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

by Neutralee Thu 24 Jul 2014, 6:16 pm

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?

by thebandwagonsociety Mon 28 Jul 2014, 8:50 pm

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

Good question.

Why have non eligible players in a team? In union controlled teams (so Ireland as an example), it can serve a couple purposes;
1 - Experienced player in a specific position is brought (or bought) in so that the younger players coming through can learn from them as well as the coachs (take Sexton coming through under Contepomi)(O'Brien and McLaughlin learning under Rocky Elsom).
2 - Position deficit noted in the production pipeline of that team (say Leinster) where no quality second row locks have been developed. The continued improvement and progression of the rest of the playing squad is impacted at the business end of the season through this deficiency (Brad Thorn brought in for a season).
3 - 'big name' star is brought (or bought) in with the objective of increasing local interest, media and advertising appeal and the marketability of the club.

For 90% of the decisions a club or union-controlled club could end up with the same result. the 10% tends to be around the cutover, a club will hold onto the non-eligible player until they are no longer a viable first option while the union-controlled club most likely wishes to cut over to home-grown talent slightly sooner.

It is silly if you rely on the Champions Cup for the top end test players to get experience to have too high a proportion of non-eligible players on the field. That becomes even more stark when a union only has 1-2 clubs represented.

by thebandwagonsociety Mon 28 Jul 2014, 8:55 pm

OMc wrote:
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

I like the rationale behind this idea. For the 2-legged qualifiers would you have the teams playing within their countries (ie. Bath v Sale, Stade v Bordeaux, etc.) or in an open draw?

by OMc Mon 28 Jul 2014, 8:57 pm

thebandwagonsociety wrote:
OMc wrote:
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

I like the rationale behind this idea. For the 2-legged qualifiers would you have the teams playing within their countries (ie. Bath v Sale, Stade v Bordeaux, etc.) or in an open draw?

Unseeded draw, but no two teams from a nation to play each other.

The only problem is the French playoffs contain the top 6 teams, although this is easily solved by the semi-finalists qualifying directly and the losing teams in the "quarter-finals" going into the Euro qualifiers.

by **Biltong** Mon 28 Jul 2014, 8:57 pm

Neutralee wrote: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

You're comparing different leagues, no scratch that, you are comparing teams who don't play the same opposition to justify whether they should qualify for the Elite European competition.

So saying Wasps as an example should play off against Rabo teams when firstly you have 4 countries participating in the Rabo, but you have one country in the Aviva and one country in the French Top 14 is a flawed concept.

Unless Scotland, Italy, Ireland and Wales each have their own "Aviva" type competition then your suggestion that the top four of each nation gets to qualify.

The ground base for each country is different due to the participants in three different competitions.

by OMc Mon 28 Jul 2014, 8:59 pm

Biltong wrote:
Neutralee wrote: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

You're comparing different leagues, no scratch that, you are comparing teams who don't play the same opposition to justify whether they should qualify for the Elite European competition.

So saying Wasps as an example should play off against Rabo teams when firstly you have 4 countries participating in the Rabo, but you have one country in the Aviva and one country in the French Top 14 is a flawed concept.

Unless Scotland, Italy, Ireland and Wales each have their own "Aviva" type competition then your suggestion that the top four of each nation gets to qualify.

The ground base for each country is different due to the participants in three different competitions.

This system is better at allowing for the discrepancies between leagues as it uses head-to-head results in qualifiers rather than the assumption that 5th place in one league is equivalent to 5th place in another.

by Sin é Mon 28 Jul 2014, 9:00 pm

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.

Ireland has 4 teams - 75%. Not a whole lot of space there for improvement!

by Neutralee Mon 28 Jul 2014, 9:05 pm

Biltong wrote:
Neutralee wrote: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

You're comparing different leagues, no scratch that, you are comparing teams who don't play the same opposition to justify whether they should qualify for the Elite European competition.

So saying Wasps as an example should play off against Rabo teams when firstly you have 4 countries participating in the Rabo, but you have one country in the Aviva and one country in the French Top 14 is a flawed concept.

Unless Scotland, Italy, Ireland and Wales each have their own "Aviva" type competition then your suggestion that the top four of each nation gets to qualify.

The ground base for each country is different due to the participants in three different competitions.

No the idea was top four from each league gets to qualify outright, adding competition to the Rabo, which we all agree was missing, then every team behind that enters a seeded draw system where 5th places play bottom of each league, 6th plays 11th etc.

I know there would be difficulties but surely anything is better than the polar oppisites we will see from last season to this?

by thebandwagonsociety Mon 28 Jul 2014, 9:09 pm

Sin é wrote:
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.

Ireland has 4 teams - 75%. Not a whole lot of space there for improvement!

I hear you Sine, you're saying we need to improve Connacht (they are doing some good ground work there at the minute).

Just wanted to point out that England have produced the greater number of HCup winning clubs. I'm finding there is too much black-white regarding debates on 606v2 recently and not enough of the grey. You can support the Pro12 while also watching Jeff/Top 14. You don't automatically have to be disagreeing with a poster's POV just because they follow a different league. The is still a place for positive comments on here.

by Neutralee Mon 28 Jul 2014, 9:13 pm

bandwagon

It's been a pretty positive debate in all fairness, and tbh I am starting to see some merits of the new system.

I wouldn't say i've reversed my opinion, but it isn't as strong as it was this time a few days ago, if only others took the time to read thoughts from all sides, maybe the new comp wouldn't look so uninviting to a neutrals eyes lol

by Feckless Rogue Mon 28 Jul 2014, 9:16 pm

I don't agree that every team in a competition has to be capable of winning it to make it a better competition. In that case about 5 teams should enter the FIFA World Cup and everyone else can play in the second tier Amlin World Cup, 8 teams in the FA Cup, the NBA should be decided with a one off match between Miami and San Antonio, no other teams should annoy us with their pathetic attempts to achieve something.

Part of the brilliance of these competions is what the teams who are not capable of winning the title achieve. Like Costa Rica this year in the World Cup. Or the one off giant killings that the FA Cup regularly gives us. A completely unfancied hurling team knocked out the All Ireland Champions this year, then got knocked out themselves two rounds later, but they had a great year and won lots of admirers. And the cream always rises to the top don't worry. The quarter finals will be pretty much the same, whether you cut the teams down or increased the number of participants.

The restructure does not make the competition "better" in any way whatsoever. But it wasn't supposed to. It was supposed to change the way the money pie is sliced and give more power to the private club owners in answer Nigel Wray's concern which he voiced with one of the funniest quotes of the whole affair.

"there is still no true democracy with the English clubs constantly being outvoted"

by OMc Mon 28 Jul 2014, 9:21 pm

Feckless Rogue wrote:I don't agree that every team in a competition has to be capable of winning it to make it a better competition. In that case about 5 teams should enter the FIFA World Cup and everyone else can play in the second tier Amlin World Cup, 8 teams in the FA Cup, the NBA should be decided with a one off match between Miami and San Antonio, no other teams should annoy us with their pathetic attempts to achieve something.

Part of the brilliance of these competions is what the teams who are not capable of winning the title achieve. Like Costa Rica this year in the World Cup. Or the one off giant killings that the FA Cup regularly gives us. A completely unfancied hurling team knocked out the All Ireland Champions this year, then got knocked out themselves two rounds later, but they had a great year and won lots of admirers. And the cream always rises to the top don't worry. The quarter finals will be pretty much the same, whether you cut the teams down or increased the number of participants.

The restructure does not make the competition "better" in any way whatsoever. But it wasn't supposed to. It was supposed to change the way the money pie is sliced and give more power to the private club owners in answer Nigel Wray's concern which he voiced with one of the funniest quotes of the whole affair.

"there is still no true democracy with the English clubs constantly being outvoted"

Is it possible to include all 38 teams plus some other Tier 2 teams? Yes, if we have a straight knockout, probably not in the current format. Having established that then we need a way to decide which teams we include.

by Hound of Harrow Tue 29 Jul 2014, 10:54 am

Feckless Rogue wrote:I don't agree that every team in a competition has to be capable of winning it to make it a better competition. In that case about 5 teams should enter the FIFA World Cup and everyone else can play in the second tier Amlin World Cup, 8 teams in the FA Cup, the NBA should be decided with a one off match between Miami and San Antonio, no other teams should annoy us with their pathetic attempts to achieve something.

Part of the brilliance of these competions is what the teams who are not capable of winning the title achieve. Like Costa Rica this year in the World Cup. Or the one off giant killings that the FA Cup regularly gives us. A completely unfancied hurling team knocked out the All Ireland Champions this year, then got knocked out themselves two rounds later, but they had a great year and won lots of admirers. And the cream always rises to the top don't worry. The quarter finals will be pretty much the same, whether you cut the teams down or increased the number of participants.

The restructure does not make the competition "better" in any way whatsoever. But it wasn't supposed to. It was supposed to change the way the money pie is sliced and give more power to the private club owners in answer Nigel Wray's concern which he voiced with one of the funniest quotes of the whole affair.

"there is still no true democracy with the English clubs constantly being outvoted"

I can't believe Wray has said that!

Err, on the other hand yes I can.

picard

by No 7&1/2 Tue 29 Jul 2014, 11:08 am

Put the full quote in or it sounds a bit silly!

by Hound of Harrow Tue 29 Jul 2014, 11:31 am

Enlighten me 7&1/2.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 29 Jul 2014, 11:39 am

Just search for the article and read the full quotes. Not saying I agree or disagree with what he says but at least read it in context and make your mind up.

by **Notch** Tue 29 Jul 2014, 11:41 am

The full quote was

"I can't see the point in us limping back in where there is still no true democracy with the English clubs constantly being outvoted because of the nature of the set-up"

As we all know, democracy is when one countries wishes dominates over the wishes of four countries. Thanks for clarifying Nigel. The approach to democracy of rigging the system until you get your way has been around for a lot longer than this debate.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 29 Jul 2014, 11:47 am

Again it's not about countries but about leagues. If it were about countries we should be pushing for teams from Germany, Portugal etc and sharing the wealth equally.

by beshocked Tue 29 Jul 2014, 12:08 pm

You might disagree with what he's saying but at least Nigel Wray is being honest and upfront with what he wants.

Self interest is at the heart of it all - whether you are English,French,Irish,Welsh etc.

Some countries/clubs/organisations will obviously try and take the moral high ground but I don't think they can.

Feckless Rogue not necessarily sure I agree. Would have rather seen Italy or England in the next round than Costa Rica.

Anyway there are still underdogs - look at Sale and Scarlets for example.

To be honest I think Ireland care about Irish interests - can't blame for that. Ireland had a very nice deal in the former HC organisation. Now that things are a bit more difficult there is inevitably an outcry.

by **Notch** Tue 29 Jul 2014, 12:15 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Again it's not about countries but about leagues. If it were about countries we should be pushing for teams from Germany, Portugal etc and sharing the wealth equally.

I agree. I would like to see every country with a rugby union in Europe get a vote on all matters of international competition, whether it's between test sides or representative/club sides. I think there should be some requirements for professional teams and test sides to meet before they can enter sides but I think that nations outside the traditional rugby playing powers should have an equal voice on the administrative side.

The argument that the system was very broken before so it's hypocritical to complain about it becoming even more broken, therefore we should allow it to become more broken and say nothing doesn't really stand up to scrutiny when you think about it.

Neither does 'it's about leagues' hold water as an argument. Because the leagues we have are not comparable, they cannot be treated as similar entities. The PRLs entire argument was based on a form of crude doublethink that an international league is the same as a domestic league. Their victory was a defeat for common sense. Ultimately the IRFU are responsible for running and organising the game in Ireland. The RFU and the PRL are responsible for running and organising the game in England. The Georgian Rugby Union is responsible for organising the game in Georgia. When they all have the same amount of say in organising international competitions then we'll have democracy, whether that is the Six Nations, the European Club Cup, the European Nations Cup- whatever.

In terms of this specific tournament, any Union that can enter a professional side that meets some basic requirements in terms of stadia and finances should have a vote. One Union, one vote. If a Union wants to delegate some of that responsibility to an organisation thats been set up to administer professional rugby thats fine. Then we can say we have a fair system. Not before.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 29 Jul 2014, 12:22 pm

Well we'll always differ on it then. To me this tournament should be based on leagues not nationality otherwise the league with the most nations competing in it hold the majority of the cards.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 29 Jul 2014, 12:23 pm

Incidentally I wouldn't personally be pushing for a European comp with German etc teams in it as it would be rubbish 80 0 thrashings every other week. Not entertaining.

by Sin é Tue 29 Jul 2014, 12:40 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well we'll always differ on it then. To me this tournament should be based on leagues not nationality otherwise the league with the most nations competing in it hold the majority of the cards.

Why should it be based on leagues and not nationality?

For the record, Italy had its own league up to 3/4 years ago when they decided that they needed to compete against better teams if they were to improve. What happens if they decide to go back to having their own league? Do they get 6 spots.

As well as that, its a bit unfair on the French who have 14 teams in their league - the PRO12 & Aviva have only 12.

by Neutralee Tue 29 Jul 2014, 12:41 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well we'll always differ on it then. To me this tournament should be based on leagues not nationality otherwise the league with the most nations competing in it hold the majority of the cards.

Of course you think that, it suits your argument at this particular time!

by Sin é Tue 29 Jul 2014, 12:45 pm

Notch wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Again it's not about countries but about leagues. If it were about countries we should be pushing for teams from Germany, Portugal etc and sharing the wealth equally.

I agree. I would like to see every country with a rugby union in Europe get a vote on all matters of international competition, whether it's between test sides or representative/club sides. I think there should be some requirements for professional teams and test sides to meet before they can enter sides but I think that nations outside the traditional rugby playing powers should have an equal voice on the administrative side.

Is that not the case with their representation on the IRB?

Secondary nations have to qualify to play in the World Cup. The 6Ns & 4 Nations are unusual competitions that are the financial engine of rugby.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 29 Jul 2014, 12:46 pm

Sin é wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Well we'll always differ on it then. To me this tournament should be based on leagues not nationality otherwise the league with the most nations competing in it hold the majority of the cards.

Why should it be based on leagues and not nationality?

For the record, Italy had its own league up to 3/4 years ago when they decided that they needed to compete against better teams if they were to improve. What happens if they decide to go back to having their own league? Do they get 6 spots.

As well as that, its a bit unfair on the French who have 14 teams in their league - the PRO12 & Aviva have only 12.

Well if you were looking to create a European league now without the history of a H Cup you wouldn't look at the 3 main leagues and think you know what we'll take most of the teams from one league as they happen to be from different countries and then 2 from the other 2 as they are all from the same country. You would either take proportionally (given the sizes of the 3 leagues) the same number or expand it to a load more countries and perhaps take a team representing each.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 29 Jul 2014, 12:46 pm

Neutralee wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Well we'll always differ on it then. To me this tournament should be based on leagues not nationality otherwise the league with the most nations competing in it hold the majority of the cards.

Of course you think that, it suits your argument at this particular time!

I don't have an agenda GE.

by Neutralee Tue 29 Jul 2014, 12:53 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Neutralee wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Well we'll always differ on it then. To me this tournament should be based on leagues not nationality otherwise the league with the most nations competing in it hold the majority of the cards.

Of course you think that, it suits your argument at this particular time!

I don't have an agenda GE.

Well you do because you are pro PRL and stuff the rest.

I on the other hand generally just look at things from a rugby inclusion POV. I have no horse in any top tier race.

by Cyril Tue 29 Jul 2014, 12:57 pm

Are you still American, Neutralee? It's difficult to keep track.

by Neutralee Tue 29 Jul 2014, 1:02 pm

Cyril wrote:Are you still American, Neutralee? It's difficult to keep track.

Keep track of?

by No 7&1/2 Tue 29 Jul 2014, 1:04 pm

Do we really have to go through this performance every time?

by Neutralee Tue 29 Jul 2014, 1:09 pm

I'm guessing this is me being called a troll of some sort... nice.

Shall we stay on topic, i'm not into getting itno arguments on a personal level.

As a hypothetical, lets say Ireland and Wales revert to full professional leagues (not saying they could) how does that effect voting, european competition spots etc?

After all didn't they join on the basis of financial difficulties and current competition set up at the time allowing them to maximise their competitiveness?

by No 7&1/2 Tue 29 Jul 2014, 1:11 pm

What's personal? Just don't understand why we can't just lay cards on the table. Same story with a new cover.

by Neutralee Tue 29 Jul 2014, 1:14 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:What's personal? Just don't understand why we can't just lay cards on the table. Same story with a new cover.

I literally have no idea what your talking about, and tbh your looking a little silly for whatever accusation your making. If you don't want to debate the rugby thats fine, but there are plenty who do, I won't be drawn into whatever argument your looking for.

by HammerofThunor Tue 29 Jul 2014, 1:38 pm

A reason to organise into a pair of competitions based on the 3 leagues is because that is how the teams involved are organised. If the Pro12 dispanded and each formed their own league this would no longer be the case and it would need reviewing.

If you want to say it's based on nations then the whole thing has to change and actually involve all nations. Not have to odd couple being invited and not getting enough to cover expenses but actually involved. The new system will hopefully give us a chance to see the best of these other nations play against the bottom teams of the three leagues. Hopefully, if they can compete a bit (they don't need to be better just not 50-0 walkovers every game), then come the next renewal (8 years) they thing can be turned over to the FIRA-AEC (or whatever they're called now) and involved everyone in some way.

by Sin é Tue 29 Jul 2014, 2:11 pm

So you think the PRL & LNR are prepared not only to support the PRL12 financially, but every other league in Europe? Wink

In the Champions League, leagues outside of the main ones of England, Spain, Germany etc. have to play in playoffs against each other to earn a place (i.e., Legia Warsaw knocked St. Patrick's Athletic out and now go on to play Celtic). I would have no problem with countries outside the main leagues doing this - but the problem is, these countries cannot afford to compete even against each other and they don't have the support / gate money to do so.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 29 Jul 2014, 2:32 pm

Neutralee wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:What's personal? Just don't understand why we can't just lay cards on the table. Same story with a new cover.

I literally have no idea what your talking about, and tbh your looking a little silly for whatever accusation your making. If you don't want to debate the rugby thats fine, but there are plenty who do, I won't be drawn into whatever argument your looking for.

Of course. Bear this in mind when you start supporting NZ again!

by Guest Tue 29 Jul 2014, 2:43 pm

Sin é wrote:So you think the PRL & LNR are prepared not only to support the PRL12 financially, but every other league in Europe?

No.

That kind of selfless generosity is a trait found only in the Irish.

by Sin é Tue 29 Jul 2014, 2:57 pm

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:
Sin é wrote:So you think the PRL & LNR are prepared not only to support the PRL12 financially, but every other league in Europe?

No.

That kind of selfless generosity is a trait found only in the Irish.

The world rankings on ''Global Contribution to Global Prosperity & Equality'' are: Smile

1. Ireland
2. Switzerland
3. Finland
4. Sweden
5. Belgium
6. Ghana
7. Singapore
8. Netherlands
9. United Kingdom
.....
28. France
65. Italy

by St John The Enforcer Tue 29 Jul 2014, 3:01 pm

Shin A is the forum equivalent of Alan Quinlan. Pain in the hole to play against but entertaining when he is on your side....

He will probably like being compared to a fellow Tipp man too....

by Sin é Tue 29 Jul 2014, 3:11 pm

In fairness, the UK isn't too bad - but this FIRA stuff that the French are on about is just a load of cowpat and it is worrying that these guys are running the IRB at the moment.

What will be interesting (and could really cause problems) is the French rugby power struggle. Bernard Laporte has announced his candidacy for FFR Presidency. I'd imagine that Boudjellal will have his ear if he wins.

EDIT: Laporte might not be too bad. He wants to reduce the Top 14 to 12 and get rid of the play-offs.

by Sin é Tue 29 Jul 2014, 3:12 pm

St John The Enforcer wrote:

Shin A is the forum equivalent of Alan Quinlan. Pain in the hole to play against but entertaining when he is on your side....

He will probably like being compared to a fellow Tipp man too....

ah Quinny ... master of the wind-up. Very Happy

by Knowsit17 Tue 29 Jul 2014, 3:56 pm

Feckless Rogue wrote:I don't agree that every team in a competition has to be capable of winning it to make it a better competition. In that case about 5 teams should enter the FIFA World Cup and everyone else can play in the second tier Amlin World Cup, 8 teams in the FA Cup, the NBA should be decided with a one off match between Miami and San Antonio, no other teams should annoy us with their pathetic attempts to achieve something.

Part of the brilliance of these competions is what the teams who are not capable of winning the title achieve. Like Costa Rica this year in the World Cup. Or the one off giant killings that the FA Cup regularly gives us. A completely unfancied hurling team knocked out the All Ireland Champions this year, then got knocked out themselves two rounds later, but they had a great year and won lots of admirers. And the cream always rises to the top don't worry. The quarter finals will be pretty much the same, whether you cut the teams down or increased the number of participants.

The restructure does not make the competition "better" in any way whatsoever. But it wasn't supposed to. It was supposed to change the way the money pie is sliced and give more power to the private club owners in answer Nigel Wray's concern which he voiced with one of the funniest quotes of the whole affair.

"there is still no true democracy with the English clubs constantly being outvoted"

This, this and this again. You won't see the merchants peddling the 'worthless padding' line respond to this so easily. All sport would be a dull affair if every team entered into competitions had to be pre-judged as 'capable of winning it' whatever that means and all wildcards, outsiders and minnows were barred entry.

Stanislas Wawrinka would not have won the Australian Open this year as it will have been contested exclusively between Djokovic, Federer, Murray and Nadal. For a rugby-related example, Blues, Edinburgh and Scarlets have all made Euro semis within the last decade (two of them won't even be in this season's event). The clue is in the name; PRL want their Europe polarised by and contested mainly between 'champions', with less of these ridiculous 'challengers' clogging up the works.

by **Notch** Tue 29 Jul 2014, 4:09 pm

Of course the new name is ridiculous because there are only three or four teams a season that can call themselves Champions. But thats a side point.

by ScarletSpiderman Tue 29 Jul 2014, 4:24 pm

Notch wrote:Of course the new name is ridiculous because there are only three or four teams a season that can call themselves Champions. But thats a side point.

Meh, never heard anyone complain about the Champions League in wendyball mind.

by Hound of Harrow Tue 29 Jul 2014, 5:07 pm

Sin é wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Well we'll always differ on it then. To me this tournament should be based on leagues not nationality otherwise the league with the most nations competing in it hold the majority of the cards.

Why should it be based on leagues and not nationality?

For the record, Italy had its own league up to 3/4 years ago when they decided that they needed to compete against better teams if they were to improve. What happens if they decide to go back to having their own league? Do they get 6 spots.

As well as that, its a bit unfair on the French who have 14 teams in their league - the PRO12 & Aviva have only 12.
[size=109]
The Italians still effectively have their 'Super 10' league. Until season 2008–09 the Super 10 was operated by the L.I.R.E. (Lega Italiana Rugby d'Eccellenza,Italian Elite Rugby League, but it folded.[/size]

That was the season that the Italians couldn't nominate a club to play off against the Dragons for the last HC spot in the 09/10 season.

The FIR took over the running of the domestic league thereafter. The top four teams from the Italian league entered what was the Amlin. Therefore across the two previous European tournaments the Italians did have six teams, the third highest representation behind France and England.

Of course the creation of the two Italian 'super clubs' and their admittance into the Pro 12 scuppered the league clubs entry to the HC. They used to get up to three HC representatives.

Edit - apologies. My phone intermittently inserts some random font size text.

by andyi Tue 29 Jul 2014, 5:58 pm

Sin é wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:
Sin é wrote:From that article it would appear that the main sponsors have now been reduced to 3 who are highly unlikely to pay more than the lead sponsor of 4m - so that would suggest that these guys who know everything are down a couple of million already

Wasn't there only one main sponsor before? So it's only gone up to 3 main sponsors rather than the 5 that were hoped for. Also if the other two main sponsors pay £3M each (£1M less than Heineken, or 75%) they'd be even with what Heineken were giving before. Considering all the cowpat mind games played before hand that's not bad in my book (especially as some people on here were saying that the reputation of the competition has been ruined. But once again, perhaps it would better to wait and see what actually happens before gloating?
Heineken were paying 11m for the ERC comp it would have been 15m next season if they had remained the main title holder. If they come up with another 3 sponsors who pay 3m each that would make it a total of 13m.

You are forgetting that Amlin were also ERC sponsors. The Aviva PRL have succeeded in Wee weeing them off (presumably with the hope of bringing in their pals from Aviva). Someone should explain to them them that a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush

That figure was for a 4 year deal as would the new one of been. So it was just under £3M a year rising to just under £4M
http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/heineken_cup_keeps_its_flavour/

They have just signed up as a main associate sponsor for the new comp at £4M a year and there is potential for 4 more associate sponsors!!

I can't help but notice that you always hugely overvalue ERC deals by using total figures as yearly figures, whilst doing the complete opposite for any TV or sponsor deals for the new comp. Its very misleading for posters who take it at face value!!

by thebandwagonsociety Wed 30 Jul 2014, 11:24 am

Andyi - I'm terrible with annual/overall and currencies. So is it the case that Heineken had name in title sponsorship for £3m per season and now will be one of five names under the title and are going to pay £4m a season. So sponsorship will be £20m per season once the remaining slots are sold? Do we know when the remaining associate sponsors will be announced?

Is there anything written or announce how much of this money is going to be set aside for anti-doping tests.

by Sin é Wed 30 Jul 2014, 12:26 pm

andyi wrote:

I can't help but notice that you always hugely overvalue ERC deals by using total figures as yearly figures, whilst doing the complete opposite for any TV or sponsor deals for the new comp. Its very misleading for posters who take it at face value!!

Its because I think in Euros (and the ERC operate in Euros) where as a lot of the information for some reason seems to be coming out in the British press which operate in Sterling - its very confusing as to what is what.

Anyway, the latest news is that the Top14 TV deal has been suspended and it has to be re-tendered for.

There was a complaint to the competition authority about the process that awarded it to Canal+ and the complaint was upheld.

As for the sponsors - they got their strategy wrong from the start. Its obvious that the Unions are trying to clean up the mess.

The association with Heineken will put off any other major sponsors (who generally have allocated their budgets 3 years in advance).

There is an interview with Simon Zebo today and he refers to the competition as ''the Heineken''.

The main focus obviously for us is starting with a few wins in the Pro12 leading up into the Heineken and after that the November internationals and the Six Nations will all be taken care of. I’ve just got to keep playing well in red.”

I'd be pretty sure other potential sponsors will be noting that.

by RuggerRadge2611 Wed 30 Jul 2014, 12:51 pm

I suppose what bother me most about it is the fact that the rules for qualification changed mid season. Is it just me or is that a bit.... iffy.

Surely the fairest thing to do would be to say qualification next year will be based on the current rules, qualification for the 2015/2016 tournament will now be based on the new rules.

It just seems a bit unfair to change the rules halfway through the season.

by Sin é Wed 30 Jul 2014, 1:08 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I suppose what bother me most about it is the fact that the rules for qualification changed mid season. Is it just me or is that a bit.... iffy.

Surely the fairest thing to do would be to say qualification next year will be based on the current rules, qualification for the 2015/2016 tournament will now be based on the new rules.

It just seems a bit unfair to change the rules halfway through the season.

It is what the 12 PRL Clubs and 14 Top 14 clubs wanted (and strangely enough the 4 Welsh regions) wanted.

That is democracy for you.

by Sponsored content