I support the PRL? Broadly. From what I can see, they have made some fairly extreme moves, but they have been given little option by the intransigence of the ERC. They have actually made some significant changes happen, and while I do believe they have their own interests at heart I also feel they recognise that they can best fulfil them by developing rugby as widely as possible while not conflicting with their own interests.

I have very little time for the ERC. I think they have handled the negotiations badly and they have acted like spoilt children on occasion (e.g excluding the RFU from last week's meeting, signing the Sky deal in instant response to the BT deal - which effectively made it "us or them" from that point on - rather than having any exploration of what the deal could offer the other ERC members).

I am worried by the FFR. I think they carry too much power and are every bit as capricious as the ERC. If the proposed reformed HEC goes ahead, I can see the other unions regretting ther choice of partner before too long.

So much in that it's hard to know where to begin.

I'll start at the bottom so, as I remember the last bit best!

"I am worried by the FFR.  I think they carry too much power and are every bit as capricious as the ERC".  Hmmm - at any point in any comments coming from any soul involved in articulating the PRL position did anyone openly and publically voice any concerns about any aspect of French rugby - as regards either too much power or capriciousness? The PRL don't seem to worry about power as it relates LNR (more French power and capriciousness).  Indeed, from day one, the PRL tried to actively suggest how French and English club rugby was standing side by side.  They also adopted LNR 'concerns' about the Pro12 as part of their overall platform for structural change.  So much for worrying about too much power.  If you can't beat the powerful, join them?

"I have very little time for the ERC. I think they have handled the negotiations badly and they have acted like spoilt children on occasion"

versus

"I'd like to see more honesty and attempts at understanding the other position in the debates on here and less assuming the worst intent in others"

?

"I'd like a European tournament that involves sides from all of the 6 Nations. But not if it has an in-built bias towards some participants."

There is an inbuilt bias in even this present European tournament........... inbuilt from the very beginning.  Just look at it.  None of you ever look at the history of the competition that you so despise as being a loaded gun against the English clubs and French clubs.

HEC 1995:
3 French teams
3 Welsh teams
3 Irish teams
2 Italian teams
1 Romanian team

HEC 2000:
6 French teams
6 English teams
5 Welsh teams
3 Irish teams
2 Italian teams
2 Scottish teams

Nice pat on the back structurally for some teams in that jump, wasn't there.  How could that have happened?  Meritocracy?  Or just ecoonomic weight and population pressure making itself felt?  A feeling of deja vu on that one...as economic strength again looks for an even bigger increase in influence.  And none of the rest of us are meant to be concerned about PRL 'carrying too much power'?  They're not capricious in their initial desire to run with LNR against the other Home unions and now blame the Home unions for siding with the 'power' wielding FFR?

Much too much incongruity of logic in many pronouncements on where 'power' lies, where people would be happy for it to lie and where it would concern them, and in who is being capricious with whom.

"I would like to see qualification based on being in the top 50% of teams in your country (or league, at a pinch), so that there is meaningful competition for entries and some teams are not gifted the advantage of entry every year."

Country or League?  Some say country when they mean League.  Others say League when they very much mean Country.  'Country' kills the ability to argue that in any 'shake up' some countries should accept with good grace the loss of auto entries as other countries keep theirs.
"Oh", the story then goes, "yeah, I can see that's an awkward one to reason through - so let's instead just shade over that one and say entries should be League based."

Well, some of us say to that a direct and cold "No".  Let's not skirt around the issue so that it favours two countries at the expence of four others.  Let's call us what we know ourselves to be, not what some outside professional club body chooses to call us to get past the awkwardness of any new shake up where their auto entry numbers never seem to change. And we know from evidence that certainly not all 6 English and not all 6 French clubs ever deserve to be at the high table of high quality HEC rugby. But as we've seen, they've actually gone up through ERC time, not down.  

We're all countries - any solution that admits to that and structures itself accordingly in a balanced way will be fine.  That means no, not only one auto entry for some countries and always 6 big ones for others.

SecretFly wrote:And we know from evidence that certainly not all 6 English and not all 6 French clubs ever deserve to be at the high table of high quality HEC rugby. 

We could have fun with that one  

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:And we know from evidence that certainly not all 6 English and not all 6 French clubs ever deserve to be at the high table of high quality HEC rugby. 

We could have fun with that one  

Ok- from evidence we should have 3 irish clubs, maybe the same number of French clubs and a couple of English. That should cover most bases

lostinwales wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:And we know from evidence that certainly not all 6 English and not all 6 French clubs ever deserve to be at the high table of high quality HEC rugby. 

We could have fun with that one  

Ok- from evidence we should have 3 irish clubs, maybe the same number of French clubs and a couple of English. That should cover most bases

Yeah, that's a much closer scoreline to the truth.

are you proposing 8 teams in the event from your evidence  

If we want to maintain standard sure   

Some like the number 6.  But if everyone is getting selfish and looking after numero uno in this increasingly expansive battle (thinking of the Regions wanting to desert their Pro12 'fwiends' and not being shy in saying so, as in never mentioning the Irish in their discussions with their Union) then it truly must be the every man for himself period of this here war.

So let's look at high quality European contest then - and let's look at the number 9 - now that is a super delux show of heavy hitting genuine A grade rugby that would attract the connisseurs with the deep pockets!!!!

That's elitism with a capital E

3 Best English
3 Best French
3 Best Irish

Let's dispense with all the other baggage and elitify this contest that seems to want to go elite anyway.  There's an audience!  Large contingents of Irish in England anyway, large sections of each nation (England, France, Ireland) spread around the world.

A BIG THREE NINE!

If nobody wants to be loyal to each other I can't really see why the IRFU should feel any loyalty to anyone else either.  It's the Irish, English and French that has written the book of European rugby to date.  Let's lose the excess baggage.

Hey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I'm good at this McCafferty ruthless stuff!!!!

Ok thats fine, the 6 nations should only be a play off between wales and england then..

mystiroakey wrote:Ok thats fine, the 6 nations should only be a play off between wales and england then..

Yeah, we'll turn our back when you have your yearly fight with the pesky Welsh - gotta give them something in a year to cheer about..............

mystiroakey wrote:Ok thats fine, the 6 nations should only be a play off between wales and england then..

Why England, strokey - just give it to the Welsh and there's loads more weekends free for PRL rugby!!

Maybe your right. Lets just get the welsh regions in

If you look at the overall 6N table Wales don't get a look in its a Tri nations of France, England and Ireland

Total points won

France 96
England 95
Ireland 92
Wales 76
Scotland 38
Italy 23

if you go back to the 5Nations, the order changes somewhat

5N's wins:
Eng 17
Fr 12
Ire 6
Sco 5
Wal 15

lies, damned lies and statistics

The 5 nations ain't the 6 nations though

...anymore than the RCC would have been the HEC,

...anymore than amateurism was professionalism

SecretFly wrote:The 5 nations ain't the 6 nations though

...anymore than the RCC would have been the HEC,

...anymore than amateurism was professionalism

dont think you'll find that italy have troubled the scorers on the competition wins front even adding in the 6N. and fyi, 6N started in 2000, professionalism started in 1990.

but i'll do it for you anyway...5N+6N combined competition wins

Eng 26
Fr 17
Ire 11
Italy 0
Sco 14
Wales 26

Or you could just look at the last 2 years if you want recent results

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The 5 nations ain't the 6 nations though

...anymore than the RCC would have been the HEC,

...anymore than amateurism was professionalism

dont think you'll find that italy have troubled the scorers on the competition wins front even adding in the 6N. and fyi, 6N started in 2000, professionalism started in 1990.

but i'll do it for you anyway...5N+6N combined competition wins

Eng 26
Fr 17
Ire 11
Italy 0
Sco 14
Wales 26

Or you could just look at the last 2 years if you want recent results

Right, I suggest we use moral victories instead then

em...the point was the 6N has it's own records................ and they don't include the 5N, unless you're a side that need them to bolster the idea that Rugby has always been your indigenous working-class national sport (Wales) and that it's just still in short pants in relative terms in Ireland (just beginning to float away from the Toff schools in other words)

You sniffing glue again Fly?

The point is England's toffs are better than anyone else's toffs.

Oh I know that mystir!!!!!!!!!!!  They certainly are.  Best toffs in the world come from England, for sure.

That's why Ireland have steadily been getting rid of its toffs out of rugby as how can you compete with the toffs from England??? - it can't be done.. It just can't be done, lads.

We're trying to genetically engineer more commoners into rugby now - the brutal lads that can't speak English - can't speak at all as they've grown up in swamplands out in the midlands.  They make hurling sticks with their teeth and maybe have a brother or two that's a sister's husband.  But this breed we're trying to fast track into rugby now.

The experiment might go wrong and we might all be kilt by them if they escape rugby school but...it's a risk worth taking.

Seems like Brian Moore and Gerry Thornley are getting a bit agitated.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/european/2013/1212/492489-moore-and-thornley-involved-in-spat/

Funny stuff   

That's more like it............. let's hear what people really think!

Again though - one guy insults a group of other guys. One of the other guys shoots a low punch back. And then the original insulter gets uppity as if an insult coming in under his radar wasn't what he should have expected all along.  

How dare Thornley attack Moore!  Does he not know who he is??  He's on TV, him!

I follow Moore on twitter; I like him, he seems like a good bloke, but he has a lot more opinions than expertise thats for sure.

What Thornley says about the rugby press in England is actually very fair. They are indeed a PRL mouthpiece. I would also add that Thornley is equally an IRFU mouthpiece and needs to sort out his stupid hair.

Moore seems to be under the impression that Thornley has accused him of only writing what the RFU tells him to. This is the kind of bizarre misapprehension typical of Brian Moore. Thornley has accused certain writers in English papers of toeing the PRL line and made no mention of Moore or indeed the RFU.

But this whole saga gave us the priceless sight of Moore replying to a parody account of Gerry Thornley on twitter in full on confrontational mode;

https://twitter.com/NePasThornley

Twitter really is unreadable at times..... it's like a bloody Egyptian wall of Hieroglyphics before the code was boken. It can be a drain trying to find anything of worth between the hashtags and other links

Just been announced on twitter that the Scarlets have committed themselves to playing under the ERC.

The union-centric view of "qualification" for the top tier competition is "we want to prepare as many players as possible for International rugby through exposure to European rugby, so we want the same number of teams as everybody else even if that means no-one ever has to qualify"

The club-centric view is "it's a competition. Every team that enters should have to qualify through their domestic competition with similar proportions of teams qualifying regardless of the actual numbers."

Maybe the Irish teams do deserve more entries into the competition on merit, but we can't tell that on the basis of the current system. Guaranteed qualification gives advantages in squad selection and seeding. They may be small, but rugby is a game of very small margins.

The only realistic answer I can see is to have genuine qualification but a much stronger second tier competition. Possibly you could adjust quaification based on progress of national teams in both competitions, but it would have to have safeguards to stop it being self reinforcing (i.e. getting more places one year makes it easier to keep them the next).

Artful_Dodger wrote:Just been announced on twitter that the Scarlets have committed themselves to playing under the ERC.

Dodger, as someone who follows Scarletfever that would be hilarious if true.



Edit: This has just been posted on the above forum:

"I'm VERY reliably informed that te four Regions are LEGALLY BOUND to work in CONCERT WITH EACH OTHER, and I can ABSOLUTELY state that the Scarlets have NOT broken ranks, having left a Bpoard meeting less than two and a half hours ago."

Hope their band is good   

Poorfour wrote:The union-centric view of "qualification" for the top tier competition is "we want to prepare as many players as possible for International rugby through exposure to European rugby, so we want the same number of teams as everybody else even if that means no-one ever has to qualify"

The club-centric view is "it's a competition. Every team that enters should have to qualify through their domestic competition with similar proportions of teams qualifying regardless of the actual numbers."

Maybe the Irish teams do deserve more entries into the competition on merit, but we can't tell that on the basis of the current system. Guaranteed qualification gives advantages in squad selection and seeding. They may be small, but rugby is a game of very small margins.

The only realistic answer I can see is to have genuine qualification but a much stronger second tier competition. Possibly you could adjust quaification based on progress of national teams in both competitions, but it would have to have safeguards to stop it being self reinforcing (i.e. getting more places one year makes it easier to keep them the next).

Yep, that's the breakdown of the divergent views Poorfour - and the difficult thing is those two views aren't just views, they are the realities of what kind of teams at present take part in the competition.  If Italian teams are ommitted then that's a real threat to the equality then given to them to prepare International players for 6N.  It's a reality, it isn't just a theoretical argument put forward by the Italians.  From clubs come International players...in all Leagues.  Saying 'some clubs don't belong but come play us in International anyway' is not a viable fair conclusion.

"Guaranteed qualification gives advantages in squad selection and seeding. They may be small, but rugby is a game of very small margins."

By the same token.  As I think I said earlier - most observers will admit that not each and every team from England or France proves itself up to the task (on merit) of HEC.  But they are nevertheless there - and in the same way English sides complain about having to meet Treviso or Edinburgh, Irish sides might say that certain English, French or Welsh sides get an easy route through their pools when they meet the weaker English and French sides.  
Now yes, Irish sides might meet them too, but we weren't  the ones complaining about them being there.  But we legitmately could.  Small margins exist in many avenues not just in those brought up by PRL.  

I do keep saying I regard 6 as too many for England and France.  But that opinion of 'advantage for teams that shouldn't perhaps qualify' usually gets sidetracked or ignored.  We all have our small margin concerns.  And perhaps when we acknowledge that both sides have concerns, then we can agree that the small margins on each side even out... they especially even out for LNR with their big budgets and star International players!  

Some Nations have guaranteed sides... others have twice the guaranteed numbers.  A competition can only be won by the entrants in it - English sides (unified through PRL)  have more chances of winning HEC - an advantage.  French sides (unified through LNR) have more chances of winning HEC - an advantage.  Advantages are advantages, but things even out.

Poorfour wrote:The union-centric view of "qualification" for the top tier competition is "we want to prepare as many players as possible for International rugby through exposure to European rugby, so we want the same number of teams as everybody else even if that means no-one ever has to qualify"

The club-centric view is "it's a competition. Every team that enters should have to qualify through their domestic competition with similar proportions of teams qualifying regardless of the actual numbers."

Maybe the Irish teams do deserve more entries into the competition on merit, but we can't tell that on the basis of the current system. Guaranteed qualification gives advantages in squad selection and seeding. They may be small, but rugby is a game of very small margins.

The only realistic answer I can see is to have genuine qualification but a much stronger second tier competition. Possibly you could adjust quaification based on progress of national teams in both competitions, but it would have to have safeguards to stop it being self reinforcing (i.e. getting more places one year makes it easier to keep them the next).

Would the clubs be willing to give up the advantages they hold over the Irish teams,only 4 non Irish eligible players (soon to be 3) and 1 non Irish qualified in each squad.Would they also be willing to work under similar budget restrictions and have their players gametime restricted by a player management program designed by the international management.If you want a level playing field you have to go the whole hog and make it level on both sides.

England get six teams guarenteed how meritocratic is that?

SecretFly wrote:As I think I said earlier - most observers will admit that not each and every team from England or France proves itself up to the task (on merit) of HEC.

Yes, you did, but you do write an awful lot of bollix   

SecretFly wrote:[If Italian teams are ommitted then that's a real threat to the equality then given to them to prepare International players for 6N.  

And Georgian and Russian teams preparing for ENC and RWC qualifying, and Romania, apparently dumped from an Amlin by the new 5 Nation ERC, despite being a founder member. By what measure are Georgian and Russian teams omitted - could it be meritocratic, or what?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:As I think I said earlier - most observers will admit that not each and every team from England or France proves itself up to the task (on merit) of HEC.

Yes, you did, but you do write an awful lot of bollix   

Bollix people like you can't sidestep out of.

I cage you into cells of your own making using the very ideas and words you throw at the debate yourselves.

Yeah, if that's a definition of bollix, I speak plenty of it.  

Now care to prove that the above quoted comment isn't true?

I seem to recall that one seems to keep stinging you every time I mention it.  

If it does - prove it wrong.  Prove that the lower lights of English and French HEC entries have more entitlement to be at the show than the teams PRL/LNR seem to despise.

I'll be waiting for your style of bollix, Dubbelyew.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:[If Italian teams are ommitted then that's a real threat to the equality then given to them to prepare International players for 6N.  

And Georgian and Russian teams preparing for ENC and RWC qualifying, and Romania, apparently dumped from an Amlin by the new 5 Nation ERC, despite being a founder member. By what measure are Georgian and Russian teams omitted - could it be meritocratic, or what?

I haven't seen Romania in the HEC for many a year - despite it being a founding member. Shafted was it?  Had to make way for the big money Leagues did they - and to let a non-founding member in.    You're awful concerned about Georgia and Russia as you'd gladly slit Italy and Scotlands throat, Dubbelyew  Service with a smile through clenched teeth.

SecretFly wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:As I think I said earlier - most observers will admit that not each and every team from England or France proves itself up to the task (on merit) of HEC.

Yes, you did, but you do write an awful lot of bollix   

Bollix people like you can't sidestep out of.

I cage you into cells of your own making using the very ideas and words you throw at the debate yourselves.

Yeah, if that's a definition of bollix, I speak plenty of it.  

Now care to prove that the above quoted comment isn't true?

I seem to recall that one seems to keep stinging you every time I mention it.  

If it does - prove it wrong.  Prove that the lower lights of English and French HEC entries have more entitlement to be at the show than the teams PRL/LNR seem to despise.

I'll be waiting for your style of bollix, Dubbelyew.

You're the one that said it - prove it true. Zebre is better than the 7th place English team, or the 8th place french team. Put your mortgage on it - I wouldn't.

Romanian rugby was shafted by its own politics and sad history. It was very closely associated with the communist regime (and many of the players were generally working for the regime as police/spies), so it has a sort of stigma to overcome there.

France stayed close to them over the years and used to send touring teams, but in 2001 Romania lost to England 134-0.

I just don't see the value of having one-sided games like that. They would be better off playing club sides.

I said what I said, Dubbelyew...read it again and come back with some bollix to prove me wrong.

Poor English and French sides get in the way and allow contender sides easy routes through their pools - just like the Zebres and the Edinburghs 'unbalance their pools' - isn't that the usual lingo? - weak Pro12 sides unbalance the HEC  

You know it's true, you can't deny its true, the HEC records show it's true, and Connacht's beating of Toulouse and nearly getting Saracens too proves that meritocracy proves itself in HEC itself - not before it.  In it.  That's the test of worth.

SecretFly wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:[If Italian teams are ommitted then that's a real threat to the equality then given to them to prepare International players for 6N.  

And Georgian and Russian teams preparing for ENC and RWC qualifying, and Romania, apparently dumped from an Amlin by the new 5 Nation ERC, despite being a founder member. By what measure are Georgian and Russian teams omitted - could it be meritocratic, or what?

I haven't seen Romania in the HEC for many a year - despite it being a founding member.  Shafted was it?  Had to make way for the big money Leagues did they - and to let a non-founding member in.    You're awful concerned about Georgia and Russia as you'd gladly slit Italy and Scotlands throat, Dubbelyew Service with a smile through clenched teeth.

No, I've never advocated the slitting of Italian or Scottish throats. but I have consistently advocated a fairer opportunity for the "minnow" nations.

Sin é wrote:Romanian rugby was shafted by its own politics and sad history. It was very closely associated with the communist regime (and many of the players were generally working for the regime as police/spies), so it has a sort of stigma to overcome there.

France stayed close to them over the years and used to send touring teams, but in 2001 Romania lost to England 134-0.

I just don't see the value of having one-sided games like that. They would be better off playing club sides.

I don't deny the historry of Romanian rugby, but you cite a result from 12 years ago. Has the world changed since then?

Bucuresti 12 - Newcastle 13 ? Newcastle will have sent out a weakened team, but still.

The ponit, though, is that Italy, seemingly automatically, have the advantages of 2 teams in HC (whilst not "deserving" them) when Romania, Georgia, Russia, amd others do not have those advantages.

Well Scotland and Italy are pretty much minnows in the eyes of the sneers who circulate in and around the English clubs and media when it comes to HEC time.

Would you deny that you've read much stuff over the years during HEC that put the boot into the levels of 'competitiveness' a Scottish or Italian side might give one of the Big boys?

You couldn't because the evidence is there that they do get sneered at - regularly... indeed our own minnow Connacht fairly gets it in the neck too from people here.

And then you talk about you and English club rugby wanting a fairer opportunity for 'minnow' nations?  So that they too can be sneered at?

And - if you're serious about fairer opportunities for the outsiders, and if PRL and LNR are serious about opportunities for the outsiders then which Leagues have spare numbers ready to offer up to some of the teams that will add more cannon fodder to the European competition?

You have six?  Donate some of your places.  Top14 has 6 - donate some of their places.  Where is this evidence of this magnanimity when the PRL and LNR demand that its others who sacrifice places so that they can be Godlike in their beneficience.

It's a book of fables, the great benevolent eye of the PRL/LNR, overlooking Europe and smiling on the poor outsiders.  Beautiful.  "But we keep our 6 apiece!"

Being widely reported  1 Welsh team has broken ranks and sided with the WRU.

Seems to be Scarlets might be Blues

TJ wrote:England get six teams guarenteed  how meritocratic is that?

Sorry, TJ, most English fans don't want to open that particular can of worms. But of course, you are right - what they are advocating is switching one dodgy version of meritocracy for another dodgy version of meritocracy

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

TJ wrote:England get six teams guarenteed  how meritocratic is that?

Sorry, TJ, most English fans don't want to open that particular can of worms.  But of course, you are right - what they are advocating is switching one dodgy version of meritocracy for another dodgy version of meritocracy

There's me thinking that what is being advocated is no English teams guaranteed in any European competition whatsoever. Is that a dodgier version of meritocracy than the previous dodgy version of meritocracy or not, and does it matter?

Looking at automatic qualification based on union or league - neither represents pure meritocracy