Has anyone changed their opinion of the new European competition since it started?

First topic message reminder :

Getting away from the point scoring exercises on the other thread, have the games or the way the quarter finalists panned out actually made anyone change their opinion of the competition from before it kicked off?

It hasn't been a good year for the Pro12 but I don't think that is connected with the competition itself, more the natural cycles of sporting ups and downs.

Refereeing has been terrible really, it's the reason Glasgow didn't get to the qf they are regarded as the little team and it wouldn't have made the journos happy had they gone through so they had to play against 16 man in Toulouse and Bath.

Do you really believe that? Ive seen better displays but he wasnt horrendous.

Lacey was totally biased and reffed the "bigger" team differently in both game.

How many time do you see a penalty try AND a yellow card being given? it would never happen if it was the other way around.

A couple of times. Its certainly not unheard of.

I've watched less games this year. Why? All England games hold little interest for me. I watch the odd AP game, but mostly on there's nothing else on basis. I watch a lot of my rugby in the pub and occasionally the shared channel thing can be a bit of a pain.

So generally a down vote from me, but have seen and enjoyed some good games. Shame the Toulon Clermont dominance means the final will likely be a borefest.

Edit: the TV coverage of the Challenge Cup has been woeful, the few games I have been able to catch have been entertaining.

I think for me you're asking the wrong question.

The problems I had with the whole sorry saga were always to do with off-pitch issues not on-pitch issues. It's pretty much the same tournament as before. The most contentious issues were all to do with off pitch things- qualification, allocation of teams, splits of revenue, tv broadcasting, sponsorship, administration.

On the whole I don't have a problem with any of the things to do with the structure of the tournament itself. But that was never the point.

The Great Aukster wrote:The competition is a lot less exciting that it used to be, but that was expected when the chance of upsets was reduced, and a lot more fixtures are just league replays.
Thought the coverage would upgrade with competition between the broadcasters, but instead it went flat as I don't know anyone who would pay two subs and so missed some great games.
It hasn't been a good year for the Pro12 but that looks like a trend rather than a cycle. The investment the French have put in players is starting to pay off as it takes several years to build teams as Toulon have shown. The other French clubs who didn't have as much money will take more time, but they will get closer to Toulon and further from the Pro12. It may not be connected this year but as the uneven distribution of proceeds favours the Franglos that will widen the gap - when the organisation starts to be run professionally and get the sponsorship it should.

Nice WUM, not subtle, though 6/10.

quinsforever wrote:yes. it's even better than i had hoped. 4 english teams through for the first time since 1998. and a final round where the number of permutations was still huge and any of 11 teams still had a theoretical chance of progressing. the runners up spots now mean something given that whoever has treviso and zebre in their group isnt guaranteed to generate the runner up qualifier. totally changes the complexion of the group stages.

2nd tier is better too without the dropping down from HC. Could do with a qualifying spot for next season's top tier though.

its too early to tell what the impact on quality of rugby will be. that is going to take several seasons. but the format has produced tighter pools and more tension deeper into the competition. its undeniable.

Its certainly deniable . 3 pools that got the 3 best losers in all were the weak pools with a weak team in them where the whipping boys didn't win a single game- just this year the weak team were one english, one welsh, one Italian. The pools wer horrendously imbalanced. Its a degraded debased shadow of a true european competition.

"yes. it's even better than i had hoped. 4 english teams through for the first time since 1998" gives it away totally. The only thing that matters to you is more english clubs in the QFs - well the redesign was intended to do that, did that so you think its better

VinceWLB wrote:Lacey was totally biased and reffed the "bigger" team differently in both game.

How many time do you see a penalty try AND a yellow card being given? it would never happen if it was the other way around.

Utter nonsense It makes you look ridiculous to even suggest it first of all Lacey is a pro 12 ref. there is no "bigger" team here and he missed things both ways. Penalty try and yellow - I have seen it a few times. I saw at least 2 pens he missed against Glasgow. Remember I was supporting Glasgow

VinceWLB wrote:Lacey was totally biased and reffed the "bigger" team differently in both game.

How many time do you see a penalty try AND a yellow card being given? it would never happen if it was the other way around.

It was a penalty try because Kellock stopped a near certain try. It was a yellow card because it stopped a near certain try and it was one of a series of offenses at maul and scrum.

When a pack is as dominant as Bath's were then that is what happens. You can't blame the ref. It was down to Bath being totally dominant especially once they brought a replacement front row that are as good as the starting front row. That is not something many teams can do. I thought Glasgow's backs were good and did well given Bath's forward dominance but as the old saying says its the forwards that win games the backs just decide by how many.

The off-pitch issues need to be addressed with the tournament if we're not to end up with a competition where the only goal is to come 2nd or 3rd to the teams with the bulging wallets. The tears shed over changing the format so it was more of a level playing field were crocodile tears. The French can snap up all the best players on the planet and the English clubs are wanting to raise their salary cap so that they can follow suit. The level playing field it tilted in the favour of those who have the biggest budgets. I believe the gap this will cause between the Pro12 sides and the Franglo sides will widen unless all European sides have the same salary cap whether the French like it or not.

P.S. I know I'm going over old ground but I don't want to start doing any work just now

TJ wrote:

quinsforever wrote:yes. it's even better than i had hoped. 4 english teams through for the first time since 1998. and a final round where the number of permutations was still huge and any of 11 teams still had a theoretical chance of progressing. the runners up spots now mean something given that whoever has treviso and zebre in their group isnt guaranteed to generate the runner up qualifier. totally changes the complexion of the group stages.

2nd tier is better too without the dropping down from HC. Could do with a qualifying spot for next season's top tier though.

its too early to tell what the impact on quality of rugby will be. that is going to take several seasons. but the format has produced tighter pools and more tension deeper into the competition. its undeniable.

Its certainly deniable . 3 pools that got the 3 best losers in all were the weak pools with a weak team in them where the whipping boys didn't win a single game- just this year the weak team were one english, one welsh, one Italian. The pools wer horrendously imbalanced. Its a degraded debased shadow of a true european competition.

"yes. it's even better than i had hoped. 4 english teams through for the first time since 1998" gives it away totally. The only thing that matters to you is more english clubs in the QFs - well the redesign was intended to do that, did that so you think its better

TJ, while I back a lot of what you were saying, that looks a bit nonsensicle to me! You are saying the pools where the teams at the bottom did worst produced the groups with runners up. No grit, Sherlock!
In Treviso's case this is fair enough as everyone will say before the draw that their presence skews that group to give it the advantage.
To use Sale and Castres is silly though as they just happen to be the two teams (for various reasons) that performed poorly this year. Now, if you provide a link to before the draw was made with you stating that you were unhappy as whoever drew Treviso, Castres and Sale would obviously get the runners up spots, then fair enough. But you can't use the benefit of hindsight to say it is unfair on other teams to be drawn with them, when it was not obvious before start of play!
The best runner up system is not a good one, but it is better than last years. Earlier in the thread I posted my views on a system that would be even closer to "fair".

That aside, your second point about calling out quinsforever for saying it's a good tournament, then stating 4 English teams went through. It was a very poor argument from his side, particularly when he is debating against people whose biggest grievance is that the new format was implemented out of self-interest of the top English clubs! I suspect this was worded wrong (quins?) and you are saying from your point of view you enjoyed seeing the 4 English teams progress - rather than using that as a general argument that the tournament has been an improvement.

Pete330v2 wrote:The off-pitch issues need to be addressed with the tournament if we're not to end up with a competition where the only goal is to come 2nd or 3rd to the teams with the bulging wallets. The tears shed over changing the format so it was more of a level playing field were crocodile tears. The French can snap up all the best players on the planet and the English clubs are wanting to raise their salary cap so that they can follow suit. The level playing field it tilted in the favour of those who have the biggest budgets. I believe the gap this will cause between the Pro12 sides and the Franglo sides will widen unless all European sides have the same salary cap whether the French like it or not.

P.S. I know I'm going over old ground but I don't want to start doing any work just now

Argree that some kind of "universal" salary cap would be a decent safeguard if thought through and implemented correctly. I just fear we are already a few years too late - to reign the French back in now they have found the golden path would be very difficult.

AS exiled says - I also suspect the Bath guy who tried to touch the ball down actually knocked it on - so no try was scored hence the penalty try - and if you continually infringe a yellow is always likely. I didn't her much grumbling from Scots fans about it overall

Jonny - I suspect you are right about Quins. He and I have battled hard over this but he is not usually guilty of such one eyedness. He just looks in a different direction

About the weak pools - it was stated the reason for the change was to remove the weak pools that mean the runners up go to teams in the pools with the weak teams - I was just pointing out this would always happen. always there will be weak teams and thus easier pools when you qualify on last years performance.. this is why I want a qualifying round so that qualification for the main event is based more on this years performance not last

Jonny/tj yes that point was not serious. V small wum.

But I do think the format worked much better than I expected in producing really exciting groups in round 6. Remains to be seen if that was a fluke. But round 6 was by far my favourite so far. Cannot say that about any previous HCs for me.

So what is the Quins / TJ score in the euro cup? i suspect a high scoring score draw of about 104 pts each - and a good few "own goals" ( what is a own goal in rugby?) along the way

TJ wrote:So what is the Quins / TJ score in the euro cup?  i suspect a high scoring score draw of about 104 pts each - and a good few "own goals" ( what is a own goal in rugby?) along the way

It's appointing Scott Johnson as head coach.

I've thoroughly enjoyed reading you two battling it out. Fortunately it looks like European rugby may be turbulent for a good few years yet so we will treated to many more debates and arguments in the future. At least it's not boring anyway!

TJ wrote:So what is the Quins / TJ score in the euro cup?  i suspect a high scoring score draw of about 104 pts each - and a good few "own goals" ( what is a own goal in rugby?) along the way

own goal is probably giving away a penalty try and getting yellow carded, versus letting them score in the corner and have a tough conversion from the touchline

high scoring draw sounds reasonable. ie we both think we've scored more points than each other. and the neutrals wish we'd fack off and stop clogging the airwaves

Pete330v2 wrote:The off-pitch issues need to be addressed with the tournament if we're not to end up with a competition where the only goal is to come 2nd or 3rd to the teams with the bulging wallets. The tears shed over changing the format so it was more of a level playing field were crocodile tears. The French can snap up all the best players on the planet and the English clubs are wanting to raise their salary cap so that they can follow suit. The level playing field it tilted in the favour of those who have the biggest budgets. I believe the gap this will cause between the Pro12 sides and the Franglo sides will widen unless all European sides have the same salary cap whether the French like it or not.

P.S. I know I'm going over old ground but I don't want to start doing any work just now

And how do you think you could force us to do that?
You can't because we can live without the Champions cup. And without us I'm not sure you would have enough sponsor to pay for this competition ou enough fans to watch it.

TJ wrote:Jonny - I suspect you are right about Quins.  He and I have battled hard over this but he is not usually guilty of such one eyedness.  He just looks in a different direction

About the weak pools - it was stated the reason for the change was to remove the weak pools that mean the runners up go to teams in the pools with the weak teams - I was just pointing out this would always happen.  always there will be weak teams and thus easier pools when you qualify on last years performance..  this is why I want a qualifying round so that qualification for the main event is based more on this years performance not last

Not a bad idea, but our calendar is full and that will not stop teams having real bad results.
For exemple Castres the last finalist (and 6° on the regular season): how could you predict a such failure ( no game won and the fight to save it place in top 14.
Now my team (Montpellier): 2° last year on regular season and semi-finalist. A big crisis ( Galthié vs players) and as a result a poor Champions Cup when our president's goal was a 1/4 final at home.
And I don't think the clubs would like to risk an all season efforts on one game.

JonnyEdinburgh wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:The off-pitch issues need to be addressed with the tournament if we're not to end up with a competition where the only goal is to come 2nd or 3rd to the teams with the bulging wallets. The tears shed over changing the format so it was more of a level playing field were crocodile tears. The French can snap up all the best players on the planet and the English clubs are wanting to raise their salary cap so that they can follow suit. The level playing field it tilted in the favour of those who have the biggest budgets. I believe the gap this will cause between the Pro12 sides and the Franglo sides will widen unless all European sides have the same salary cap whether the French like it or not.

P.S. I know I'm going over old ground but I don't want to start doing any work just now

Argree that some kind of "universal" salary cap would be a decent safeguard if thought through and implemented correctly.  I just fear we are already a few years too late - to reign the French back in now they have found the golden path would be very difficult.

I agree, or at least the pessimist in me does
It's a sad fact that money will become the deciding factor in the death of european rugby.

The problem with a european salary cap is, where do you set it? At the Welsh level? Meaning that many of the other teams in Europe will have money they can't spend, meanin players' salaries will be kept low but coaches and executives will cream off the top?  Do you set it at the Scottish level, meaning some teams will have loads of excess money but the Welsh would struggle to match? The Irish/English level? In which case it's just curbing the French. How rigid is it? Can players get money for external sponsorship? How do you police it? Etc.  Then you have the probelm with exchange rates, etc.  It's hard enough for one country with one currency from one union to do it.

EDIT: What might be doable is a European squad salary cap. That certainly might be more feasible.

shuren34 wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:The off-pitch issues need to be addressed with the tournament if we're not to end up with a competition where the only goal is to come 2nd or 3rd to the teams with the bulging wallets. The tears shed over changing the format so it was more of a level playing field were crocodile tears. The French can snap up all the best players on the planet and the English clubs are wanting to raise their salary cap so that they can follow suit. The level playing field it tilted in the favour of those who have the biggest budgets. I believe the gap this will cause between the Pro12 sides and the Franglo sides will widen unless all European sides have the same salary cap whether the French like it or not.

P.S. I know I'm going over old ground but I don't want to start doing any work just now

And how do you think you could force us to do that?
You can't because we can live without the Champions cup. And without us I'm not sure you would have enough sponsor to pay for this competition ou enough fans to watch it.

We too can survive without the Champions Cup Shuren and if the gap between those with bottomless pockets and those with salary caps keep getting bigger you'll be the only ones in it. The French Champions Cup would hardly have the biggest viewing figures here in Ireland.

Shuren - having a qualifying round would answer a lot of the issues. it would mean weak teams do not get into the main event, it would give every team a shot at the big time every year, it would mean a team got in on this years performance not last.

You could have byes for the top teams to reduce fixture congestion and you could restucture the main event to have less games

it does have its own problems for sure and is a dead duck now but IMO ity would have lead to a much better tournament.
40 team entry. 8 teams get byes 32 teams play off for 16 places (giving 24 in the cup), losing 16 play off for shield. Cup has 24 teams - 8 QF. 16 teams left play off for bowl

Everyone gets a shot at the big time every year. Every team has meaningful european games. it would be a true meritocracy

TJ wrote:Shuren - having a qualifying round would answer a lot of the issues.  it would mean weak teams do not get into the main event, it would give every team a shot at the big time every year, it would mean a team got in on this years performance not last.

You could have byes for the top teams to reduce fixture congestion and you could restucture the main event to have less games

it does have its own problems for sure and is a dead duck now but IMO ity would have lead to a much better tournament.
40 team entry.  8 teams get byes 32 teams play off for 16 places (giving 24 in the cup),  losing 16 play off for shield.  Cup has 24 teams - 8 QF.  16 teams left play off for bowl

Everyone gets a shot at the big time every year.  Every team has meaningful european games.  it would be a true meritocracy

Where are the forty teams coming from? 12 + 12 + 14 = 38

Under your proposal instead of twenty teams in the main cup there will be twenty four. So rather than less weak teams there will be more. If anything we need to cut to sixteen (5 + 5 + 5 plus last years challenge cup winners). Four groups of four, winners get home QF runners up get away tie . Much simpler all round.

Challenge Cup also for sixteen teams (5 + 5 + 5 + winner of 3rd level competition). Same format as Champions Cup.

The bottom two teams from Pro12 and AP, plus bottom four from Top14 would be in a third level competition with teams from around Europe including top two from Pro D2 and English Championship.

Really havent gotten into it as much this year as in the past. This is down to a mix of personal reasons (working some weekends now so miss a lot more matches and the fact the provinces are having an awful year hy theor standards) and problems with the competition like the complete mess of the broadcasting. Other that its pretty much the same. The trend of french teams dominating is continuing, there is still dead rubbers but a lot less variety.

I see no improvements in the 2nd tier and whatever happened to the 3rd tier to help out developing nations....

Obviously it will take a few years before anyone can have an objective comparison between the two.

exiled - one Georgian, one Romanian. You know - expanding the euro cup like the PRL promised thats just an outline of the sort of thing I mean. could easily make the main event 16 or 20 teams. I prefer 24 as the numbers make more sense. Weak teams would not get in in the same way as it would be meritocratic - the best 24 teams in europe that year not the top 6 from the Ap 6 from t14, 7 from pro 12 as of the previous year plus some complex playoff

But the cup could be 16 or 20.

It answers all the false argument about meritocracy, it gives everyone a shot at the big time every year, it expands the format

Its irrelevant anyway. the PRL refused to even discuss the idea and we ain't getting another reoganisati9on anytime soon - until this rotten mishmash of a system collapses

The amount of teams should be cut not expanded if you want to increase the quality.

No - what we need to do is to actually make sure all the teams in the top comp are there as of right because of their playing ability and not have reserved places for teams that do not merit their place. But under a 40 team entry of the type I describe you could have any number in the top tier 16 / 20 / 24 whatever

No 7&1/2 wrote:The amount of teams should be cut not expanded if you want to increase the quality.

Cutting the amount of teams may mean better quality of the teams overall but it does not equate to increased product quality. There is a significant value in diversity, preventing the event to become stale.

I like a certain amount Stewie but TJ was pointing out it was 'degraded debased shadow' because of the weaker teams.

TJ nearly all the teams were there as a right. You need to base it on the previous year to make it fairer surely or you're just picking teams that hit the ground running at the start of the season or have a better injury list etc. Bath for instance probably wouldn't have got as far as they have due to being a bit wobbly and having a host of back row injuries. What if Glasgow were down to their bare bones earlier; wouldn't have been fair.

TJ wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:Lacey was totally biased and reffed the "bigger" team differently in both game.

How many time do you see a penalty try AND a yellow card being given? it would never happen if it was the other way around.

Utter nonsense  It makes you look ridiculous to even suggest it  first of all Lacey is a pro 12 ref.  there is no "bigger" team here and he missed things both ways.  Penalty try and yellow - I have seen it a few times.  I saw at least 2 pens he missed against Glasgow.  Remember I was supporting Glasgow

TJ, i suggest you watch the game again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgTE1W7QcKw at 1:25:07 for instance maul is collapsed but of course no penalty, just one example among others which shows it was all geared up to please the English and their big pockets. Glasgow getting through wasn't in the Hollywood script.

What are you alledging with the 'big pockets' comment? You could have pointed out the forward pass for Glasgows 1st as well of course or is that just one of those things that officials get wrong sometimes?

Nonsenses Vince - just simple nonsense. I am a Scots rugby supporter, I was dearly hoping Glasgow would win. they were beaten fair and square. whinging makes you look daft

Lacey is an Irish Pro 12 ref - you really think he is biased against Glasgow and in favour of Bath? Where is your tin foil hat

No 7&1/2 wrote:What are you alledging with the 'big pockets' comment? You could have pointed out the forward pass for Glasgows 1st as well of course or is that just one of those things that officials get wrong sometimes?

And the two offsides from a knock on that were missed against Glasgow, against the marginal one again Bath (pretty marginal whether a lifted is offside from the person he's lifting).

7 1/2 - and also the pass from Russel that bounced of a Glasgow players hands back into Russels hands going forward, And at least one other penalty Bath did not get. Its wasn't the best Reffing display ever and the rub of the green perhpas did not favour Glasgow but accusation of bias are ridiculous. And I am a very dissapointed Scots rugby fan. On the match thread few glasgow fans cried bias in the heat of the moment and I bet none do now unless vince is a Glasgow fan?

vince - who do you support?

Personally I thought the ref benefited Glasgow quite a bit. there were several 'steals' in the ruck where the assistant tackle clearly didn't release before playing the ball.

Given that I think Glasgow benefited, you think Bath benefited, he was probably down the middle and just got things wrong on both sides.

Fairness doesn't exist. It is an ideology that is subjective in most cases. There are more English teams than Italian teams in the Champions cup - is it fair? Some will say no. There are more pro 12 teams than French. Fair, again some say no. So fair is a subjective product of a persons perspective.

Originally i wanted 8 groups of 3 split 8/7/7 + 2 previous years cup winners and each group to have 1 team from each league. It wouldn't work for a variety of reasons but I liked the premise behind it and reducing the amount of games between teams in the same league until the quarter finals. Still, was only ever fantasy!

I've enjoyed this seasons cup. It has been exciting but I've watched less than previous years, because I don't have BT! Has my opinion changed of the competition from before it started? Well, no. I knew the competition was good and would be exciting. Any issues or reservations I had were to do with off field issues. Overall I think on the pitch it's been roughly on par with previous editions.

Not having that Hammer - not at all. ickle jonny was penalised twice as he stole the ball legitimately IMO - however that sort of thing is a subjective decision - and the refs gives it as he sees it. Glasgow should have had an advantage with the ref as they know him from the pro 12.

Saying the ref had a bad day / the ref didn't favour team A is acceptable if usually wrong. calling him biased and stating its all part of a conspiracy is just ludicrous

TJ i support mainly Edinburgh but i was a huge Glasgow fan in the Champions cup.

Glasgow clearly didn't get the rub of the green and in a game of small margins...

VinceWLB wrote:TJ i support mainly Edinburgh but i was a huge Glasgow fan in the Champions cup.

Glasgow clearly didn't get the rub of the green and in a game of small margins...

Thats fair enough. I think you are right to say that. i think most would accept that

TJ wrote:Not having that Hammer - not at all.  ickle jonny was penalised twice as he stole the ball legitimately IMO - however that sort of thing is a subjective decision - and the refs gives it as he sees it.   Glasgow should have had an advantage with the ref as they know him from the pro 12.

Saying the ref had a bad day / the ref didn't favour team A is acceptable if usually wrong.  calling him biased and stating its all part of a conspiracy is just ludicrous

to be honest I've that non-RFU refs allow the assistant tackler to play the ball without releasing. At least, what they consider an assistant tackle is slightly different. In the RFU if you were on the player before the tackle was complete you assisted and have to release (clearly).  Also they (non-RFU) seem to allow players to handle the ball in a ruck (i.e. an opposition player was their before you) if they're on their feet.  I haven't paid enough attention to see if their is any difference between the French and Pro12 refs (and whether the individual nations in the Pro12 have different directions).

So you think he was hard done by twice, I thought he got away with murder.

(EDIT: I would also go with fan bias rather than ref bias 999999 times out of 1000000)

Interesting hammer - I reckon RFU refs allow you to lie about in the ruck more than Pro 12. its so subjective tho

Spot on. We all disagree with refs. All I want is consistency and good communication from them. And acknowledgement they are human.

Pete330v2 wrote:

We too can survive without the Champions Cup Shuren and if the gap between those with bottomless pockets and those with salary caps keep getting bigger you'll be the only ones in it. The French Champions Cup would hardly have the biggest viewing figures here in Ireland.

Really? You could survive without the champions cup? And the welsh, the italians and scottish?
Even if you could survive you would be alone. I don't think an Irish championship could compete against the french and english one.
Your country is too small to have generate enough money.

Of course we could survive. we would lose a chunk of our budget ( pro 12 teams) and would probably have to set up a differnt cupto fill the spare dates. Without the Pro 12 teams a anglo french cup would be worth an awful lot less as well. No pro 12 teams - no euro cup

TJ wrote:Shuren - having a qualifying round would answer a lot of the issues.  it would mean weak teams do not get into the main event, it would give every team a shot at the big time every year, it would mean a team got in on this years performance not last.

You could have byes for the top teams to reduce fixture congestion and you could restucture the main event to have less games

it does have its own problems for sure and is a dead duck now but IMO ity would have lead to a much better tournament.
40 team entry.  8 teams get byes 32 teams play off for 16 places (giving 24 in the cup),  losing 16 play off for shield.  Cup has 24 teams - 8 QF.  16 teams left play off for bowl

Everyone gets a shot at the big time every year.  Every team has meaningful european games.  it would be a true meritocracy

You got a big problem with your plan: we didn't have enough date in a season. So you would have to reduce an other competition.
And the problem is we don't have the same system: your rugby (like NZ, Australia and South Africa) need to have many test to earn enough money. Our club system don't need it. In fact it's even a problem for us: to many test games. If we reduce our championship we damage our rugby financially, if we reduce the test games it's your rugby which is damaged.
So your idea is impossible to create.

TJ wrote:Of course we could survive.  we would lose a chunk of our budget ( pro 12 teams) and would probably have to set up a differnt cupto fill the spare dates.  Without the Pro 12 teams a anglo french cup would be worth an awful lot less as well.  No pro 12 teams - no euro cup

A cup against who?
Without the champions cup we would have enough time to rest more our players and we would have 16 teams in our championship.
It's the next step the tv want here, and as we earn more money with top 14, it would not be a problem at all for us.
To summarize in France : top14> champions cup financially and for the fans.