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

 

A pre-qualifying competition, or qualification on the previous season's Euro performance would be closest.

I'll be unhappy to lose the excitement that potential qualification adds to the end of league season, though.

That is true, will have to settle for playoff excitement!

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Looking at automatic qualification based on union or league - neither represents pure meritocracy

OK, so what would pure meritocracy look like?

Having 100% of the Scots and Italians and 75% of the Welsh and Irish automatically qualify isn't meritocratic by any meaningful measure. Yes, the Irish have done well recently (especially Connacht, who've made the most of the qualification other teams have made for them), but the other nations' performances have been fitful at best.

You can't base it on European results, because that creates an automatic bias towards teams that are already in the competition. An IRB or Eurotable style points exchange system might work but there isn't one (and how do you stop it being skewed by the strength of the league? Double points for European games might work but favours those with more extensive European experience). Taking the top performers from each league (or union) and pitting them against each other isn't perfect, but at least it selects based on recent competitive performance.

On the topic of foreign players in squads, I'd be up for some harmonisation as long as it takes fair account of the differences in setup. The Irish rules around IQPs and foreign players are workable when you have 4 teams. Ignoring for a moment IQPs playing outside Ireland, the 3 senior sides will each have on average around 20 of the Ireland or Ireland A squad members in their squads, and IIRC the foreign player rule effectively means that most of the foreign players in Ireland are capped at A team level or better. So a fully fit provincial squad ought to be made up entirely of senior representative players.

By definition, you can't do that across a 12 side league. There are only 64 players in the EPS system plus perhaps the same again of players who have had a Saxons or full cap but aren't curently in the EPS , so on average an AP side should have 10-12 England or Saxons players, and maybe 1 or 2 U20s. There will inevitably be a wider variation in player quality across the AP (or Top 14) squads than across the provinces, regions etc.

True meritocracy would have to be via s/thing like a Eurotable, the precise details to be agreed. It would be difficult, but not unworkable, and certainly more 'meritocratic', than either leagues or unions.

Poorfour wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Looking at automatic qualification based on union or league - neither represents pure meritocracy

OK, so what would pure meritocracy look like?

Having 100% of the Scots and Italians and 75% of the Welsh and Irish automatically qualify isn't meritocratic by any meaningful measure. Yes, the Irish have done well recently (especially Connacht, who've made the most of the qualification other teams have made for them), but the other nations' performances have been fitful at best.

You can't base it on European results, because that creates an automatic bias towards teams that are already in the competition. An IRB or Eurotable style points exchange system might work but there isn't one (and how do you stop it being skewed by the strength of the league? Double points for European games might work but favours those with more extensive European experience). Taking the top performers from each league (or union) and pitting them against each other isn't perfect, but at least it selects based on recent competitive performance.

On the topic of foreign players in squads, I'd be up for some harmonisation as long as it takes fair account of the differences in setup. The Irish rules around IQPs and foreign players are workable when you have 4 teams. Ignoring for a moment IQPs playing outside Ireland, the 3 senior sides will each have on average around 20 of the Ireland or Ireland A squad members in their  squads, and IIRC the foreign player rule effectively means that most of the foreign players in Ireland are capped at A team level or better. So a fully fit provincial squad ought to be made up entirely of senior representative players.

By definition, you can't do that across a 12 side league. There are only 64 players in the EPS system plus perhaps the same again of players who have had a Saxons or full cap but aren't curently in the EPS , so on average an AP side should have 10-12 England or Saxons players, and maybe 1 or 2 U20s. There will inevitably be a wider variation in player quality across the AP (or Top 14) squads than across the provinces, regions etc.  

Interesting one. Any idea what the average is? Anyway, am willing to bet it's quite a bit lower unfortunately

the Eurorugby methodology is actually really good. only includes last 30 matches (excluding friendlies). but matches are indeed weighted by the quality of the opposition, as defined by the head-to-head performance of the respective leagues vs each other in the previous european competitions (except connacht given a different weighting from the rest of the irish teams).

http://eurorugby.com/modules.php?name=Rdesc

this system is slightly short term for the purposes of european HC qualification, but something very like it is the right way to go. Could just be extended to the last 100 matches (would need to do something for recently promoted teams for comparability), and the top 20 could be picked with a minimum of 1 from each country.

or you could use this eurorugby table to come up with a weighting each league deserves in terms of how many places each league gets to allocate to HC. within some limits like no less than 4 and no more than 8 from any 1 league (apart from Rabo which given it has 4 countries, can have all 12 qualify if the performance of their teams in euro comps merited it).

complicated, but gotta be a massive improvement on the current qualification AND seeding joke.

It isnt cimplicated to allocate league spots. Based on how there teams have historically played within europe

If we didn't have this league v union issue added to the rabbo.

It would be very easy to give each league spots. The tough situation is giving unions spots.

So my answer is to just do it in a ueffa style co efficient and let the rabbo sort out how they want to split there allocation up.

We also need to include all leagues in Europe for qualifying rounds

mystiroakey wrote:It isnt cimplicated to allocate league spots. Based on how there teams have historically played within europe

If we didn't have this league v union issue added to the rabbo.

It would be very easy to give each league spots. The tough situation is giving unions spots.

So my answer is to just do it in a ueffa style co efficient and let the rabbo sort out how they want to split there allocation up.

We also need to include all leagues in Europe for qualifying rounds

Strokey, you're missing the point - who is to say that one league is better than another? Sorry, simply not meritocratic

quinsforever wrote:the Eurorugby methodology is actually really good. only includes last 30 matches (excluding friendlies). but matches are indeed weighted by the quality of the opposition, as defined by the head-to-head performance of the respective leagues vs each other in the previous european competitions (except connacht given a different weighting from the rest of the irish teams).

http://eurorugby.com/modules.php?name=Rdesc

this system is slightly short term for the purposes of european HC qualification, but something very like it is the right way to go. Could just be extended to the last 100 matches (would need to do something for recently promoted teams for comparability), and the top 20 could be picked with a minimum of 1 from each country.

or you could use this eurorugby table to come up with a weighting each league deserves in terms of how many places each league gets to allocate to HC. within some limits like no less than 4 and no more than 8 from any 1 league (apart from Rabo which given it has 4 countries, can have all 12 qualify if the performance of their teams in euro comps merited it).

complicated, but gotta be a massive improvement on the current qualification AND seeding joke.

  

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:It isnt cimplicated to allocate league spots. Based on how there teams have historically played within europe

If we didn't have this league v union issue added to the rabbo.

It would be very easy to give each league spots. The tough situation is giving unions spots.

So my answer is to just do it in a ueffa style co efficient and let the rabbo sort out how they want to split there allocation up.

We also need to include all leagues in Europe for qualifying rounds

Strokey, you're missing the point - who is to say that one league is better than another?  Sorry, simply not meritocratic

Tbh mate you are clearly missing the point.

you rate leagues based on how there teams perform against other teams in Europe.

Its very simple, its the perfect measure and the only measure.

You dont give teams spots - you give leagues spots.

However the complicated issue is rating how good unions are due to the issue we have within the rabbo(4 unions in one league)- This can not be meritocraticly solved and why if the Rabbo wants to give unions spots they can but they will have to sort that out themselves

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

quinsforever wrote:the Eurorugby methodology is actually really good. only includes last 30 matches (excluding friendlies). but matches are indeed weighted by the quality of the opposition, as defined by the head-to-head performance of the respective leagues vs each other in the previous european competitions (except connacht given a different weighting from the rest of the irish teams).

http://eurorugby.com/modules.php?name=Rdesc

this system is slightly short term for the purposes of european HC qualification, but something very like it is the right way to go. Could just be extended to the last 100 matches (would need to do something for recently promoted teams for comparability), and the top 20 could be picked with a minimum of 1 from each country.

or you could use this eurorugby table to come up with a weighting each league deserves in terms of how many places each league gets to allocate to HC. within some limits like no less than 4 and no more than 8 from any 1 league (apart from Rabo which given it has 4 countries, can have all 12 qualify if the performance of their teams in euro comps merited it).

complicated, but gotta be a massive improvement on the current qualification AND seeding joke.

  

You cant use games played against other teams that play in the same domestic league. It wont work and cant work. Only European games can and should be used.

The ERC seedings methodology currently used is clearly farcical.

And they are fundamental in determining the home quarters (another personal bete noir).

If anything, I prefer the pool stages (as they stand) to the prescriptive nonsense that follows.

But then again, for years I've being arguing for eight pools and h/a ko stages...

Good to see that support for EuroTables is gaining v2 traction though (acorns and mighty oaks and all that).

"or you could use this eurorugby table to come up with a weighting each league deserves in terms of how many places each league gets to allocate to HC. within some limits like no less than 4 and no more than 8 from any 1 league (apart from Rabo which given it has 4 countries, can have all 12 qualify if the performance of their teams in euro comps merited it)."

this is completely not meritocratic, you are trying to solve a non meritocratic system with another non meritocratic system.

you cant limit one league because it is only one union. If we want the best playing we cannot have this limit applying to leagues that dont have more than one union

No point going half way. Go completely union friendly, or league friendly otherwise we have a split philosophy which isn't logical and will just cause more issues down the line

mystiroakey wrote:"or you could use this eurorugby table to come up with a weighting each league deserves in terms of how many places each league gets to allocate to HC. within some limits like no less than 4 and no more than 8 from any 1 league (apart from Rabo which given it has 4 countries, can have all 12 qualify if the performance of their teams in euro comps merited it)."

this is completely not meritocratic, you are trying to solve a non meritocratic system with another non meritocratic system.

you cant limit one league because it is only one union. If we want the best playing we cannot have this limit applying to leagues that dont have more than one union

No point going half way. Go completely union friendly, or league friendly otherwise we have a split philosophy which isn't logical and will just cause more issues down the line

No, the best teams only, doesn't matter if they're all from one league or from one union - that is meritocraitc. Of course, doesn't solve the problem of level playing field...

we could do it another way.

unions could be allocated spots individually.

The way this would work is as follows.

The rabbo league stands alone and placings for that dont matter at all for euro qualification

but we have separate league tables for same union teams playing against each other.

so we could say ok Scotland and Italy get 1 spot, Ireland get 3 and Wales get 2 spots,

The mini tables are what rank the euro places.

This could also make certain games massive within the rabbo.

A 32 team HC evens the qualification playing field. 10 each from the rabo and jeff. 12 from top14. If the Franglos's believe the Rabo's have an advantage that makes them play to a higher standard. Why don't they want to extend the advantage to themselves, rather than impose the disadvantage on the Rabo's to try and drag them down to their level?

A fairer seeding system is needed. I think that's one thing that everyone can actually agree on.

32 teams (with current IWs) seems unworkable.

24 teams in eight pools are (just about).

Bravo Mr Tom May in espnscrum.com

Why the Heineken Cup needs to be saved

European competition is here again and we are currently in the middle of another exciting block of games. The buzz surrounding the games isn't something confined solely to the stands and living rooms across Europe, for the players it adds something special to the season, something of exceptional value and excitement. It is different and the passion of the public has a big role to play.

From the players' perspective, the week in week out nature of national competitions like the Aviva Premiership provide the bread and butter. That is what clubs ultimately are measured on, certainly in England anyway. However, mixing all of the leagues together creates anticipation and excitement within the clubs themselves - new players to face, stadiums to play in, atmospheres to enjoy and just as importantly, new experiences to treasure. Rugby has a fantastic ability to give players magnificent adventures and memories and Europe offers that in abundance.

Some of my most memorable experiences have come in Europe; Newcastle beating Toulouse, Toulon playing Cardiff in the Amlin Challenge Final in the Veldodrome in Marseille and beating Ulster in Belfast with Northampton last season. Amazing days that will stay with me forever. You will see in the player's eyes this weekend the importance the games carry. Opportunities to play against some great clubs from across many European nations, a chance to be test themselves against some of the best players. They aren't normal games; they stand alone in their importance.

We all feel the difference a change makes in our lives; rugby is no different. Heading into Europe provides a lift, a freshness to training, leaving behind regular league games and the normal week. There is a new buzz about the club that is tangible. From the moment you arrive at the club to do your analysis of a team you hardly ever watch or play against, to using the European balls in training, to the moment you pack for the team run making sure you haven't forgotten the passport, there is a different feel to the week - a good feeling, a great feeling. Something special is about to unfold.

One of the things playing rugby at a professional level allows is for players to play at and experience fantastic grounds, performing in front of some amazingly passionate crowds. Heading to Gloucester, Leicester and Bath are all fantastic places to go to for ranging reasons but somehow you get used to them. Europe provides another difference. If you head to France, you can guarantee every ground you play at is going to be hostile. That's French rugby. Being given opportunities to play in that environment is something that players relish.

The same can be said about heading to Wales, Scotland and Ireland, some unbelievable teams (look at Leinster currently) with some crazy support. These are the games you want to play in as a player, the ones that you look for the moment the fixture list comes out at the start of the season. Every Heineken Cup fixture is going to be big. It doesn't matter what period of the season it is, the first round of games or the finals, the build-up week is huge. Some of most historic clubs are involved and to play against them is a privilege that players don't underestimate.

The Amlin Challenge Cup doesn't have the same level of quality to it for clear reasons but adds more as an experience. Heading to Italy, France, Portugal, Romania this season, British clubs will travel far and wide across mainland Europe to many places players might not actually ever go to had they not been playing rugby. Rugby is of course about winning and progressing through these competitions but it is also about experiences and opportunities, seeing different places and meeting different people both tiers of Europe provide this in abundance.

Spending time with team mates is very important through the season and some of the away trips mean that players have extended periods of time with each other allowing the team to bond. Experiencing all that European rugby has to offer with the people that you work with on a week to week basis is brilliant. Going to see some of the sights and places in European towns and cities and experiencing them with friends is something rugby allows you to do. Players have the same fun on these trips as grassroots clubs do on their tours and it provides the same benefits.

The games are all challenges but Europe provides moments where there is a siege mentality. Teams are on their own, on someone else's patch. It's something I will remember as a player, the tightness of the team in needing to overcome the nature of the challenge. Of course there is a taste of this sometimes in domestic leagues but Europe has the extra meaning and where better to snatch a win on the road.

European rugby has given us some of the best games to watch over a number of years and it is something that needs to be kept alive. Whatever needs to be happen to save the rugby we have in its current format should be done. As for the English clubs' involvement, or not as the case may be, it may well be less attractive for top players to play in England if they aren't involved in the Heineken Cup; European rugby, like football, means that much. The most exciting games of recent years have been in European competition; let's not destroy it.

Mystir - stop worrying about the Rabo...........  We'll take care of our bizz and you take care of yours.  Stop trying to make ours the spectacle you think it could be and invest that emotion in how to improve your own AP.

Incidently, Healy is in the TellTheIrishHowItIsGraph saying that Northampton lost the first game because they probably "fancied their chances" "prior to kick off" but they've played so much more rugby in comparison to Leinster, who are a "very strong Irish Province, yes, but 40-7?"

Anyway, he says it proves why the English are anti-ERC/HEC - better sides get thrashed at home by sides that play faster, smarter, better rugby.  Inference being that in a 'fair' contest, an Irish side would never go away to an English side and beat them.  Leinster winning the game proves his point that the HEC is flawed!!  So we were meant to be curtain dressing when the HEC first started?  "You weren't meant to be winning!  Just showing up!"   

He concludes: "I understand that some supporters might dismiss the argument and say it was just one of those games and that this weekend, in Dublin, the Saints will come marching back. Who knows what the result will be? However, I do know that if Saints win, it will be a remarkable performance."

Right, so if Northampton win away from home to 2nd ranked side in Pro12 - it will be a remarkable performance?  (And he still holds out that it's a possibility, even as he claims Saints winning at home was never on the cards.)  Anyway, if they win away it'll be a remarkable performance, but Leinster winning away to APs 2nd ranked side with a score of 40-7 was because the HEC is flawed and Leinster are just "a very strong Irish Province" - not a very strong European one, I see.   

Now all this keeps revolving around the first point he made - "prior to kick off" despite all the history of the HEC and the gumbles attached to it, both Healy and Northampton would "have fancied their chance". Prior to kick off, Healy's theory had no bearing on his attitude that Saint's fancied their chances.

Healy only knew Saints never had a chance after the game ended?  Yeah, that's intuition for you.

"Mystir - stop worrying about the Rabo........... Wink We'll take care of our bizz and you take care of yours.  Stop trying to make ours the spectacle you think it could be and invest that emotion in how to improve your own AP."


maybe you cant understand but the rabbo is the only sticking point in regards to ERC meritocratic allocation. It is the problem, this is about the ERC and nothing else

We'll take care of our bizz...and you worry about the AP.

The Pro12 is always the sticking point. You'll see some of my counter-sticking points above on yesterdays posts We all have sticking points. You worry about how to 'improve' AP and we'll worry about bums on seats in Pro12.

Ok i get it - you just dont want to hear an English POV.

Seriously reign it down, its an open forum. If I wanted to talk about the Rabbo i can, however I am only talking about it in regards to the problem. within the ERC.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:32 teams (with current IWs) seems unworkable.

24 teams in eight pools are (just about).

32 teams does not make any difference

No one team plays any more games

mystiroakey wrote:"Mystir - stop worrying about the Rabo........... Wink We'll take care of our bizz and you take care of yours.  Stop trying to make ours the spectacle you think it could be and invest that emotion in how to improve your own AP."


maybe you cant understand but the rabbo is the only sticking point in regards to ERC meritocratic  allocation. It is the problem, this is about the ERC and nothing else

Not the case .

There was agreement about qualification and a temporary solution agreed regarding Governance.

The show stopper was Camou not the celts.
What is becoming clear is a patched up solution between England and the Pro12 Unions was close but the French vetoed it.

mystiroakey wrote:Ok i get it - you just dont want to hear an English POV.

Seriously reign it down, its an open forum. If I wanted to talk about the Rabbo i can, however I am only talking about it in regards to the problem. within the ERC.

Oh you can keep talking. You're most welcome to talk but I'll badger you on the detail...like you do me That's an open forum.

We all have our counter sticking points...that's why no solution. People wanted things and got them. People wanted more and didn't. A sticking point has been reached on all sides.

geoff999rugby wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"Mystir - stop worrying about the Rabo........... Wink We'll take care of our bizz and you take care of yours.  Stop trying to make ours the spectacle you think it could be and invest that emotion in how to improve your own AP."


maybe you cant understand but the rabbo is the only sticking point in regards to ERC meritocratic  allocation. It is the problem, this is about the ERC and nothing else

Not the case .

There was agreement about qualification and a temporary solution agreed regarding Governance.

The show stopper was Camou not the celts.
What is becoming clear is a patched up solution between England and the Pro12 Unions was close but the French vetoed it.

A rightful showstopper by camou. Disappointed in our own guys actually for conceding, conceding, conceding. It took a French guy with balls to stop the demands dead in their tracks.

geoff999rugby wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"Mystir - stop worrying about the Rabo........... Wink We'll take care of our bizz and you take care of yours.  Stop trying to make ours the spectacle you think it could be and invest that emotion in how to improve your own AP."


maybe you cant understand but the rabbo is the only sticking point in regards to ERC meritocratic  allocation. It is the problem, this is about the ERC and nothing else

Not the case .

There was agreement about qualification and a temporary solution agreed regarding Governance.

The show stopper was Camou not the celts

what are you banging on about?

What does this "not the case mean??"

The agreement on qualification still wast metriocrtaic

I am not talking about camou the celts, any agreement or anything. Just meritocratic qualification.

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Ok i get it - you just dont want to hear an English POV.

Seriously reign it down, its an open forum. If I wanted to talk about the Rabbo i can, however I am only talking about it in regards to the problem. within the ERC.

Oh you can keep talking.  You're most welcome to talk but I'll badger you on the detail...like you do me  That's an open forum.

We all have our counter sticking points...that's why no solution.  People wanted things and got them.  People wanted more and didn't.  A sticking point has been reached on all sides.

you can argue the points, but stop the nonsense  "you cant talk about the rabbo because you are English" talk. Its ridiculous.

I would never ever tell another poster that they cant talk about something because of there nationality, and even then i was only talking about it from a ERC POV which includes us all

It is ridiculous, especially as I didn't say it.

I'm saying your concern for the structures of Pro12 (internally - nothing to do with how they externally affect the European debate) but your concern for the internal dynamics of the Pro12 is an evader. It evades the issue that the Ap and the Top14 have percieved 'advantages' of their own in the European context - never getting addressed, constantly brushed under the carpet

So in order to evade those issues, the talk goes into the details of the Pro12 structure - a competition few of you even watch much less care about 'improving'.

SecretFly wrote:It is ridiculous, especially as I didn't say it.  

I'm saying your concern for the structures of Pro12 (internally - nothing to do with how they externally affect the European debate) but your concern for the internal dynamics of the Pro12 is an evader.  It evades the issue that the Ap and the Top14 have percieved 'advantages' of their own in the European context - never getting addressed, constantly brushed under the carpet

So in order to evade those issues, the talk goes into the details of the Pro12 structure - a competition few of you even watch much less care about 'improving'.

I am not evading any issues,

Just talking about metriocratic qualification, if that meant less AP teams so be it. You are trying to spin something here and its not needed.

mystiroakey wrote:we could do it another way.

unions could be allocated spots individually.

The way this would work is as follows.

The rabbo league stands alone and placings for that dont matter at all for euro qualification

but we have separate league tables for same union teams playing against each other.

so we could say ok Scotland and Italy get 1 spot, Ireland get 3 and Wales get 2 spots,

The mini tables are what rank the euro places.

This could also make certain games massive within the rabbo.

So qualification in the Rabo would come to 2 games per year for the Scots, 2 games per year for the Italians, 12 for the Irish and 12 for the Welsh: 28 games out of a total of 132. It's not really an improvement on today, and would distort the competitiveness of the league.

Allocating qualifying places based on performance of clubs from the same union in the Euro tournament would just lead to self-perpetuating advantage for those who did well in the early tournaments. Do well in year 1, more exposure and chances to do well in year 2, and again in year 3 - whereas any team excluded from the top tier early on will find it harder and harder to get in and stay in.

It's really very difficult to say whether teams from one union are really better than teams from any other under the current system. There's no doubt that Munster and Leinster are great sides, but you can't say for certain that they'd have had the success they have had if they always had to have one eye on league qualification (the "they're great in the Rabo as well" argument would only hold water if all the teams in the league had something to play for at all times, which is generally the position in the AP)

That is all true Poorflour, however its the only meritocratic way of judging teams from unions against other teams from other unions.

It takes the rabbo out of the equation. and the only way to implement a uefa styled system based on unions not leagues. because unions could then be ranked on coefficients not leagues

Its very hard to get a perfect solution to all of this.

Something has to give- its about getting the closest to perfect solution we can.

SecretFly wrote:It is ridiculous, especially as I didn't say it.  

I'm saying your concern for the structures of Pro12 (internally - nothing to do with how they externally affect the European debate) but your concern for the internal dynamics of the Pro12 is an evader.  It evades the issue that the Ap and the Top14 have percieved 'advantages' of their own in the European context - never getting addressed, constantly brushed under the carpet

So in order to evade those issues, the talk goes into the details of the Pro12 structure - a competition few of you even watch much less care about 'improving'.

OK, spell them out. What are these advantages? The ones that I know of are:

1) Higher salary caps (especially the Top 14) - therefore bigger, and arguably higher "quality" squads. Partially offset by the longer season in France and the need in both leagues to compete to avoid relegation and secure qualification, which reduces options for resting players. Higher living costs in the UK also partially offset the advantage. On balance, the French have a definite advantage (that they seem to struggle to use); I am not convinced that the English teams have any real edge under the current setup

2) Less stringent limits on non-E/FQPs. Because the clubs are not directly run by the unions, they can't control this as tightly as the Celtic unions anyway (not without breaching EU employment law). Also, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, the different number of teams competing for national squad players makes an apples-to-apples comparison difficult because the home grown internationals / A teamers are spread more widely. Looking at the top 6 in the AP, (Sarries, Bath, Saints, Quins, Tigers and Exeter) all of them have strong academies and generally a high proportion of EQPs, however much we like to poke fun at Sarries for their South African recruits. Quins will start tomorrow with 3 non-EQPs in their 23 (one of whom will be EQP next year, one of whom is only there because we have only 1 other fit senior centre), versus 14 who have come from the Quins academy (from memory, and lower than usual because of injury. a more typical number would be 17-18 academy out of 23).

What else?

No league should be able to dictate how another league is run.

If one league wants to fill there league with 80% foreign players that should be fine.

I cant stand the outlook that others think things are unfair in Europe because of different domestic rules.

The only problems should be about how to run an ERC.

Poorfour wrote: There's no doubt that Munster and Leinster are great sides, but you can't say for certain that they'd have had the success they have had if they always had to have one eye on league qualification (the "they're great in the Rabo as well" argument would only hold water if all the teams in the league had something to play for at all times, which is generally the position in the AP)

With respect to your opinions again Poorfour - but that's trying again to have an argument point and covering your bases by rubbishing the ready-made answer to it.
You can't have it both ways.........  either Leinster and Munster have been languishing comfortably in the mid to bottom rungs of Pro12 over the years or they've been there or thereabouts in winning it over those years.  Which is it?  One proves your point precsie and accurate the other proves you wrong.  No middle cozy ground of rubbishing both answers that might come your way before they get to you.

Irish provinces fight as hard for their Pro12 as the do in HEC - history proves it - not just in games won and titles but in actual games played with the intensity needed - by HEC players OR their lesser brothers  
Both playing as hard as the can to pull off two titles, not just preparing calmly for one. A Pro12 player today fights to get into HEC sides tomorrow. They don't make it if they don't try in Pro12.

Also, there is no way an argument works that even Irish players (the HEC ones you all talk about - without ever talking about players who gave their all in both contests!) but there is no way a team of players would be ready to unleash the intensity of play needed to beat big English and French sides if they just came off their cottonwool holidays a few days before HEC itself.  it just doesn't compute in a real man's world where real up-to-speedness is needed to compete with these up-to-speed sides.

mystiroakey wrote:No league should be able to dictate how another league is run.

If one league wants to fill there league with 80% foreign players that should be fine.

I cant stand the outlook that others think things are unfair in Europe because of different domestic rules.

The only problems should be about how to run  an ERC.

....................Which has outside Rival Leagues trying to restructure the internal workings of a rival league!

A 32 team HC would have 8 groups of four. Top team in each group gets the quarter finals. Same number of games as now. No lucky second place qualifiers. And it solves the extra strain the Franglo's believe they have because of top 6 league qualification (which they impose on themselves).

It also removes the danger of destroying pro rugby in some of the few nations in the world which actually have a rugby tradition. Surely this is by far the best solution.

Feckless tbh the best method for me is to reduce the HC but increase the Amlin.

There is no need to have so many mis matches- but we need to increase the quality of the second tourny

Maybe you two should get a room and the rest of us will return when there is some real news.

Geoff this is going to go on for another 3 years. Get used to it

Feckless Rogue wrote:A 32 team HC would have 8 groups of four. Top team in each group gets the quarter finals. Same number of games as now. No lucky second place qualifiers. And it solves the extra strain the Franglo's believe they have because of top 6 league qualification (which they impose on themselves).

It also removes the danger of destroying pro rugby in some of the few nations in the world which actually have a rugby tradition. Surely this is by far the best solution.

Only if that's not the ultimate goal of all these changes in the first place.

The Leagues - each one of them - are Rivals.  Rivals for the affections of consumers and TV watchers across Europe.  No, they're not partners - they are Rivals, agreeing to share a European competition for their own specific ends, not for the greatness of the rugby union game.

So do rival Leagues really have the best interests of all at heart or is this just a long chess game designed to enrich one league at the expense of the others?  And by 'enrich' I don't just mean money deals for sponsorship and TV - I mean sucking best players and best coaches away from Rival Leagues - thereby killing off competitors.

People keep saying this is business not sport.  They admit it.  Well business is ruthless.

geoff999rugby wrote:Maybe you two should get a room and the rest of us will return when there is some real news.

I think the door is already well lit with an EXIT sign for the purpose

As long as no one that isn't Irish doesn't talk about the rabbo it's ok..otherwise yes exit and leave SF to it..

talk talk talk...but I'll answer, answer, answer mystir.

Now did you get back to me on the last one?  No League should interfere in the running of another league but PRL are right to demand structural changes from another League.

Again it's the "some are equal but some are more equal than others"  Keeps cropping up, all through these months.

How can i answer that question when i haven't said the PRL are right to demand structural changes from other domestic leagues. As i pointed out that is wrong!

BUt then when have they?

Its nonsense of the highest order SF.

There is no answer to give

mystiroakey wrote:How can i answer that question when i haven't said the PRL are right to demand structural changes from other domestic leagues. As i pointed out that is wrong!

BUt then when have they?

Its nonsense of the highest order SF.

There is no answer to give

They haven't demanded changes from Pro12? News to me,mystir!!! I've hallucinated the last five or so months!!!!!!!!!! Bad drugs again...must find a better seller...................

As I said if they have its wrong to. BUt if you could tell me who and when they did that might help your stance

YOu are hallucinating though because I have not once said the PRL are right.

When did i state that?

Well last point before I head out for the weekend.

If the PRL never demanded anything from Pro12 then they are neither right nor wrong and we shouldn't even be here still discussing this a few months down the line.

But we are here.  And we're here because PRL and LNR demanded changes to the European contests (which involved a big serious change to the Pro12 internal structure).  If they hadn't demanded their changes we'd only be talking about the games coming up this weekend - not about the War.

Anyway, enjoy the weekend.  I'm gone.

Firstly and something you need to understand.

ENGLISH PEOPLE ARE NOT THE PRL.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME NATIONALISTIC ISSUES YOU DO. just because we are English doesn't mean we have to believe or trust and stand by everything another English person or organisation does.

And if you cant point out where the PRL has demanded the rabbo make all these changes and then just run away without providing evidence then you have lost.

Game set and match.

mystiroakey wrote:

Firstly and something you need to understand.

ENGLISH PEOPLE ARE NOT THE PRL.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME NATIONALISTIC ISSUES YOU DO. just because we are English doesn't mean we have to believe or trust and stand by everything another English person or organisation does.

And if you cant point out where the PRL has demanded the rabbo make all these changes and then just run away without providing evidence then you have lost.

Game set and match.

Nothing to do with you being ENGLISH and nothing to do with YOU.  

The PRL demanded changes of the Pro12.  If - you -can't - understand - that - at - this - point - in - time - you - are - deluded.  Is that clear enough?  The Pro12 is a League of Union Nations.  PRL and LNR demands that it constructs itself only as a single entity non-diverse Union League.
Neither you personally nor you AS AN ENGLISH PERSON have relevance to that debate or that truth.  But you said they made no such demands.  They did.