New European cup. (Or whatever it's called) Qualification agreed? Part 2

by Intotouch Sat 18 Jan 2014, 12:06 am

First topic message reminder :

A continuation of the previous thread. For everyone with more to say.

by Guest Wed 19 Feb 2014, 7:47 pm

No mention of a unanimous vote this time. Won't make for a happy RRW, but then they can hardly complain as they can't be bothered to send their own representatives.
Sure they can always tap a loan from that nice Mr Lewis Run

by SecretFly Wed 19 Feb 2014, 7:52 pm

BT should NOT have arrived at the structural negotiation table in the pocket of PRL (or using PRL as their agent at the table, if you prefer word it that way). They did not belong there under that condition. They automatically placed themselves at variance with other bodies that they were ironically asking to represent in broadcasting terms too. But they arrived with PRL... not alone, and not neutral in the structural changes being requested.

Read that as a specific or as a general principle, I'm not concerned which. It is it.

Broadcasting companies don't own sport - they show it. Back in their box. The world is large and the broadcasting competitors are becoming many. If they don't want to bite a product they didn't create themselves around their audience moods and likings and bias (more English sides in Europe because of English TV ariels as an example Wink

) then tough - there'll be others there. European rugby has enough value to make it marketable on its terms.

by HammerofThunor Wed 19 Feb 2014, 8:45 pm

Munchkin wrote:But my point is that with PRL being represented on the committee they would have known about any approach by BT to tender for exclusive broadcasting rights. The fact that PRL haven't brought this up leads me to believe that BT never approached ERC.
I think we can say it was successful in terms of European competition. The HEC was a great success, and growing year on year. Whether or not another company would do it better doesn't take away from that fact, but there is risk in testing that out. 'If it isn't broke, don't fix it'. That's not to say it couldn't be improved, of course.
Personally speaking I was never in love with Sky. They don't mind digging the arm in when it comes to sport. For me it isn't so much siding with Sky as it is siding with the Unions decision to go with Sky. Sure, whoever the broadcaster is, we will always have reason to have a good old gripe at them.

I would have thought any discussions regarding tenders and bids would have to be kept confidential so the lack of talk is not really a sign of anything. There have been comments from the PRL saying they didn't think that the ERC was making the most of it's commercial potential. Nothing specific though.

by Guest Wed 19 Feb 2014, 9:47 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
Munchkin wrote:But my point is that with PRL being represented on the committee they would have known about any approach by BT to tender for exclusive broadcasting rights. The fact that PRL haven't brought this up leads me to believe that BT never approached ERC.
I think we can say it was successful in terms of European competition. The HEC was a great success, and growing year on year. Whether or not another company would do it better doesn't take away from that fact, but there is risk in testing that out. 'If it isn't broke, don't fix it'. That's not to say it couldn't be improved, of course.
Personally speaking I was never in love with Sky. They don't mind digging the arm in when it comes to sport. For me it isn't so much siding with Sky as it is siding with the Unions decision to go with Sky. Sure, whoever the broadcaster is, we will always have reason to have a good old gripe at them.

I would have thought any discussions regarding tenders and bids would have to be kept confidential so the lack of talk is not really a sign of anything. There have been comments from the PRL saying they didn't think that the ERC was making the most of it's commercial potential. Nothing specific though.

I can't see why ERC refusing to negotiate with BT would have to be kept confidential. No negotiations, no contract, and no breach of confidence.

Indeed, PRL, or those speaking on their behalf, have claimed that ERC wasn't making the most of commercial potential. A hollow assertion without providing the facts to support it, and a strange one when considering McCafferty was at one time head of Commercial Committee. How successful was he, or any other of PRL/LNR?
The HEC has been very successful, and up until this point of time has continued to grow. The same can't be said of the AP, under the umbrella of those accusers - PRL.

by broadlandboy Wed 19 Feb 2014, 11:01 pm

Unfortunately for alot of supporters there is more to European rugby than HEC which is the only thing that ERC seem to care about & failed on most other levels(lets be honest that if anybody couldnt make a success of the HEC they couldnt organise a ****up in a brewery).
In what way do you claim that the AP hasn't grown ?Yet supporter numbers are up more money from media deals & more teams heading towards sustainabilty

by HammerofThunor Wed 19 Feb 2014, 11:06 pm

What is that a chairman does? I thought he just, well, chaired it. They way it's talked about on here it's like the chairman is a dictator. I've no experience of this, other than the chair of our little meetings in work, but surely IF McCafferty raised the issue of looking at other broadcasters and all the union/ERC members (6 out of 9) said "no, we're sticking Sky" there's nothing he can do.

If you want to go along with made up stuff, maybe this is why he stepped down from the committee as was the main leader for them to give notice. But the 'ERC' we happy to let the game grow for itself.

The was always going to continue to grow. It's been a couple of decades since professionalism.

As for confidentiality thing, well that's it, we don't know. We know very little. Doesn't stop people acting as though the media speculation (in the media biased to their viewpoint, I can't believe the nonsense they allow the media biased against my viewpoint to put out there) is true.

by Poorfour Wed 19 Feb 2014, 11:09 pm

SecretFly wrote:BT should NOT have arrived at the structural negotiation table in the pocket of PRL (or using PRL as their agent at the table, if you prefer word it that way). They did not belong there under that condition. They automatically placed themselves at variance with other bodies that they were ironically asking to represent in broadcasting terms too. But they arrived with PRL... not alone, and not neutral in the structural changes being requested.

Read that as a specific or as a general principle, I'm not concerned which. It is it.

Broadcasting companies don't own sport - they show it. Back in their box. The world is large and the broadcasting competitors are becoming many. If they don't want to bite a product they didn't create themselves around their audience moods and likings and bias (more English sides in Europe because of English TV ariels as an example ) then tough - there'll be others there. European rugby has enough value to make it marketable on its terms.

I think the whole reaction to the "own the sport" comment has been blown out of all proportion. I see it and have always seen it as a media person expressing something in a very media-centric way. Remember that a) people involved in the media tend to overinflate the importance of all things media and b) BT are engaged in a bitter war for control of the "quad play" market (broadband, phone, tv and mobile) with Sky. In that context I think "own" here means "be the broadcaster you have to go to watch rugby" (and "nick the whole thing from under Sky's nose").

BT and PRL's relationship, and the way the contract was negotiated, was more about the PRL needing something to precipitate action from the ERC and Rabo unions than anything else. If negotiations had been going anywhere with the ERC, the PRL might just have sold the domestic rights. But as things stood they needed three things. They needed a bargaining chip big enough to make at least some Rabo teams (or even unions) take notice; they needed enough money from the domestic deal to give them breathing room if a new European deal couldn't be cut; and they needed to be committed to a position that would force change. The BT deal offered all of those. There's no question that it was a form of gunboat diplomacy - the commercial equivalent of the US offering an "aid or sanctions" package to a rogue state. But there is equally no question that the ERC brought it on themselves. Negotiations had been going nowhere for 3 years; the PRL were put in a position where they had to do something extreme to get any change to happen. It seems to have worked.

And Fly, what evidence is there - other than a couple of comments by media people - that BT have been at the table? Undoubtedly they have influence - it would be utterly naive to think that anyone (including Sky and even the FTA broadcasters) who is paying serious money for broadcast rights has no influence on a tournament. Similarly, BT want to be associated with having set up a tournament that is seen as different from but the successor to the HEC, but there's no hard evidence that they have been in any position other than as a major broadcasting partner. They haven't even negotiated directly with Sky - the report was that Ritchie had been acting as a go-between.

by Guest Wed 19 Feb 2014, 11:28 pm

broadlandboy wrote:Unfortunately for alot of supporters there is more to European rugby than HEC which is the only thing that ERC seem to care about & failed on most other levels(lets be honest that if anybody couldnt make a success of the HEC they couldnt organise a ****up in a brewery).
In what way do you claim that the AP hasn't grown ?Yet supporter numbers are up more money from media deals & more teams heading towards sustainabilty

What on earth are you talking about? Explain in detail all these levels that HEC has failed in, and what your solution would be to address these failures?

Yes, let's be honest. The HEC is a one of a kind competition, a competition that hadn't been attempted before, and one which some really didn't believe would succeed, or at best were very doubtful would. Hence no involvement from English rugby in the beginning. It has been a huge success, and one that has continued to grow through all the challenges that it faces. Although, apparently, this would be a breeze for you....

My point on AP wasn't to do with growth. My point was that when comparing the two; the HEC has been far more successful to date, and not burdened with debt. Unlike AP.

by Guest Wed 19 Feb 2014, 11:43 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:What is that a chairman does? I thought he just, well, chaired it. They way it's talked about on here it's like the chairman is a dictator. I've no experience of this, other than the chair of our little meetings in work, but surely IF McCafferty raised the issue of looking at other broadcasters and all the union/ERC members (6 out of 9) said "no, we're sticking Sky" there's nothing he can do.

If you want to go along with made up stuff, maybe this is why he stepped down from the committee as was the main leader for them to give notice. But the 'ERC' we happy to let the game grow for itself.

The was always going to continue to grow. It's been a couple of decades since professionalism.

As for confidentiality thing, well that's it, we don't know. We know very little. Doesn't stop people acting as though the media speculation (in the media biased to their viewpoint, I can't believe the nonsense they allow the media biased against my viewpoint to put out there) is true.

Who said the Chairman acted as dictator? or did you make that up?

The point being, Hammer, that it's very doubtful that BT approached ERC in the first instance. I think it's wrong to suggest that any party can be held to a vow of silence when no contract had been signed between them.

Ok, going along with your made up stuff, I say the reason he stepped down was because he had already approached BT independently, and began negotiations. Two months later a deal is signed...

Yes, within that particular structure it was always going to grow. So why destroy it?

by broadlandboy Thu 20 Feb 2014, 2:04 am

Read what I said. I didn't say that ERC failed with HEC. Where it failed is in growing the game is at the levels under HEC, has ERC seen an increase in top tier teams ,no ERC has seen a reduction in top tier teams from half of the Unions it is made up of. Did it listen when 2/3 of the teams that were involved were unhappy enough to give notice, no ERC let LNR/PRL give notice & only when a possible credible alternative was anounced did they get serious but took actions that made it nearly impossible for PRL to return. Has the ERC seen to viable competitions below HEC.
How do you measure success?
The AP is not burdened with debt(if you have evidence please share it). However the teams that play in the AP mostly do not make a profit but as these are the same teams along with those from other Unions(of which many also do not make a profit) that play in ERC copmsso your claim that AP is burdened with debt it would also be true that ERC is burdened with debt.
I seem to remember reading that the PRL/BT deal took 5 weeks from start to anouncing, which means that LNR/PRL had already given notice to ERC before they started.
They didn't want to destroy it but there is more to European Club rugby than HEC which ERC seem to not realize.

by HammerofThunor Thu 20 Feb 2014, 8:07 am

Munchkin, nobody said he was a dictator, that's why I said some of comments make it seem LIKE a dictator. I don't understand the point that McCafferty was (at some point) commercial committee chairman. I was asking what the role of a chairman was, because the way it's talked about (regarding McCafferty) is completely against my understanding of a chairman (based on no experience). What it would do is give him a direct view on how the various ERC parts decide of broadcast contracts.

When did he step down? How is it even known he was the chairman? How does the process of TV rights bidding (or whatever) work? Did BBC go for it? ITV? s4C? BT? No-one other than Sky? Were they given the chance? Non of this is known and because you haven't heard about it you assume that BT would have been given and chance. So I presume you think that Sky, etc were given a chance for the PRL rights? Sky haven't said they weren't give the chance were they?

by Guest Thu 20 Feb 2014, 11:20 am

broadlandboy wrote:Read what I said. I didn't say that ERC failed with HEC. Where it failed is in growing the game is at the levels under HEC, has ERC seen an increase in top tier teams ,no ERC has seen a reduction in top tier teams from half of the Unions it is made up of. Did it listen when 2/3 of the teams that were involved were unhappy enough to give notice, no ERC let LNR/PRL give notice & only when a possible credible alternative was anounced did they get serious but took actions that made it nearly impossible for PRL to return. Has the ERC seen to viable competitions below HEC.
How do you measure success?
The AP is not burdened with debt(if you have evidence please share it). However the teams that play in the AP mostly do not make a profit but as these are the same teams along with those from other Unions(of which many also do not make a profit) that play in ERC copmsso your claim that AP is burdened with debt it would also be true that ERC is burdened with debt.
I seem to remember reading that the PRL/BT deal took 5 weeks from start to anouncing, which means that LNR/PRL had already given notice to ERC before they started.
They didn't want to destroy it but there is more to European Club rugby than HEC which ERC seem to not realize.

I meant ERC, but then it looks like you go on to list some failures of HEC. Difficult to tell if all these are pointed at HEC, or HEC and Amlin?
You say ERC failed in the levels under ERC. What are all these levels? In what way has ERC failed in Amlin? I have heard some grumbling about the Amlin, but then as a second tier competition it is never going to reach the heights of HEC. It will never attract the same level of interest from fans, sponsors, or broadcasters. That's not to say it won't grow. As European rugby grows, the Amlin will grow.

A reduction in top tier teams? Like Celtic Warriors? Sad that the Celtic Warriors went to the wall, but in what way is this, or any other teams folding, the fault of ERC?
True that ERC could have, maybe should have, acted sooner on issues of qualification, and distribution of funds, but not on issues of governance. I don't know if PRL/LNR were willing to treat each issue separately, but if not then I can understand the impasse.

I don't know how many of the AP teams are in debt at this point in time, but think it was as many as eight of the twelve clubs recording debt for year ended 2012. Apparently Quins recorded a £2m loss last year.
You think the AP being burdened with debt has to mean that ERC is burdened with debt? A strange logic. Would you explain your thinking a bit more for me?

by **Notch** Thu 20 Feb 2014, 11:39 am

https://twitter.com/PinkRugby/status/436463422465507328/photo/1

Super Rugby is expanding it's model to include Argentina, our equivalent of Scotland and Italy, while we are contracting to include less Scottish and Italian sides.

If Argentina begin to consistently out-perform Italy and Scotland at test level it really will raise the question over whether this new tournament is fit for purpose. It feels like the basic concept of rugby at this level being designed to serve the international game has been completely lost.

by **Rugby Fan** Thu 20 Feb 2014, 11:49 am

Notch wrote:If Argentina begin to consistently out-perform Italy and Scotland at test level...

Argentina has been performing better than both sides for some years now.

by broadlandboy Thu 20 Feb 2014, 12:25 pm

Notch wrote:
It feels like the basic concept of rugby at this level being designed to serve the international game has been completely lost.

This I see as a major part of the problem. Some see it as a servant of the International game(in which case why have non eligible players?) as opposed to some who believe that the club game has a right to exist for its self.
Munchkin, it's the teams that make a loss not the AP & IIRC most of the losses are covered by wealthy benefactors so the debt is not carried by the clubs & most teams rely on a benefactor (whether Union or an individual). IMHO the ERC is partly to blame for the reduction of top tier teams in Wales/Scotland & Italy is because the Unions chose the number to fit in with allocated HEC places. ERC has failed to see a growth in European rugby but it has seen a growth in the HEC, seems to me a case of I'm alright sod the rest

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 20 Feb 2014, 12:42 pm

Broadlandboy, just out of curiosity, in what way do you feel that "the ERC is partly to blame for the reduction of top tier teams in Scotland"? I'm struggling to see the connection between SRU financial mismanagement and the ERC, but hopefully you can enlighten me?

by HammerofThunor Thu 20 Feb 2014, 1:09 pm

I think he means because the SRU got two places they cut the number of pro teams that they run to the number that got into the top tier of ERC. But didn't the SRU get 3 places but gave one up, which is why the SRU get a lot more per team than anyone else?

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 20 Feb 2014, 1:11 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:I think he means because the SRU got two places they cut the number of pro teams that they run to the number that got into the top tier of ERC. But didn't the SRU get 3 places but gave one up, which is why the SRU get a lot more per team than anyone else?

I'm pretty sure that Scottish rugby always had two places in the Heino and two in the Amlin

by broadlandboy Thu 20 Feb 2014, 1:15 pm

It seems to me that some Unions were more concerned with having teams in HEC that doing what was best for rugby in the long term.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 20 Feb 2014, 1:26 pm

broadlandboy wrote:It seems to me that some Unions were more concerned with having teams in HEC that doing what was best for rugby in the long term.

Do you have any evidence to support your opinion that the SRU disbanded two pro teams because they "were more concerned with having teams in HEC that doing what was best for rugby in the long term"?

by HammerofThunor Thu 20 Feb 2014, 1:28 pm

Evidence? Since when has evidence been a requirement for opinion on here? Pretty sure we just make it up (or reference media articles that have made it up).

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 20 Feb 2014, 1:41 pm

Ha, ha, very true, Thunor. It's not a view that I've ever heard espoused before tho, so couldn't possibly let it go unchallenged! Coincidentally it cuts against everything I've ever heard with respect to the background re the SRU decisions to axe the Caley Reds and the Border Reivers

by HammerofThunor Thu 20 Feb 2014, 1:47 pm

Well, the point was focusing resources on few teams, wasn't it? Those teams weren't generating enough money themselves, so to make them viable the SRU would have put in resources they felt they couldn't provide. I suppose if income is heavily tied to the number of teams in the HEC it makes sense that it would also shape the available funds to support such teams.

What was the reaosn for axing Reds and Reivers? Wasn't the Reivers one because the local populous (although a big rugby area) hadn't got behind the team? I vaguely remember it as I was in Swansea at the time and their last game (or last home game) was against the Ospreys and winning it won them the title.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 20 Feb 2014, 2:17 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:Well, the point was focusing resources on few teams, wasn't it? Those teams weren't generating enough money themselves, so to make them viable the SRU would have put in resources they felt they couldn't provide. I suppose if income is heavily tied to the number of teams in the HEC it makes sense that it would also shape the available funds to support such teams.

What was the reaosn for axing Reds and Reivers? Wasn't the Reivers one because the local populous (although a big rugby area) hadn't got behind the team? I vaguely remember it as I was in Swansea at the time and their last game (or last home game) was against the Ospreys and winning it won them the title.

The reasons were simply financial - just couldn't afford to keep 4 teams running, even 2 has been at times a struggle (principally thru having to fund significant debt taken on to rebuild Murrayfield at the onset of professionalism).

Given that Scotland to date has had two teams regardless of performance, not sure that income is tied to the number of teams in the Heino for us

by broadlandboy Thu 20 Feb 2014, 3:09 pm

No hard evidence, just an opinion from seeing teams (regions)forced rather than growing organically. ASBO in your opinion do you think forced regions have been a success?

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 20 Feb 2014, 3:16 pm

broadlandboy wrote:No hard evidence, just an opinion from seeing teams (regions)forced rather than growing organically. ASBO in your opinion do you think forced regions have been a success?

Hmm, relative to the alternatives (ie there probably weren't any, unless Scotland decided to do an 'Argentina' and not have any pro teams), you'd have to say yes. Could it have been done better? Probably. Don't forget that the 4 districts pre-existed professionalism by over a century, so 'forced' isn't entirely accurate. But the SRU realised quickly that the existing top clubs in Scotland wouldn't all be able to compete with the Irish provinces and the English clubs, so something had to be done

by Guest Thu 20 Feb 2014, 3:45 pm

broadlandboy wrote:
Notch wrote:
It feels like the basic concept of rugby at this level being designed to serve the international game has been completely lost.
This I see as a major part of the problem. Some see it as a servant of the International game(in which case why have non eligible players?) as opposed to some who believe that the club game has a right to exist for its self.
Munchkin, it's the teams that make a loss not the AP & IIRC most of the losses are covered by wealthy benefactors so the debt is not carried by the clubs & most teams rely on a benefactor (whether Union or an individual). IMHO the ERC is partly to blame for the reduction of top tier teams in Wales/Scotland & Italy is because the Unions chose the number to fit in with allocated HEC places. ERC has failed to see a growth in European rugby but it has seen a growth in the HEC, seems to me a case of I'm alright sod the rest

I think, for some of the clubs at least, the problem is affording to compete for top places, even with a spending cap. Some spend beyond their means, and even if generous benefactors write off debt it isn't a sustainable model. Some owners have deeper pockets than others. PRL spread competition money across the 12 teams. I actually like the idea, but maybe 12 teams is too much? Maybe a 10 team league would better meet the needs of AP? Having said that, I guess the new BT money might go some way to help resolve those problems. Time will tell.

The Unions were right to try and meet their quota for teams entered, if they really believed that number of teams was sustainable. Sometimes you just don't know if something is going to work unless you try. I still don't understand how that can be the fault of ERC though. It's up to each of the unions to try and make it work, and in the case of privately owned clubs, they have to do their part, along with their Unions, in achieving success.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'failed to see a growth in European rugby'. Would you elaborate a bit on that?

I'm not saying that HEC is perfect either, blb. It has its faults, but then what competition doesn't?

by broadlandboy Thu 20 Feb 2014, 4:20 pm

It seems to me that ERC have only been concerned about HEC with the Amlin of decreasing relevance. IIRC I read somewhere that the new proposal is for 2 20 team top tier comps with a third tier run by FIRA?(org below 6 nations) which should help the game grow. If promoted better would the unions have been better focusing on the Amlin if that was their playing level?

by Guest Thu 20 Feb 2014, 5:15 pm

broadlandboy wrote:It seems to me that ERC have only been concerned about HEC with the Amlin of decreasing relevance. IIRC I read somewhere that the new proposal is for 2 20 team top tier comps with a third tier run by FIRA?(org below 6 nations) which should help the game grow. If promoted better would the unions have been better focusing on the Amlin if that was their playing level?

Have the viewing figures, and stadium attendances, been decreasing for Amlin?

It's difficult to know if unions, such as FIR, entering teams in Amlin, rather than HEC, would have been more a benefit to growing rugby in their countries. It wouldn't be as lucrative, and fans, or potential fans, might not get to view all the games. I think Amlin get around a third of coverage as the HEC. The flip side of that is the likes of Treviso would be more successful, and so may as a result have increased gates, and fan base. Maybe?
The HEC, and the Rabo, have been good for the Italian national side though, and as the national side continues to improve, then interest will continue to grow. So even if Treviso, and Zebre, are not seen as a success at Rabo, or HEC, level, their participation in those competitions should be a benefit to Italian rugby from grass roots level, and up. So maybe the big question is how would dropping out of HEC into Amlin effect the national side? That's why I want to see at least one Italian team represented in HEC, or whatever it will be called next season.

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 20 Feb 2014, 10:40 pm

Just looked at the pro12 table, euro places seem stitched up already, Munster, Leinster, Ulster, Glasgow, Ospreys and an Italian side (only 5pts separates them).

by Guest Thu 20 Feb 2014, 11:01 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Just looked at the pro12 table, euro places seem stitched up already, Munster, Leinster, Ulster, Glasgow, Ospreys and an Italian side (only 5pts separates them).

There's a fight to get into top 4 between the top 5 sides, and a battle for 6th and 7th spots between Scarlets, Dragons, Embra and Blues.

So as it stands - leinster, Ospreys, Glasgow, Treviso, Munster and Ulster, with two others qualifying between - Scarlets, Dragons, Embra and Blues.

by LeinsterFan4life Thu 20 Feb 2014, 11:17 pm

I don't see how a thrid tier could grow the game. Romania and Portugal (Spain before them) have had a side in the second tier and its done nothing to help the sport there so I don't see how a 3rd tier would do anything.

Nations like Georgia and Russia are the biggest potentia in Europe as Russia have a pro league and should be exposed to Amlin rugby at least. The likes of Spain and Portugal are a lost cause imo they will never be good enough and will soley concentrate on 7s rugby.

by doctor_grey Fri 21 Feb 2014, 3:07 am

LeinsterFan4life wrote:I don't see how a thrid tier could grow the game. Romania and Portugal (Spain before them) have had a side in the second tier and its done nothing to help the sport there so I don't see how a 3rd tier would do anything.

Nations like Georgia and Russia are the biggest potentia in Europe as Russia have a pro league and should be exposed to Amlin rugby at least. The likes of Spain and Portugal are a lost cause imo they will never be good enough and will soley concentrate on 7s rugby.

Not quite so sure, mate. There is a far bit of Rugby played in Spain, especially in the areas near to the Pyrenees. Spain has the benefit of French teams playing just over the mountains and occasionally bringing matches there. So there is some built in advantage if there is interest to grow. Maybe linked with the French leagues? On the other hand, the French are very parochial about their Rugby and might not go along for the ride. So, in that case, who knows. Seems a shame to ignore a possible growth area, no?

by HammerofThunor Fri 21 Feb 2014, 11:26 am

Spain and Portugal will never be good enough for what? Funds from the 1st and 2nd tier competitions to fund expenses for the 3rd tier, to allow it to exist. If it takes off and generates it's own income then great. If not then it should be used to continue it. Doesn't matter if they never get 'good enough'.

IMO

by ScarletSpiderman Fri 21 Feb 2014, 11:37 am

Munchkin wrote:
ScarletSpiderman wrote:Just looked at the pro12 table, euro places seem stitched up already, Munster, Leinster, Ulster, Glasgow, Ospreys and an Italian side (only 5pts separates them).

There's a fight to get into top 4 between the top 5 sides, and a battle for 6th and 7th spots between Scarlets, Dragons, Embra and Blues.

So as it stands - leinster, Ospreys, Glasgow, Treviso, Munster and Ulster, with two others qualifying between - Scarlets, Dragons, Embra and Blues.

I thought it was 6 teams. Also Blues are out of the race for sure, they are behind the others, and have played more games (two more than those above them).

by HammerofThunor Fri 21 Feb 2014, 11:46 am

No, the PRL caved and allowed 7. Plus Connacht when an Irish side wins the HEC.

by LeinsterFan4life Fri 21 Feb 2014, 12:12 pm

Doc, Munster took a development XV team to Barcalona last summer which was made up of young players who weren't even in the Munster academy to play some of the best players the Spanish league had to offer... Munster won 97-0.

On the flip side of that Russia sent over their top league side here to Ireland last summer to play both a Connacht XV and Munster XV and won both games! Yet Spain are always talked up ahead of Russia?

Spain and Portugal will concentrate on 7s rugby now as it is now in the olympics which is exactly what they should do ,although I hear Spain has even had their 7s rugby funds cut now...

by LeinsterFan4life Fri 21 Feb 2014, 12:18 pm

Hammer, how will a 3rd tier competition take off and generate income if the AMLIN can barely generate interest outside of the playoffs. The competition would be very expensive for the teams if teams from both Russia and Georgia are invloved.

Its a good idea in theory but its not practical imo and it won't happen. Besides some die hard rugby fans I don't see who will watch that or of it would even get a tv deal.

by Guest Fri 21 Feb 2014, 12:21 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
ScarletSpiderman wrote:Just looked at the pro12 table, euro places seem stitched up already, Munster, Leinster, Ulster, Glasgow, Ospreys and an Italian side (only 5pts separates them).

There's a fight to get into top 4 between the top 5 sides, and a battle for 6th and 7th spots between Scarlets, Dragons, Embra and Blues.

So as it stands - leinster, Ospreys, Glasgow, Treviso, Munster and Ulster, with two others qualifying between - Scarlets, Dragons, Embra and Blues.

I thought it was 6 teams. Also Blues are out of the race for sure, they are behind the others, and have played more games (two more than those above them).

As Hammer said, it's 7 teams, although I agree that it looks unlikely that Blues will make top 7 now (thinking Scarlets and Embra get through), and the fight for top 4 is realistically between 3rd, 4th and 5th place. Leinster and Munster look secure enough now.

by stub Fri 21 Feb 2014, 1:26 pm

I've been away since last Saturday - was hoping somebody would be good enough to update me of any developments in this saga... I'm reading back but am only up to page 13 so far!

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 21 Feb 2014, 1:30 pm

stub wrote:I've been away since last Saturday - was hoping somebody would be good enough to update me of any developments in this saga... I'm reading back but am only up to page 13 so far!

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 21 Feb 2014, 1:30 pm

There you go, stub, see my full presentation above Tumbleweed

by stub Fri 21 Feb 2014, 1:53 pm

Ah, that much has happened??!

Thanks ASBO! Back in the good old days (page 13/14) it seemed that developments were afoot...

by doctornickolas Fri 21 Feb 2014, 3:00 pm

If we have 38 pro teams (12 rabo, 12 English, 14 French) then I would like to see the extra 2 spaces in the 'Amlin' going to the winners of the Russian and Georgian leagues.

These are the only other 2 countries that have pro leagues of I believe, 8 and 10 sides. The remainder could go in to the 3rd tier comp. That would give 16 teams plus some others from Romania etc to make up the 20.

by HammerofThunor Fri 21 Feb 2014, 4:56 pm

doctornickolas wrote:If we have 38 pro teams (12 rabo, 12 English, 14 French) then I would like to see the extra 2 spaces in the 'Amlin' going to the winners of the Russian and Georgian leagues.

These are the only other 2 countries that have pro leagues of I believe, 8 and 10 sides. The remainder could go in to the 3rd tier comp. That would give 16 teams plus some others from Romania etc to make up the 20.

I'd have it as the winner of those two for the 1st season and then the 2 finalists of the third tier in subsequent years.

by Sponsored content