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 SecretFly Sun 05 Oct 2014, 12:24 pm

Does McCafferty Own this new Competition?

He fought his corner to get a new competition (using most of the old enemy ERC folk to administer it btw!) but his roll as mouthpiece should now be limited once again to his direct sphere of influence - namely his League and his teams - the AP.

Leave the new European Cup chat and detail now to someone who represents it - all of it - not just McCafferty's PRL slice.

So, I'd like to hear less of McCafferty and more from the puppet leader chairman (PLC) who I'm sure McCafferty has rubber-stamped before the nominations even closed Wink

McCaff would do well in China - they like his methods, or he likes theirs.

by BigTrevsbigmac Sun 05 Oct 2014, 12:36 pm

Maybe "McCaff" got his power craze from his ancestors. Wink

by Exiledinborders Sun 05 Oct 2014, 1:09 pm

SecretFly wrote:Does McCafferty Own this new Competition?

He fought his corner to get a new competition (using most of the old enemy ERC folk to administer it btw!) but his roll as mouthpiece should now be limited once again to his direct sphere of influence - namely his League and his teams - the AP.

Leave the new European Cup chat and detail now to someone who represents it - all of it - not just McCafferty's PRL slice.

So, I'd like to hear less of McCafferty and more from the puppet leader chairman (PLC) who I'm sure McCafferty has rubber-stamped before the nominations even closed McCaff would do well in China - they like his methods, or he likes theirs.

If as now seems likely the new competition sees a 50% rise in revenues perhaps McCafferty might not be quite as unpopular in the Pro12 countries as he once was. PRL seem to have been justified in saying the old competition was not well run from a commercial point of view.

by SecretFly Sun 05 Oct 2014, 1:17 pm

Nevermind the Great Leader McCaff now - he's yesterday's news.

The New Dawn has arrived. All Hail PLC Halliday! Long may he Reign and long may McCaff pull the strings that make him talk.

by **LondonTiger** Sun 05 Oct 2014, 1:23 pm

No-one who has ever met Simon Halliday would ever think he could be anyone's mouthpiece. A man with his abilities should ideally have been involved in pro rugby since it's inception.

by Sin é Sun 05 Oct 2014, 1:31 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Does McCafferty Own this new Competition?

He fought his corner to get a new competition (using most of the old enemy ERC folk to administer it btw!) but his roll as mouthpiece should now be limited once again to his direct sphere of influence - namely his League and his teams - the AP.

Leave the new European Cup chat and detail now to someone who represents it - all of it - not just McCafferty's PRL slice.

So, I'd like to hear less of McCafferty and more from the puppet leader chairman (PLC) who I'm sure McCafferty has rubber-stamped before the nominations even closed McCaff would do well in China - they like his methods, or he likes theirs.
If as now seems likely the new competition sees a 50% rise in revenues perhaps McCafferty might not be quite as unpopular in the Pro12 countries as he once was. PRL seem to have been justified in saying the old competition was not well run from a commercial point of view.

First of all, money isn't everything.

Secondly,where are you getting a 50% increase from?

Best I can see is a similar income (maybe a small increase) on last year's ERC income (54m Euro).

Break down is for media: 20m Euro French TV, 27m UK & Ireland = 47m Euro per annum for the next 4 years.
Some other tv distribution rights should be added to this (secondary, SH rights etc)
Sponsorship seems to be: Heineken 4m per annum. (Turkish Airlines/Renault maybe involved, so lets say another 10m Euro).

That would seem to give a total of 61m Euro (which is just 7m more than what the ERC were getting on the old deal).

by Sin é Sun 05 Oct 2014, 1:35 pm

LondonTiger wrote:No-one who has ever met Simon Halliday would ever think he could be anyone's mouthpiece. A man with his abilities should ideally have been involved in pro rugby since it's inception.

Why wasn't he involved then?

No problem with Halliday being chair (I'd guess over the French's dead body), but were they not claiming that the chair should be independent.

For an independent chair he really should be from outside the countries involved. French Canadian would be an ideal candidate or maybe an Argentinian.

by SecretFly Sun 05 Oct 2014, 1:41 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:If as now seems likely the new competition sees a 50% rise in revenues perhaps McCafferty might not be quite as unpopular in the Pro12 countries as he once was. PRL seem to have been justified in saying the old competition was not well run from a commercial point of view.

The Heineken had what? - 19 years - of success. A success that made it the attractive package for the Coalition of the Willing, which was the PRL and their funding fwiends, BT Vision. So I think it best to hold your tongue on calling anything that replaces it better until it proves to be so - and that requires 19 years of growth, growth and growth - and it requires it to capture the public's imagination and hold it for 19 years. Call back to me in 19 years to compare what was run well and what wasn't Wink

On your other point - 50% revenues? Is that all you people think about - de money? I think about the glory of winning - the new competition. That's all I think about. McCafferty ain't in charge of that bit but he certainly tried to load the dice in his favour Wink

The future is out there. Let's watch.

by Cyril Sun 05 Oct 2014, 1:46 pm

SecretFly wrote:Let's watch.

Yep. Let's watch it.

Or, if you can't get over a bit of change, don't.

Some people seem to want to damn the tournament before it's started.

by TJ Sun 05 Oct 2014, 2:03 pm

Cyril wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Let's watch.
Yep. Let's watch it.

Or, if you can't get over a bit of change, don't.

Some people seem to want to damn the tournament before it's started.

Thats because its devalued.

by BigTrevsbigmac Sun 05 Oct 2014, 2:36 pm

TJ wrote:
Cyril wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Let's watch.
Yep. Let's watch it.

Or, if you can't get over a bit of change, don't.

Some people seem to want to damn the tournament before it's started.

Thats because its ~~devalued~~ meritocratic.

by SecretFly Sun 05 Oct 2014, 2:40 pm

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:
TJ wrote:
Cyril wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Let's watch.
Yep. Let's watch it.

Or, if you can't get over a bit of change, don't.

Some people seem to want to damn the tournament before it's started.

Thats because its ~~devalued~~ meritocratic.

Thats because its ~~devalued~~ ~~merit~~autocratic

by Exiledinborders Sun 05 Oct 2014, 2:52 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:If as now seems likely the new competition sees a 50% rise in revenues perhaps McCafferty might not be quite as unpopular in the Pro12 countries as he once was. PRL seem to have been justified in saying the old competition was not well run from a commercial point of view.

The Heineken had what? - 19 years - of success. A success that made it the attractive package for the Coalition of the Willing, which was the PRL and their funding fwiends, BT Vision. So I think it best to hold your tongue on calling anything that replaces it better until it proves to be so - and that requires 19 years of growth, growth and growth - and it requires it to capture the public's imagination and hold it for 19 years. Call back to me in 19 years to compare what was run well and what wasn't

On your other point - 50% revenues? Is that all you people think about - de money? I think about the glory of winning - the new competition. That's all I think about. McCafferty ain't in charge of that bit but he certainly tried to load the dice in his favour The future is out there. Let's watch.

Yes the dice are loaded in PRL's favour. They have six automatic places plus one of four play-off places whilst the Pro12 only have seven automatic places plus two of the four play-off places. Oh hang on!

by TJ Sun 05 Oct 2014, 2:56 pm

How is it meritocratic when 2 unions get 6 places each but 4 unions get one. Some of the best teams in Europe will not get into the cup as a result.
Rolling Eyes

by BigTrevsbigmac Sun 05 Oct 2014, 3:01 pm

TJ wrote:How is it meritocratic when 2 unions get 6 places each but 4 unions get one. Some of the best teams in Europe will not get into the cup as a result.

Unions = 6 Nations

Clubs. = Leagues

by Exiledinborders Sun 05 Oct 2014, 3:06 pm

TJ wrote:How is it meritocratic when 2 unions get 6 places each but 4 unions get one. Some of the best teams in Europe will not get into the cup as a result.

It is not the PRL's or Top14's fault that a good team could lose out. They wanted a true meritocracy with qualification by league position for all. The Pro12 insisted on having at least one from each country so that a poor team could qualify at the expense of a better one.

Based on the current table the team that loses out will be Edinburgh so at least this season no decent team will lose out. Whistle

by asoreleftshoulder Sun 05 Oct 2014, 3:11 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:
TJ wrote:How is it meritocratic when 2 unions get 6 places each but 4 unions get one. Some of the best teams in Europe will not get into the cup as a result.

It is not the PRL's or Top14's fault that a good team could lose out. They wanted a true meritocracy with qualification by league position for all. The Pro12 insisted on having at least one from each country so that a poor team could qualify at the expense of a better one.

Based on the current table the team that loses out will be Edinburgh so at least this season no decent team will lose out.

Of course it's their fault,they are the ones who chopped the tournament from 24 teams down to 20.

by Exiledinborders Sun 05 Oct 2014, 3:24 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:
TJ wrote:How is it meritocratic when 2 unions get 6 places each but 4 unions get one. Some of the best teams in Europe will not get into the cup as a result.

It is not the PRL's or Top14's fault that a good team could lose out. They wanted a true meritocracy with qualification by league position for all. The Pro12 insisted on having at least one from each country so that a poor team could qualify at the expense of a better one.

Based on the current table the team that loses out will be Edinburgh so at least this season no decent team will lose out.

Of course it's their fault,they are the ones who chopped the tournament from 24 teams down to 20.

If you reduce the number who qualify and they all qualify by league position that is clearly a meritocracy. You may not like it but it is a meritocracy. Under the old rules both Scottish teams 'qualified' automatically no matter how bad they were. Whatever that is it is not meritocratic.

I would prefer a system under which league position is all that would count and each league's number of places would be based on success. That would be a true meritocracy. The new system is not perfect but it is better than the old system.

by TJ Sun 05 Oct 2014, 3:27 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:[q

Based on the current table the team that loses out will be Edinburgh so at least this season no decent team will lose out.

Can't argue with that.

by TJ Sun 05 Oct 2014, 3:31 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:
If you reduce the number who qualify and they all qualify by league position that is clearly a meritocracy.

Nonsense as the comparative strength of teams from diffent places are not considered. Irish teams have been the most successful in the european cup. Its likely that an irish team that are potential winners will not get in whiolst mediocre English teams with no record in the cup will.

How is it meritocratic that the English league gets six places despite the poor record and Ireland get one despite their good record.

the whole cup i9s clearly devalued as mediocre English teams get in easily while good irish ones do not?

by asoreleftshoulder Sun 05 Oct 2014, 3:38 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:
TJ wrote:How is it meritocratic when 2 unions get 6 places each but 4 unions get one. Some of the best teams in Europe will not get into the cup as a result.

It is not the PRL's or Top14's fault that a good team could lose out. They wanted a true meritocracy with qualification by league position for all. The Pro12 insisted on having at least one from each country so that a poor team could qualify at the expense of a better one.

Based on the current table the team that loses out will be Edinburgh so at least this season no decent team will lose out.

Of course it's their fault,they are the ones who chopped the tournament from 24 teams down to 20.
If you reduce the number who qualify and they all qualify by league position that is clearly a meritocracy. You may not like it but it is a meritocracy. Under the old rules both Scottish teams 'qualified' automatically no matter how bad they were. Whatever that is it is not meritocratic.

I would prefer a system under which league position is all that would count and each league's number of places would be based on success. That would be a true meritocracy. The new system is not perfect but it is better than the old system.

Nice dodging of my point.

The new system is not meritocratic because 6 teams from England and France are guaranteed a spot no matter how strong or weak they are.The English teams have been awful for the last few years culminating in the low point last year of not even one English team winning their group,for this they still get the same entrants as everyone else and are now even guaranteed a top seed.

Finally why does the system have to be meritocratic,the original comp was set up to give the competing nations a competition where their clubs/regions could compete against each other.It was an astounding success but the PRL/LNR got greedy and invented the meritocratic argument so the could get more money for themselves.It's a slippery slope where the English and French leagues will end up like the Premiership in football,I suppose from an Irish point of view I can't be too sad as I expect us to dominate the 6N's the longer it is allow3ed to continue like that.

by SecretFly Sun 05 Oct 2014, 3:40 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:Yes the dice are loaded in PRL's favour. They have six automatic places plus one of four play-off places whilst the Pro12 only have seven automatic places plus two of the four play-off places. Oh hang on!

Oh verily... hang on, I say.

Wait, we've been through all this mileage for a full year...back on many many threads if someone wants to go back and torture themselves on it!

But you unfurl the League v League argument and I must run back to the Nation v Nation one.
I'll approach it this way this time Wink

I see the PRL have recently been in private discussions with the RFU about player availability for England Internationals and other stuff about compensation for not playing during the world cup etc. Private means of no concern to others on the outside - no other European clubs, no other nations welcome

This doth mean but one thing! It means the RFU are a purely English Union, with powers only to administer for English International rugby. And they have special talks (with nobody else required or allowed in!) with the PRL because............... what?.............. because the PRL are an English body and their existence is mutually beneficial and interdependent with the success of English rugby based in England - whether that's club or Nation.
In brief - PRL aren't a pan European League with no allegiences to any Nation (something their defenders keep trying to advance) - they have a specific administration connection to one nation, and that nation is England.

Do you see how many times I emphasised England there??? - The cozy relationship the PRL share with RFU is in the interests of both - English club rugby in admin union with English International rugby for the betterment of both.

So let's revise your point one more time:
England (English centric rugby for the betterment of English rugby: ie PRL/RFU) six automatic places regardless of ability merit.
France (FFR/LNR) six automatic places regardless of ability merit,
The other four Celtic eejit Nations, one singular automatic entry each.

If you people conveniently keep forgetting to mention 'England' when talking PRL/AP then I'll keep hitting the replay button on just how English the PRL are and that we're not total eejits in seeing how one League in one Nation is an ongoing mutual beneficial society that the Pro12 can never be.

by SecretFly Sun 05 Oct 2014, 3:41 pm

...seems a number of people answered that one before me!

by Lowlandbrit Sun 05 Oct 2014, 4:02 pm

SecretFly wrote:So let's revise your point one more time:
England (English centric rugby for the betterment of English rugby: ie PRL/RFU) six automatic places regardless of ability merit.
France (FFR/LNR) six automatic places regardless of ability merit,
The other four Celtic eejit Nations, one singular automatic entry each.

Which brings us back to the circular problem that 'the other four Celtic eejit Nations' decided they only had enough decent pro teams between them for one league (which doesn't lack for automatic places).

by asoreleftshoulder Sun 05 Oct 2014, 4:17 pm

Lowlandbrit wrote:
SecretFly wrote:So let's revise your point one more time:
England (English centric rugby for the betterment of English rugby: ie PRL/RFU) six automatic places regardless of ability merit.
France (FFR/LNR) six automatic places regardless of ability merit,
The other four Celtic eejit Nations, one singular automatic entry each.
Which brings us back to the circular problem that 'the other four Celtic eejit Nations' decided they only had enough decent pro teams between them for one league (which doesn't lack for automatic places).

How is that a problem,surely the problem is that the English decided they had enough interest in the game to support a 12 team professional league.They were then forced to find sugar daddy owners to support these teams and now they are trying to gouge what they can from the rest of Europe in order to fund these teams.

by TJ Sun 05 Oct 2014, 4:27 pm

Lowlandbrit wrote:
SecretFly wrote:So let's revise your point one more time:
England (English centric rugby for the betterment of English rugby: ie PRL/RFU) six automatic places regardless of ability merit.
France (FFR/LNR) six automatic places regardless of ability merit,
The other four Celtic eejit Nations, one singular automatic entry each.
Which brings us back to the circular problem that 'the other four Celtic eejit Nations' decided they only had enough decent pro teams between them for one league (which doesn't lack for automatic places).

Nope - we decided the number of teams we had around two things - what would make a good league and how many places we had in Europe. England could have done similar.

by FecklessRogue Sun 05 Oct 2014, 4:34 pm

The money argument I understand. The PRL wanted a bigger slice because most of their members were losing money.

I do not understand the merit argument. If merit had anything to do with it the Premiership would have less spots than the PRO12 or Top14. And English gripe about the IRFU limiting player game time makes no sense to me. Was the fact that say, Leinster, were limiting player game time, getting into the European Cup not on merit (let's ignore the fact that they topped the PRO12 almost ever year), making them better and this was unfair?

Was this amazing Irish discover that not flogging your players with to many games produces superior rugby, unfair? Was forcing them to adopt Englands setup (which remember produces inferior performances according to the PRL themselves) the obvious thing to do?

I wonder did the thought of decreasing the load on their own players in an attempt to reproduce this unfair unmeritocratic superior rugby ever cross the minds of anyone in the PRL? Probably not. There's no money in less games. So more lower quality rugby for more money split across more subscription TV channels is the future.

Just look at the difference between the awful Top 14 compared to the sublime Super Rugby to see where the business men will take us. The wrong direction. So expect some schadenfreude at any sign that the new tournament isn't making as much of that beloved money as they said it would.

by TJ Sun 05 Oct 2014, 4:48 pm

FecklessRogue wrote:The money argument I understand. The PRL wanted a bigger slice because most of their members were losing money.

running deficits and supported by sugar daddies - something Pro 12 teams cannot do by and large. It is not healthy to live beyond ones means. It does amuse me that the extra money the PRL were supposed to get according to some on here would be used to reduce deficits and not to increase the salary cap - what happened - saleary caps are increased

by SecretFly Sun 05 Oct 2014, 5:23 pm

Lowlandbrit wrote:
SecretFly wrote:So let's revise your point one more time:
England (English centric rugby for the betterment of English rugby: ie PRL/RFU) six automatic places regardless of ability merit.
France (FFR/LNR) six automatic places regardless of ability merit,
The other four Celtic eejit Nations, one singular automatic entry each.
Which brings us back to the circular problem that 'the other four Celtic eejit Nations' decided they only had enough decent pro teams between them for one league (which doesn't lack for automatic places).

Are you in Britain any less a Nation than China with their few billion in population?

I think the answer would be resolutely 'No, we ain't less a Nation!' So the UK wouldn't be able to have an Army as large as the People's Liberation Army, but you'd fight to keep your place at the UN security council just the same Wink

Population size may mean we can't have as many teams, but it doesn't mean we automatically forfeit our rights and say 'Yes please' to our own execution. Nope, you fight. And the fight ain't over. This new contest is just a reprieve - a breathing space. The fight will go on for that word the PRL became very fond of - Fairness.

Of course England and France can furnish Leagues of 12 and 14 teams - population density allows you those luxuries. The only facts here though is that the Pro12 is a League of Four Nations (four distinct self-interests) and the AP and Top14 are single Nation (single interest) Leagues.
Our League is as legitimate as your kind. We don't need to bow and apologise for doing it our way.
So that's Three Leagues and Two very distinct versions of what a League can be - all looking for a 'fair' deal. And that battle really hasn't concluded with the beginning of this new stab at the idea. We'll be back here in a few years debating again the difference between a League and a Nation and how we can make the two unite into some kind of 'fair' ideal

by Exiledinborders Sun 05 Oct 2014, 8:38 pm

TJ wrote:
Lowlandbrit wrote:
SecretFly wrote:So let's revise your point one more time:
England (English centric rugby for the betterment of English rugby: ie PRL/RFU) six automatic places regardless of ability merit.
France (FFR/LNR) six automatic places regardless of ability merit,
The other four Celtic eejit Nations, one singular automatic entry each.
Which brings us back to the circular problem that 'the other four Celtic eejit Nations' decided they only had enough decent pro teams between them for one league (which doesn't lack for automatic places).

Nope - we decided the number of teams we had around two things - what would make a good league and how many places we had in Europe. England could have done similar.

So Scotland have two team because that is what makes a good league. I could have sworn that it was because the could not make three teams work financially.

by No 7&1/2 Sun 05 Oct 2014, 9:14 pm

I really dont understand why people feel 1 league should get more places and special treatment because there are more nations involved there. Dont like it have your own league!

by TJ Sun 05 Oct 2014, 9:41 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:I really dont understand why people feel 1 league should get more places and special treatment because there are more nations involved there. Dont like it have your own league!

all we are wanting is fair treatment - a reasonable number of places per country. Why should Irish teams with a chance of winning it miss out to mediocre english no hopers? Its arrogance and money talking. this is why the english rugby establishment are widely disliked - they want it all their own way and everythig to their benefit - no an iota of wanting whats best for rugby

by asoreleftshoulder Sun 05 Oct 2014, 9:42 pm

I really dont understand why people feel 1 country should get more places and special treatment because there are more clubs from that country involved there.

by TJ Sun 05 Oct 2014, 9:48 pm

Especially when that country has such a poor record in the european cup. English clubs are not in by merit now are tehy? On merit they should get as many places as Ireland - one place given in the last 5 years ireland have had as many finalists as England

by BigTrevsbigmac Sun 05 Oct 2014, 9:54 pm

TJ wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:I really dont understand why people feel 1 league should get more places and special treatment because there are more nations involved there. Dont like it have your own league!

all we are wanting is fair treatment - a reasonable number of places per country. Why should Irish teams with a chance of winning it miss out to mediocre english no hopers? Its arrogance and money talking. this is why the english rugby establishment are widely disliked - they want it all their own way and everythig to their benefit - no an iota of wanting whats best for rugby

I suspect the Irish teams (who stand a chance of winning) won't miss out but they need to make damn sure they don't.
The French seemed to have been missed out in this debate for some reason Rolling Eyes

.....

by SecretFly Sun 05 Oct 2014, 10:05 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:I really dont understand why people feel 1 league should get more places and special treatment because there are more nations involved there. Dont like it have your own league!

Special treatment? Special treatment from who?

There always seems to be some All Knowing Overlord out there on a throne somewhere with the power to dictate who gets what and where.

Who gives the 'special treatment'? The PRL? The LNR? The RFU? Who dictates the 'special treatment'?

The HC Cup was a partnership - a partnership of equals. Do you understand that term? - equals?
RFU decided who got their 6 auto places at HC (and in tandem with PRL decided that should be League placings). That was a decision independently made by English rugby itself - but six was always the automatic number by virtue of RFU being part owner of the concept.
Understand so far? England decided for itself what it's criteria was for choosing its already automatic number of 6 HC places. But that number 6 wasn't "special treatment", it was a deal, a contract, between Unions - six of them.

Now, all the other five nations were also part owners with an equal share of ownership. And they had their automatic numbers too, based on nothing more than an auto number given to them through negotiations - a deal, a contract.
And they, like English rugby, decided for themselves who they gave their auto entries to. France decided on its entries - tied to League position in Top14. Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy decided it would happen inside the framework of a combined League between all four. The League didn't dictate how many entries Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy had - the number was as automatic as England's number, as France's number. The numbers were a decision by 6 unions NOT 3 leagues.

Now why is that so hard for you to understand? Nobody bestowed Special treatment on anyone and everyone was in the HC deal as equal partners - each deciding for themselves how to select their already written-in-stone auto entries. NOBODY BESTOWED ANY SPECIAL TREATMENT ON ANYONE.

So again, why don't you understand? You don't understand because you don't like the uneasy truth that both England and France retained their SIX AUTO entries in this here new contest of Fairness, whilst the other four sacrificed SIX AUTO places between them. The joke is easy to understand Wink

Understand this too: your League is your National training ground for your future Internationals. You know it and all English posters here know it.
And SIX auto entries each and every year in the biggest European club contest is a perfect arena for finding out the truth about what players have the backbone to make it at International. So the Euro event is a tool your National Union (RFU) uses to select and choose its hopefuls. You know it and all English poster here know it.

ALL of us want that same right - Some of us had that same right diluted instantly at the very same time as England and France retained their full International test bed quota of six.

That's easy to understand - it's easy logic. So bluff through it and pretend you still can't get the link between the success of RFU and the success of AP sides.

by SecretFly Sun 05 Oct 2014, 10:13 pm

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:
TJ wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:I really dont understand why people feel 1 league should get more places and special treatment because there are more nations involved there. Dont like it have your own league!

all we are wanting is fair treatment - a reasonable number of places per country. Why should Irish teams with a chance of winning it miss out to mediocre english no hopers? Its arrogance and money talking. this is why the english rugby establishment are widely disliked - they want it all their own way and everythig to their benefit - no an iota of wanting whats best for rugby

I suspect the Irish teams (who stand a chance of winning) won't miss out but they need to make damn sure they don't.
The French seemed to have been missed out in this debate for some reason .....

There you go..."Irish Teams".

An acknowledgment of the Nationality issue. Plus the icing on the cake of the debate.

From here on in, there could be Four Irish sides in the RCC or simply One. Four or One. Same for Wales. Four or One. But for England and France - Six always. Regardless of bad years or good years for the quality of English or French rugby - we'll still see six (and maybe more) at the biggest European contest.
Fairness would have been no guarantee of six English sides and no guarantee of six French ones. Such a plan could have been worked out, such a structure could have been negotiatied. But that's the main deal - money talked and proved that Fairness doesn't mind slipping if money is available for Special treatment Wink

by Dubbelyew L Overate Sun 05 Oct 2014, 10:22 pm

Bring on the Camou Cup.

by Lowlandbrit Sun 05 Oct 2014, 10:48 pm

SecretFly wrote:There you go..."Irish Teams".

An acknowledgment of the Nationality issue. Plus the icing on the cake of the debate.

From here on in, there could be Four Irish sides in the RCC or simply One. Four or One.

So what; if the PRL guarantee at least one team each from various regions of England qualify, everything would be fine?

by SecretFly Sun 05 Oct 2014, 11:15 pm

Lowlandbrit wrote:
SecretFly wrote:There you go..."Irish Teams".

An acknowledgment of the Nationality issue. Plus the icing on the cake of the debate.

From here on in, there could be Four Irish sides in the RCC or simply One. Four or One.
So what; if the PRL guarantee at least one team each from various regions of England qualify, everything would be fine?

Six or One . Six or One. That would be much simpler Wink

The same truth for all - the same risk of low representation - the same roll of the dice deciding whether you have a meaningful presence in Europe or not...for all...every year.
Simple. Or does simple things not work well in the finance of Fairness?

by TJ Sun 05 Oct 2014, 11:17 pm

NOpe - just stop pretending this is about merit. England does not merit 6 sides in the european cup.

by quinsforever Sun 05 Oct 2014, 11:27 pm

Bath are going to win the euro cup this year. You heard it here first. And no Irish teams will make the semis.

Sam burgess, after his broken eye-socket heroics in Australia, will lead bath to euro cup glory, and get a late call-up for England's World Cup squad. Going to be an interesting year.

by SecretFly Sun 05 Oct 2014, 11:36 pm

quinsforever wrote:Bath are going to win the euro cup this year. You heard it here first. And no Irish teams will make the semis.

Sam burgess, after his broken eye-socket heroics in Australia, will lead bath to euro cup glory, and get a late call-up for England's World Cup squad. Going to be an interesting year.

Well that's the truest thing said so far. Congrats on the fresh air, Quins

by Exiledinborders Mon 06 Oct 2014, 7:05 am

SecretFly wrote:There you go..."Irish Teams".

An acknowledgment of the Nationality issue. Plus the icing on the cake of the debate.

From here on in, there could be Four Irish sides in the RCC or simply One. Four or One.

An Irish team has a 62.5% chance of qualifying. An English team 52%. A French team 45%. And yet the Irish fans are moaning? Funny old world isn't it!

by No 7&1/2 Mon 06 Oct 2014, 7:26 am

TJ wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:I really dont understand why people feel 1 league should get more places and special treatment because there are more nations involved there. Dont like it have your own league!

all we are wanting is fair treatment - a reasonable number of places per country. Why should Irish teams with a chance of winning it miss out to mediocre english no hopers? Its arrogance and money talking. this is why the english rugby establishment are widely disliked - they want it all their own way and everythig to their benefit - no an iota of wanting whats best for rugby

Clubs aren t representing countries they re representing their league. The arrogance is from only 1 place.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 06 Oct 2014, 7:28 am

SecretFly wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:I really dont understand why people feel 1 league should get more places and special treatment because there are more nations involved there. Dont like it have your own league!

Special treatment? Special treatment from who?

There always seems to be some All Knowing Overlord out there on a throne somewhere with the power to dictate who gets what and where.

Who gives the 'special treatment'? The PRL? The LNR? The RFU? Who dictates the 'special treatment'?

The HC Cup was a partnership - a partnership of equals. Do you understand that term? - equals?
RFU decided who got their 6 auto places at HC (and in tandem with PRL decided that should be League placings). That was a decision independently made by English rugby itself - but six was always the automatic number by virtue of RFU being part owner of the concept.
Understand so far? England decided for itself what it's criteria was for choosing its already automatic number of 6 HC places. But that number 6 wasn't "special treatment", it was a deal, a contract, between Unions - six of them.

Now, all the other five nations were also part owners with an equal share of ownership. And they had their automatic numbers too, based on nothing more than an auto number given to them through negotiations - a deal, a contract.
And they, like English rugby, decided for themselves who they gave their auto entries to. France decided on its entries - tied to League position in Top14. Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy decided it would happen inside the framework of a combined League between all four. The League didn't dictate how many entries Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy had - the number was as automatic as England's number, as France's number. The numbers were a decision by 6 unions NOT 3 leagues.

Now why is that so hard for you to understand? Nobody bestowed Special treatment on anyone and everyone was in the HC deal as equal partners - each deciding for themselves how to select their already written-in-stone auto entries. NOBODY BESTOWED ANY SPECIAL TREATMENT ON ANYONE.

So again, why don't you understand? You don't understand because you don't like the uneasy truth that both England and France retained their SIX AUTO entries in this here new contest of Fairness, whilst the other four sacrificed SIX AUTO places between them. The joke is easy to understand

Understand this too: your League is your National training ground for your future Internationals. You know it and all English posters here know it.
And SIX auto entries each and every year in the biggest European club contest is a perfect arena for finding out the truth about what players have the backbone to make it at International. So the Euro event is a tool your National Union (RFU) uses to select and choose its hopefuls. You know it and all English poster here know it.

ALL of us want that same right - Some of us had that same right diluted instantly at the very same time as England and France retained their full International test bed quota of six.

That's easy to understand - it's easy logic. So bluff through it and pretend you still can't get the link between the success of RFU and the success of AP sides.

Special treatment in the sense that there are 3 leagues involved which should be treated the same.

by **LondonTiger** Mon 06 Oct 2014, 7:42 am

SecretFly wrote:

The HC Cup was a partnership - a partnership of equals. Do you understand that term? - equals?

Do you?

Initially - and yes it was the then RFUs fault for not allowing them to join at the start - English clubs had no vote at all. Zero, zip, nada. Finally they refused to play and lo and behold they were granted a vote and equal share of revenues. Whjy? Because the other Unions (led by IRFU) realised they needed the money that the English market brought. Needed it.

Italians have always been treated as second class citizens.

This has always been about money, and power. to every single participant in the whole sorry mess. from PRL to IRFU it has been about maximising personal revenues and power.

by asoreleftshoulder Mon 06 Oct 2014, 8:59 am

Exiledinborders wrote:
SecretFly wrote:There you go..."Irish Teams".

An acknowledgment of the Nationality issue. Plus the icing on the cake of the debate.

From here on in, there could be Four Irish sides in the RCC or simply One. Four or One.
An Irish team has a 62.5% chance of qualifying. An English team 52%. A French team 45%. And yet the Irish fans are moaning? Funny old world isn't it!

6 English teams qualify every year regardless of how strong or weak they are,Ireland can only get 4 teams in the comp if all of our teams finish in the top half of the league.

You can slice and dice it to percentages all you want but the raw numbers show that the English and French have it far easier,they are guaranteed 6 teams bringing in the big money and getting the big matches in Europe every year no matter what.Luckily the really big money in rugby is still in the international game and the PRL/LNR have ruined their international teams.I expect England to start going the way of France.It will take a few years before the effects are seen but by 2020 both countries will be crying.

by HammerofThunor Mon 06 Oct 2014, 9:21 am

PRL have ruined their team?? Lots of young English player getting game time, union control over 32(64) players. Same release periods as everyone else uses. Additional rest periods. England in the top couple for the last few years...that's them ruined? What the hell did Andy Robinson do to them then?

by lostinwales Mon 06 Oct 2014, 9:37 am

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:
SecretFly wrote:There you go..."Irish Teams".

An acknowledgment of the Nationality issue. Plus the icing on the cake of the debate.

From here on in, there could be Four Irish sides in the RCC or simply One. Four or One.
An Irish team has a 62.5% chance of qualifying. An English team 52%. A French team 45%. And yet the Irish fans are moaning? Funny old world isn't it!

6 English teams qualify every year regardless of how strong or weak they are,Ireland can only get 4 teams in the comp if all of our teams finish in the top half of the league.

You can slice and dice it to percentages all you want but the raw numbers show that the English and French have it far easier,they are guaranteed 6 teams bringing in the big money and getting the big matches in Europe every year no matter what.Luckily the really big money in rugby is still in the international game and the PRL/LNR have ruined their international teams.I expect England to start going the way of France.It will take a few years before the effects are seen but by 2020 both countries will be crying.

Prior to the current deal the HC wasnt bringing in big money to English teams. Maybe if they got a long way through the competition, but otherwise they made more money playing in the LV.

by Sponsored content