The Guardian: "a battle in Europe has just started"

This is from the Guardian's weekly rugby email. It's usually a bit longer than the reports which go up online. It looks at what the French really want out of Europe as well as the RFU's relationship with Premiership rugby. The same subjects have come up in several threads so I thought I'd post it separately in case anyone was interested.

European union has been achieved, but a battle in Europe has just started. Lost in last week's announcement regarding the agreement that would establish the Rugby Champions Cup was one sentence towards the end of a long statement.

"The parties have also agreed to form a working party to discuss and propose the principles of an integration of European competitions within an all-encompassing European rugby framework," it ran. Given the time it took to sort out the European Cup, nothing will be decided any time soon, but the potential ramifications are profound.

When the French Rugby Federation served notice to leave European Rugby Cup Ltd, the organisation that controls the Heineken Cup and that will cease to exist later this year, its motivation was different from that of the French and English clubs who also said they would be off.

The clubs wanted a fundamental change in the way the tournament was run, frustrated that a club competition was being controlled by unions they felt were not, as a whole, incentivised enough to ensure it fulfilled its commercial potential. The FFR's aim was to break up what it considered to be an unhealthy concentration of rugby power in one city, Dublin. The International Rugby Board was based there, along with the Six Nations committee and ERC, operating very close to each other.

The FFR's argument was that the game in Europe was not being run on democratic lines because emerging unions did not have access to the top table. The Six Nations committee, it regretted, was elitist, keeping the vast profits from the championship it oversaw, and not helping aspirational unions such as Georgia, Russia and Romania, who in between World Cups have little contact with tier one nations.

The FFR wants the organisation that represents the developing unions, the Association Européenne de Rugby (known as Fira–AER because of the Fédération Internationale de Rugby Amateur), which is recognised by the European Union rather than the IRB, to become involved in the running of the game in Europe. It sees the Six Nations committee turning into a Uefa-style governing body, based in Switzerland, where the new organisers of the European Cup will be located.

The new European tournament gives teams within Fira-AER a route into the Heineken Cup. It may take some time before anyone negotiates it successfully but two teams from the third tournament, currently called the Qualifying Competition, will qualify for the Challenge Cup. While the winners of that will not qualify automatically for the Champions Cup, they will be guaranteed a place in the play-off for the 20th spot in the elite competition.

The FFR would like a similar pathway to the Six Nations for Fira-AER unions, although it is a lone voice among the sextet. While it eventually had its way in bringing an end to ERC and getting one governing body out of Dublin, it will be in a distinct minority on the working party being set up to look into the issue of governance.

The Rugby Football Union played a key part in the agreement over the Champions Cup, but it will not be supporting the French Federation's attempt to overhaul the Six Nations committee and, in time, make the championship an open one. At a briefing at Twickenham this week, its chairman, Bill Beaumont, indicated it was content with the status quo.

"Countries like Georgia, Russia and Romania do ask how they can get more meaningful fixtures," he said. "They do have a decent tier two programme in November and June and changes to the Six Nations would be an interesting discussion to have with our cousins around the table.

"The Six Nations is a highly successful tournament: you only have to look at the viewing figures and spectator numbers. Whilst there may be concerns about the playing strength of one or two countries, we have played them for more than 100 years and that tradition goes a long way."

He added: "Is it incumbent on us to find meaningful competitions for tier two countries? We do have a responsibility, but I do not see it currently as being through an expanded Six Nations. Some countries would view their role slightly differently. We are extremely comfortable with the Six Nations because we have traditionally operated in that way, but the Fira-AER countries would prefer a more European slant on things than we do.

"We take an active part in Fira-AER, helping countries to aspire to get into the quarter-finals of Rugby World Cup: we run a unity programme where our counties are twinned with European countries, travelling to them to offer help."

Any change to the Six Nations threatens the income of those involved in it. The RFU's stance on giving access to countries currently excluded from it is not matched by Premiership Rugby when it comes to the Champions Cup.

"In 10 years or so, the smaller countries may be competitive at a higher level," said Mark McCafferty, the chief executive of Premiership Rugby. "What is important for the tournament is that we get the right balance between stability and progress. That means being flexible rather than saying that nothing can change unless everyone is in agreement.

"There is nothing to be gained in resisting evolution and we want to encourage growth in the game across Europe, even if there will be times when it works against individual interests and for those of the game in general. Everyone has to be open-minded, clubs and unions, growing organically as well as taking the sport to new markets."

As long as the Six Nations remains highly profitable and popular, it will be hard for the FFR to persuade its partners of the merits of change. Short of threatening to pull out of the tournament, which would be empty unless there was somewhere else to go to, it has little bargaining power. Not that it will be deterred, believing that having conceded the principle in a club competition, unions will not have the moral authority to stop there.

DISCORDANT WELSH CAN ONLY ENVY ENGLISH HARMONY

The RFU briefing, which lasted, in all, for about 90 minutes, showed how effective the elite player agreement the union negotiated with Premiership Rugby in 2008 has been.

Barely a month went by before then without some dispute or another flaring up and dominating media coverage. The two sides now both emphasise the value of working together in a partnership of equals.

Talking about how the agreement over the European Cup was reached, the RFU chief executive, Ian Ritchie, said: "It is right to find a balance between the roles of the clubs and the nations, neither side being in a dominant position but working in partnership: sometimes, when we are sitting in various darkened rooms, at Heathrow or in Dublin or in Paris, we are inclined to forget about the fans, the people who want to support the competition, about the players who wanted to get an outstanding European competition to play in.

"We recognise in England, club and country, that rugby here depends on both of us. You are not in a position where you are competing with each other; we are absolutely interdependent. You talk to club directors of rugby and they want a successful England team. The clubs and the England setup have a close relationship which is to all of our benefit. We want a successful, vibrant club game in England and it is extremely important that we work together. Will there be issues? Of course there will be difficulties and things we disagree with, but the broad thrust has to be that we can only do something for the betterment of English rugby if we work together and that is what we have to do."

Asked if he thought the agreement was an indication that rugby union was in danger of going the way of football with clubs more powerful than associations, he replied: "No. You have to recognise that in England with Premiership Rugby we have an autonomous organisation that is involved in club rugby. A positive out of the last few months is that we have worked very closely with Premiership Rugby. It has to be a virtuous circle: the idea you can stick your hand in the sand and pretend club rugby is not going to move forward and that you can stop inevitability, is wrong. There is nothing bad about it: I want to see really successful club rugby at all levels and that means they need to be commercially strong. We should be assisting that and we are not in competition with them.

"What has happened in the last few months has been good in that respect. You have to be clear about what you negotiate going forward. The fundamentals of our heads of agreement with Premiership Rugby have been enormously successful: 70% England qualified players in the Premiership, up from 50-odd per cent; the finances have been very successful. Most of us, including the clubs, think the basic framework is very good."

Wales's four regions, who bravely opposed their union in the talks over Europe and prevailed, can only wish for someone of Ritchie's vision and equanimity as they wonder what the future will look like for them next season and beyond.

Their place in Europe is guaranteed as one of the nine signed-up stakeholders and they have been told they will be in the Pro12 next season, but they still have to sign a new service agreement with the Welsh Rugby Union even though the current deal has just 10 weeks left.

While Ritchie is relaxed about the extra money he knows Premiership Rugby will ask for in return for extending the elite player agreement beyond 2016, the regions have made little progress in their talks with the WRU and have this week asked when the next meeting will take place, with the last gathering now six weeks ago.

The regions are in a strong position after the European resolution but, if the current agreement runs out without a new one being signed, they would go through July and August without any money from the WRU before the start of the new season in September when tournament income would resume.

The backers of the regions have the means to provide loans to cover wage bills over the summer but their prevailing mood is one of disgust and despair. Why, one asked this week, does the WRU not see the merits of partnership? Supporters, he argued, had become fed up with the lack of a resolution and Sunday's double-header at the Millennium Stadium, when the four regions will be in action, is expected to be sparsely attended.

The regions say they will not be panicked into signing a long-term agreement, being prepared to hand the WRU the keys to their offices rather than commit themselves to an ungenerous settlement. What evolution brought to the English game may come down to revolution in Wales.

Rugby fan very interesting. I think that the RFU doesn't want to contemplate the thought of playing some of the lower ranked sides like Georgia and Russia because of the lack of interest there would inevitably be compared to playing a SH giant like the Aussies or NZ. It would hurt the RFU coffers in a significant manner.

The RFU are perceived as a mediator in the European issue but they have their own agenda.

There's the beauty of scarcity which means the RFU can charge a fortune for England international matches which inevitably boosts their coffers - big win for the fat cats.

The new European competition doesn't harm the RFU. It's not the English clubs losing places.

Ian Ritchie is a crafty one - hoodwinking many people, painting Premier Rugby as the nefarious corporation looking to destroy European rugby, painting himself as a silent mediator in the shadows doing his glorious work. He'll get the praise - what's he lost? Nothing.  He's gained an awful lot though - plus he needed things to be in good shape with a RWC in England just round the corner. Bravo Ian. Well played.  I am not fooled but many will be.

When will the gold statue of Ian Ritchie be unveiled in Switzerland?    

Hmm, not sure Ian Richie has been painting anybody as nefarious. Some people have damned themselves out of their own mouths.

However, this is a subject very dear to me. I think it's essential that every member of the Six Nations is forced to play a minimum of one full test match against a Tier 2 European nation every year and it should be against one of the next best three nations in Europe. And they themselves should travel every second year.

If we could guarantee the three best sides in the European Nations Cup two test matches against 6N opposition the next autumn we would be much closer to seeing how they really compare- it would provide the dataset we need before we can start a conversation about the long-term future of the Six Nations.

It's true that the RFU aren't going to sell out Twickenham at £80 per head for England vs Romania, but they need to view it as a chance to take the game elsewhere in the country and attract people who wouldn't normally go to test matches because they're put off by the expense of getting to London or the cost of the tickets.

I'd like to see an extra week added to the international schedule to accommodate this.

Notch wrote:
I'd like to see an extra week added to the international schedule to accommodate this.

I agree with what you say, except for this.

Since when have the FFR cared about anyone but themselves? Aren't they the same organisation that oversees their member clubs withholding lower tier players from playing Test rugby - hypocrites.

The Great Aukster wrote:Since when have the FFR cared about anyone but themselves? Aren't they the same organisation that oversees their member clubs withholding lower tier players from playing Test rugby - hypocrites.

France use to be part of the other euro rugby organisation.
Georgia must nearly have a full team of players playing professional in France.
Do not under estimate the work that the Tiblisi and Rominian cups will have and their AI matches against the Pacific Nation teams

Ireland are playing Georgia in the autumn internationals. Its probably Georgias first time ever being invited to play in the AIs and hopefully a sign of things to come. Georgia now have a strong team with most of their players playing in France for the last number of years. Thats been the key to their development.


Also you have countries like Holland, Belgium, Spain etc who have young players now going to professional clubs. It should be interesting to see how they progress in a few years. Being wealthy countries and located in Western Europe I'm sure they would be welcomed with open arms if they got anyway competitive, like Italy were.

LondonTiger wrote:

Notch wrote:
I'd like to see an extra week added to the international schedule to accommodate this.

I agree with what you say, except for this.

If we're ever going to have this happen, realistically expand the number of teams with exposure to top level rugby, it's entirely inevitable and necessary that it will require a larger block of time. If it's still just the three weeks then teams will never agree to relinquish the time that could be spent playing a top SH side. It's only outside the international window that teams can charge for appearance fees. So there's no chance anyone will want to play the Tier 2 sides outside the international window- there's no way we'll ever be able to get six test matches between 6N and Tier 2 nations timetabled in a three week window. None. Zilch. Nada.

The window needs to get bigger.

I think we have enough international matches as it is. I would:

a) Play a European Tier 2 team in the autumn at home. (In England we have in th epast sold out twickenham for Romania)
b) Play a European tier 2 side away in the summer with the A team.
c) Play an SH Tier 2 team on the way to the 2 match Summer tour.

Also visits to Twickenham by Aus, NZ, SA used to be special - now they are mundane.

Surely Twickenham will sell out or nearly sell out no matter who England plays? They sold out for a Fiji development team in 2012 and then got a huge crowd fir the Fiji Barbarians game.

Yes twickenham would probably sell out or close to vs Georgia or Romania. But the calendar is full. I would be happy to replace one of the SH AIs with a match vs tier 2 European nation though.

I think that the IRB need to change how they market the Nations Cup, not hope that the FFR will persuade the 6 nations to expand. Being kicked out of the 6 nations through relegation would destroy pro rugby in each country except England and France within a year. However the nations cup has thrown up some interesting matches and there's no reason why it couldn't grow in the same way that the 6 nations originally did along with the rise in popularity of rugby in these countries. The rise in popularity in Spain and in Belgium in particular has been astonishing.

Apart from this the AIs are the perfect window to bring in tier 1 vs tier 2 competitions. It should really be the norm.

This should surely be evolution rather than a battle, but we have too many top down business models now, to be able use the current allocation for Test fixtures that will risk ticket sales and subsequent centralised funding of franchises at the top tier and junior clubs.

Fifteen tests a season - one every three weeks, is too many already.
Last years World Player of the Year played substantially more for the ABs than he for his S15 side - absurd.

Notch wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Notch wrote:
I'd like to see an extra week added to the international schedule to accommodate this.

I agree with what you say, except for this.

If we're ever going to have this happen, realistically expand the number of teams with exposure to top level rugby, it's entirely inevitable and necessary that it will require a larger block of time. If it's still just the three weeks then teams will never agree to relinquish the time that could be spent playing a top SH side. It's only outside the international window that teams can charge for appearance fees. So there's no chance anyone will want to play the Tier 2 sides outside the international window- there's no way we'll ever be able to get six test matches between 6N and Tier 2 nations timetabled in a three week window. None. Zilch. Nada.

The window needs to get bigger.

Don't agree.

All 6N team should play 2 games against top SH teams in the autumn and 1 against a leading 2nd tier European nation - leaves it at 3 games for the AI's.
In the same way SH teams should play at least 2 game against Pacific Island teams a year.

Japan, Canada and USA can be accommodated as part of Summer tours i.e. Game in Canada before jetting off to NZ or Australia.

Bottom line tie in game against 2nd tier teams into the regular International calendar

There is nothing wrong in principle for those nations with top-down structural models from playing international rugby all year round like they do in cricket. But it does put the domestic leagues at risk.

I'd reduce the Jeff to eight or nine clubs to accommodate more internationals.

I appreciate what the French are doing to promote fluidity in Europe. But as usual the self-seeking five in the 6Ns are guarding jealously what they have. I won't repeat what I've already expressed as an alternative. But the glass ceiling will remain whilst the words of Beaumont and his ilk remain the consensus of the Unions.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I'd reduce the Jeff to eight or nine clubs to accommodate more internationals.

And there is our fundamental difference Portnoy. I enjoy going to live rugby week in, week out and believe we play more than enough International rugby. I would like to change the people we play at international level, but not increase the number of games.

Should your suggestion come in I would just have to spend more time at my local junior club - much reduced quality and facilities though.

I'm with London Tiger on this one - I believe the balance between International and Team Rugby is about right.

What needs changing is more games against countries outside the top 10 i.e. less against the top 10.

Rugby Fan wrote:[i]  The new European tournament gives teams within Fira-AER a route into the Heineken Cup. It may take some time before anyone negotiates it successfully but two teams from the third tournament, currently called the Qualifying Competition, will qualify for the Challenge Cup. While the winners of that will not qualify automatically for the Champions Cup, they will be guaranteed a place in the play-off for the 20th spot in the elite competition.

.

Surely this is incorrect - from what  have read the qualification for 20th spot, not including this year, will be between the 7th placed French team, 7th placed English team and the 2 highest non qualified Pro12 teams (who could finish from 6th to 9th depending on other qualifications).
No place for European Challenge Cup winners.

There is a caveat for European Champions Cup winners but that is a different matter

Each to their own, LT. But fewer games for players including the removal of the playoffs would do them no harm. And should fans like you find a way to visit your local clubs to support hem, then so much the better for the grass roots.

In the meantime, a stronger, more competitive Championship would do no harm.

I found Beaumont's opinions in support of the cartels both retrograde to European development both anti-sport and unsurprising.

I'd like to see also a version of the IRB rankings just for European teams and base a European international structure on that.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Each to their own, LT. But fewer games for players including the removal of the playoffs would do them no harm. And should fans like you find a way to visit your local clubs to support hem, then so much the better for the grass roots.

I am a member at two junior clubs - refereeing the 3rds at one of them tomorrow. I do try and do my bit both in finances and time. Sadly am unable to commit every midweek/Sunday to reasonably utilise coaching qualifications.

We definitely do not need to increase the number of test matches each year. Too much of the revenue base is dependent on internationals as it is.

What rugby needs is a wider range of income which can provide a living for more professional rugby players. This means the development and marketing of club/regional/provincial competition.

We DO need to increase the number of test matches as under the current system there is no way a Six Nations side will agree to play away in Tblisi or Bucharest in the Autumn and only have two home games. To secure the best second tier teams meaningful, regular test matches both at home and away concessions to the larger unions are needed which means at least one week longer test windows.

If this doesn't happen we are only going to see more nations doing what England and Wales have done and tacking on an extra test match outside the international window anyway.

Would the re-introduction of the Churchill cup not be a healthy compromise? Switch it between Georgia, Romania, Russia, USA and Canada.

Or maybe have two running at the time of the summer tours. USA, Canada, Japan and the Wolfhounds play a competition in one of those countries (not Ireland). Georgia, Romania Russia and the Saxons also have a competition. Could do with a few more 6 nations A teams tough.

No additional tests matches for your front line players. Home matches for developing nations against decent top tier teams.

Why did they stop the Churchill cup in the first place? Not enough money in it?

This would be on top of playing a developing nation in the AIs.

Golden wrote:Would the re-introduction of the Churchill cup not be a healthy compromise? Switch it between Georgia, Romania, Russia, USA and Canada.

Or maybe have two running at the time of the summer tours. USA, Canada, Japan and the Wolfhounds play a competition in one of those countries (not Ireland). Georgia, Romania Russia and the Saxons also have a competition. Could do with a few more 6 nations A teams tough.

No additional tests matches for your front line players. Home matches for developing nations against decent top tier teams.

Why did they stop the Churchill cup in the first place? Not enough money in it?

This would be on top of playing a developing nation in the AIs.

Main reason is money. RFU paid for it including giving money to IRFU, NZRU, FFR for fielding sides.

Ah right presume that ideas a no go then. Unless the competitions could support themselves.

Notch wrote:We DO need to increase the number of test matches as under the current system there is no way a Six Nations side will agree to play away in Tblisi or Bucharest in the Autumn and only have two home games.

By increasing the number of Test matches, you are compounding the problem of our finances, not solving it. If countries can't survive replacing at least one well-attended, widely televised fixture with another of lesser immediate value, then rugby has a broken business model.

Host the Tier 2 team in the Autumn - give a percentage of takings to their Uniuon. Send an A team to them in the Summer.

It's not that they couldn't survive it. It's that they won't accept this emphasis on giving more countries game time without concessions.

Send an SH coach to coach them as we all know the NH does f•ck all in that respect. Not enough 'money' in it, eh chaps?

ebop wrote:Send an SH coach to coach them as we all know the NH does f•ck all in that respect. Not enough 'money' in it, eh chaps?

I am guessing the irony of a NZ fan making that statement is lost on you.

No irony. You guys are all bluster. Where's the pommy coaches coaching all the local Romanian teams to bring them up to your standards? Not enough money in it mate.

A great game of rugby between two top sides is amazing. But a weak side simply can't hold back a strong side, like in soccer. In soccer Wales, if organized well could hold Brazil to a draw on a good day. In rugby it's simply not possible for a Portugal v New Zealand match to be anything other than a blow out. So interest, and therefore revenue, drops dramatically for such contests. Which is a problem, when trying to get more competition to tier two nations.

Straight promotion/relegation in the 6 Nations would be fairest. But how could you get the home unions to agree to it? For all the talk of the damage HC changes could do to Scottish/Italian rugby, relegation out of the 6 Nations for a year would literally destroy the finances of most participants.

Everyone seems to mention Georgia as the ones with most potential. Maybe the 6 Nations between them should agree that Georgia gets some games in the AI's every year. So we would in effect rotate the financial hit of not hosting one of the big three from down south for one match, but hosting Georgia instead. If Georgia got two games against 6 Nations sides every Autumn then each 6 Nations side would host them every third year. So the potential drop in revenue for that game would be shared equally over time.

Then it's up to Georgia to prove their worth by beating us, like Argentina and Italy had to do. If they do, then we can figure out how to get them into a proper competition.

Who would be the next best candidate after Georgia?

ebop wrote:No irony. You guys are all bluster. Where's the pommy coaches coaching all the local Romanian teams to bring them up to your standards? Not enough money in it mate.

You're not wrong there, ebop. Most countries and sides up here have non-national coaches. Sadly most Unions, regions, provinces and clubs do it and the fans don't bat an eyelid.

LondonTiger wrote:

Golden wrote:Would the re-introduction of the Churchill cup not be a healthy compromise? Switch it between Georgia, Romania, Russia, USA and Canada.

Or maybe have two running at the time of the summer tours. USA, Canada, Japan and the Wolfhounds play a competition in one of those countries (not Ireland). Georgia, Romania Russia and the Saxons also have a competition. Could do with a few more 6 nations A teams tough.

No additional tests matches for your front line players. Home matches for developing nations against decent top tier teams.

Why did they stop the Churchill cup in the first place? Not enough money in it?

This would be on top of playing a developing nation in the AIs.

Main reason is money. RFU paid for it including giving money to IRFU, NZRU, FFR for fielding sides.

The Churchill Cup was stopped because the IRB (who part-funded it) decided the host nations it was created for (USA & Canada) would be best served if finally incorporated into the IRB touring schedule, receiving tourists in the summer and visiting Europe in the autumn.  The other couple of changing nations that made up the competion went into the Nations Cup (staged in Romania), the Pacific Nations Cup and more recently the Tbilisi Cup.

Georgia has been mentioned a few times in this thread and they actually played a reasonable number of top 10 nations last year.  Argentina on their summer tour down there, Samoa in Tbilisi in the AIs (which they won), and representational Irish and SA sides in the Tbilisi cup.  For comparison, Russia and Romania both played representational Italian and Argentine sides in the Nations Cup.

If you want to increase the number of games between tier 1 and tier 2 nations, I feel the best way is to expand on the current general principle of blending them into the tours, so the SH sides play the European tier 2 sides when over here in the autumn and the 6N sides play the other tier 2 sides whilst on their summer travels.  That would mean no need to increase the international windows, cause less disruption to domestic seasons and fit better with tier 1 touring nations taking enlarged squads to test young and fringe players in build-up and mid-week games.

geoff998rugby wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:[i]  The new European tournament gives teams within Fira-AER a route into the Heineken Cup. It may take some time before anyone negotiates it successfully but two teams from the third tournament, currently called the Qualifying Competition, will qualify for the Challenge Cup. While the winners of that will not qualify automatically for the Champions Cup, they will be guaranteed a place in the play-off for the 20th spot in the elite competition.

.

Surely this is incorrect - from what  have read the qualification for 20th spot, not including this year, will be between the 7th placed French team, 7th placed English team and the 2 highest non qualified Pro12 teams (who could finish from 6th to 9th depending on other qualifications).
No place for European Challenge Cup winners.

There is a caveat for European Champions Cup winners but that is a different matter  

The European Professional Club Rugby statement said:

From 2015 season, if the previous season's European Rugby Challenge Cup winner has not already qualified through its finishing position in its league, it will participate in the play-off by taking a place given to its league.

They're clearly not envisaging a Fira-AER side winning the Challenge Cup anytime soon.  In the unlikely event that one might, would we see the PRO12 get only one place in the play-offs?

One day - eventually - maybe the full details of the actual agreement will be published.

Until then we're forced into guessing and presupposing on the minutiae of qualifications, seedings, pool draws and qualifications processes.

It really shouldn't be that difficult to set up an official stub for the new EPCR website where the nitty-gritty can be accessed.

If there has to be minutiae, that always suggests the competition is flawed in concept. Stick the teams in a hat and they play knockout from the start.

You don't need pools,  where the seeds generally finish top, the other French and English clubs jostle for second and third place and the also rans from the R12 finish fourth. It is way too predictable.
If there must be pools,  there should just be three seeds,  one from each league.