The New European Cup Thread (Merged)

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 17 Mar 2014 - 3:59

First topic message reminder :

Can anyone provide an update on what is going to actually happen from next season?

A factual update would be welcome. As brief as possible.

Opinionated views not so.

by quinsforever Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 19:58

that's a bit of a technicality notch. each union only has one national team. each union has many "clubs" atop which the union sits. it is these "clubs" which are being referred to. if the irfu sits atop 4 provincial branches, that's equivalent to the rfu and 12 AP clubs, just different ownership. i think we can all agree the HC is a cross-border club competition not an inter-national one.

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 20:04

Notch wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
Notch wrote:Anyway, moving this to Club Rugby section

Bugger. That's two pointless, endless, circular arguments going on in the same room about the same thing.

Why not merge them, Notch?

SUPERTHREAD!

European Competition; Quick Updates plus All Hail The New European Tourny...

Good work, Notch. An OP move from from Intl to Club sections plus a thread merge (into time of post order if I'm not mistaken) in one afternoon.

You are promoted to guardian of The BODlian Library. And sooo young, too! thumbsup

by broadlandboy Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 20:07

For it to be a Union competition only the relevent eligable players would be allowed. If non relevent eligable players are in the teams it is a club competition.

by **Notch** Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 20:10

It's not a technicality- we have a different system. Clubs are not the same thing as provinces. It's just lazy not to recognise that. There are differences in how the team is run, financed, owned. The HC is a competition between your clubs and our provinces (regions, whatever). If you go to Ireland or Wales and ask to see some club rugby you are not going to be taken to watch professional sport.

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 20:16

I think that it's a matter of semantics. Club players can play for Regions/Privinces etc. can they not?

by Dubbelyew L Overate Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 20:21

Munchkin wrote:"You would need a team to be playing in both competitions for those Amlinv2 "guaranteed places" not to be also HCv2 "denied places". Hence England have 5 guaranteed places in Amlinv2 and also 5 places denied in HCv2.

That's the logic you get when teams are not considered individually but in national blocks. It's all a nonsense."

Who is arguing for the inclusion of all AP teams? We're talking about the number of places given to AP, and others, by this new competition. For AP that is 6 places, therefore this new competition quarantees 6 places for those who finish top 6 in AP.
There is no denial of those 6 places to any within AP as all have an opportunity to finish top 6.

I'm arguing from the standpoint of places this new competition is realistically likely to, or able to, provide for each union, and league, and that each team in each of those leagues have an opportunity to take one of those places. No denial.

Just to make it absolutely clear that I have not been arguing for the inclusion of all AP teams, nor am I aggrieved that 5 or 6 English teams and 7 or 8 french teams will be excluded from HCv2.

I've just been arguing a pretty pointless point.

by Guest Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 20:33

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:
Munchkin wrote:"You would need a team to be playing in both competitions for those Amlinv2 "guaranteed places" not to be also HCv2 "denied places". Hence England have 5 guaranteed places in Amlinv2 and also 5 places denied in HCv2.

That's the logic you get when teams are not considered individually but in national blocks. It's all a nonsense."

Who is arguing for the inclusion of all AP teams? We're talking about the number of places given to AP, and others, by this new competition. For AP that is 6 places, therefore this new competition quarantees 6 places for those who finish top 6 in AP.
There is no denial of those 6 places to any within AP as all have an opportunity to finish top 6.

I'm arguing from the standpoint of places this new competition is realistically likely to, or able to, provide for each union, and league, and that each team in each of those leagues have an opportunity to take one of those places. No denial.

Just to make it absolutely clear that I have not been arguing for the inclusion of all AP teams, nor am I aggrieved that 5 or 6 English teams and 7 or 8 french teams will be excluded from HCv2.

I've just been arguing a pretty pointless point.

We both have. A pointless point, but not a pointless argument when argument is the point king

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 20:46

It's good to see that one settled amicably.

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
Any takers?

by quinsforever Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 21:16

Notch wrote:It's not a technicality- we have a different system. Clubs are not the same thing as provinces. It's just lazy not to recognise that. There are differences in how the team is run, financed, owned. The HC is a competition between your clubs and our provinces (regions, whatever). If you go to Ireland or Wales and ask to see some club rugby you are not going to be taken to watch professional sport.

from the ERC website - top of main page - "ERC - Driving European Club Rugby Competition"

by quinsforever Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 21:21

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:It's good to see that one settled amicably.

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
Any takers?

false.

if..A..then..B..
B
therefore A....is obviously incorrect

the correct logical argument would be
if...A...then...B
A
therefore B

if BG owns Fort Knox, then he is rich
Bill Gates owns Fort Know
Therefore, Bill Gates is rich

by Dubbelyew L Overate Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 21:23

Nah, Goldfinger and Cat Galore are rich - don't believe what Fleming wrote.

"Cat Galore" - luvin the auto-censorship - what happens if i write Scunthorpe?

by quinsforever Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 21:24

If ERC did a bad job or pleasing all stakeholders, then there will be trouble.
There was trouble.
Therefore, ERC did a bad job of pleasing stakeholders

Wink

by Guest Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 21:33

If Super Duper Cup Ltd did a bad job of pleasing all stakeholders, then there will be trouble.

There will be trouble.

Therefore, McCafferty is a numpty

Very Happy

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 21:38

quinsforever wrote:
Notch wrote:It's not a technicality- we have a different system. Clubs are not the same thing as provinces. It's just lazy not to recognise that. There are differences in how the team is run, financed, owned. The HC is a competition between your clubs and our provinces (regions, whatever). If you go to Ireland or Wales and ask to see some club rugby you are not going to be taken to watch professional sport.
from the ERC website - top of main page - "ERC - Driving European Club Rugby Competition"

Bloody hell, another fallacious logical argument.

All libraries have books
I want a book
Therefore I must go to a library

Wrong.

Or:

606 has three sections: International, Club and [general] Rugby
I want to talk about the Provinces
Therefore I must go to [general] Rugby

by quinsforever Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 21:43

If ERC are muppets, AND McCafferty is a numpty, then european club rugby is hosed
We have a european club rugby tournament next year
Therefore, ERC are not muppets, and McCafferty is not a numpty

Laugh

even without any training in logic i think we can all see that the above argument is flawed!

by quinsforever Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 21:46

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Notch wrote:It's not a technicality- we have a different system. Clubs are not the same thing as provinces. It's just lazy not to recognise that. There are differences in how the team is run, financed, owned. The HC is a competition between your clubs and our provinces (regions, whatever). If you go to Ireland or Wales and ask to see some club rugby you are not going to be taken to watch professional sport.
from the ERC website - top of main page - "ERC - Driving European Club Rugby Competition"
Bloody hell, another fallacious logical argument.

All libraries have books
I want a book
Therefore I must go to a library

Wrong.

ahem

The tournament organiser describes all participants as clubs
IRFU controlled provincial branches participate in the tournament
Therefore IRFU controlled provincial branches may be described (by the tournament organiser) as clubs.

where's the fellatio in that one?

by quinsforever Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 21:50

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Notch wrote:It's not a technicality- we have a different system. Clubs are not the same thing as provinces. It's just lazy not to recognise that. There are differences in how the team is run, financed, owned. The HC is a competition between your clubs and our provinces (regions, whatever). If you go to Ireland or Wales and ask to see some club rugby you are not going to be taken to watch professional sport.
from the ERC website - top of main page - "ERC - Driving European Club Rugby Competition"
Bloody hell, another fallacious logical argument.

All libraries have books
I want a book
Therefore I must go to a library

Wrong.

Or:

606 has three sections: International, Club and [general] Rugby
I want to talk about the Provinces
Therefore I must go to [general] Rugby

OR,

in your terms,

A particular library describes itself as having only books
I want something from that particular library
Therefore what i want is a book.

(tautologous)

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 21:51

Q. Why were the Logicians arguing over the garden fence?
A. They were arguing from different premises.

by quinsforever Thu 27 Mar 2014 - 22:01

http://spikedmath.com/comics/445-three-logicians-walk-into-a-bar.png

by Guest Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 0:25

.

Edit: Removed comment about Gwlad. Feel tainted even mentioning them.

by HammerofThunor Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 7:45

Hate to be the one to break it to you but you've still mentioned them Wink

by BigTrevsbigmac Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 8:05

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/mar/27/rugby-union-european-cup-deal-finally-agreed

Interesting to see how the negotiations developed. It would appear that once the IRFU & WRU became isolated ( in wanting the status quo - continuation of ERC) things eventually moved on to the current agreement.

by Portnoy's Complaint Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 8:20

That is a very biased extract (for that is what it is).

It's a shame that the Guardian could have allowed their rugby correspondent to stoop so low as the the Western Mail and (dare I say) the Irish Times to present such a nationalistic, opinionated, reader-based load of old tripe.

Picking through the opinion is the only way to learn any truths. And there was precious little news in that article.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 8:24

You've got to love the picture of Paul Rees which goes with the article though! I'm Ron Burgundy?

by BigTrevsbigmac Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 8:28

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:That is a very biased extract (for that is what it is).

It's a shame that the Guardian could have allowed their rugby correspondent to stoop so low as the the Western Mail and (dare I say) the Irish Times to present such a nationalistic, opinionated, reader-based load of old tripe.

Picking through the opinion is the only way to learn any truths. And there was precious little news in that article.

I'd be interested to see other commentaries/interpretations of how the negotiations panned out. Are the positions set out by the respective Unions & club/regions representatives as described by the Guardian incorrect?

by geoff998rugby Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 8:34

Been reported on Radio this morning that the hold up is the French and Italians refusing to sign up until they see the details of the BT contract

by SecretFly Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 8:38

Pointless points being debated above and how pointed or pointless they are?

I agree...and would always disagree with such pointedly pointless points.

by SecretFly Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 8:48

geoff998rugby wrote:Been reported on Radio this morning that the hold up is the French and Italians refusing to sign up until they see the details of the BT contract

Good men!

Let's see this document that seems written in blood but nobody but PRL has allegedly seen. Given that so many fundamental changes to Europe will happen as a direct result of this alleged BT contract...................... let's see it.

Cough up. No more bluffs.

by HammerofThunor Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 8:51

RFU have seen it (allegedly).

What fundamental changes to Europe will happen because of the BT deal? Two channels covering them so both competitions will be televised now?

by munkian Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 8:54

HammerofThunor wrote:RFU have seen it (allegedly).

What fundamental changes to Europe will happen because of the BT deal? Two channels covering them so both competitions will be televised now?

Are BT and SKY not sharing the 'premier' competition ? And is the AMLIN still sponsored by...AMLIN ?

by SecretFly Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 8:58

RFU are English..... we ain't buying that guff, Hammer Wink

PRL were the lone rangers for some time as they threatened to go their own way, and were for a time left to their own devices and told to go their own way if compromise wasn't in their minds.

It was the RFU that somehow managed to 'miraculously' get them back on board and not only that but they seem to have been assured to get each and every thing they were looking for in the first place when they hoisted the "War in our time" piece of paper that declared a BT deal...but never got around to showing their 'partners' a slice of the detail.

Nope. Cough up PRL. No more bluffs. Just what was written on this allegedly unbreakable contract.....................

by HammerofThunor Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 9:00

BT and Sky are/were going to share both competitions. With Sky getting first pick of the English games in the second tier. Currently teams need to go away on a Thursday to get a game on telly, because Sky want to show every single game in the first tier.

I'm really hoping (if it's still on) for a highlight package/show/segment for the 3rd tier.

by munkian Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 9:06

I just wish BT had all of them, feic Stuart Barnes

by HammerofThunor Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 9:09

No, I'd rather it split. You see I'm actually interested in the second tier Wink

I think it would better if BT got the English away games as well. That way English fans who have sky for the premiership would be more inclined to go the home games rather than have to get Sky (and vice versa for the Pro12 and Sky).

But yes, feic Stuart Barnes.

by thebandwagonsociety Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 9:21

ERC was just a company set up to handle the last competition. There is a new competition set up and now a new company.

People seem delighted that ERC is gone but what was the ERC? It was just the company. The SwissCo will be set up with the exact same representatives at the table (though not necessarily the same proportion of representation). The so called numptys in the ERC will all make their way either (a) to the new SwissCo or (b) back to their league/unions.

Just waiting to see who fleeces us the most on the tv subscriptions to watch this stuff.

by Scrumpy Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 9:25

Lets hope the new organisers listen to the Countries involved and not sell the TV rights to the lowest bidder in the future. Very Happy

So long ERC

by SecretFly Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 9:27

Let's hope the new organisers listen to the Countries involved........................

by Portnoy's Complaint Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 9:30

Speaking of the EC TV:

With BT, they don't (currently) have a red button. So watching two or more games simultaneously will mean channel hopping rather than game hopping on Sky.

Presumably the English 'top three' games will be truly separate on BTS.

There will be an almighty BT/Sky arms race for viewing figures.

p.s. I didn't have put my brain into overdrive to arrive at this conclusion.

by SecretFly Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 9:35

Don't you have to press a button to do a 'Red Button'?
And...you have to press a button to change channels....

God!!! The extra work to change channels is ridiculous and that's why rugby should always come at us down one channel with multi 'red button' options. Wink

by geoff998rugby Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 9:38

lets hope members of the new company don't sign tv contracts without telling fellow members

by Scrumpy Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 9:38

Is that what the Red button is for?

I though it was a self destruct button.

by Scrumpy Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 9:40

geoff998rugby wrote:lets hope members of the new company don't sign tv contracts without telling fellow members

If ERC did there job properly then the members wouldn't have had to do that in the first place!

by RF09 Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 9:41

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Just waiting to see who fleeces us the most on the tv subscriptions to watch this stuff.

After 2 years of debate involving power struggling and how to divide the pot of TV money.......no surprise the looser is the the fan....So;

SKY = 33 Rabo games (Shared with regional providers whatever that means? - E.g. if Sky has Ulster v Ospreys. Will BBC NI also be able to show the same game live or does it just mean that this 1 game is exclusive on Sky)
BT = Top14 & AP.
Euro Rugby - Both using a complicated mathematical equation to divide up the games! Smile

Would be easier if 1 company had them all you you could make a choice-...But no...its shared in a way you will not be able to predict which Euro games are on what platform...so to get it ALL and be sure you see all games from your club...you need both Sky & BT Sport right?

So the choice is yours
1. Both if you can afford it
2a. Perhaps an easier choice if you are an AP club fan.....BT!
2b. But if your'e a Rabo team fan....Probably Sky...but you could miss most of the Euro matches especially if you support one of the top teams and they are drawn in a Euro group with 2 English teams
4. Down the pub...ok if you live in the UK Smile

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 9:42

Scrumpy wrote:Lets hope the new organisers listen to the Countries involved and not sell the TV rights to the lowest bidder in the future.

So long ERC

Surely you mean leagues, Scumpy, or at least clubs?!

by Scrumpy Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 9:46

Lets hope the new organisers listen to ~~the Countries~~ France and England ~~involved~~ (the two who bring the money to the game) and not sell the TV rights to the lowest bidder in the future.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 9:47

Scrumpy wrote:Lets hope the new organisers listen to ~~the Countries~~ France and England ~~involved~~ (the two who bring the money to the game) and not sell the TV rights to the lowest bidder in the future.

Quite right, Scumpy, well corrected, cos as we all now know, it all about the money

by SecretFly Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 9:50

Since everyone is probably getting along so dandily an' all behind the scenes (WRU getting a back stab recently from Saracens. Italy and France still not sure what the fine print says...)
.... I think the new European Rugby Deal should last a long time indeed so that it can settle down and nobody feels paranoia grow by the day or feels they're trapped into something they quickly see as a path to self-destruction.................

....hmmm, I think a year would be a nice length before we all get back to the negotiating table again. Wink

Six months if possible.

by munkian Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 9:54

HammerofThunor wrote:No, I'd rather it split. You see I'm actually interested in the second tier ;)I think it would better if BT got the English away games as well. That way English fans who have sky for the premiership would be more inclined to go the home games rather than have to get Sky (and vice versa for the Pro12 and Sky).

But yes, feic Stuart Barnes.

I'm going out on a limb but I reckon the Dragons could possibly be in the 2nd tier comp....

by Scrumpy Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 9:56

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:Lets hope the new organisers listen to ~~the Countries~~ France and England ~~involved~~ (the two who bring the money to the game) and not sell the TV rights to the lowest bidder in the future.

Quite right, Scumpy, well corrected, cos as we all now know, it all about the money

Very true, without the money we both bring to the table to be carved up between us all then the Pro game would fall apart in all the Home Nations and France plus teams in the rest of Europe would just give up which would be a shame and the bigger problem would be that the SH teams would pull even further away from us.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 28 Mar 2014 - 10:02

Scrumpy wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:Lets hope the new organisers listen to ~~the Countries~~ France and England ~~involved~~ (the two who bring the money to the game) and not sell the TV rights to the lowest bidder in the future.

Quite right, Scumpy, well corrected, cos as we all now know, it all about the money

Very true, without the money we both bring to the table to be carved up between us all then the Pro game would fall apart in all the Home Nations and France plus teams in the rest of Europe would just give up which would be a shame and the bigger problem would be that the SH teams would pull even further away from us.

Indeed, it's amazing that they seem to be pulling further away with even less money now than the NH? I smell a rat...

by Sponsored content