Anyone think the new pan european tournament looks a little... lopsided?

First topic message reminder :

Just had a look at the groups, and well it looks less like a representitive tournament than PRL/LNR invitational.

Now i'm not having a go, or have any vested interest, but surely so many games every year involving either 2 English teams or 2 french teams playing each other in the group stage detracts from the competition.

I prefer a tournament that has Europes and rugbys interest in mind, and like this tournament less now I know it's an elitist version of a once great spectacle.

What is wrong with allowing 2 Scottish teams, 2 Italian teams and maybe Spanish, Russian national representitives?

broadlandboy wrote:You could say that or the top tier is for the best teams with the 2nd tier to develope teams level & the 3rd tier to promote rugby into areas that are not traditionally rugby strong. You choose which way you want to see it.

That makes total sense, but only from a PRL/LNR POV.

If the 2nd tier is a development tournament for teams to get better, why has the PRL spearheaded tournament designed to take incentive to be competitive in it away, and shift focus to the league?

From a Rabo POV surely the 2nd tier competition is more of an appeasement, look honest you will still be playing good teams honest, tournament, of which will be sacrificed in a heart beat when top tier places in the league become competitive.

Neutralee wrote:Omc

making sense, but then why would the same provision not be applied to the 2nd tier, surely with the more quality there any nation capable of winning that tournament deserves to be at the top table.

my worry is that organisers havn't thought of the ramifications of forcing teams to focus
elsewhere other than europe.

If the Welsh Scottish Italian teams have no incentive to compete in the 2nd tier comp, whats to stop them putting out development teams and worrying about league only as the money comes fromparticipation.

Also a lot of argument on here was the like Zebre being whipping boys, does this new format really change anything? Given the huge differences between the haves (Toulon, Saracens, Leinster, Leicester, CA etc) and have nots (Treviso, Scarlets, GLasgow etc) what is the incentive to field anything but development teams beyond the group half way stage when qualification is unlikely, and league performance is key priority?

As I've said previously, I see nothing but PRL/LNR domination from here on in, and sadly it has nothing to do with rugby reasons for it.

I believe the qualifying competition is in pre-season or the very start of the season, just to get the two teams. You could think of it as a preliminary round of the Challenge Cup.

Yes, not having an automatic spot for the Challenge Cup winners is a mistake. They should have the spot instead of the playoff, and if they qualify through the league then the place can be awarded to the next team in that league.

Likewise the Champions Cup winners should have a guaranteed place in part of their league's allocation.

Not that this would actually change anything in the coming season, because the Amlin champions were Northampton, who qualified automatically and the place would be passed to Wasps, who qualified through the playoff anyway.

We can't do a lot about matches in the group stage becoming dead rubbers besides making it a straight knockout (which could easily accommodate everyone in the one competition, by the way).

I wouldn't discount the Irish that easily!

All teams have a reason to focus no matter what their, they can win money. They can impress potential signings. They can get silverware to bring in more fans through the gates.

Neutralee wrote:From a Rabo POV surely the 2nd tier competition is more of an appeasement, look honest you will still be playing good teams honest, tournament, of which will be sacrificed in a heart beat when top tier places in the league become competitive.

Like it always was from a Premiership and Top 14 perspective then?

Neutralee wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:You could say that or the top tier is for the best teams with the 2nd tier to develope teams level & the 3rd tier to promote rugby into areas that are not traditionally rugby strong. You choose which way you want to see it.

That makes total sense, but only from a PRL/LNR POV.

If the 2nd tier is a development tournament for teams to get better, why has the PRL spearheaded tournament designed to take incentive to be competitive in it away, and shift focus to the league?

From a Rabo POV surely the 2nd tier competition is more of an appeasement, look honest you will still be playing good teams honest, tournament, of which will be sacrificed in a heart beat when top tier places in the league become competitive.

Which is how the PRL/LNR teams have had to do in the past as they have had to qualify with most of the PRO12 gaining free entry into top competiton

ScarletSpiderman wrote:All teams have a reason to focus no matter what their, they can win money.  They can impress potential signings. They can get silverware to bring in more fans through the gates.

Does 2nd tier winnings and gates match or succeed costs though? I don't think there would be the money available for that to be the case.

Can another season in the 2nd tier comp via winning the 2nd tier comp and comprimising league position entice new signings? I'd say it would do the opposite.

I see the draw of silverware, and fans, but in reality of the Rabo teams who aside from the teams already top tier qualified come seasons end risks league position, and potential top tier spot for a 2nd tier run? Considering those already qualified are generally in the top tier anyway.

my point is that the distance between the superclubs and the rest can only get bigger, I already see Toulon shirts worn coast to coast in the UK, allowing a situation where they could be given a monoploy on the pitch, and as a result off it has to be extremely dangerous to rugby on a global level?

Cyril wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Feels like a wind up thread to be honest

Well, it is  

Should have known. Anything that doesn't share your view is a wind up. How broad-minded of you  

broadlandboy wrote:

Neutralee wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:You could say that or the top tier is for the best teams with the 2nd tier to develope teams level & the 3rd tier to promote rugby into areas that are not traditionally rugby strong. You choose which way you want to see it.

That makes total sense, but only from a PRL/LNR POV.

If the 2nd tier is a development tournament for teams to get better, why has the PRL spearheaded tournament designed to take incentive to be competitive in it away, and shift focus to the league?

From a Rabo POV surely the 2nd tier competition is more of an appeasement, look honest you will still be playing good teams honest, tournament, of which will be sacrificed in a heart beat when top tier places in the league become competitive.

Which is how the PRL/LNR teams have had to do in the past as they have had to qualify with most of the PRO12 gaining free entry into top competiton

But didn't the Rabo teams restructure, and join together because of their size, and to allow them best chance of success, England and France could have regionalised and had 5/6 regions with all qualifying through. Point being there was an issue with fairness from the PRL's POV, instead of remedying the problem that was caused by the Rabo nations changing in house, by changing in house, they decided to hold the smaller nations to ransom to ensure the change was made by everyone else to meet there preferences.

Havn't English clubs been given a reprise/entry in earlier years? Where is that similar rugby ethos when they are in a position of power?

So you think that after the rules for qualification are set some change to give them an advantage?
The PRL didn't hold the smaller unions to ransom they requested talks as they were unhappy with the competition with ERC saying No so gave notice to leave as they were allowed to do with many from PRO12 saying we don't need you to set up another competition & invited others to participate.
There is little point going on as most seem to have their set views & unwilling to change them.

broadlandboy wrote:So you think that after the rules for qualification are set some change to give them an advantage?
The PRL didn't hold the smaller unions to ransom they requested talks as they were unhappy with the competition with ERC saying No so gave notice to leave as they were allowed to do with many from PRO12 saying we don't need you to set up another competition & invited others to participate.
There is little point going on as most seem to have their set views & unwilling to change them.

The ERC Board was made up of representatives from the Unions, PRL & LNR. They had plenty of talks. At the end of the game, they didn't like democracy. The new Champs Cup Board is exactly the same. The Unions can still outvote the minority (with independent chair or no independent chair).

The really good thing about this competition is that the PRL & LNR can't threaten to run away every time a decision goes against them.

HammerofThunor wrote:Previously 4 pools had two teams from the PRO12 and the others would have two teams from the league that produced the team that won the ACC or HEC.

Now there are 2 pools with 2 teams from PRO12, one with 2 from the T14, one with 2 from AP and the last will have two from the league that produces the team that wins the playoff.

Seems less lopsided than it was before. Although that obviously depends on your bias.

Even less lopsided again, are there not two AP teams in Leinsters group and also 2 AP teams in Munsters group (open to correction).

There is something to be said against playing league opponents again in pool stages of Europe. The knock out stages if it occurs is great as there is added spice. But four fixtures between Wasps and Quins this coming year and they could face in AP playoffs also and in the European knock out rounds. Same goes for Pro12 and Top14 of course, just taking AP as the example.

broadlandboy wrote:
There is little point going on as most seem to have their set views & unwilling to change them.

I promise you I am not that person, I am looking from a european / global / purely rugby perspective. I don't have a horse in this race, but view what has happened as unfair to anyone below the two super powers of France and England.

I hope I don't offend anyone, that is'nt my intentions, but I do find it curious how some are so violantly pro and anti what has happened, the truth must lie somewhere in the middle, I am just trying to distinguish where.

What I will say is it seems there has been a knock on effect in Wales already, with arguing escelating since the Euro restructure, and effects on myself and many friends has been negetive toward the new comp.

I wonder if I'm in the minority, or wether the new comp will alienate a lot of neutrals?

TBH some of the things in the new European Cup I really like, and ECC should have brought them in, I don't like the way they were brought in though.

The league positioning deciding the draw for tiers is a great addition.

Everyone agreed that the old system of results in Europe over 4 years was flawed, and in fairness did advantage the Pro 12 sides.

The current one provides an incentive to finish top of the Jeff rather than just first or second.
For the Pro 12 it does create more competition right down the league, (ie, the difference for Scarlets and Ospreys groups for finishing 5th, Ospreys have a much better chance of progression).

However I think it is slightly unbalanced, where one team that finishes 2nd in the league will be tier 2 and the other 2 tier one, by bringing it back up to 24 teams, you would have all teams that finished 1st or 2nd being tier 1, 3rd and 4th tier 2 etc.

This should have been brought in by the ERC when there were 24 teams, and it will also improve the Pro 12.

This year I think the Pro 12 league will be more keenly fought, and I think that the rivalries that we where keen to see develop become more intense.

Kingshu wrote:TBH some of the things in the new European Cup I really like, and ECC should have brought them in, I don't like the way they were brought in though.

The league positioning deciding the draw for tiers is a great addition.

Everyone agreed that the old system of results in Europe over 4 years was flawed, and in fairness did advantage the Pro 12 sides.

The current one provides an incentive to finish top of the Jeff rather than just first or second.
For the Pro 12 it does create more competition right down the league, (ie, the difference for Scarlets and Ospreys groups for finishing 5th, Ospreys have a much better chance of progression).

However I think it is slightly unbalanced, where one team that finishes 2nd in the league will be tier 2 and the other 2 tier one, by bringing it back up to 24 teams, you would have all teams that finished 1st or 2nd being tier 1, 3rd and 4th tier 2 etc.

This should have been brought in by the ERC when there were 24 teams, and it will also improve the Pro 12.

This year I think the Pro 12 league will be more keenly fought, and I think that the rivalries that we where keen to see develop become more intense.

Kingshu, it was up to the leagues themselves to decide how they wanted qualification for Europe. The PRO 12 is tricky because of the Number of countries involved and even as it is, it is unfair that Italy has a guaranteed spot - that is a huge disadvantage (particularly financially) to the Pro12 team that happens to be left out of the tier 1 competition to facilitate the Italian team.

Why should the Pro 12 teams carry this burden?

By the way, the ERC ranking system was only in place since the last agreement was signed. Up to that, there was no seeding whatsoever. Its wrong to say the ERC didn't try and improve the competition by changing it around. Its just you have to try and give stuff an opportunity to work.

My opinion anyway, seeding is irrelevant if you plan on winning the competition you have to beat everyone. What would make a difference though is neutral semi final venues.

By the way, I don't think the Group Stages of the Champions League are seeded (or if so, they just separate the League winners, which don't have play-offs).

Edit: what I do think would improve the competition is home and away QFs & semisl.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Previously 4 pools had two teams from the PRO12 and the others would have two teams from the league that produced the team that won the ACC or HEC.

Now there are 2 pools with 2 teams from PRO12, one with 2 from the T14, one with 2 from AP and the last will have two from the league that produces the team that wins the playoff.

Seems less lopsided than it was before. Although that obviously depends on your bias.

Even less lopsided again, are there not two AP teams in Leinsters group and also 2 AP teams in Munsters group (open to correction).

There is something to be said against playing league opponents again in pool stages of Europe.  The knock out stages if it occurs is great as there is added spice.  But four fixtures between Wasps and Quins this coming year and they could face in AP playoffs also and in the European knock out rounds.  Same goes for Pro12 and Top14 of course, just taking AP as the example.

Are you saying things are better now or worse?

Sin é wrote:Edit: what I do think would improve the competition is home and away QFs & semisl.

We don't agree on a lot but that would be better (IMO). Not sure where you'd fit in the extra 2 games but it would be worth the attempt.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:Edit: what I do think would improve the competition is home and away QFs & semisl.

We don't agree on a lot but that would be better (IMO). Not sure where you'd fit in the extra 2 games but it would be worth the attempt.

Cottonwool players (famous names and faces) play the away leg of their twosome and use their pasty faced young uns to play their home game. That would mean two clear cut big boys against the little boys games to help along the little boys in their 'experience gaining' ways. It might also lend some juicy surprises to the outcomes that would keep the eternally bored bumsitters in the eternally talked about 'followers' bracket interested in how their young guys are matching up to other guys' big guys. It would also ensure that you could have both home and away games on the same day!

Never let it be said that I don't think in ultra modernistic ways.

HammerofThunor wrote:
Are you saying things are better now or worse?

He don't really know.  He still lives in the present  -but yes, he has tried out a number of Time Travelling prototype machines.... everyone of them negligently lost in the dim and distant past.

I think that the semi finals, could remain as one game played in a neutral venue as a double header.

Say the final is arranged before the tournament starts for Twickenham, the semi final could be arranged at the same time for Murryfield, as a double header.
Rotate the semi final double header round each union each year.
Doesn't add an extra game to the calendar.
If a success look at having 2 double header quarter finals the same way.

Means Italy get to hold at least a major club game once every 6 years, where currently they have never hosted the European cup final.

If quarter finals are brought in means something like
FIR host QF1 double header
FFR host QF2 double header
SRU host SF double header
RFU host Final

WRU and IRFU have nothing to host that year, but the following year it all rotates, so it would be the RFU and SRU that have nothing to host. Order isn't important just the concept.

King

I quite like that, as a neutral double headers are a great day out and value for money! It would make the whole tournament at the final stages more interesting.

One question though, couldn't the likes of Spain, Germany, Portugal etc be included? They have the stadia, just not the inclusion of european rugby?

Neutralee wrote:King

I quite like that, as a neutral double headers are a great day out and value for money! It would make the whole tournament at the final stages more interesting.

One question though, couldn't the likes of Spain, Germany, Portugal etc be included? They have the stadia, just not the inclusion of european rugby?

Do the same with the Challenge Cup and there are games for all 6 big unions and 2 smaller ones.

Neutralee - Highly unlikely that they would want to move them outside a country that has a proven ability to fill stadia. From Semi-finals on, gate money goes into organisers competition pot. I'd say the clubs would be very unhappy if their competition money was reduced due to poor ticket sales in the semi & finals. The French fans in particular don't really travel.

From what Ive seen in the UK the French and IRish tend to travel best

Leicester usually has a good following as does Northampton. Clermont fans are one of the few French teams to have travelling supporters.

Toulouse fans don't really travel. Their final in Cardiff against Munster had very few supporters at it.

Since it seems likely that the French will dominate for a few years, I can't see that working. Whatever chance you would have of getting them to go to a final, I'd say they just would not be bothered with a semi final.

HammerofThunor wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Previously 4 pools had two teams from the PRO12 and the others would have two teams from the league that produced the team that won the ACC or HEC.

Now there are 2 pools with 2 teams from PRO12, one with 2 from the T14, one with 2 from AP and the last will have two from the league that produces the team that wins the playoff.

Seems less lopsided than it was before. Although that obviously depends on your bias.

Even less lopsided again, are there not two AP teams in Leinsters group and also 2 AP teams in Munsters group (open to correction).

There is something to be said against playing league opponents again in pool stages of Europe.  The knock out stages if it occurs is great as there is added spice.  But four fixtures between Wasps and Quins this coming year and they could face in AP playoffs also and in the European knock out rounds.  Same goes for Pro12 and Top14 of course, just taking AP as the example.

Are you saying things are better now or worse?

Just noting that there are 2 pools of two AP teams, and 2 pools with two pro12 teams.

If this was to be an 'elite' european cup competition then by pure rights you could argue for top 4 teams from each league in a knock out competition with the champions of the previous season and the champions of each of the leagues getting a bye from the first round of games (obviously the league with the european champion will get byes for first two teams). That would be truly elite. There would be a wildcard round of four matches, then quarters, semis and final. It would only take 4 weekends out of the year and puts the best teams on the field. The current set up doesn't do this.

The alternative is to have the european competition be a bridge in match quality between the leagues and international Test level matches. This would be with the purpose of improving the international sides. But that can't be achieved if a country only has 1 club to select a position player from as you never have the ability to choose. The current set up doesn't do this either.

Bit of a strange one as you really need to consider this on the basis of how many teams (or ratio) from each league and not from each country.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:
Are you saying things are better now or worse?

He don't really know.  He still lives in the present  -but yes, he has tried out a number of Time Travelling prototype machines.... everyone of them negligently lost in the dim and distant past.

Indeed...

No 7&1/2 wrote:Bit of a strange one as you really need to consider this on the basis of how many teams (or ratio) from each league and not from each country.

Kind of true, but when you look back through the history of the hcup there are only 1-2-3 sides from France, England and Ireland challenging to win the competition. The rest is padding.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Bit of a strange one as you really need to consider this on the basis of how many teams (or ratio) from each league and not from each country.

Kind of true, but when you look back through the history of the hcup there are only 1-2-3 sides from France, England and Ireland challenging to win the competition.  The rest is padding.

Yet, some people seem to want more padding. It just dilutes the tournament(s) and makes for more meaningless games.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:
Are you saying things are better now or worse?

He don't really know.  He still lives in the present  -but yes, he has tried out a number of Time Travelling prototype machines.... everyone of them negligently lost in the dim and distant past.

Indeed...

Sorry the question was clearly too vague. Since you came up with the point that playing teams from your domestic league during the pool stage isn't great...do you think it's better now that 2 pools will have 2 Pro12, 1 pool will have 2 AP and 1 pool will have 2 T14 (with the playoff winner getting the last double), or was it better when 4 pools had 2 PRO12 teams and the last two had doubles from the Euro cup winners.

Sin é wrote:Leicester usually has a good following as does Northampton. Clermont fans are one of the few French teams to have travelling supporters.

Toulouse fans don't really travel. Their final in Cardiff against Munster had very few supporters at it.

Since it seems likely that the French will dominate for a few years, I can't see that working. Whatever chance you would have of getting them to go to a final, I'd say they just would not be bothered with a semi final.

Maybe true sin, but remember its a double header, so each team would only need to bring half thier normal support to fill the stadium.

ie for this year it would have been a Saracens V Clermont and Toulon V Munster double header,

I think this would have sold out in any of the 6 nation unions, except maybe Italy, and this is where is helps grow the club game.

Finals in neutral countries sell out fine, and the semi final does lack the prestige of being the final but it does have the benefit of being a double header.

I could see a lot of the fans, who couldn't get a final ticket going to the semi instead as its a double header, esp if its in thier home union, and also thier is a better chance of your team being involved in it.

Imagine if this years final was in Twickenham, and the double header was in the Aviva stadium, both sets of tickets go on sale at the start of the season.

Some provincial fans will always get tickets to the final and hope thier team make it, no matter what (and just to see the final), but I think a lot of Munster Leinster and Ulster fans will buy up the tickets to the semi final double header instead as its at home more chance of seeing your province there, and its a feast of Rugby, fans of other teams will also plan the trip and I would expect there would be a number of fans of the big English clubs, and French clubs would get tickets, and I would also expect a large number of Welsh and Scottish fans who fancy a weekend away in Dublin and they can watch 2 top quality games of rugby (hoping one of the teams would be theirs).
Don't think it would have a problem selling it out, only issue is would the ECC be happy with only one full stadium in a neutral country when currently they sell out two (in an unfair system)

The matches that actually attract the most interest are the English-Irish games in my opinion.

How can anyone not love Pool 1 and 3 in particular?

3 heavyweights in each pool and 2 potential jokers who could cause some problems too.

Like it or not, be it a bitter pill to swallow or just deserts for making a stand, the new look tournament is all we have and by god I am intending to enjoy it every bit as much as last year. So frick off to the naysayers and the smug faces, lets accept what's been set in front of us.
I can't wait for the Ulster v Leinster final

HammerofThunor wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:
Are you saying things are better now or worse?

He don't really know.  He still lives in the present  -but yes, he has tried out a number of Time Travelling prototype machines.... everyone of them negligently lost in the dim and distant past.

Indeed...

Sorry the question was clearly too vague.  Since you came up with the point that playing teams from your domestic league during the pool stage isn't great...do you think it's better now that 2 pools will have 2 Pro12, 1 pool will have 2 AP and 1 pool will have 2 T14 (with the playoff winner getting the last double), or was it better when 4 pools had 2 PRO12 teams and the last two had doubles from the Euro cup winners.

Hmmm, you originally came up with the point that the lopsidedness was less under the current system. I agreed with you. It is possible for someone on the 'other side of the fence' to agree with their counterpart once in a while. You asked was it better or worse. I responded that I'd have liked a european cup to be either a true elite competition or else a bridge in match intensity between league fixtures and Test matches.

The lopsidedness is gone in the current set up but I don't think it is a proper elite competition, so I think it fails to try and become a truly elite competition (a competition with no padding where every entrant can have genuine expectations of winning the whole thing).

What I saw the old HCup competition as was a way for the 6N Unions to provide a competition that gave test (and potential test) level players experience of fixtures at an intensity higher than their respective league could achieve so that the ultimate bridge to Test level wouldn't be too far. I think the changes where some teams will only have 1 'club' team in the european competition limits those countries in developing players to compete at Test level.

Cyril wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Bit of a strange one as you really need to consider this on the basis of how many teams (or ratio) from each league and not from each country.

Kind of true, but when you look back through the history of the hcup there are only 1-2-3 sides from France, England and Ireland challenging to win the competition.  The rest is padding.

Yet, some people seem to want more padding. It just dilutes the tournament(s) and makes for more meaningless games.

Correct, so you either have plenty of padding, where it means that it serves a purpose (having 2 teams from Scotland and 2 from Italy) to give more opportunity for those players to gain experience in games at a greater intensity than league fixtures so that the best XV picked for the international side can compete better at Test level) or else you go truly elite.

[quote="Pete330v2"
I can't wait for the Ulster v Leinster final [/quote]

I'd say you will be waiting a few years for that to happen.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Hmmm, you originally came up with the point that the lopsidedness was less under the current system.  I agreed with you.  It is possible for someone on the 'other side of the fence' to agree with their counterpart once in a while.  You asked was it better or worse.  I responded that I'd have liked a european cup to be either a true elite competition or else a bridge in match intensity between league fixtures and Test matches.  

The lopsidedness is gone in the current set up but I don't think it is a proper elite competition, so I think it fails to try and become a truly elite competition (a competition with no padding where every entrant can have genuine expectations of winning the whole thing).

What I saw the old HCup competition as was a way for the 6N Unions to provide a competition that gave test (and potential test) level players experience of fixtures at an intensity higher than their respective league could achieve so that the ultimate bridge to Test level wouldn't be too far.  I think the changes where some teams will only have 1 'club' team in the european competition limits those countries in developing players to compete at Test level.

Aye, sorry. Unless things are spelt out for me I can't take on information   

As for you're two main options, well it's pretty close to the first option (the 'true' elite). Instead of 4 from each is 6 from each with 1 extra from Pro12 and one extra from playoff.  Surely whether it's a cutoff at 4 teams each or 6 teams each is arbitary and has no baring on the Eliteness.  Last four years there have been 9 different teams in the semi-finals (out of a possible 16) so there is some variation.

Unfortunately the numbers don't really fit easily unless some teams are cut out. Often the teams cut out have the least money and they lose out on the ticket revenue for those games.  I think what we have is a reasonable compromise on the 'elite' concept and 'inclusion'.

I don't like the idea of the second option as it suggests over-reliance on a volatile system with difference groups hammered together. Look at all the talk about Scottish rugby being destroyed (if we had the competition we have now).  They should be reliant on completely other groups playing ball. In the Pro12 all the sides are in a similar position...they can't maintain a full leagues worth of teams at the required level. So it works. What has to happen is the bread and butter of the league needs to be good enough to develope players for international duty.

[NB Granted the Welsh Situation at the moment shows it's not flawless but that's what happens when you deal with      ing   fish  ]

EDIT: to be honest I'm looking forward to the 2nd tier more than the top. Overall I'm really curious about how the qualifying teams do. Will they be the same teams that were invited in? Will it change? Will they push on and compete with the others (especially if they send in weaker teams).

The problem with all this argument is that it goes on the basis that the 3 leagues are of even ststure within a European comp.

Surely the unions are the ones who are entering the comp, so claiming this new comp is more elite because more English and French clubs are in it is wrong, it just become elitist because of the haves and have nots?

There are not more English/French teams, there is the same number.That is part of the problem in that you are mixing Unions & clubs. It is more elite because each team has to be better that another to qualify where as in the past some got a free pass. Scotland & Italy can still get 2 teams in ,they just have to prove that they are better than the Irish/Welsh.

broadlandboy wrote:There are not more English/French teams, there is the same number.That is part of the problem in that you are mixing Unions & clubs. It is more elite because each team has to be better that another to qualify where as in the past some got a free pass. Scotland & Italy can still get 2 teams in ,they just have to prove that they are better than the Irish/Welsh.

Thats the flaw with your argument, why should the Italians have to prove they are better than the Irish to be allowed to play in the top comp? Do the English have to prove they are better than the Irish to play in it?

my point sadly stands, based on HC results the Rabo is full of higher quality teams than the French or English league, therefore Scottish clubs have to compete with double winners, teams who havn't failed to get out of their group in 6 years or so, whereas the likes of Wasps have to compete with a few finalists here and there.

How do Scottish clubs get a fair shake when they have to compete in a league they are massively outgunned in, then a top tier comp they can't get into, lose that revenue and the next season they have less funds to compete in a league they were already massively outgunned in...

The new euro comp isn't for the elite at all, it's for the elitist!!!

Neutralee wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:There are not more English/French teams, there is the same number.That is part of the problem in that you are mixing Unions & clubs. It is more elite because each team has to be better that another to qualify where as in the past some got a free pass. Scotland & Italy can still get 2 teams in ,they just have to prove that they are better than the Irish/Welsh.

Thats the flaw with your argument, why should the Italians have to prove they are better than the Irish to be allowed to play in the top comp? Do the English have to prove they are better than the Irish to play in it?

my point sadly stands, based on HC results the Rabo is full of higher quality teams than the French or English league, therefore Scottish clubs have to compete with double winners, teams who havn't failed to get out of their group in 6 years or so, whereas the likes of Wasps have to compete with a few finalists here and there.

How do Scottish clubs get a fair shake when they have to compete in a league they are massively outgunned in, then a top tier comp they can't get into, lose that revenue and the next season they have less funds to compete in a league they were already massively outgunned in...

The new euro comp isn't for the elite at all, it's for the elitist!!!

Glasgow finished 2nd, ahead of double-winners Munster and single-winners Ulster.

There have been as many English winners as Irish (6 each), and more French (7). Your point applies as much to the lower-table English and French teams.

OMc wrote:

Neutralee wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:There are not more English/French teams, there is the same number.That is part of the problem in that you are mixing Unions & clubs. It is more elite because each team has to be better that another to qualify where as in the past some got a free pass. Scotland & Italy can still get 2 teams in ,they just have to prove that they are better than the Irish/Welsh.

Thats the flaw with your argument, why should the Italians have to prove they are better than the Irish to be allowed to play in the top comp? Do the English have to prove they are better than the Irish to play in it?

my point sadly stands, based on HC results the Rabo is full of higher quality teams than the French or English league, therefore Scottish clubs have to compete with double winners, teams who havn't failed to get out of their group in 6 years or so, whereas the likes of Wasps have to compete with a few finalists here and there.

How do Scottish clubs get a fair shake when they have to compete in a league they are massively outgunned in, then a top tier comp they can't get into, lose that revenue and the next season they have less funds to compete in a league they were already massively outgunned in...

The new euro comp isn't for the elite at all, it's for the elitist!!!

Glasgow finished 2nd, ahead of double-winners Munster and single-winners Ulster.

There have been as many English winners as Irish (6 each), and more French (7). Your point applies as much to the lower-table English and French teams.

It kind of goes to the lower league finishers directly, In which way do Wasps deserve to be Englands 6th entrant to the tournament when Italy only have 1?

Neutralee wrote:It kind of goes to the lower league finishers directly, In which way do Wasps deserve to be Englands 6th entrant to the tournament when Italy only have 1?

Wasps finished 7th in the Prem, and won a playoff against the 7th team in the (supposedly providing every Champions Cup winner for the next x years) Top 14. Zebre finished bottom of the Pro 12.

The real disgrace was Zebre qualifying for the H-Cup in their first season before they even played a game. How do you justify that?

OMc wrote:

Neutralee wrote:It kind of goes to the lower league finishers directly, In which way do Wasps deserve to be Englands 6th entrant to the tournament when Italy only have 1?

Wasps finished 7th in the Prem, and won a playoff against the 7th team in the (supposedly providing every Champions Cup winner for the next x years) Top 14. Zebre finished bottom of the Pro 12.

The real disgrace was Zebre qualifying for the H-Cup in their first season before they even played a game. How do you justify that?

Italy were given, and rightfully 2 slots for the HC, what they did with them had f@@k all to do with anyone else.

See my point, it's like selecting an U12's team, you have 30 kids from 6 different parts of the city, it's like picking the first 7 based on one parent owning the local bank, the next 7 on theire parents owning a lot of property, then letting the the poor kids have 1 slot each to be 'inclusive'...

An elitist comp doesn't mean it's an elite comp.

Neutralee wrote:

OMc wrote:

Neutralee wrote:It kind of goes to the lower league finishers directly, In which way do Wasps deserve to be Englands 6th entrant to the tournament when Italy only have 1?

Wasps finished 7th in the Prem, and won a playoff against the 7th team in the (supposedly providing every Champions Cup winner for the next x years) Top 14. Zebre finished bottom of the Pro 12.

The real disgrace was Zebre qualifying for the H-Cup in their first season before they even played a game. How do you justify that?

Italy were given, and rightfully 2 slots for the HC, what they did with them had f@@k all to do with anyone else.

See my point, it's like selecting an U12's team, you have 30 kids from 6 different parts of the city, it's like picking the first 7 based on one parent owning the local bank, the next 7 on theire parents owning a lot of property, then letting the the poor kids have 1 slot each to be 'inclusive'...

An elitist comp doesn't mean it's an elite comp.

Its nothing like that at all!

If you want to trying to select a county side, and selecting 7 kids from the side that always put in good performances, 7 kids from club that historically have produced lots of good kids, and filling the rest of the team with kids who appear to have real potential even though they play for clubs that don't historically shine.

But not being harsh we have seen this argument raging for over 12 months now, we have this new competition. So how about either watching/supporting it or nor. No matter how elitist you may think it is or how inclusive you think it is, you can't do a thing to change it. And all the arguing in the world will just make you seem either bitter, deluded ir just out to argue

Neutralee wrote:

OMc wrote:

Neutralee wrote:It kind of goes to the lower league finishers directly, In which way do Wasps deserve to be Englands 6th entrant to the tournament when Italy only have 1?

Wasps finished 7th in the Prem, and won a playoff against the 7th team in the (supposedly providing every Champions Cup winner for the next x years) Top 14. Zebre finished bottom of the Pro 12.

The real disgrace was Zebre qualifying for the H-Cup in their first season before they even played a game. How do you justify that?

Italy were given, and rightfully 2 slots for the HC, what they did with them had f@@k all to do with anyone else.

See my point, it's like selecting an U12's team, you have 30 kids from 6 different parts of the city, it's like picking the first 7 based on one parent owning the local bank, the next 7 on theire parents owning a lot of property, then letting the the poor kids have 1 slot each to be 'inclusive'...

An elitist comp doesn't mean it's an elite comp.

I'm certainly warming to the idea of qualifiers. Top 4 from each league qualify directly. Next 4 English, 4 French, 2 Welsh, 2 Irish, 2 Scottish and 2 Italian teams play 2-legged qualifiers on the weekends of the league playoffs. Winners play in the Champions Cup, losers in the Challenge Cup. If a nation can't fill its qualifier spots (i.e. some teams have already directly qualified), then the spots go to the next-placed teams in the league.

So this season:
Prem direct qualifiers - Saracens, Northampton, Leicester, Harlequins
Top 14 direct qualifiers - Toulon, Montpellier, Clermont, Toulouse
Pro 12 direct qualifiers - Leinster, Glasgow, Munster, Ulster

In qualifiers:
England - Bath, Sale, Wasps, Exeter
France - Racing, Castres, Stade, Bordeaux
Wales - Ospreys, Scarlets
Ireland - Connacht, Cardiff
Scotland - Edinburgh, Dragons
Italy - Treviso, Zebre

Is it a Union or Club Competition? If you want a Union Competition why have non eligable players in the Union teams?

OMc wrote:

Neutralee wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:There are not more English/French teams, there is the same number.That is part of the problem in that you are mixing Unions & clubs. It is more elite because each team has to be better that another to qualify where as in the past some got a free pass. Scotland & Italy can still get 2 teams in ,they just have to prove that they are better than the Irish/Welsh.

Thats the flaw with your argument, why should the Italians have to prove they are better than the Irish to be allowed to play in the top comp? Do the English have to prove they are better than the Irish to play in it?

my point sadly stands, based on HC results the Rabo is full of higher quality teams than the French or English league, therefore Scottish clubs have to compete with double winners, teams who havn't failed to get out of their group in 6 years or so, whereas the likes of Wasps have to compete with a few finalists here and there.

How do Scottish clubs get a fair shake when they have to compete in a league they are massively outgunned in, then a top tier comp they can't get into, lose that revenue and the next season they have less funds to compete in a league they were already massively outgunned in...

The new euro comp isn't for the elite at all, it's for the elitist!!!

Glasgow finished 2nd, ahead of double-winners Munster and single-winners Ulster.

There have been as many English winners as Irish (6 each), and more French (7). Your point applies as much to the lower-table English and French teams.

Quite true. England have in fact produced a greater number of HCup winning clubs (Tiger, Saints, Wasps, Bath) compared to Ireland (Leinster, Munster, Ulster) and France (Toulon, Toulouse and that side that Cedric Heymans came on as sub in the final, Brive). If you want truly elite competition the entry barrier could very easily be kept to top 4 from each league or higher. If 'elite' is the goal.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

OMc wrote:

Neutralee wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:There are not more English/French teams, there is the same number.That is part of the problem in that you are mixing Unions & clubs. It is more elite because each team has to be better that another to qualify where as in the past some got a free pass. Scotland & Italy can still get 2 teams in ,they just have to prove that they are better than the Irish/Welsh.

Thats the flaw with your argument, why should the Italians have to prove they are better than the Irish to be allowed to play in the top comp? Do the English have to prove they are better than the Irish to play in it?

my point sadly stands, based on HC results the Rabo is full of higher quality teams than the French or English league, therefore Scottish clubs have to compete with double winners, teams who havn't failed to get out of their group in 6 years or so, whereas the likes of Wasps have to compete with a few finalists here and there.

How do Scottish clubs get a fair shake when they have to compete in a league they are massively outgunned in, then a top tier comp they can't get into, lose that revenue and the next season they have less funds to compete in a league they were already massively outgunned in...

The new euro comp isn't for the elite at all, it's for the elitist!!!

Glasgow finished 2nd, ahead of double-winners Munster and single-winners Ulster.

There have been as many English winners as Irish (6 each), and more French (7). Your point applies as much to the lower-table English and French teams.

Quite true.  England have in fact produced a greater number of HCup winning clubs (Tiger, Saints, Wasps, Bath) compared to Ireland (Leinster, Munster, Ulster) and France (Toulon, Toulouse and that side that Cedric Heymans came on as sub in the final, Brive).  If you want truly elite competition the entry barrier could very easily be kept to top 4 from each league or higher.  If 'elite' is the goal.

Have a 4-way knockout competition with the 3 league winners and last year's champion and shorten the season by two months?

omc

That qualifier system for me would probably be as fair as it gets, get a top 4 spot and your in, don't and you have to play someone from another league for a spot, if then it works out to be heavy French, or English so be it, they have earned it pretty fairly.

PS if arguing doesn't change anything, and we're in a position to live with it or don't, this would be a pretty quiet place would it not lol