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?

it seems a bit on the brainless side by the Welsh regions considering they just ditched a lot of their teams. I'm Glad Edinburgh aren't in the competition because we need to develop a bit in the pro12 but I am bothered at the way it's been carried out.

The problem with this system is that there is no incentive to qualify for it - Edinburgh will get the same amount as Glasgow. Same for Dragons & Cardiff. They will get the same as the Os and Scarlets.

Sin é wrote:The problem with this system is that there is no incentive to qualify for it - Edinburgh will get the same amount as Glasgow. Same for Dragons & Cardiff. They will get the same as the Os and Scarlets.

It's been that way for the English sides for years. You still had occational teams resting playing in the actual HEC so they had a better chance of qualifying the year after. It's not just about the money.

Having even money means a team (or union) doesn't take a massive financial hit if they had a bad run in the league the season before.

It would depend on the gates they get (or would hope to attract). The Irish team are heavily incentivised because of how valuable the home gates are.

Wasps complained of losing money when they were winning Hcups - all down to their small fanbase/ground.

The Welsh regions don't have huge support.

Did wasps own or rent their ground back in those days? They could have found that the 'cost' of an extra date was ramped up with the landlord taking a nice piece of mulla for themselves.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Did wasps own or rent their ground back in those days? They could have found that the 'cost' of an extra date was ramped up with the landlord taking a nice piece of mulla for themselves.

No, they usually stayed in Adams Park unless playing clubs with large followings like Munster and Leicester (usually moved to the Ricoh stadium) etc.

In their pool stages they averaged about 7K at a game. They got 10K for Leinster in Adams Park in '07.

Sin é wrote:

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.

It's a good point about Heineken. If they hadn't come up with a such a Poopie name, it may of been easier. They certainly need to get the other sponsors on board quickly and get the Tournament launched with all the associates (none of which will be a direct competitor of Heineken) involved and get the new name (however crap) out there and being used.

I'd guess that they will all have free coverage ad slots during the games (as per the CL) but you never know as UEFA's ability to generate broadcast and sponsorship revenues has always made ERC and now EPCR look a bit mickey mouse TBH.

Sin é wrote:It would depend on the gates they get (or would hope to attract). The Irish team are heavily incentivised because of how valuable the home gates are.

Wasps complained of losing money when they were winning Hcups - all down to their small fanbase/ground.

The Welsh regions don't have huge support.

This explains matters a little clearer regarding Wasps - it was an agreement in place by all the Premiership clubs to share the revenue coupled with win bonuses that were the main factors.
Not owning our own ground has always been a drain to.

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/wasps-to-lose-even-if-they-win-6948683.html

Sin é wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Did wasps own or rent their ground back in those days? They could have found that the 'cost' of an extra date was ramped up with the landlord taking a nice piece of mulla for themselves.

No, they usually stayed in Adams Park unless playing clubs with large followings like Munster and Leicester (usually moved to the Ricoh stadium) etc.

In their pool stages they averaged about 7K at a game. They got 10K for Leinster in Adams Park in '07.

The Leinster game was a q/f. We also had a 10k sell out for the Gloucester q/f in 2004.

Plenty of other HC games at AP were sell outs, or close to. I was at them. It is only since the recession that our gates have really dipped. But we are not alone in the Prem on that score.

Wasps have never played a 'home' game against Leicester away from Adams Park to my knowledge.

Sin é wrote:

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Just a quick note here, the tournament was never a 'pan European' tournament. It was a tournament that was effectively sealed off for only 6 nations. People who talk about how it needs to be inclusive of all would do well to remember that their unions are every bit as greedy as the PRL and have no interest in allowing other nations to break in to the cartel. Until someone advocates a truly inclusive ERC or 6 nations you can't take any moral high ground i'm afraid.

Also, numbers can't be manipulated but percentages and ratios can? Sorry but you were let down by your school

Edit: Just to add, I don't think it's at all unfair to look at the percentage of a nation's top flight teams that are guaranteed entry and the maximum possible. 50% as a base would have been fine by me.

Farul Constanta (Romanian club) played in the first Heineken Cup. Milan also played in it. That would suggest to me that the organisers were welcoming to everyone at the start of the competition.

Funny, that all changed when the English and Scots got on board.

Hey wat did we do ??   

Well, now the Final has been announced for Twickenham... it was understood that Italy was to host the final this year but surprise surprise, the final has been moved to England.

Notch wrote:Well, now the Final has been announced for Twickenham... it was understood that Italy was to host the final this year but surprise surprise, the final has been moved to England.

Let's hope that at least one English side (or home nation at least) gets there, an all-French final with a quarter empty Twickenham won't be the TV image our ECC overlords will want on the TV   

I've just read that too, How do they get away with that?

Not only is the tournament now becoming Franglo and friends they will probably now play every final in Twickers or Stade!

http://www.epcrugby.com/eng/finals.php?utm_source=Ezine+-+English+Version&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Ezine+to+Flag+final+annoucement

Yes, Notch I thought Italy (Milan) was going to be the venue
So much for opening up new venues, what load of bollix    
I've been to the last 7 finals, but not sure I can be ar$ed for this   

Twickers was the final 3 years ago too was it not?

Poor Azzurri, they were so excited to finally host it.

It's time we established a rotational system.

London 2015
Italy (Milan or Rome) 2016
Edinburgh 2017
Paris 2018
Cardiff 2019
Dublin 2020

Then back to London in 2021.

These closed shop shoite has to stop. To add insult to injury London is unbelievably expensive to visit and apparently already expensive hotel rooms are hiking their prices.

It's been selected by the board...which is basically the same as before. And it was only selected previously AFTER notice was given. The cynic in me says it was only selected as a sop to show how they had the best interest of the game in mind, knowing full well it wasn't going to happen.

Notch: yep, a rotation seems right.

So the Challenge Cup final is going to the Stoop then. It would be nice if they took it out of the capitals every so often, maybe Welford Road could have it as they've been cheated out of RWC games.

Was it really decided after notice? wow.

Neutralee wrote:Twickers was the final 3 years ago too was it not?

Poor Azzurri, they were so excited to finally host it.

Aye,  2011/12 season. My bug bear is not so much with Twickenham, it's the fact that there was this big noise about opening up the final to new & different venues (I believe Barcelona    and Moscow    had been mentioned, in what has now been shown to be the bullsh!te that had been put out by EPCR) and then we get London - FFS   


"EPCR Director and Executive Committee member, Bruce Craig, said: "In the inaugural season of the tournaments, the Board of EPCR took the view that fairest and the most commercially-sound approach was to award the finals based on a competitive tender process.

"The RFU's bid was extremely strong and the fact that we are going to London for the 2015 finals is hugely positive for European English club rugby."

Come on Penfro, it's time for you to turn to the dark side, come and join me...

Or would a 'Would you like to take the blue pill, or the red pill' be more appropriate, in which i'm trying to show people the light lol.

Your thoughts betray you, Neutralee. I feel the good in you, the conflict.

I think they wanted close to be close to the the Nigels (Wray in particular) as they have a lot of experience in flogging discounted tickets on Groupon etc.

Cheer up Neutralee, subsidising the Pro12 teams will knock a big hole in the pockets of the PRL & LNR (since they guaranteed that the PRO12 teams would get 20m between them).

It doesn't look like the new cup is hitting its sales targets with regard to media or sponsorship.

You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes...

Well we won't be going to this one. Let's face it the 'T'osspreys or Scarlets aren't going to make it and London's blydi expensive !!
I was really looking forward to Milan, a few days up on Lake Garda, take in a bit of the Giro d'Italia and then rounding it all off with the final game of the season in Treviso (Herself is a Scarlet fan   ). On well, we'll just have to miss Milan out then   

Sin é wrote:Cheer up Neutralee, subsidising the Pro12 teams will knock a big hole in the pockets of the PRL & LNR (since they guaranteed that the PRO12 teams would get 20m between them).

It doesn't look like the new cup is hitting its sales targets with regard to media or sponsorship.

Weirdly i'm not a rabo club or nation fan, but the more I see the more I can't shift the feeling that the Rabo nations are the bees of rugby union.

If you mean workers bees, they probably are.

The first IRB consisted of Scotland, Wales & Ireland. Their first meeting was in Dublin.

England joined in a couple of years later.

The Heineken Cup was the brainchild of an Irishman, Tom Kiernan. Vernon Pugh (Welsh) was IRB chair at the time and supported it strongly. The first cup had teams from Italy & Romania (although neither were in the 6Ns at the time).

England joined in a year later.

England kept France out of the Six Nations for years. Ireland championed Italy into it.

Sin é wrote:If you mean workers bees, they probably are.

The first IRB consisted of Scotland, Wales & Ireland. Their first meeting was in Dublin.

England joined in a couple of years later.

The Heineken Cup was the brainchild of an Irishman, Tom Kiernan. Vernon Pugh (Welsh) was IRB chair at the time and supported it strongly. The first cup had teams from Italy & Romania (although neither were in the 6Ns at the time).

England joined in a year later.

England kept France out of the Six Nations for years. Ireland championed Italy into it.

Ye I was talking more the recent theory of bee's importance in society, the theory that if the bee's dissapeer so do we?

Gerry Thornley on new comp.


Organisers of inaugural European Rugby Champions Cup beset by teething problems

Commercial partners have yet to be secured for the new competition while expected French TV rights deal has not yet materialised
Premier Rugby chairman Quentin Smith with Gloucester captain Jacob Rowan. Smith declared “there will no longer be a need for it” in reference to ERC, in branding the Dublin-based organisers of the Heineken Cup as “no longer fit for purpose”. Now EPCR have been obliged to subcontract the running of the inaugural tournament to around 16 or 17 staff from the ERC. Photo: David Rogers/Getty

Some three weeks or so later than was normally the case with the Heineken Cup, the allotment of pool weekends along with the dates, kick-off times and television coverage for the opening rounds of the inaugural European Rugby Champions Cup will be belatedly announced tomorrow.

That the tardy announcement will only unveil specific timings for the opening two rounds rather than the first four weekends, is also somewhat indicative of the troubles which the organisers, European Professional Club Rugby (EPCR), have experienced since assuming command of the new tournaments last April.

Indeed, despite a further announcement at the end of May that EPCR were putting the French TV rights for the Champions Cup up for sale, and expectations that this would yield a deal in excess of €100 million over four years by the end of June, no such deal has materialised.

Similarly, there was the much trumpeted announcement in mid-June that X1X, the distribution giants who also sell the rights to football’s European Champions League, had won the tender process to sell the commercial rights for the new tournaments.

Yet, although the Irish Times has learned that Heineken will renew their association with the blue riband of European club rugby as one of the prospective partners, none of the anticipated four or five commercial partners have thus far been signed up, while negotiations are merely ongoing with other prospective sponsors.
The scenes
With the interim EPCR director general Jacques Pineaux, formerly of Clermont Auvergne, apparently working on his own in their new offices in Neuchatel, Switzerland, much of the work behind the scenes is being conducted by the three vice-presidents who represent the three feeders leagues and make up the executive committee, namely Paul McNaughton (Pro12), Bruce Craig (Premiership) and Rene Fontes (Top 14).

The EPCR is also still searching for an independent chairman to head its 12-strong board, which is almost identical in make-up to the erstwhile board of the ERC.

In a richly ironic development, a further indication of the difficulties which EPCR have encountered is that they have been obliged to subcontract the running of the inaugural tournament to around 16 or 17 staff from the ERC, the very organisation which all the leading protagonists of the Anglo-French clubs’ breakaway had insisted should have no further hand in the tournament.

It will be recalled, for example, that the chairman of Premier Rugby, Quentin Smith, declared “there will no longer be a need for it” in reference to ERC, in branding the Dublin-based organisers of the Heineken Cup as “no longer fit for purpose”.

As expected, a statement from EPCR yesterday confirmed that Twickenham is the uninspiring choice of venue for the 2015 final of the European Rugby Champions Cup on Saturday May 2nd, with the Stoop to host the European Rugby Challenge Cup final the night before. While the statement also declared these games to be “the two highest profile matches in the 2014/15 European club rugby calendar”, the finals will be held on the first weekend in May, with the quarter-finals and semi-finals run off four and two weeks previously, in accordance with the agreement between all parties last April in face of French demands to give their Top 14 climax a clear run for the rest of May.
Commercial partners
However it is the more significant developments in France which, along with the failure to thus far secure any commercial partners in the preferred absence of one title sponsor ala Heineken, which may be of most concern to the new organisers. A fortnight ago, on foot of a complaint by rival pay-per-view broadcasters beIN Sport, a French court of arbitration declared the deal between France’s Ligue Nationale de Rugby (LNR) and Canal+ for coverage of the Top 14, worth €350 million over five years, to be illegal.



Although the €70 million per year deal was allowed to stand for one year, LNR were ordered to launch a new tender process by next January for the rights to the Top 14 by the Autorité de la Concurrence, the French competition authority. There is a fear that this will focus LNR minds on domestic rather than European matters, with their reputed asking price for the new European Champions Cup of €27 million per year (compared to the €15 million previously raised by ERC) proving excessive. The organisers’ joint deal with BT and Sky for televising matches in Britain and Ireland is reputedly worth €31 million per year.

On foot of confirming the IMG deal to sell broadcasting rights outside the six competing nations in mid-June, the aforementioned Craig, the multi-millionaire Bath owner who was a leading protagonist in the Anglo-French breakaway, declared: “IMG share our ambition and vision for these tournaments, and we look forward to working with them to ensure European professional club rugby reaches its potential in both established and emerging markets.”

“We are now heading into the October kick-off in a very strong commercial position and expect another significant announcement later this month when the competitive tender process to secure the broadcast rights for France is concluded.”

No such announcement has come to pass. Admittedly, the new organisers were always of a mind to settle for two or three commercial partners for the first year of the competition to equal the estimated €10 million per season previously paid by Heineken as title sponsors, but as with any French TV deal, ideally they want this all in place by the end of August.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/organisers-of-inaugural-european-rugby-champions-cup-beset-by-teething-problems-1.1894851?page=2

All that glisters is not gold—
Often have you heard that told.
Many a man his life hath sold
But my outside to behold.
Gilded tombs do worms enfold.
Had you been as wise as bold

Sin é wrote:If you mean workers bees, they probably are.

The first IRB consisted of Scotland, Wales & Ireland. Their first meeting was in Dublin.

England joined in a couple of years later.

The Heineken Cup was the brainchild of an Irishman, Tom Kiernan. Vernon Pugh (Welsh) was IRB chair at the time and supported it strongly. The first cup had teams from Italy & Romania (although neither were in the 6Ns at the time).

England and Scotland joined in a year later.

England kept France out of the Six Nations for years. Ireland championed Italy into it

Strange we would keep them out of the six nations since they did so well when in the five nations?

The first IRFB was formed after an argument as to if a try stood in an England v Scotland game, Ireland Scotland and Wales formed the IRFB and banned nations from playing England...........now which unions look like the bullys wanting things their way?

Until 1885 the laws of rugby football were made by England as the founder nation. However, following a disputed try in an international between Scotland and England in 1884, letters were exchanged in which England claimed that they made the laws, and the try should stand. Scotland refused to play England in the 1885 Home Nations Championship. Following the dispute, the home unions of Scotland, Ireland and Wales decided to form an international union whose membership would agree on the standard rules of rugby football. The three nations met in Dublin in 1886, though no formal regulations were agreed upon. On 5 December 1887, committee members of the Irish Rugby Union, Scottish Rugby Union and Welsh Rugby Union met in Manchester and wrote up the first four principles of the International Rugby Football Board. England refused to take part in the founding of the IRFB, stating that they should have greater representation, as they had more clubs  

Some of this sounds strangely familiar

Knackeredknees wrote:

Sin é wrote:If you mean workers bees, they probably are.

The first IRB consisted of Scotland, Wales & Ireland. Their first meeting was in Dublin.

England joined in a couple of years later.

The Heineken Cup was the brainchild of an Irishman, Tom Kiernan. Vernon Pugh (Welsh) was IRB chair at the time and supported it strongly. The first cup had teams from Italy & Romania (although neither were in the 6Ns at the time).

England and Scotland joined in a year later.

England kept France out of the Six Nations for years. Ireland championed Italy into it

Strange we would keep them out of the six nations since they did so well when in the five nations?

The first IRFB was formed after an argument as to if a try stood in an England v Scotland game, Ireland Scotland and Wales formed the IRFB and banned nations from playing England...........now which unions look like the bullys wanting things their way?

Yea, the English argument was that since they had made the rules, it was a try if they said it was   

Name the nations banned by Scotland, Wales & Ireland from playing rugby union against England in 1884?       

PenfroPete wrote:Until 1885 the laws of rugby football were made by England as the founder nation. However, following a disputed try in an international between Scotland and England in 1884, letters were exchanged in which England claimed that they made the laws, and the try should stand. Scotland refused to play England in the 1885 Home Nations Championship. Following the dispute, the home unions of Scotland, Ireland and Wales decided to form an international union whose membership would agree on the standard rules of rugby football. The three nations met in Dublin in 1886, though no formal regulations were agreed upon. On 5 December 1887, committee members of the Irish Rugby Union, Scottish Rugby Union and Welsh Rugby Union met in Manchester and wrote up the first four principles of the International Rugby Football Board. England refused to take part in the founding of the IRFB, stating that they should have greater representation, as they had more clubs  

Some of this sounds strangely familiar

I do like the "letters were exchanged" probalby still got things sorted quicker using the stage coach than it took the last few years!!

Your right some of it is very familiar (somethings never change)

I do find it a bit funny with the whole well i dont like your laws that weve been playing so im taking my ball home and not playing with you again........and neither are my mates!!!

Very much like now but reversed with The English wanting to change the rules to suit us

Sin é wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:

Sin é wrote:If you mean workers bees, they probably are.

The first IRB consisted of Scotland, Wales & Ireland. Their first meeting was in Dublin.

England joined in a couple of years later.

The Heineken Cup was the brainchild of an Irishman, Tom Kiernan. Vernon Pugh (Welsh) was IRB chair at the time and supported it strongly. The first cup had teams from Italy & Romania (although neither were in the 6Ns at the time).

England and Scotland joined in a year later.

England kept France out of the Six Nations for years. Ireland championed Italy into it

Strange we would keep them out of the six nations since they did so well when in the five nations?

The first IRFB was formed after an argument as to if a try stood in an England v Scotland game, Ireland Scotland and Wales formed the IRFB and banned nations from playing England...........now which unions look like the bullys wanting things their way?

Yea, the English argument was that since they had made the rules, it was a try if they said it was   

Name the nations banned by Scotland, Wales & Ireland from playing rugby union against England in 1884?       

No Names but this This led to the IRFB taking the stance of member countries not playing England until they joined, and no games were played against England in 1888 and 1889.

very much do it our way or your not playing......imagine how this would have been if the internet existed then!!

England joined the IRFB in 1890. It took another 40 years for them to agree that the IRFB/IRB made the laws.

Knackeredknees wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:

Sin é wrote:If you mean workers bees, they probably are.

The first IRB consisted of Scotland, Wales & Ireland. Their first meeting was in Dublin.

England joined in a couple of years later.

The Heineken Cup was the brainchild of an Irishman, Tom Kiernan. Vernon Pugh (Welsh) was IRB chair at the time and supported it strongly. The first cup had teams from Italy & Romania (although neither were in the 6Ns at the time).

England and Scotland joined in a year later.

England kept France out of the Six Nations for years. Ireland championed Italy into it

Strange we would keep them out of the six nations since they did so well when in the five nations?

The first IRFB was formed after an argument as to if a try stood in an England v Scotland game, Ireland Scotland and Wales formed the IRFB and banned nations from playing England...........now which unions look like the bullys wanting things their way?

Yea, the English argument was that since they had made the rules, it was a try if they said it was   

Name the nations banned by Scotland, Wales & Ireland from playing rugby union against England in 1884?       

No Names but this This led to the IRFB taking the stance of member countries not playing England until they joined, and no games were played against England in 1888 and 1889.

very much do it our way or your not playing......imagine how this would have been if the internet existed then!!

3 of the 4 nations who did play rugby agreed on the laws of the game.

Thats democracy for you.

Knackered are you really arguing for England as victims despite them clearly being the 'It's my ball everything is either my way or your not playing' child?!

WOW!

100 years later and we see the same thing over and over...

The mask is slipping...

Cyril wrote:The mask is slipping...

And heres my no.1 fan...

You are currently at a ratio of 24:1 of comments who I am:rugby.

Time to even it up a little and just comment rugby (how many times do I have to ask?)

Neutralee wrote:'It's my ball everything is either my way or your not playing' child?!

I hate that kid.

First 2 rounds out

http://www.epcrugby.com/eng/news/28897.php

Think all times are local

ROUND 1
17/10/2014 17 Oct 19:45 P2 Harlequins v Castres Olympique The Twickenham Stoop BT Sport

18/10/2014 18 Oct 13:00 P1 Sale Sharks v Munster AJ Bell Stadium Sky Sports

18/10/2014 18 Oct 15:15 P1 Saracens v ASM Clermont Auvergne Allianz Park BT Sport

18/10/2014 18 Oct 15:15 P4 Glasgow Warriors v Bath Scotstoun Stadium BT Sport

18/10/2014 18 Oct 18:15 P5 Racing Métro 92 v Northampton Saints Stade Yves-du-Manoir Sky Sports

18/10/2014 18 Oct 19:45 P3 Leicester Tigers v Ulster Welford Road BT Sport

19/10/2014 19 Oct 13:00 P5 Ospreys v Benetton Treviso Liberty Stadium Sky Sports

19/10/2014 19 Oct 14:00 P4 Toulouse v Montpellier Stade Ernest Wallon Sky Sports

19/10/2014 19 Oct 16:15 P3 RC Toulon v Scarlets Stade Félix Mayol Sky Sports

19/10/2014 19 Oct 17:15 P2 Leinster v Wasps RDS Arena BT Sport



ROUND 2
24/10/2014 24 Oct 19:45 P1 Munster v Saracens Thomond Park BT Sport

25/10/2014 25 Oct 13:00 P3 Ulster v RC Toulon Kingspan Stadium Sky Sports

25/10/2014 25 Oct 15:15 P4 Bath v Toulouse The Recreation Ground BT Sport

25/10/2014 25 Oct 17:15 P5 Northampton Saints v Ospreys Franklin's Gardens Sky Sports

25/10/2014 25 Oct 18:15 P4 Montpellier v Glasgow Warriors Altrad Stadium Sky Sports

25/10/2014 25 Oct 19:45 P3 Scarlets v Leicester Tigers Parc y Scarlets BT Sport

26/10/2014 26 Oct 14:00 P2 Castres Olympique v Leinster Stade Pierre Antoine Sky Sports

26/10/2014 26 Oct 16:15 P1 ASM Clermont Auvergne v Sale Sharks Stade Marcel-Michelin Sky Sports

26/10/2014 26 Oct 17:15 P2 Wasps v Harlequins Adams Park Stadium BT Sport

26/10/2014 26 Oct 18:15 P5 Benetton Treviso v Racing Métro 92 Stadio Comunale di Monigo BT Sport

Looking at rd 1 only 2 fixtures don't involve English teams...

Not exactly riviting to the neutral!

Toulon v Scarlets and Racing v Saracens would be the only 2 fixtures i'd bother to watch, and that would be only if they were on while I was passing a TV. Possibly Leicester v Ulster too.

Not a great attraction to the new tournament - We've moved the final to Twickenham and 80% of fixtures involve English teams   

Your maths is awful! Why have nt you said a similar (incorrect) 'neutral' comment re RABO?

Why is it lopsided - because the PRL and some of the french clubsare greedy, the RRW craven and voted for their own destruction leading to the English and french ensuring they would have reduced opposition from the better stronger league. its ruined the tournament

3 leagues look pretty well represented.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Your maths is awful! Why have nt you said a similar (incorrect) 'neutral' comment re RABO?

Rd 1 - 7/10 games include an English team = 70% (sorry)

6/10 games include Rabo teams = 60%

5/10 games include French teams = 50%

Where has my maths let me down, and my neutral comment is very valid, I want to see games involving teams from all 6 nations, not 1 nation dominating the fixture list.

No 7&1/2 wrote:3 leagues look pretty well represented.

Its a pity all 6 nations don't...

It has to be about leagues and not nations otherwise you would have more from the RABO over the English and French making 1 league more attractive to sponsors etc. Excitement comes from new match ups so 2 teams from the Aviva is as novel as 2 from rabo if you truely were neutral.