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

Munchkin wrote:

Prem bashing? Think it's the Rabo league that has been on the receiving end of most of the bashing lately, and if you take your time to read his comment you will find that Geoff isn't 'bashing' the AP, but is in fact stating that stats have the 3 leagues as virtual equals when considering Euro form. Maybe suggesting that Rabo is equal to AP is bashing AP to your thinking?

Fuzzy Logic....... 

I would have thought that it was clear from my post that I was saying the bashing is coming from Germs, and merely found it interesting that Geoff - with his interesting stats that show a level of parity between the leagues - felt the need to direct them at an Aviva supporter, not the actual instigator of the willy waving contest.

Fuzzy logic indeed  

TJ wrote:How is it meritocratic to have 6 guaranteed places reserved for AP teams when 4 unions would have no guaranteed places which is what the PRL want.  Neither fair nor meritocratic.  Under the PRL proposals it would be almost impossible for 3 Irish teams to go thru. They do not want a "fair" european cup - they want one Biased towards themselves and to take the lions share of the money.

Given that Geoff has already pointed out that win lose ratios are equal it kind of suggests that the three leagues are on level pegging over all, with the Pro12 split with the best and worst. That's how it's meritocratic (is that a word? or spelt right?). As for fair...well there is no 'fair'. Fair is what people call getting what they want.

What I still can't my head around is how everyone involved has been used as pawns in this by BT who are using PRL and the rest as cannon fodder in their battle with SKY. Because of the way they tied the Premiership clubs into a national and European deal at same time they might have by accident or design brought about the collapse of professional rugby in at least two countries.
I can fully understand PRL signing a lucrative contract for domestic rugby in England with BT - more money for them and probably not much less exposure as anyone who didn't switch to BT would pay the extra for the SKY version.
What I still can't understand is that BT then tied the PRL sides into a new version of the HEC without even putting it forward to the other nations/leagues involved, especially given that two of the countries (and a quarter of another) are also in BT Sports audience reach area.
If BT were genuine about wanting to cover a pan-European competition (either HEC or RCC) why couldn't they approach all the home nations/ERC and pitch it as a new better deal than they were getting with SKY?
The various changes that PRL have wanted to the format in could have still been worked through I'm sure if there was enough cash on the table and a bidding war would have been better for everyone moneywise. If the BT proposal was everything PRL say it is then they'd have their hands snapped off, blazers like power and regardless of any changes more money would mean more power.

TJ wrote:How is it meritocratic to have 6 guaranteed places reserved for AP teams when 4 unions would have no guaranteed places which is what the PRL want.  Neither fair nor meritocratic.  Under the PRL proposals it would be almost impossible for 3 Irish teams to go thru. They do not want a "fair" european cup - they want one Biased towards themselves and to take the lions share of the money.

Didn't the format you are referring to get agreed by all at a meeting the PRL weren't even at?

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Guns you are right, with Rabo teams propping up half the pools they are obviously the weakest league.
The AP don't want more they just want equal.

Sorry to spoil your arguement with facts but all 3 leagues have exactly the same record with respect to Wins and Losses
No one league is showing up any stronger than any other

I find it very interesting that you direct this comment not towards the poster who actually started the pointless discussion about which league is the weakest, but instead aimed it at the guy who came in later to defend his league. I do wonder if no one had come in to defend the AP, whether or not you would have felt the need to share your knowledge or would you have allowed the Prem bashing to continue?

Some people need to lighten up - did you miss the smilry at the end ???

The record so far this year are:

Aviva                W15 L15
Top14               W17 L17 D1
Pro12                W27 L27 D1

If anyone wants to make a argument about one league being stronger than another based on that information knock yourself out.

Now of course if someone prefers to talk about countries I am happy to do so seeing as Ireland is the only country with a record over 50%(80%) Not one on the Provinces will have a record below 50% this year, regardless, of what happens going forward  

Toadfish wrote:

TJ wrote:How is it meritocratic to have 6 guaranteed places reserved for AP teams when 4 unions would have no guaranteed places which is what the PRL want.  Neither fair nor meritocratic.  Under the PRL proposals it would be almost impossible for 3 Irish teams to go thru. They do not want a "fair" european cup - they want one Biased towards themselves and to take the lions share of the money.

Didn't the format you are referring to get agreed by all at a meeting the PRL weren't even at?

Nope thats the original PRL proposal I am talking about - the one they will not move from one inch. ( apart from belatedly conceeding one from each nation as of right)

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:
Same could be said about you couldnt it?

Er, no Germs, not at all. Slightly confused about how you could think that the point I was making could be applied to me in any way at all? But nevermind.

GunsGerms wrote:
The APs proposals are centered around their league "meriting" more more places and money.

Er, no Germs, not at all. The PRL proposals are that their league merits the same number of places and an equal share of the money. The evidence would suggest this is pretty reasonable, no? AP sides generally fall below the elite (Irish and French) sides, but above the usual weak teams.

They already get more places than any of the IRFU, WRU and FIR teams so if anything in the interest of fairness there should be less English teams. Merit is a poor arguement for more English teams based on their record in recent years.

The RFU gets the same money as any other union yet the French and English clubs will always have the ability to generate greater revenue independently. Therefore, no they should not be given any more money.

What is to stop the IRFU breaking away from the Rabo and setting up an Irish 12 team league and demanding a guarenteed 6+ Heineken cup teams ala the PRL? Thats effectively what the PRL is claiming as their right.

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:How is it meritocratic to have 6 guaranteed places reserved for AP teams when 4 unions would have no guaranteed places which is what the PRL want.  Neither fair nor meritocratic.  Under the PRL proposals it would be almost impossible for 3 Irish teams to go thru. They do not want a "fair" european cup - they want one Biased towards themselves and to take the lions share of the money.

Given that Geoff has already pointed out that win lose ratios are equal it kind of suggests that the three leagues are on level pegging over all, with the Pro12 split with the best and worst. That's how it's meritocratic (is that a word? or spelt right?). As for fair...well there is no 'fair'. Fair is what people call getting what they want.

Because if you take out the worst 40% of the rabo teams as the PRL want then the Rabo teams would be clearly be far better than anyone else on average. How is it meritocratic to have 6 places reserved for AP teams despite their performances?

And of course an Anglo-Welsh league should only get a set number of places (6/7) with only 1 guaranteed for Wales and England respectively.

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Indeed Geoff.

here is an interesting thought* say qualification went on previous results - say over 3 years? 1 pt for a QF, 2 for a semi, 3 for a final - how many places would be merited then?


* not interesting enough for me to do it tho

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:How is it meritocratic to have 6 guaranteed places reserved for AP teams when 4 unions would have no guaranteed places which is what the PRL want.  Neither fair nor meritocratic.  Under the PRL proposals it would be almost impossible for 3 Irish teams to go thru. They do not want a "fair" european cup - they want one Biased towards themselves and to take the lions share of the money.

Given that Geoff has already pointed out that win lose ratios are equal it kind of suggests that the three leagues are on level pegging over all, with the Pro12 split with the best and worst. That's how it's meritocratic (is that a word? or spelt right?). As for fair...well there is no 'fair'. Fair is what people call getting what they want.

Because if you take out the worst 40% of the rabo teams as the PRL want then the Rabo teams would be clearly be far better than anyone else on average.  How is it meritocratic to have 6 places reserved for AP teams despite their performances?

Taking your lead how is it meritocratic that currently the Scots/Italian/Welsh have 7 places reserved for them despite their performances?

Its not meritocratic any more than the 6 ap places is. the entry to the european cup has never been meritocratic. The PRL proposals are not meritocratic. Just another example of PRL spin and shown to be nonsense.

How can it be meritocratic when any nation has guaranteed places?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Prem bashing? Think it's the Rabo league that has been on the receiving end of most of the bashing lately, and if you take your time to read his comment you will find that Geoff isn't 'bashing' the AP, but is in fact stating that stats have the 3 leagues as virtual equals when considering Euro form. Maybe suggesting that Rabo is equal to AP is bashing AP to your thinking?

Fuzzy Logic....... 

I think he was referring to Guns who 'started it' saying only two English sides in the QF is poor and they need to be dropped (paraphrasing/over-egging/etc).  So Geoff jumped in when someone pointed out 3 of the pools are currently propped up by Pro12 teams, but he didn't jump before (because he didn't see it, or cared, or whatever).

I still find the idea there is some absolute notion of 'fairness' in this amusing (in an arrogant English kind of way)

True, but my point stands. It wasn't bashing the AP, but rather suggesting that HEC history shows all three leagues as fairly equal in terms of results.

A bit of hyperbole can be effective when attempting to get your message across, but the key to that is perception   

Fairness has its place, but what fair means can be highly subjective. Some think it's not fair that Rabo teams auto qualify for HEC, but regardless of it being fair, or not, the question should be is it in the beat interests of European rugby? Ultimately, what is best for European rugby should be what is best for each league, and also each national team.

It all boils down to whether you believe that money should rule rugby or the unions.

I believe that the unions should have control whereas PRL fan boys want rugby to evolve organically in a purely capitalist driven environment. Thats a simplified version of how I see it anyway.

Future of rugby:
Unions -> sport
PRL/Money -> business

TJ wrote:Its not meritocratic any more than the 6 ap places is.  the entry to the european cup has never been meritocratic.  The PRL proposals are not meritocratic.  Just another example of PRL spin and shown to be nonsense.

How can it be meritocratic when any nation has guaranteed places?

So what do you suggest?

And if we let the money men control the sport we will get into a situation like football where club comes before country and the minnows only get the scraps. the champions league used to have one entrant from every league. Now the minnows have to qualify and the big leagues get multiple entrants without qualifying.

GunsGerms wrote:It all boils down to whether you believe that money should rule rugby or the unions.

I believe that the unions should have control whereas PRL fan boys want rugby to evolve organically in a purely capitalist driven environment. Thats a simplified version of how I see it anyway.

Future of rugby:
Unions         -> sport
PRL/Money   -> business

 
For the future of rugby shouldn't we be inviting other nations clubs in and giving them a larger slice of the pie to help them develop more. Less money for the French/English/Scots etc mean they'll have to develop more of their own players so in turn helps the international teams. Or is it more the Unions want to control it but only benefitting their own nations?

Toadfish wrote:

TJ wrote:Its not meritocratic any more than the 6 ap places is.  the entry to the european cup has never been meritocratic.  The PRL proposals are not meritocratic.  Just another example of PRL spin and shown to be nonsense.

How can it be meritocratic when any nation has guaranteed places?

So what do you suggest?

My prefered option would be a approx 32 team cup having a preliminary round to winnow the numbers down to manageable levels. Perhaps with byes for the top teams.  so either 32 teams play off home and away to get 16 teams in the main cup or 8 byes with the remaining 24 teams playing off to get i2 giving 20 in the main cup.   Everyone gets a chance at the big time every year.  The main issue with that is mismatches. That would be meritocratic

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Prem bashing? Think it's the Rabo league that has been on the receiving end of most of the bashing lately, and if you take your time to read his comment you will find that Geoff isn't 'bashing' the AP, but is in fact stating that stats have the 3 leagues as virtual equals when considering Euro form. Maybe suggesting that Rabo is equal to AP is bashing AP to your thinking?

Fuzzy Logic....... 

I would have thought that it was clear from my post that I was saying the bashing is coming from Germs, and merely found it interesting that Geoff - with his interesting stats that show a level of parity between the leagues - felt the need to direct them at an Aviva supporter, not the actual instigator of the willy waving contest.

Fuzzy logic indeed  

True. It was directed at G&G. My bad   

I have to say though, I think Fuzzy Logic was rather good    Maybe I need to get out more......

Munchkin wrote:


I have to say though, I think Fuzzy Logic was rather good   

Oh it definitely was. That's why I felt it deserved another go at the end of my post.   

TJ wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

TJ wrote:Its not meritocratic any more than the 6 ap places is.  the entry to the european cup has never been meritocratic.  The PRL proposals are not meritocratic.  Just another example of PRL spin and shown to be nonsense.

How can it be meritocratic when any nation has guaranteed places?

So what do you suggest?

My prefered option would be a approx 32 team cup having a preliminary round to winnow the numbers down to manageable levels. Perhaps with byes for the top teams.  so either 32 teams play off home and away to get 16 teams in the main cup or 8 byes with the remaining 24 teams playing off to get i2 giving 20 in the main cup.   Everyone gets a chance at the big time every year.  The main issue with that is mismatches.  That would be meritocratic

Not a terrible idea but for me, from a PRL point of view, this would take away the qualification aspect in the Aviva which I think adds something to the competition. Wouldn't dream of suggesting it could be good for any other leagues. Not my business...

Geoff, unfortuantely if any Wenglo league does happen (and I really really don't see it happening) then I doubt there will be any involvement in Europe from these sides. So the number of teams qualifying isn't an issue.

Munchkin, how are you defining European rugby? all rugby across Europe or just those you're in a cozy cliche with? I can very easily say that it makes sense to me that the three leagues are roughly equal (with the best French and Pro12 teams being above the English) so it makes sense to split it between the three leagues. Half go in the top tier, half go in the 2nd tier. It is very easy to say that because I'm primarily interested (in watching) English rugby and we have a full league to ourselves.

It comes back down to some wanting it to be a tournament between unions (as in domestic representations of those unions, be they private clubs or nation regions, etc). And some want it to be between leagues.

Now from memory the cries of outrage over the PRL and LNR (mainly the PRL) daring to suggest there should equal representation and equal finances across the leagues, died down a fair bit towards the end of last year when it seemed to suddenly become reasonable to suggest this, and it was fair that it was implemented (although that nonsense about a home play-off to the English for another spot needs rethinking, what's that about?).

Personally I have two preferences (well three if you include no Enlgish involvement at all).

1) Either a completition between the three leagues as outlined back last month
2) Have as best for each union but only have 1 or 2 with teams from outside the 6 nations. More like champions league perhaps (although I don't know the details of that).

Of course what happens if the Italians leave the PRO12? If the competiton is between the three leagues do the Pro12 keep 7? Do the Italians lose them all?

TJ wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

TJ wrote:Its not meritocratic any more than the 6 ap places is.  the entry to the european cup has never been meritocratic.  The PRL proposals are not meritocratic.  Just another example of PRL spin and shown to be nonsense.

How can it be meritocratic when any nation has guaranteed places?

So what do you suggest?

My prefered option would be a approx 32 team cup having a preliminary round to winnow the numbers down to manageable levels. Perhaps with byes for the top teams.  so either 32 teams play off home and away to get 16 teams in the main cup or 8 byes with the remaining 24 teams playing off to get i2 giving 20 in the main cup.   Everyone gets a chance at the big time every year.  The main issue with that is mismatches.  That would be meritocratic

Let me guess, all of the Pro12 teams are included but 2 of the English teams (and 4 of the French) have to site twiddling their thumbs while other have extra money from gate receipts?

GunsGerms wrote:It all boils down to whether you believe that money should rule rugby or the unions.

I believe that the unions should have control whereas PRL fan boys want rugby to evolve organically in a purely capitalist driven environment. Thats a simplified version of how I see it anyway.

Future of rugby:
Unions         -> sport
PRL/Money   -> business

True. I think unions should be limited in how much money they gave teams in hand outs and same goes for central contracts. It gives these sides an extra advantage on those poor sides that have to make do on what they can earn (poor Gloucester, Tigers, Exeter and Saints, and Toulon apparantly   )

Hammer - its just an outline of the sort of thing I would like. Make it 36 or 40 teams if you want. The idea is every top tier pro team could enter and even a couple of real minnows like Bucharest or Tiblisi. I would like a european cup where everyone gets a chance to win every year. Where everyone gets a chance at the top table. Where all nations are fairly represented. another option would be to have a qualifying tourney. IE the top 4 teams from each league qualify as of right - everyone else has to qualify thru some form of playoffs. could be say 3 team pools with a winner to go thru for teams ranked below this.

TJ wrote:How is it meritocratic to have 6 guaranteed places reserved for AP teams when 4 unions would have no guaranteed places which is what the PRL want.  Neither fair nor meritocratic.  Under the PRL proposals it would be almost impossible for 3 Irish teams to go thru. They do not want a "fair" european cup - they want one Biased towards themselves and to take the lions share of the money.

Because this is a club competition not one between nations. No AP club is guaranteed a place now or under any proposed system. Currently Scottish teams are. That is what needs to change. Actually that is one of the things that all the parties have agreed on.

As for being impossible for four Irish teams to go though. It was perfectly possible under the original PRL proposals which was for the top 6 to qualify from each league. It was the Celtic countries and Italy that insisted on one team from each country automatically qualifying thus making it more difficult for four Irish teams to qualify. You cannot blame the PRL for accepting compromises proposed by others.

GunsGerms wrote:It all boils down to whether you believe that money should rule rugby or the unions.

I believe that the unions should have control whereas PRL fan boys want rugby to evolve organically in a purely capitalist driven environment. Thats a simplified version of how I see it anyway.

Future of rugby:
Unions         -> sport
PRL/Money   -> business

Not sure how the huge fees levied on the Italians (for the privilege of being developed in the Pro12) by the unions fits with your idea that the benevolent pro-sport unions are in stark contrast to the money grubbers at the PRL.

Honestly, there really is little difference between the gin swigging blazers at the unions and the business folk in charge of some AP clubs. Both sides are absolutely only looking out for their own interests and the truth is that neither of them are truly interested in spreading the game beyond its traditional boarders if it affects their funding.

The sad thing about this whole mess is that it has created a divide in the rugby community between the English fans and the Celtic fans. The real divide in the sport should be between us, as fans of the sport, and the idiots who run the game. Those idiots who milk every penny out of the spectators as they possibly can, pricing out huge portions of followers from attending international matches.

exiled - nonsense.

How is it meritocratic to have 6 places for AP teams guaranteed. the AP would always have 6 teams in it no matter how poor they were. That is not meritocratic in any way at all. Suppose one year no AP team won a game and the QFs were all rabo teams. ( unlikely tho that is) the AP would still have 6 places the following year. that is not entry on merit in any way.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:It all boils down to whether you believe that money should rule rugby or the unions.

I believe that the unions should have control whereas PRL fan boys want rugby to evolve organically in a purely capitalist driven environment. Thats a simplified version of how I see it anyway.

Future of rugby:
Unions         -> sport
PRL/Money   -> business

Not sure how the huge fees levied on the Italians (for the privilege of being developed in the Pro12) by the unions fits with your idea that the benevolent pro-sport unions are in stark contrast to the money grubbers at the PRL.

Honestly, there really is little difference between the gin swigging blazers at the unions and the business folk in charge of some AP clubs. Both sides are absolutely only looking out for their own interests and the truth is that neither of them are truly interested in spreading the game beyond its traditional boarders if it affects their funding.

The sad thing about this whole mess is that it has created a divide in the rugby community between the English fans and the Celtic fans. The real divide in the sport should be between us, as fans of the sport, and the idiots who run the game. Those idiots who milk every penny out of the spectators as they possibly can, pricing out huge portions of followers from attending international matches.

At least the unions care about Euro rugby as it is, in other words the 6 nations. The PRL couldnt care less about that.

Dagnamitt! I got sucked in again!

I just really hope the extra years negotiation that the 5N agreement has given us ( even if it leads to a poor tourney next year) allows for a proper fair revamp of the european cup. I am hopeful it will.

Aren't the league games effectively the qualifying games? You could add in extra ones but where are they going to fit in? By qualifying do you mean a one off? Who get's home advantage? Home and away? That's two more games.

How would you determine the qualifiers? Top Pro12 plays bottom AP, Top AP plays bottom T14, Top T14 plays bottom Pro12? Then 2nd Pro12, plays second from bottom T14, etc.

Of course if the second tier was a bit more interesting then being in the 2nd tier wouldn't be the end of the world. And if they got rid of the stupid playoff the winner of the 2nd tier could gain access to the top tier.

Who the   known? But at the moment the format is irrelevant.

If money is so evil how come the "saintly" Unions want to keep control of it?

broadlandboy wrote:If money is so evil how come the "saintly" Unions want to keep control of it?

To ensure it doesnt become the driving force behind the evolution of european rugby.

GunsGerms wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:If money is so evil how come the "saintly" Unions want to keep control of it?

To ensure it doesnt become the driving force behind the evolution of european rugby.

Yes, of course. The Unions want to keep hold on the money so it doesn't corrupt the weak willed clubs. Why didn't I think of it before? It's their precious it is.

Hammer - you really want to get into my ideas of a structure more? I think byes for the top teams would make sense - either on previous years performance or league position. Stops an increase in games played for the top teams)

Playoffs could be home and away winner goes thru played early in the year ( halves the numbers) or groups of 3 played round robin winner goes thru ( not home and away but everyone gets one home and one away game) ( 1/3 go thru) depending on the balance of byes to total entrants. Playoffs would be on a basis like you mention

Its just a type of structure I would like in that everyone from the 40th team to the top team gets a chance to win, gets a meaningful game and a chance to play a big team at least once. the main issue is mismatches but say tigers would not need to put out a full strength team to beat Tbilisi would they?

I also like the idea of cup / bowl / shield after the qualifying rounds

I could work on the concept further and have put a fair amount of thought into it already if yu really are intested but as you say my ideas on what would be good are not really relevant.

I think you can see what I am aiming at tho.

TJ wrote:exiled - nonsense.  

How is it meritocratic to have 6 places for AP teams guaranteed.  the AP would always have 6 teams in it no matter how poor they were.  That is not meritocratic in any way at all.  Suppose one year no AP team won a game and the QFs were all rabo teams.  ( unlikely tho that is) the AP would still have 6 places the following year.  that is not entry on merit in any way.

It is clearly more meritocratic to have around half the teams qualifying from each league than for that to apply to only two of three leagues with the third having nearly all teams either not having to qualify e.g. Edinburgh or having a relatively easy qualification e.g. 75% of Irish teams qualifying.

I actually like your idea of the number of teams qualifying from each league being based on the success of that league. This is what they do in Wendyball with the English Premiership having more entrants than Scotland.  However such a qualification system would make the idea of a guaranteed place for one team from each country in the Rabo unrealistic. If the Rabo was unsuccessful and its entrants were reduced to four then the second placed team might not go through.  I would be happy to accept if the English teams were unsuccessful then they should have less places.  I suspect that none of the leagues or unions would accept your idea.

GunsGerms wrote:

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:It all boils down to whether you believe that money should rule rugby or the unions.

I believe that the unions should have control whereas PRL fan boys want rugby to evolve organically in a purely capitalist driven environment. Thats a simplified version of how I see it anyway.

Future of rugby:
Unions         -> sport
PRL/Money   -> business

Not sure how the huge fees levied on the Italians (for the privilege of being developed in the Pro12) by the unions fits with your idea that the benevolent pro-sport unions are in stark contrast to the money grubbers at the PRL.

Honestly, there really is little difference between the gin swigging blazers at the unions and the business folk in charge of some AP clubs. Both sides are absolutely only looking out for their own interests and the truth is that neither of them are truly interested in spreading the game beyond its traditional boarders if it affects their funding.

The sad thing about this whole mess is that it has created a divide in the rugby community between the English fans and the Celtic fans. The real divide in the sport should be between us, as fans of the sport, and the idiots who run the game. Those idiots who milk every penny out of the spectators as they possibly can, pricing out huge portions of followers from attending international matches.

At least the unions care about Euro rugby as it is, in other words the 6 nations. The PRL couldnt care less about that.

As the PRL receives a lot of money from the RFU which comes from international rugby I do not think that is true.

As for who should control rugby that should be the unions but by rugby I mean what happens on the field of play.

Who should control business issues - the businesses concerned. In the case of England, Wales and France that is the clubs in Scotland and Ireland that is the unions.

TJ wrote:Hammer - you really want to get into my ideas of a structure more?  I think byes for the top teams would make sense -  either on previous years performance or league position. Stops an increase in games played for the top teams)

Playoffs could be home and away winner goes thru played early in the year ( halves the numbers) or groups of 3 played round robin winner goes thru ( not home and away but everyone gets one home and one away game) ( 1/3 go thru) depending on the balance of byes to total entrants.  Playoffs would be on a basis like you mention

Its just a type of structure I would like in that everyone from the 40th team to the top team gets a chance to win, gets a meaningful game and a chance to play a big team at least once.  the main issue is mismatches but say tigers would not need to put out a full strength team to beat Tbilisi would they?

I also like the idea of cup / bowl / shield after the qualifying rounds

I could work on the concept further and have put a fair amount of thought into it already if yu really are intested but as you say my ideas on what would be good are not really relevant.  

I think you can see what I am aiming at tho.

I am interested. Anything that's a bit new on this subject would be welcome. As long as you can take well meant differences of opinion if I raise any   

A couple of things to consider (IMO).
1) One teams make money from home games. Ideally the number of homes will remain at 3
2) The total number of games stays as 9. Otherwise you'd need to suggest where the extra weekends come from.

I've done something similar with the idea of an NFL type conference system to replace the leagues. Not realistic, nor welcome to most as 20 of the 32 teams were English.

Ok - I'll get back to you later with something a bit more detailed. It needs to get close to giving everyone what they want.

Then just need to get the unions and clubs on board and it's sorted.

Na - I'll just tell them! my way or the highway

HammerofThunor wrote:Geoff, unfortuantely if any Wenglo league does happen (and I really really don't see it happening) then I doubt there will be any involvement in Europe from these sides. So the number of teams qualifying isn't an issue.

Munchkin, how are you defining European rugby? all rugby across Europe or just those you're in a cozy cliche with? :)I can very easily say that it makes sense to me that the three leagues are roughly equal (with the best French and Pro12 teams being above the English) so it makes sense to split it between the three leagues. Half go in the top tier, half go in the 2nd tier. It is very easy to say that because I'm primarily interested (in watching) English rugby and we have a full league to ourselves.

It comes back down to some wanting it to be a tournament between unions (as in domestic representations of those unions, be they private clubs or nation regions, etc). And some want it to be between leagues.

Now from memory the cries of outrage over the PRL and LNR (mainly the PRL) daring to suggest there should equal representation and equal finances across the leagues, died down a fair bit towards the end of last year when it seemed to suddenly become reasonable to suggest this, and it was fair that it was implemented (although that nonsense about a home play-off to the English for another spot needs rethinking, what's that about?).

Personally I have two preferences (well three if you include no Enlgish involvement at all).

1) Either a completition between the three leagues as outlined back last month
2) Have as best for each union but only have 1 or 2 with teams from outside the 6 nations. More like champions league perhaps (although I don't know the details of that).

Of course what happens if the Italians leave the PRO12? If the competiton is between the three leagues do the Pro12 keep 7? Do the Italians lose them all?

I'm not in a cosy >clique< with anyone, however, for the sake of this argument I define Europe as Rabo, AP, and T14. My point on fairness is that both sides can apply it to their position when discussing meritocracy, and allocation of funds, and although what seems presently fair on one side might mean short-term gain for that side, it can also mean they lose out on benefits in the long-term. Having said that, although I would have preferred the split to remain as is, I'm not complaining about the equal split between the three leagues, or about any changes to format within Rabo.
The play-off spot is a pathetic sop, I believe, and agree with you that it's nonsense. It would become a bone of contention, and eventually dropped. No side would want that.
I don't believe Italy will leave the Rabo. I do believe they are negotiating for a better deal. Rightly so. Should they leave Rabo, I would like to think they still enter teams in any European competition. Not sure what it would mean to Rabo. Keep 7 places I say    Realistically 6 if Rabo remains at 10.

Ho-ly-Poopie. I've just seen the Currency Fair advert. Any one seen it?

HammerofThunor wrote:Ho-ly-Poopie. I've just seen the Currency Fair advert. Any one seen it?

Yep. Underneath it all, Chabal is a big fairy   

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Ho-ly-Poopie. I've just seen the Currency Fair advert. Any one seen it?

Yep. Underneath it all, Chabal is a big fairy   

Couldn't believe. I had just finished reading your post and that came on the tele   

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Ho-ly-Poopie. I've just seen the Currency Fair advert. Any one seen it?

Yep. Underneath it all, Chabal is a big fairy   

Couldn't believe. I had just finished reading your post and that came on the tele   

Reading my comment on fairness in rugby, and a Currency Fair advert featuring Chabal pops up!.... It's a sign! A somewhat disturbing big hairy fairy sign, but a sign nonetheless   

....a sign of what I don't know...

Never try and predict what the French will do, perhaps.

Or perhaps the French working on the side of fairness is as likely as Chabal dressing as a fairy (but he has!).

PS I knew there was wrong with my spelling of cliche

HammerofThunor wrote:Never try and predict what the French will do, perhaps.

Or perhaps the French working on the side of fairness is as likely as Chabal dressing as a fairy (but he has!).

PS I knew there was wrong with my spelling of cliche

Never try and predict what the French will do is good advise, methinks. Can't say I trust them completely with this FIRA-AER thing. Time will tell.

The Cilice you mean. The mad monk in the Da vinci code wore one. A great addition to help spur the conscience along   

Nothing really new but...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/european-rugby/10570005/RFU-meet-French-for-European-peace-talks.html

So no doubt everything is about to go to Poopie-er (as it tends to after a "things are looking good" story).

Seems to me another attempt by the RFU ( who generally have played a weak hand well) to find a way back in for the PRL teams. I suspect the RFU are very unhappy at the prospect of no england teams in next years european cup but I would be very surprised if they get any significant further compromises for next year.

However to the 5N who runs the comp is not that important so long as the power remains with the unions is my reading of the situation.

Dunno what is really left to negotiate but to continue talking is good.