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?

So are you suggesting the original founders of the European Cup sold out the smaller nations to bring in the money generators?

[quote="HammerofThunor"]So are you suggesting the original founders of the European Cup sold out the smaller nations to bring in the money generators?[/quote

No, the Irish & Welsh have always looked out for their less well off colleagues. The Heineken Cup was Tom Kiernan's idea and Vernon Pugh was the IRB Chairman at the time and fully supported it. The English & Scots didn't want to have anything to do with it.

Yes. We are all bastards and the Irish are the fairy godmothers of the whole universe

ChequeredJersey wrote:Yes. We are all bastards and the Irish are the fairy godmothers of the whole universe

It is getting rather tedious isn't it? Another reply that decides not to actually respond to the point, but instead remind us of the superiority of the Irish.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Yes. We are all bastards and the Irish are the fairy godmothers of the whole universe

Well, Ireland is No. 1 in the ''Good Country Index"   

http://www.goodcountry.org/overall

Sin é wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Yes. We are all bastards and the Irish are the fairy godmothers of the whole universe

Well, Ireland is No. 1 in the ''Good Country Index"   

http://www.goodcountry.org/overall

So Ireland is the 1st contributor to the human race and planet (using their words here). Must be thanks to the guiness . Am assuming this analysis is based on 19th century stuff to have UK number one at science and technology

Gosh we have lost a LOT points for peacekeeping and security! Fair enough though

WhoCares - Tim Berners-Lee ?

ChequeredJersey wrote:Gosh we have lost a LOT points for peacekeeping and security! Fair enough though

Yep, you need to stop invading other countries and messing them around  

Anyway, the The Good Country index mirrors the efforts of the IRFU trying to spread a bit of goodness in the rugby world. Interesting that France (who pretends to be looking out for all those FIRA countries is 11th)!

"The author of a survey claiming Ireland is the “goodest country” in the world has said he has received a deluge of emails from Irish people taking issue with his findings.
The Good Country Index of 125 countries suggests Ireland makes a more positive contribution to the world than any other country. It measures how nations contribute to the well-being of humanity and the inverse of that, how they detract from that well-being.
Simon Anholt said Irish people suffer from “a severe case of Groucho Marx syndrome” by not wanting to be part of any club that would have them as a member, and cannot believe the country is ranked first."

whocares wrote:

Sin é wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Yes. We are all bastards and the Irish are the fairy godmothers of the whole universe

Well, Ireland is No. 1 in the ''Good Country Index"   

http://www.goodcountry.org/overall

So Ireland is the 1st contributor to the human race and planet (using their words here). Must be thanks to the guiness . Am assuming this analysis is based on 19th century stuff to have UK number one at science and technology

Alec Jeffreys? CSI wouldn't been possible without him   

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Yes. We are all bastards and the Irish are the fairy godmothers of the whole universe

It is getting rather tedious isn't it? Another reply that decides not to actually respond to the point, but instead remind us of the superiority of the Irish.

Not as tedious as all the people telling me the piece of Poopie in front of me is actually a chocolate cake.

That's an appalling analogy. More like the piece of coffee cake you used to love and was your favourite despite not being others' has been switched for Victoria sponge that is better for some of the others but you are unhappy it's not coffee any more

ChequeredJersey wrote:That's an appalling analogy. More like the piece of coffee cake you used to love and was your favourite despite not being others' has been switched for Victoria sponge that is better for some of the others but you are unhappy it's not coffee any more

I'd say the only ones eating cake will be Heineken. It appears they have pulled off a great deal as the lead sponsor of the Chumps Cup at a third the price (15m)they would have paid the old ERC to continue as lead sponsor.

The Heineken Cup could well be a thing of the past, but it might be a case of “the Heineken Cup is dead, long live the Heineken Cup”, because the brewer is understood to be in line to be the new Rugby Champions Cup’s lead sponsor.

Read more at http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/TOM-BRADSHAW-Tasty-morsels-served-European-rugby/story-21937898-detail/story.html#XzMkZ3yYHgR1JhUI.99

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.

Looks like the Pro12 Unions knew what they were about getting their 20m guaranteed by the Franglos.
Thanks guys for looking after us poor relations so well!

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Not as tedious as all the people telling me the piece of Poopie in front of me is actually a chocolate cake.

Well it really shouldn't need to be explained to an adult why it is more appropriate to look at figures proportionally rather than just the raw numbers. Maybe this lack of understanding is why you are unhappy with the direction the thread took?

ChequeredJersey wrote:That's an appalling analogy. More like the piece of coffee cake you used to love and was your favourite despite not being others' has been switched for Victoria sponge that is better for some of the others but you are unhappy it's not coffee any more

I hate coffee cake but that's beside the point.If we are to take your improved analogy to it's logical conclusion then we have a cake that is shared between 6 countries,the cake has gotten smaller yet 2 of the countries have kept the same size share as before,while the other 4 have to fight among themselves for what's left.The 2 countries keeping the bigger shares are telling the other 4 that they are getting a better deal than they had before despite the obvious evidence that they have less.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:That's an appalling analogy. More like the piece of coffee cake you used to love and was your favourite despite not being others' has been switched for Victoria sponge that is better for some of the others but you are unhappy it's not coffee any more

I hate coffee cake but that's beside the point.If we are to take your improved analogy to it's logical conclusion then we have a cake that is shared between 6 countries,the cake has gotten smaller yet 2 of the countries have kept the same size share as before,while the other 4 have to fight among themselves for what's left.The 2 countries keeping the bigger shares are telling the other 4 that they are getting a better deal than they had before despite the obvious evidence that they have less.

One of the countries has 14 people to feed with their share of the cake, another has 12. The 4 countries being shafted have 4, 4, 2 and 2. How do you think this cake should be divided?

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:That's an appalling analogy. More like the piece of coffee cake you used to love and was your favourite despite not being others' has been switched for Victoria sponge that is better for some of the others but you are unhappy it's not coffee any more

I hate coffee cake but that's beside the point.If we are to take your improved analogy to it's logical conclusion then we have a cake that is shared between 6 countries,the cake has gotten smaller yet 2 of the countries have kept the same size share as before,while the other 4 have to fight among themselves for what's left.The 2 countries keeping the bigger shares are telling the other 4 that they are getting a better deal than they had before despite the obvious evidence that they have less.

One of the countries has 14 people to feed with their share of the cake, another has 12. The 4 countries being shafted have 4, 4, 2 and 2. How do you think this cake should be divided?

Channelling the spirit of Marie Antionette?

You think Ireland only has 4 teams to feed?The money we receive is used at every level of the game not just hoovered up for the top tier,that's what is so wrong with the club system.It is so completely selfish that it leaves no room for anything else.

I'd agree on that, some ECC money should be channeled to our roots but the PRL won't do much except re their own individual programmes

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'd agree on that, some ECC money should be channeled to our roots but the PRL won't do much except re their own individual programmes

I'm sorry but that is a load of tosh. If the IRFU are using European money for community rugby then they're giving the Provinces more from the international money pot. If they gave all the European money to the Provinces their would be more International money for community rugby. It's just word games that mean little.

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?

HammerofThunor wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'd agree on that, some ECC money should be channeled to our roots but the PRL won't do much except re their own individual programmes

I'm sorry but that is a load of tosh. If the IRFU are using European money for community rugby then they're giving the Provinces more from the international money pot.  If they gave all the European money to the Provinces their would be more International money for community rugby.  It's just word games that mean little.

You should educate yourself before you comment on these things,cos you're wrong.If the IRFU gave all the European money to the provinces then there wouldn't be as much money left over to give to the lower tiers.The provinces get back a lot less than they generate.

I'd suggest you check out the IRFU annual report for 2010/2011 (the only one that I've seen that clearly spells it out for simple folk like me).  

Here's a quote from page 5

IRFU Annual Report wrote:You will have noted from the income and expenditure account that e28.4m was spent on funding the professional game this year. Of this e22.8m relates to the Union’s cost of running the four provincial professional teams. This year we received e9.3m from the participation of the four provinces in the various competitions. This leaves a net cost to the Union of e13.5m which it funds from the gate receipts, broadcasting and commercial revenues generated by the National Team.

So note, the IRFU gave 22.8M to the Provinces that season. Of this 9.3M was from the competitions the provinces compete in. An additional 13.5M was given out of the international pot.  That's the equivalent of £11.9M (in 2011) and for comparison the RFU gave the 12 teams of the PRL £13.8M.

Please educate me how the IRFU have managed to stop giving the Provinces >£10M in the last 4 years.

Or you could accept that all of the European money goes to the Provinces (laundered through the union but in reality it's the same cash.

EDIT: Minor point but the IRFU spent more on community rugby in 2010/11 than they did last year.

EDIT: And the money spent on PRO rugby was about the same (slightly less last year). So either they're spending an additional £12M on the international teams, the PRO12 is worth £12M more, or they're still giving the Provinces more than then earn through the competitions.

LAST EDIT PROMISE: Just to be clear, I'm not having a go at the IRFU. They seem to be one of the best run unions in the World and what they've done with rugby in Ireland over the last few decades is remarkable. But claiming European money isn't used for the Provinces is either deceitful or deluded.

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   

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Guys unless we all have the same number of teams competing in leagues it will always technically be lopsided one way or the other.

Let's look at nationalities % wise

Ireland 3/4 75%
England 6/12 50%
Wales 2/4 50%
Scotland 1/2 50%
Italy 1/2 50%
France 6/14 42.8%

So maybe we should all blame the Irish for hogging too many spots, and praise the French for taking less than their fair share?

Ok, say Luxembourg were allowed entry but, due to exceptionally small population in proportion to other participants, only had the capacity to supply one side. Their representation would thus be 100% (1/1). By your reasoning that'd be unfair on the English who could supply 6 times as many sides, yet only half the percentage.

Percentages simply don't work in this argument. PRL obviously think... wait, pretend that they do but the fact is they simply don't. For better or worse, not all participant nations can realistically be of clean-cut equal size, population and capacity. The French and English have always had bigger numerical representations, which nobody complained with to begin with due to this realism. People are complaining now that they've gone and tantrumed their way to an even greater advantage than necessary.

As a result the new tournament is, on the whole, less European than its predecessor.

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   

Didn't know about the £15M deal. Can't find any reference to it. But yep, can't see them making that much.

So would I be right in saying this new competition, with less european teams and more French English teams (of which if you like statistics make up 50% of the tournament, thats right 2 nations making 50% of the tournament), should the new PRL(with the same personell) not get the advertising it said it would, that the Rabo nations have signed an agreement stating they would be guarentee'd X amount?

If so how do the English and French stand here if they get less than predicted / they used to?

I have to say I am a touch confused by the whole thing.

It has less teams overall but all the teams are European so I don't know what you mean by "less European teams".

Each English team got about £800k before, so about £10M. If we say the Pro12 get £20M minimum and the English and French get the same, then if the combined competitions make more than £40M they'll be better off.

All the teams in the Prem and T14 are technically European so by the reasoning of your first line both leagues individually are as European as this new tournament.

Which again blatantly exposes the thinking of PRL. For them, a pan-English/French cup and a 'pan-Euro' cup are almost one and the same.

Neutralee's observation that this cup has less European sides holds true as the total capacity has been reduced at the expense of everyone except England and France.

Therefore the Franglo Cup is less European than the HC. It really isn't that hard to work out.

Apologies, I didn't mean less european, I see where that may have sounded misleading, I might less european as a cup which was pretty inclusive for all, to a cup which is heavily dominated by 2 nations.

Essentially as I see the cup last year;

Pan European, involving all 6 nations, of which 3 of those nations restructuring to aid competitiveness and to accomodate their best chances for club and national success.

this year;

The PRL and LNR exploiting the restructure of the minnow nations (Wales, Scotland, Italy) to force a PRL/LNR invitational.

For me this new tournament, before we talk money, power or politics is far less attractive than last years, I'm sure I wouldn't be on my own in mainland europe in thinking not only have the big 2 forced the smaller nations into a corner box, and lesser tier comp, theyve also basically alienated the rest of europe, there is in no way shape or form a scenario where nations like Romania, Georgia, Germany, Spain etc get a look in on the top table!

Then if I look at the new tournament, from a place where I enjoy watching teams from opposing nations play, I struggle to find how rugby is growing to a neutral audience, added the complications of trying to watch games (or should I call them replays as there will be a lot of teams playing each other 4/5 times this season), the political arguments surrounding club v country, and the difficulties smaller nations are having that have been directly impacted by this whole fiasco, what is my motivation to help grow the game outside of these 6 nations?

The tournament still involves all 6 nations, and the other nations didn't have a chance to get to the top table before either. Yes, two nations are relatively more represented than before, but they're also the two nations that are able to support a fully professional league on their own.

Lowlandbrit wrote:The tournament still involves all 6 nations, and the other nations didn't have a chance to get to the top table before either. Yes, two nations are relatively more represented than before, but they're also the two nations that are able to support a fully professional league on their own.

That does make sense, but didn't the old system involve non 6 nation teams originally? Did they not promote and develop the 2nd tier comp to include non 6 nations teams?

Don't get me wrong, I was in no way under any illusions that smaller nations outside the big 6 would get a shot, but the new step has definately taken that option, however small totally off the table.

my point is merely this, the more power and money the big 2 nations get, the less chances the smaller Rabo nations get, which in turn slams the door on everyone else as looking for help from any of the 6N teams now is now a no go, as the smaller 4 nations fight over the scraps at the top table, there is nothing to trickle down.

Although I have no bad feeling towards any of the top 6N, I find increasingly laughable when PRL and LNR fans talk about metiocrity when their actions are ring fencing and killing the global game from everyones point of view but theirs.

Is this all still going on, you'd think everyone would have got tired going over the same old times over and over again

nothing really new here.

We've got a new tournament agreed for the next few years lets just leave it be for now and review it at the end of this year.

Hoping that it turns out to be a good tournament not to different from the H-cup.

No reason for people to force their mouths shut and keep their opinions to themselves if they still see gaping ethical flaws in the concept.

Kingshu

I agree with you, and totally understand, the point i'm trying to make is I don't think I will see if the competition is a success or not, as the new competition is not just less attractive to a neutral but harder to find, harder to watch, more expensive, and dominated by 2 of 6 nations.

I'll probably keep reading through the forum, for the anti PRL, LNR comments, and the PRL, LNR apologists, but as far as actually watching the competition, for the first year in 7/8 I may catch the odd game if it happens to be on in the pub while i'm there, I'll probably catch the final at a friends house, but apart from that, I and a lot of friends I know with no vested interest in any of the participating clubs will probably not catch much of whats going on.

Infact the reason I've had sky for the last few years was for Super rugby, Tri nations and Heineken Cup, i've just cancelled for the first time in ages, I won't be purchasing BT sports, as the deal for broadband and change over is too disruptive/expensive.

I think there are still grey areas in the structure of the new competition. Some don't give it a ghost of a chance, but there's always a n opportunity for an unfancied side to grasp it in their mitey iron paw and build a glorious empire.

Cyril wrote:I think there are still grey areas in the structure of the new competition. Some don't give it a ghost of a chance, but there's always a n opportunity for an unfancied side to grasp it in their mitey iron paw and build a glorious empire.

But that has become far less possible this year, and it will never be possible for nations like Georgia, Romania, Russia to get a team into the main competition.

Lets just put a scenario forward, Romania, who have some rugby pedigree decide to put all their eggs in one basket, find a bit of an investor and manage to win the 2nd tier competition, do they then not deserve a shot at the main table? Who gives up a spot for them to rightfully be included?

The PRL and LNR would both rather leave and form a different comp than lose a spot, the Rabo nations couldn't afford to lose a spot, so what happens? We have an emerging club, dragging an emerging nation into the spot light and possible to the rugby powers, yet the new PRL/LNR spearheaded comp says they cannot compete.

Romanian, Portuguese and lesser Italian sides were getting regularly smashed by 2nd string 'top table' sides in the Amlin (we're talking 60/70/80 points).

They're nowhere near challenging anyway.

Cyril wrote:Romanian, Portuguese and lesser Italian sides were getting regularly smashed by 2nd string 'top table' sides in the Amlin (we're talking 60/70/80 points).

They're nowhere near challenging anyway.

So your argument for cutting the only avenue for a 2nd tier nation to compete at the top table is that theyre not good enough? Is that really how it should work? They have to win and miss out before discussions of making the game truly inclusive?

Neutralee wrote:But that has become far less possible this year, and it will never be possible for nations like Georgia, Romania, Russia to get a team into the main competition.

No it hasn't. There was never (with the exception of Romania) the opportunity for these nations to supply teams to the Amlin. They can now supply teams (potentially) to the Challenge Cup, and get into a Champions Cup playoff by winning it.

IIRC The proposed 3rd tier for lesser teams to give 2 teams into the 2nd tier & I believe there was some talk of the winner of tier 2 going into the playoff for the last place in the top tier. So more teams playing at a suitable level with a chance to move as they improve.

Neutralee wrote:

Cyril wrote:Romanian, Portuguese and lesser Italian sides were getting regularly smashed by 2nd string 'top table' sides in the Amlin (we're talking 60/70/80 points).

They're nowhere near challenging anyway.

So your argument for cutting the only avenue for a 2nd tier nation to compete at the top table is that theyre not good enough? Is that really how it should work? They have to win and miss out before discussions of making the game truly inclusive?

Nope, but they need to compete at a lower level. Getting smashed doesn't help anybody. There should, at some point, be a route in (if sides are good enough, or have potential) but it wasn't working as it was.

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

Well, it is  

Cyril wrote:

Neutralee wrote:

Cyril wrote:Romanian, Portuguese and lesser Italian sides were getting regularly smashed by 2nd string 'top table' sides in the Amlin (we're talking 60/70/80 points).

They're nowhere near challenging anyway.

So your argument for cutting the only avenue for a 2nd tier nation to compete at the top table is that theyre not good enough? Is that really how it should work? They have to win and miss out before discussions of making the game truly inclusive?

Nope, but they need to compete at a lower level. Getting smashed doesn't help anybody. There should, at some point, be a route in (if sides are good enough, or have potential) but it wasn't working as it was.

But for nations such as Romania, the difference between not working and impossible are pretty hefty don't you think?

And I never buy the 'getting smashed doesn't help anybody' excuse, these teams have such limited gametime v solid opposition when they eventually do they are overrun because of the quality difference, these teams don't need to be quarded from top rugby they need to be exposed to it more often.

Neutralee wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Neutralee wrote:

Cyril wrote:Romanian, Portuguese and lesser Italian sides were getting regularly smashed by 2nd string 'top table' sides in the Amlin (we're talking 60/70/80 points).

They're nowhere near challenging anyway.

So your argument for cutting the only avenue for a 2nd tier nation to compete at the top table is that theyre not good enough? Is that really how it should work? They have to win and miss out before discussions of making the game truly inclusive?

Nope, but they need to compete at a lower level. Getting smashed doesn't help anybody. There should, at some point, be a route in (if sides are good enough, or have potential) but it wasn't working as it was.

But for nations such as Romania, the difference between not working and impossible are pretty hefty don't you think?

And I never buy the 'getting smashed doesn't help anybody' excuse, these teams have such limited gametime v solid opposition when they eventually do they are overrun because of the quality difference, these teams don't need to be quarded from top rugby they need to be exposed to it more often.

Read up about the proposed 3rd tier mentioned above.

There's only so much top-class rugby the game can support. Sport is elitist by its very nature. I sometimes think people come on here just to spout false altruistic attitudes (some Irish posters spring to mind).

Cyril wrote:

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

Well, it is  

Not sure why you say that, it's hardly a wind up, I will hold my hands up and say I do not know the in's and out's of the whole thing, but from what I have read, and looking at it from the facts of 606v2 land it seems the elite are becoming more elite, and to hell with global inclusion, is this incorrect?

Cyril

Quick question, does the winner of the 3rd tier then progress to the 2nd tier?

If so why was the same provision not given to the winner of the 2nd tier?

If not what benefit is the 3rd tier?

Neutralee wrote:Cyril

Quick question, does the winner of the 3rd tier then progress to the 2nd tier?

If so why was the same provision not given to the winner of the 2nd tier?

If not what benefit is the 3rd tier?

The 3rd tier is not really a 3rd tier, it's a "Qualifying Competition" with the sole intent of providing two teams for the Challenge Cup.

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

Omc

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

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

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

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

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