Half way through the pool stages what do we think of the ERCC?

First topic message reminder :

I am a feeling bit disappointed with the European tournaments this year and haven't felt engaged with them a much as with the old Heineken and Amlin.

I think much of my disillusionment is to do with the new TV contracts, I always prefer to watch live rugby but have really enjoyed Heineken weekends over the last decade with usually all 12 Heineken matches and several Amlin ones being on Sky. Admittedly this was pretty useless for those who don't have Sky, or don't have a local pub/club with it, but at least it was all in one place.

Now with there being less matches and with only half the Champions Cup being on Sky, and hardly any of the Challenge cup matches on TV at all, I have been much less engaged with the competition. This morning I was feeling quite cheerful about it being a rugby weekend but having looked at the TV schedule I can see that there is no European rugby on Sky tonight and that tomorrow the match between my own club, the blues, and London Irish isn't being televised .

The Welsh teams are doing crap, same as usual for us.

Not the same tournament as its predecessor for the neutral- fragmented TV coverage and more chance of going though in second place have made it feel a lot less meaningful and dramatic. With a 60% chance of finishing second and going through compared to 33% there's not as much of a feeling of it being high stakes from Round 1.

Less teams involved, less games played, less variety- less interesting. These weekends used to be a highlight of the rugby year, now its sort of 'meh' for me. I only watch a game or two all weekend. It doesn't help that independently of any changes this is a poor year for quality with no team really playing rugby that'll get the pulse gong.

It's still better than no European Cup at all, of course, but the frustrating thing is the secondary competition is still almost completely uncovered. If it was a case of shrinking the primary tournament to bring more focus onto a more competitive second division it would be good in a way, but thats happening.

I have to say notch that I completely, utterly and 100% disgree with you about the top competition. I am also finding it easier to watch the games I am interested in.

I am finding the fact that most groups have at least 3 teams and some all 4 competing to make it through a vast improvement on previous years. It is crap for us that we finally have not had an Italian team in our group to inflate our points score - but it means that every match Leicester will play matters. Now it is highly likely that Uster/Scarlets/Tigers will have too much infighting to secure a best runner up spot - but the games are fascinating and competitive.

Remove another 4 teams (which may include us ) and have 4 pools of four and it would be truly competitive.

Do agree that we need more coverage of the lower comp.

Or we could just cut it down to Toulon and Clermont and have it truly truly competitive. Everyone else can play in the untelevised second tier comp where they belong.

I kind of agree with Notch. The tougher groups is offset by the fact that teams can drop more points and still qualify which actually makes it feel a little less cut throat.

I would propose the exact opposite in turn.

32 teams, 8 pools, winners only. No place for second place teams in the knockout stages. If you want to be in the knockout stages you know you have to win 5 or 6 games to be sure. Now thats so much more cut-throat and competitive than what we have now. Best runners-up spot will always be lucky losers and increasing the lucky losers in this competition just makes it seem like a much more forgiving and less exciting proposition. If you're not first you're last! If Ulster for instance are able to make it threw after losing the first two games thats a joke, and undeserved.

Also the more teams there are in the competition the more likely you are to be drawn against new sides- new away trips, new opposition fans- thats crucial.

Shifty wrote:The Welsh teams are doing crap, same as usual for us.  

Alyn, did you actually expect anything different, the crap that the Dodger kept coming out with to give the Regions no chance of signing anyone of worth this season, especially when RRW as it was, said the deal that was agreed was on the table a year ago, the team we played yesterday and last week used 4 different wingers ALL were Internationals, and not with teams like Canada, Frenchmen and Imhoff the Argentinian, they were swapping Internationals for the same, they have a playing budget of between 2 and 3 times ours, things are being put in place to ensure things will be better from next season, hopefully we can sign a couple of others of worth, because as I said a week or so ago it looks as though Tipuric is off if the article in todays Rugby Paper can be believed.

Was Tips not on Gatland's list of players wanted on CC/DC's? Still, if he goes then Navidi might get an opportunity. Tips shouldn't be picked if he's off to Leicester or wherever.

Notch wrote:I would propose the exact opposite in turn.

32 teams, 8 pools, winners only. No place for second place teams in the knockout stages. If you want to be in the knockout stages you know you have to win 5 or 6 games to be sure. Now thats so much more cut-throat and competitive than what we have now. Best runners-up spot will always be lucky losers and increasing the lucky losers in this competition just makes it seem like a much more forgiving and less exciting proposition. If you're not first you're last! If Ulster for instance are able to make it threw after losing the first two games thats a joke, and undeserved.

Also the more teams there are in the competition the more likely you are to be drawn against new sides- new away trips, new opposition fans- thats crucial.

Thing is I have enjoyed the fact that our 3 home matches are likely to be tough, no-quarter asked battles. The least interesting match for me this round was Saints destruction of a Treviso side so far out of their depth they are paddling in the Mariana Trench.

As to Ulster making the 1/4 finals undeserved should they do it - well it would involve winning in Llanelli and toulon, pretty good achievement. Is it really any more of a joke than Sarries reaching the final last year when after all they lost twice to the only decent team in their pool and had the rub of the green in their 1/4 final?

LondonTiger wrote:

Notch wrote:I would propose the exact opposite in turn.

32 teams, 8 pools, winners only. No place for second place teams in the knockout stages. If you want to be in the knockout stages you know you have to win 5 or 6 games to be sure. Now thats so much more cut-throat and competitive than what we have now. Best runners-up spot will always be lucky losers and increasing the lucky losers in this competition just makes it seem like a much more forgiving and less exciting proposition. If you're not first you're last! If Ulster for instance are able to make it threw after losing the first two games thats a joke, and undeserved.

Also the more teams there are in the competition the more likely you are to be drawn against new sides- new away trips, new opposition fans- thats crucial.

Thing is I have enjoyed the fact that our 3 home matches are likely to be tough, no-quarter asked battles. The least interesting match for me this round was Saints destruction of a Treviso side so far out of their depth they are paddling in the Mariana Trench.

As to Ulster making the 1/4 finals undeserved should they do it - well it would involve winning in Llanelli and toulon, pretty good achievement. Is it really any more of a joke than Sarries reaching the final last year when after all they lost twice to the only decent team in their pool and had the rub of the green in their 1/4 final?

What Notch proposes would be more inclusive of all nations and add more variety. Forget your bleedin' class system where everybody is forced into tiers where they "belong". Give as many teams as possible a shot. The main argument against it is the question "are there 32 teams that are a high enough standard?". The answer at the moment is definitely no, I have to concede. But it would be balanced by having only first place qualifying and no lucky losers. And the weaker teams will not be aiming to top the pool, but to take the scalps of the teams above them. These sub plots and surprises are great in the FIFA World Cup for example.

But I do take you point LondonTiger. A weak team against a strong team is not much of a spectacle in this sport. I just think expansion is better than reducing it down to a tiny elite in the long run.

I think that Sarries run illustrates exactly what was wrong with the previous format which was it was too easy to get through certain groups.

It's still too easy to get through the group phase, in fact its arguably easier.

5 is a very very odd number (literally) for a number of pool.

I would like to see the last runner up drop down to the Amlin aswell. I was never sure why people were so against teams dropping down as it really adds to the second tier comp. also surely the last runner up deserves some kind of reward?

Notch wrote:I think that Sarries run illustrates exactly what was wrong with the previous format which was it was too easy to get through certain groups.

It's still too easy to get through the group phase, in fact its arguably easier.

I disagree - you may get less points but not easier now. Well except for the teams who will face Treviso.

There were two main flaws with the previous system:

1) Lucky runners up, should be all or none
2) too many soft matches and pools.


New format has not addressed the first flaw, but for me has started to address the second.

What I dislike about the new system is that we have two pools with two English sides - I see them play each other in the AP - do not need to see them in Europe.

LondonTiger wrote:

Notch wrote:I think that Sarries run illustrates exactly what was wrong with the previous format which was it was too easy to get through certain groups.

It's still too easy to get through the group phase, in fact its arguably easier.

I disagree - you may get less points but not easier now. Well except for the teams who will face Treviso.

There were two main flaws with the previous system:

1) Lucky runners up, should be all or none
2) too many soft matches and pools.


New format has not addressed the first flaw, but for me has started to address the second.

What I dislike about the new system is that we have two pools with two English sides - I see them play each other in the AP - do not need to see them in Europe.

Thats another thing- its a European competition. I do not want to see any domestic matches until the knockout stages at the earliest.

VinceWLB wrote:5 is a very very odd number (literally) for a number of pool.

I agree. So is 6 and 7. 4 or 8 is all that works.

4 pools of 5 would have been better, but of course increases the number of matches. Mind you imagine the matches if we disbanded Pool 5 and put Racing in Pool 1, Ospreys into 2, Treviso into 3 (pools 1,2,4 already have a whipping boy) and Saints into Pool 4,

If you want to eliminate clubs from same leagues facing each others in the pool stages (I do too) then you need 8 pools of 3 but because that would be rubbish to view what you really want is another league in europe.

Notch wrote:I would propose the exact opposite in turn.

32 teams, 8 pools, winners only. No place for second place teams in the knockout stages. If you want to be in the knockout stages you know you have to win 5 or 6 games to be sure. Now thats so much more cut-throat and competitive than what we have now. Best runners-up spot will always be lucky losers and increasing the lucky losers in this competition just makes it seem like a much more forgiving and less exciting proposition. If you're not first you're last! If Ulster for instance are able to make it threw after losing the first two games thats a joke, and undeserved.

Also the more teams there are in the competition the more likely you are to be drawn against new sides- new away trips, new opposition fans- thats crucial.

That would be less of a competition and more of a procession until the knock-out stages.  Pools would be seeded because the organisers & sponsors won't want the big sides dropping out early, meaning there would be the order of 3 equivalent league places between each of the pool sides, producing a lot of uncompetitive matches (fans and viewers want more close-fought matches, not 11 try beastings like Saints handed out to Treviso yesterday).  It would be an almost foregone conclusion that the top seed would win the pool, most likely cementing their place after 2-3 weekends, and with no runner-up place the other sides would have nothing substantial to go on fighting for, half the pool stage would be dead rubbers.  The bottom two sides would know they stand next to no chance from the outset. The pool stages would be a complete non-event.  Meanwhile, the 6 lowest ranked and usually poorest sides in the leagues get comparatively poorer because they're losing out on competition and 3 match day revenues.

The wrong Italian team qualified unfortunately, Zebre would have put up a much better performance, even if they had lost their games as well. At the moment against Treviso, you could give teams a bonus point without them having to turn up.

They are the only true lame ducks though, the French sides not performing have pedigree if not performance and still need to be worked over up front when they are not that interested. Most groups have been competitive, even if none of the games have truly exploded, plenty have been good gripping contests. I have been stuck at home this week and have certainly enjoyed the games I have watched.

whocares wrote:If you want to eliminate clubs from same leagues facing each others in the pool stages (I do too) then you need 8 pools of 3 but because that would be rubbish to view what you really want is another league in europe.

There are only two domestic leagues in Europe, not three. I said I don't want domestic games. Ireland vs Wales is international. Scotland vs Italy is international. England vs France is international. England vs England is domestic. France vs France is domestic.

I want clubs from the same nations to avoid each other in the pool stages. It's a very different thing playing a team from a different country as compared to playing against a team from your own. Same in the Pro12 as the European Cup.

Notch wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

What I dislike about the new system is that we have two pools with two English sides - I see them play each other in the AP - do not need to see them in Europe.

Thats another thing- its a European competition. I do not want to see any domestic matches until the knockout stages at the earliest.

Agreed. However 8 pools of 4 would make this worse.

i assumed that you would then take all 12 Pro12 clubs and 10 from England and France or you take 4 from outside the 6Ns, Doing one increases the number of same nationality matches and increases the number of mismatches while also increasing the number of clubs who send second teams as they fear relegation more than Europe progression. The other vastly increases the number of mismatches.

Notch wrote:

whocares wrote:If you want to eliminate clubs from same leagues facing each others in the pool stages (I do too) then you need 8 pools of 3 but because that would be rubbish to view what you really want is another league in europe.

There are only two domestic leagues in Europe, not three. I said I don't want domestic games. Ireland vs Wales is international. Scotland vs Italy is international. England vs France is international. England vs England is domestic. France vs France is domestic.

I want clubs from the same nations to avoid each other in the pool stages. It's a very different thing playing a team from a different country as compared to playing against a team from your own. Same in the Pro12 as the European Cup.

surely playing the same team you meet on a regular basis in the league is just as dull, no matter whether they are from a different country or not? Playing Scarlets 4 times is surely pretty crappy?

Notch wrote:Not the same tournament as its predecessor for the neutral... These weekends used to be a highlight of the rugby year, now its sort of 'meh' for me. I only watch a game or two all weekend.

Am in complete agreement Notch. The magic is not there. Certainly not at the moment anyway. There's always still a chance it could change somehow. But ironically that will depend on the some of the smaller nation's clubs somehow pulling out romantic victories in the later stages (as was a key part of the old Heineken Cup's heritage). But, this time round, that would go against the odds as specifically set up by the new format - rather than being encouraged by the format of the old Heineken Cup. Even being there in person and seeing us win a vital game... and even when watching the teams I'd normally enjoy watching as a neutral... it all seemed a bit removed and lacking much overall meaning.

But to me the question is moot in the first place. There is no neutral answer on this one. The old format was a quirky, delicate and contingent balance that evolved somewhat out of the blue. The change in format was not done to help improve the competition from an everyman, neutral, sport-expanding point of view. It was done off the back of a lobby from within the strongest grouping to meet their specific needs and wants - precisely because the competition had become more demanding and important.

When you now look at the team listings for the tournament with national flags beside the clubs it looks preposterous (cue the usual repetitive noisy nonsense about it being a "league club" competition, yadda yadda.) But it should be plain to any neutral that it's no longer a European competition in the older sense. English and French teams might see their teams as being different and interesting in themselves. But those of us from outside, for the most part, just see them as just another English or French team (with rare exceptions like Toulouse, Leicester, etc). It's now a sort of reinforcement of rugby as a regional clique sport with a small number of franchises thrown in from the peripheral nations to maintain the name. But there are only two or three who can even hope of putting in a challenge (and when you look through the pools that is exactly how it works out).

The older format was more or less a friendly deal in favour of the smaller rugby countries. It paralleled the upsurge in club rugby interest in some of those smaller countries and prioritised their inclusion. None of that aided the hyper-professional league sides. So there is no surprise that English club supporters are going to be continuing to put their hands over their ears and claim it's all much better and progressive and fairer - just as they have throughout this transformation.

Who knows it may survive all this. But if this tournament ends up with a set of quarters filled with French teams (and maybe two English)... and then a set of semis with all French... (or in later years if it's dominated by all English)... well let's just say that, speaking honestly, I'll only really be hearing about the results on the news. Whether that will worry any of them I do not know.

The real leveller is that there would be a common salary cap for competing European sides.   It's that simple.  If sides can pay any price for any player then the texture is going to be a fight of inequality in any pool - numbers and letters won't matter... cricket score sponge sides will exist.

If Teams want to fight each other in Europe for the title of 'best side' rather than 'wealthiest side' then they should allow themselves to be constrained by an agreed ERCC salary cap.  That is not to say that a European competition could or should dictate what happens in salary terms in any of the three 'domestic' Leagues.... but they should be forced to limit the players they play in Europe to an agreed cap.

That would force these sides to pick and choose a few of their best imported Superstars and a handful of their lesser guys.  Then even the 'whipping boy' sides might have a better chance of making an impact and increasing the 'interest levels' of those 'whipping boy' fans

So, in short, rather than constantly trying to weed out 'weak' sides, force certain multimillion-buck sides to become less 'Super' when playing in Europe.  Do they have the balls to accept a more level playing field of talent?  

LondonTiger wrote:

Notch wrote:

whocares wrote:If you want to eliminate clubs from same leagues facing each others in the pool stages (I do too) then you need 8 pools of 3 but because that would be rubbish to view what you really want is another league in europe.

There are only two domestic leagues in Europe, not three. I said I don't want domestic games. Ireland vs Wales is international. Scotland vs Italy is international. England vs France is international. England vs England is domestic. France vs France is domestic.

I want clubs from the same nations to avoid each other in the pool stages. It's a very different thing playing a team from a different country as compared to playing against a team from your own. Same in the Pro12 as the European Cup.

surely playing the same team you meet on a regular basis in the league is just as dull, no matter whether they are from a different country or not? Playing Scarlets 4 times is surely pretty crappy?

it's not a question of it's dull. It's a question of wanting an international tournament where teams from different countries play against each other.

Obviously I'm going to find two English sides playing dull because I have no interest in English rugby, but it's more about wanting to see competitions between sides of different nations.

SF it is about time you should accept that clubs might have more money to import super stars , National sponsored regions have access to other ressources that clubs do not have. Different models, different rules. This euro competition thingy has always been an unbalanced mismatch that sometimes swings one way and sometimes to another.
If you dont like this then either replace pro ckubs by new regions or the other way around.

SecretFly wrote:The real leveller is that there would be a common salary cap for competing European sides.   It's that simple.  If sides can pay any price for any player then the texture is going to be a fight of inequality in any pool - numbers and letters won't matter... cricket score sponge sides will exist.

If Teams want to fight each other in Europe for the title of 'best side' rather than 'wealthiest side'  then they should allow themselves to be constrained by an agreed ERCC salary cap.  That is not to say that a European competition could or should dictate what happens in salary terms in any of the three 'domestic' Leagues.... but they should be forced to limit the players they play in Europe to an agreed cap.

That would force these sides to pick and choose a few of their best imported Superstars and a handful of their lesser guys.  Then even the 'whipping boy' sides might have a better chance of making an impact and increasing the 'interest levels' of those 'whipping boy' fans

So, in short, rather than constantly trying to weed out 'weak' sides, force certain multimillion-buck sides to become less 'Super' when playing in Europe.  Do they have the balls to accept a more level playing field of talent?  

Agree, mate.  A standardised salary cap across all three leagues is the only way to ensure competitive balance.  I have been calling for that for years (odd, that no one in Rugby is listening).  Different versions of a salary cap were adopted in the major American sports, but all for the same reason - competitive balance drives more interest which helps grow the sports.  The key is transparency of the books and independent accounting.  Doesn't seem like rocket science, does it?

whocares wrote:SF it is about time you should accept that clubs might have more money to import super stars , National sponsored regions have access to other ressources that clubs do not have. Different models, different rules. This euro competition thingy has always been an unbalanced mismatch that sometimes swings one way and sometimes to another. If you dont like this then either replace pro ckubs by new regions or the other way around.

I'm not sure I get your point here whocares. I mean it seems pretty clear that those of us arguing against this forced change in format have quite unambiguously declared in favour of the regional model in some sense or other. It's not like we're being secretive about it.

whocares wrote:If you dont like this then either replace pro ckubs by new regions or the other way around.

But this is precisely the war that has been brought into view through all this. The problem is that the first battles have rather clearly gone in favour of those who disagree with strong regional structures and prefer the hyper-professional route. The "hyper-pro" leagues are going to make it increasingly difficult for other peripheral regions to compete and retain players. Not retaining players is going to decrease competitivity even further. And then Euro comp support and tv ratings will follow. But who is going to stop them? The evidence so far is not encouraging.

whocares wrote:SF it is about time you should accept that clubs might have more money to import super stars , National sponsored regions have access to other ressources that clubs do not have. Different models, different rules. This euro competition thingy has always been an unbalanced mismatch that sometimes swings one way and sometimes to another.
If you dont like this then either replace pro ckubs by new regions or the other way around.

Not the point...It's pointless to have these competitions with sides owning a fortune worth of players and sides that don't.  So rather than swipe at me for suggesting it would take guts and self-belief for the Super sides to agree to a capping system for European competition - you tell me the point of the competition we're currently in?  And I'm not picking on ERCC, HEC was the same.  Tell me the point being proved by having these pools where multimillion euro sides face considered economic dross and call it meritocratic?  Some of it is like the proverbial Tier2 International sides being allowed play in the 6N.  We scoff at the ludicousness of Portual playing England or Germany playing France, and yet glorify this (ERCC)

My suggestion would be to simply stop having ERCC/HEC if we want to claim it should be about top sides looking for European honours.  But if we all DO agree that it's nice to have it then let's admit that's it a show, an event, entertainment.  Fairness is not part of the deal.  Just admit truth exists.  I don't care that Toulon win this year or Clermont win another year or Saracens win the next year or Leinster win it another year.  Not the point - the point is the sneers at the fodder sides that are used as points gainers in pools.  Those 'joke' sides were in the HEC and people said let's get rid of them.  Now we're seeing that even the current incarnation has its 'joke' sides. So everyone is back again - debating numbers and letters to sort things out - like I said we would be

Things won't be sorted out because the European Competition is a circus designed to make money...and you always invite a degree of minnows to a circus to make money.  So let's stop sneering the little people and sneer instead sides that might feel the sting if their budgets were closer to the funny joke sides.

I think it's great. Last couple of weekends I've watched about 6 games each. Good to have a variety of broadcasting and I've been able to see as much rugby as I need to in the top comp (almost too much!). The 2nd tier comp does, admittedly, need better coverage.

There have been some cracking encounters. For example I loved watching Clermont's brilliant attacking play countered by Munster grit and spoiling. It really made for a contrast in styles.

Some people are such misery guts and have had it in for the new set up from the outset. I think those folk might need to find something else to do during European weekends. Having said that, I'm sure they'll get on board eventually after a bit more complaining.

Doctor I've often said the American model would be best for European rugby. It's achieved massive growth for the NFL in particular which is the closest to rugby. But it would require everyone working together and transparency, not loads of different groups trying to look after their little fiefdoms at the expense of others, fights, threats, insults and secret deals. The people behind this tournament can't see two inches past their own bank balance. That some people are actually arguing to reduce the number of teams even more is just unbelievable. And very disheartening.

Cyril wrote:Some people are such misery guts and have had it in for the new set up from the outset. I think those folk might need to find something else to do during European weekends. Having said that, I'm sure they'll get on board eventually after a bit more complaining.

The thread is the issue Cyril. I see all sides of the debate present again... people who love, people who are just looking at the rugby for now, and people who hate. Nice to see you yet again contributing to the kind of thread you're totally bored with. If it's any consolation, I know the feeling...it's so tough not to bite on the juice!

SecretFly wrote:

Cyril wrote:Some people are such misery guts and have had it in for the new set up from the outset. I think those folk might need to find something else to do during European weekends. Having said that, I'm sure they'll get on board eventually after a bit more complaining.

The thread is the issue Cyril.  I see all sides of the debate present again... people who love, people who are just looking at the rugby for now, and people who hate.  Nice to see you yet again contributing to the kind of thread you're totally bored with.  If it's any consolation, I know the feeling...it's so tough not to bite on the juice!  

I'm not bored of the thread. I posted how I was viewing the tournament so far (you know, the bit you didn't quote) I guess the constant 'woe is rugby' can get a bit draining but it's my choice to read that!

I really do think that some posters had made such a fuss about how the new set-up wasn't going to work that there's no way they can back-track now even though it seems to be going pretty well.

So going into the final two games which is the only team that is unbeaten?
Sure i have seen a stat on the old 606 that to lose a group game and go on to be overall winner is really tough and rarely done?


To me so far the groups seem a little less lopsided than in the HC by this stage with still three teams fighting it out which adds a bit more to the last two games.

But overall still seems a little favourable t the big boy big budget teams only being taken seriously by match day officials.

SF Be careful what you wish for as IIRC when the central contracts were taken into account the top three Irish teams salary bill was in excess of the PRL's salary cap.
Doc G easy to have a single salary cap in US as one tax system. How do you account for the differing tax systems in different countries where the take home could be so different?

Deluded, I don't think any team won the HC having won all their games. Munster even lost two group games when they won in 2008.

If it was down to me European rugby competition would be knock out from the first round. FA cup format. No cherry picking. No losing bonus points. Maybe from the last 16 it splits to a cup for winners and shield for the 8 losers to play for.

FecklessRogue wrote:Doctor I've often said the American model would be best for European rugby. It's achieved massive growth for the NFL in particular which is the closest to rugby. But it would require everyone working together and transparency, not loads of different groups trying to look after their little fiefdoms at the expense of others, fights, threats, insults and secret deals. The people behind this tournament can't see two inches past their own bank balance. That some people are actually arguing to reduce the number of teams even more is just unbelievable. And very disheartening.

Sure seems like the right thing to do. I think Rugby is harder because of the different business models in each country. But the ultimate solution should be the same. Some form of transparent salary cap. For instance, we can go on line at any time and see the salary information for each NFL team. Where we might differ is that I believe all parties involved are at fault, not simply the clubs or the national unions.

As to reducing the number of teams, I find it interesting that in this year's competition only Treviso has an unusually large points differential (for and against) at -141. The next highest amount is Castres at -63. So there is really only one team which is out of it's playing depth. Meaning, based upon the table so far this year, the data suggests that reducing the number of teams is a bad idea.

Cyril wrote:
I really do think that some posters had made such a fuss about how the new set-up wasn't going to work that there's no way they can back-track now even though it seems to be going pretty well.

Can't and won't speak for anyone else.  But for me, I didn't say the new set up wouldn't work (if you're infering I'm one of the people who did).  I said it was a new set-up designed by a biased selection of rugby groups to increase their personal influence, personal business power transactions, personal world club profiles, top player attractability kudos and winning potential.  It's the foreunner of a European Super club foursome or fivesome who will dominate the top between them (because the others will be caught in the eternal Catch 22 of needing to win to attract sufficent funds to buy but needing sufficent funds to buy to win).  The perpetual four or five Kingpins will then hand out scraps to the sad little whipping boy sides at the hungry bottom and buy up anything promising those minnows produce.  

Oh and they'll get righteously annoyed when the minnows say they're not happy at being picked clean by vultures - 'It's money ain't it?  You can buy 15 idiots with the price we're offering for your one wonderkid.'

So yeah, I still say that's what it was designed to do.  I'll enjoy whatever rugby there is, but no back-tracking on that belief.

And how do you handle the different setups around? Dual contracts, Central contracts, exchange rates, living costs, tax, etc, etc?

Edit: and if you were doing it could be that the European squad could be limited, allowing the French to do what they want in their league.

Also, by my count only four teams can't top their group. Some are highly unlikely but possible.

SecretFly wrote:

Cyril wrote:
I really do think that some posters had made such a fuss about how the new set-up wasn't going to work that there's no way they can back-track now even though it seems to be going pretty well.

Can't and won't speak for anyone else.  But for me, I didn't say the new set up wouldn't work (if you're infering I'm one of the people who did).  I said it was a new set-up designed by a biased selection of rugby groups to increase their personal influence, personal business power transactions, personal world club profiles, top player attractability kudos and winning potential.  It's the foreunner of a European Super club foursome or fivesome who will dominate the top between them (because the others will be caught in the eternal Catch 22 of needing to win to attract sufficent funds to buy but needing sufficent funds to buy to win).  The perpetual four or five Kingpins will then hand out scraps to the sad little whipping boy sides at the hungry bottom and buy up anything promising those minnows produce.  

Oh and they'll get righteously annoyed when the minnows say they're not happy at being picked clean by vultures - 'It's money ain't it?  You can buy 15 idiots with the price we're offering for your one wonderkid.'

So yeah, I still say that's what it was designed to do.  I'll enjoy whatever rugby there is, but no back-tracking on that belief.

I didn't mean you Fly It's more the way some posters are taking about 'shambles' and the large number of 'dead rubber' games (there isn't) and the French giving up. The French do give up, but they could have 4 sides in the quarters.

Anyway, I don't want to get into the politics of it (as I don't think that's what this thread is about) but in terms of spectacle, competitiveness etc I think it's been a good competition so far.

Some may argue that only four to five sides have a chance of winning the tournament but when has this not been the case in the past? It's as open and competitive as it's ever been. Pools 1 and 2 are still 3-way battles with 2 games to go!

broadlandboy wrote:Doc G easy to have a single salary cap in US as one tax system. How do you account for the differing tax systems in different countries where the take home could be so different?

There must be some kind of a solution since Baseball, NHL, and NBA operate in the US and Canada. From the very little I know of the Canadian tax system, it is somewhat similar to that of UK.

HammerofThunor wrote:And how do you handle the different setups around? Dual contracts, Central contracts, exchange rates, living costs, tax, etc, etc?

That is why we have accountants, eh mate? There is always a system, probably based upon a calculus that is understandable only by a few. But there has to be a way.

broadlandboy wrote:SF Be careful what you wish for as IIRC when the central contracts were taken into account the top three Irish teams salary bill was in excess of the PRL's salary cap.

If you are a Leicester and you are fighting on several fronts - ie you’re trying as they are to win the Premiership and to win the ERCC plus, in addition, you’re giving half a dozen players to England, say - then clearly you need two squads (as Clermont have) and that implies a completely different wage cap.  I don’t think I need to propose a solution to this problem. I think we can all work it out.

Funny how many English fans though always take it personal when someone mentions 'Cap'.  To tell the truth I'm not directing my capping chat at English sides and I always giggle when English fans never direct their disgruntled attitudes the way of the French.  Of course, they don't do so because they want an end to caps in their own League... not to drag the French down but to rise to French levels in terms of ability to buy best players from around the world.

And........... if you can tell me that Leicester or Saracens comes in much lower in overall budget to Leinster then I want evidence in accounts - detailed accounts.  If you get them (Central contracts and all) then I'll give them a look over.

Meanwhile, the first paragraph wasn't mine.  It belongs to Nigel Wray!  Now if he was pis-ssed with the inequality of capping in Europe, can't you imagine how pis-sed Treviso must be

C'mon mate.  No generalisations about English fans.  Clearly, the biggest problem are the French clubs with their (apparently) zillion Euro payrolls.  I want a cap, not just for the Premiership, which we already have, but across the top level NH leagues.  I don't know how many Premiership sides could spend with the French, but I am sure it is only a few.  So I believe an uncapped Premiership would destroy the Premiership.

So much for meritocracy.

The competition will never be won purely on merit unless there is one day a global salary cap which we are unlikely to see anytime soon.

doctor_grey wrote:C'mon mate.  No generalisations about English fans.  Clearly, the biggest problem are the French clubs with their (apparently) zillion Euro payrolls.  I want a cap, not just for the Premiership, but across the top level NH leagues.  I don't know how many Premiership sides could spend with the French, but I am sure it is only a few.  So I believe an uncapped Premiership would destroy the Premiership.  

"Funny how many English fans" is not a generalisation Doc.  It's not saying 'all' which would be a generalisation of course.  

But I do know how many times my 'Cap' comments have been interpreted as being directed at English clubs. They never are........... until they too potentially lose their capping restraints to better compete with the run-away French.

Cyril wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Cyril wrote:
I really do think that some posters had made such a fuss about how the new set-up wasn't going to work that there's no way they can back-track now even though it seems to be going pretty well.

Can't and won't speak for anyone else.  But for me, I didn't say the new set up wouldn't work (if you're infering I'm one of the people who did).  I said it was a new set-up designed by a biased selection of rugby groups to increase their personal influence, personal business power transactions, personal world club profiles, top player attractability kudos and winning potential.  It's the foreunner of a European Super club foursome or fivesome who will dominate the top between them (because the others will be caught in the eternal Catch 22 of needing to win to attract sufficent funds to buy but needing sufficent funds to buy to win).  The perpetual four or five Kingpins will then hand out scraps to the sad little whipping boy sides at the hungry bottom and buy up anything promising those minnows produce.  

Oh and they'll get righteously annoyed when the minnows say they're not happy at being picked clean by vultures - 'It's money ain't it?  You can buy 15 idiots with the price we're offering for your one wonderkid.'

So yeah, I still say that's what it was designed to do.  I'll enjoy whatever rugby there is, but no back-tracking on that belief.

I didn't mean you Fly It's more the way some posters are taking about 'shambles' and the large number of 'dead rubber' games (there isn't) and the French giving up. The French do give up, but they could have 4 sides in the quarters.

Anyway, I don't want to get into the politics of it (as I don't think that's what this thread is about) but in terms of spectacle, competitiveness etc I think it's been a good competition so far.

Some may argue that only four to five sides have a chance of winning the tournament but when has this not been the case in the past? It's as open and competitive as it's ever been. Pools 1 and 2 are still 3-way battles with 2 games to go!

Sorry Cyril... but it seems like a real dialogue of the deaf going on here. I don't speak for everyone against the new format (so you maybe meant someone else) but I never said anything about dead rubbers or the new competition being a "shambles". That's got little to do with it. And for the record, my own team just won a really close match and may very well continue to do well under the new competition format.

But that's all missing the point. Your posts illustrate the typical answers of those who don't understand what's being said and more importantly couldn't care less to try to understand. You seem to think that if you like watching the matches between teams you are interested in... then we all should be. But we all come to rugby from different cultures and for different reasons. Despite my own team still doing well and still competing... the context has shifted and changed. That pool competitivity you're citing as still being present is increasingly between French and English clubs - with some others just hanging in. And if it becomes all English and French clubs it will seem a lot less meaningful or enjoyable to everyone else. It will increasingly feels less like a European competition... and more like being a peripheral part of an English-French league. That's where things are changing... not the individual matches.

I'm well aware from all the (mostly English) posts that you couldn't care less. But, for me at least, that's what this is about. Not all that other stuff.

SecretFly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:C'mon mate.  No generalisations about English fans.  Clearly, the biggest problem are the French clubs with their (apparently) zillion Euro payrolls.  I want a cap, not just for the Premiership, but across the top level NH leagues.  I don't know how many Premiership sides could spend with the French, but I am sure it is only a few.  So I believe an uncapped Premiership would destroy the Premiership.  

"Funny how many English fans" is not a generalisation Doc.  It's not saying 'all' which would be a generalisation of course.  

But I do know how many times my 'Cap' comments have been interpreted as being directed at English clubs.  They never are........... until they too potentially lose their capping restraints to better compete with the run-away French.

OK, I apologise. But, pardon the insult - you answered my comment like a lawyer. I get you point though, and fair enough.

doctor_grey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:C'mon mate.  No generalisations about English fans.  Clearly, the biggest problem are the French clubs with their (apparently) zillion Euro payrolls.  I want a cap, not just for the Premiership, but across the top level NH leagues.  I don't know how many Premiership sides could spend with the French, but I am sure it is only a few.  So I believe an uncapped Premiership would destroy the Premiership.  

"Funny how many English fans" is not a generalisation Doc.  It's not saying 'all' which would be a generalisation of course.  

But I do know how many times my 'Cap' comments have been interpreted as being directed at English clubs.  They never are........... until they too potentially lose their capping restraints to better compete with the run-away French.

OK, I apologise.  But, pardon the insult - you answered my comment like a lawyer.  I get you point though, and fair enough.



 

I thought I was a secret fly??????

SecretFly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:C'mon mate.  No generalisations about English fans.  Clearly, the biggest problem are the French clubs with their (apparently) zillion Euro payrolls.  I want a cap, not just for the Premiership, but across the top level NH leagues.  I don't know how many Premiership sides could spend with the French, but I am sure it is only a few.  So I believe an uncapped Premiership would destroy the Premiership.  

"Funny how many English fans" is not a generalisation Doc.  It's not saying 'all' which would be a generalisation of course.  

But I do know how many times my 'Cap' comments have been interpreted as being directed at English clubs.  They never are........... until they too potentially lose their capping restraints to better compete with the run-away French.

OK, I apologise.  But, pardon the insult - you answered my comment like a lawyer.  I get you point though, and fair enough.



 

I thought I was a secret fly??????

haha. I won't tell anyone.

If some supporters are more interested in a truly European wide competition irrespective of competitiveness, why are the only suggestions for improvements on this thread to increase the number of sides to just one competition, restricting just a couple of clubs from entering, but not adding any additional nations?

The LNR & PRL would never go along with denying revenues to their member clubs they weren't allowed to enter (if one of them was London Welsh they would definitely start legal proceedings), and they're only really interested in finding the best club in Europe at comparative, competitive levels, so just let them go and do their own thing like they wanted to.  Then a new competition can be started with everyone else that wants the same thing from Europe, a couple of teams from as many nations as pleases can be added, the Georgians, Russians, Romanians, Spanish, Portugese, Pro D2 and Championship sides would probably be interested as well.  If the French & English top sides then get into a salary war buying in more and more foreign talent, they can just be laughed at as their national sides suffer.

If different factions want separate things from the same endeavour and some parties can't put up with what transpires, then walk away, do something different and make it better, continually moaning will just result in interest draining away and the thing crumbling anyway.

nth wrote:If some supporters are more interested in a truly European wide competition irrespective of competitiveness, why are the only suggestions for improvements on this thread to increase the number of sides to just one competition, restricting just a couple of clubs from entering, but not adding any additional nations?

The LNR & PRL would never go along with denying revenues to their member clubs they weren't allowed to enter (if one of them was London Welsh they would definitely start legal proceedings), and they're only really interested in finding the best club in Europe at comparative, competitive levels, so just let them go and do their own thing like they wanted to.  Then a new competition can be started with everyone else that wants the same thing from Europe, a couple of teams from as many nations as pleases can be added, the Georgians, Russians, Romanians, Spanish, Portugese, Pro D2 and Championship sides would probably be interested as well.  If the French & English top sides then get into a salary war buying in more and more foreign talent, they can just be laughed at as their national sides suffer.

If different factions want separate things from the same endeavour and some parties can't put up with what transpires, then walk away, do something different and make it better, continually moaning will just result in interest draining away and the thing crumbling anyway.

I actually quite like that idea... but I'm of that type of sporting background. As a practical strategy its hard to see it ever happening. The outcomes you're proposing (which may be tongue-in-cheek?) are hardly likely to be competitive in a sport like rugby where France and England will increasingly be the ONLY places left with high-level leagues for the very top players. I don't know how many of the top Pro-12 sides could keep any of their big names (even their national players) under those conditions... and that would most likely have a huge knock-on on the 6Ns and WC within a decade.

It's hard to see the Pro-12 teams walking away despite the shfting ground under their feet. Most of the push-back on this forum is from Irish supporters like myself. But the Irish provinces have built their entire professional era on the European comps for over the last 10 years. They are addicted and dependent - and in some ways they have often show as much ruthless addiction to media professionalisation as any of the English teams.