Rugby Champions Cup 2015-16 - Tiers

First topic message reminder :

Early days I know to be thinking about the RCC for 2015-16 with the Top 14 still not passed through the semi final stage, but as things stand this seems how the four tiers will work out:

Tier 1 – Glasgow, Saracens, Winner Top14 final, one of Munster/Bath/Loser Top 14 final, one of Munster/Bath/Loser Top 14 final

Tier 2 – one of Munster/Bath/Loser Top 14 final, Ospreys, Northampton, better Top 14 losing SF, one of Ulster/Leicester/worse Top 14 losing SF

Tier 3 - one of Ulster/Leicester/worse Top 14 losing SF, one of Ulster/Leicester/worse Top 14 losing SF, Leinster, Exeter, Racing Metro

Tier 4 – Scarlets, Wasps, Oyonnax, Treviso, Bordeaux

For Tiers 1 and 2, anybody know how the two from Munster, Bath and the losing Top 14 finalist who will go into Tier 1 and the one from that group who will go into Tier 2 will be picked - do they pick them out of a hat or what?.  Likewise for Tier 2 and 3, do they pick one from Ulster, Leicester and the worse Top 14 semi-finalist  to go into Tier 2 and the two others go into Tier 3.

From a Leinster point of view we're paying for our sh1te season and could potentially face the Top 14 winner - presume it'll be Toulon of Clermont, Bath and Scarlets - not a nice prospect.  Alternatively we could face Saracens, Northampton and Treviso - not easy but certainly more palatable. Quite happy to be in same tier as Exeter - wouldn't fancy playing them.  

Lots of permutations for all you fans of the other 19 teams to contemplate

****

Edit: Draw has now been made for both competitions and the pools look like this:

2015/16 Champions Cup pools

Pool 1: Saracens, Ulster Rugby, Toulouse, Oyonnax
Pool 2: ASM Clermont Auvergne, Ospreys, Exeter Chiefs, Bordeaux-Bègles
Pool 3: Glasgow Warriors, Northampton Saints, Racing 92, Scarlets
Pool 4: Stade Français Rugby, Munster Rugby, Leicester Tigers, Benetton Treviso
Pool 5: Bath Rugby, RC Toulon, Leinster Rugby, Wasps

2015/16 Challenge Cup pools

Pool 1: Connacht Rugby, Brive, Newcastle Falcons, Eniset-STM
Pool 2: Sale Sharks, Newport Gwent Dragons, Castres Olympique, Pau
Pool 3: Montpellier, Harlequins, Cardiff Blues, Cammi Rugby Calvisano
Pool 4: La Rochelle, Gloucester Rugby, Zebre Rugby, Worcester Warriors
Pool 5: Edinburgh Rugby, London Irish, Grenoble, Agen

Sin é wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I do not believe that a B&I league would bring in massive increases to TV revenues. There just are not enough armchair fans to justify yet more large increases over and above those delivered by the current deals.

Whether we like it or not, Rugby is a niche sport. We love it, but most people in the UK have no interest at all.

Agree totally LT.

The calculation is quite simple:
PRL get £40m with 12 teams = £3.3m / team
B&I would need £80m with 24 teams = £3.3m / team

A doubling of the TV income isn't going to happen in an already saturated market never mind attracting enough extra to make it worth their while.

Once the ERC Cup moved away from being a European Union competition to a club beauty contest the haves will want to spend more and more to show "who is the fairest of them all". So what will happen is that three or four teams will increasingly dominate their respective leagues and they will eventually break away into a European 'super league' franchise with no salary caps or player restrictions. (The ugly sisters will be left to their own devices.)

I don't think it will be 24 teams in a B&I Comp. Far more likely to be an Invitation type situation where the criteria will be set by the 2 nigels. There first action with the Heineken Cup was to reduce the number of teams. From what has been said, the AP are only interested in the Irish teams (big 3) with large fan bases who travel. So Irish Big 3, Ospreys & Glasgow = 5 from PRO12. AP would have 7 teams. The rest could play in a Curry / ITM Cup type competition.

Chunky - be careful of what you wish for. I doubt very much if the IRFU will be as generous as they have been in the past looking out for their celtic & Italian brethern. I think they have learned a lesson there.

I don't think so either - it was just a response to the ridiculous idea of a combined B&I League generating any more money.

Once the concept of an 'elite league' formulates, it's a short step to including the top French sides as well.

I wouldn't say they're only interested in the Irish. TV is king these days and Wales is pretty much full of people who'll watch rugby on TV. This is seen in the supposed breakdown of pro12 TV money, where something like 80% is generated in Wales (not sure how sky mixed that up but can't be split into regions anyway).

Hmme is right, havn't the Welsh media pretty much funded the Pro 12 for a while?

The Irish teams have great fanbases, but TV figures aren't great are they, as their market is so saturated with football, rugby, and the 2 GAA sports being huge. This makes Irish teams very profitable for Irish rugby, but they bring little to the 'money is king' party?

As I understand from media reports at the time, the terrestrial deals were split on the basis of what you bring to the table in percentage terms, you take away.  So Wales didn't fund the Pro12 through Welsh media per se, they got back out of it what they brought in - around 70% of terrestrial money.

The Sky deal was negotiated centrally by Pro12 - as opposed to the individual unions/clubs.   This money is split amongst the three shareholders based on number of teams - thus 40/40/20.

Overall, now the WRU takes more out of the TV kitty than the other 8 clubs because they bring more into it. One report in Wales Online had this to say at the time:

"While the value of the deal with Sky Sports has not been disclosed, it is understood to be around £5m a year – which will provide Celtic Rugby with £20m over the four years to distribute to the three unions, including of course the WRU.

It is understood that it has been structured to take account the number of teams in the league from Scotland, Ireland and Wales – the Italian union, which has two representative sides in the league, has not been included in the deal.

As a result the split is believed to be around 40% each for the WRU and the Irish union and 20% for the Scottish.

This would give the WRU, which then washes television monies through to the four regions – a 40% slice of the pie; or around £2m a year.

The current agreement with the terrestrial broadcasters is believed to be around just over £5m a year. However, with the vast majority of the funding coming from the Welsh broadcasters, this is reflected in how money is distributed by Celtic Rugby to the three unions. While not disclosed it is understood that the vast majority goes to the WRU.

Working on the assumption that it is 70% then on the current deal of around £5.4m per annum – of which S4C and BBC Wales contribute just over £5m – the WRU currently receives around £3.7m a year from Celtic Rugby.......
If the same split agreement between the three unions applies to any new terrestrial deal, that would see the WRU receiving an estimated 70% of £2.5m, which is £1.75m. Add to that the new Sky deal and the WRU could get around £3.7m a year – which is pretty much what it gets now under the single agreement with the terrestrial channels."

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/sky-signs-four-year-deal-3475362

Fanster wrote:Hmme is right, havn't the Welsh media pretty much funded the Pro 12 for a while?

The Irish teams have great fanbases, but TV figures aren't great are they, as their market is so saturated with football, rugby, and the 2 GAA sports being huge. This makes Irish teams very profitable for Irish rugby, but they bring little to the 'money is king' party?

No they haven't pretty much funded the Pro12 for a while. As indicated above, they get back what they put in in terrestrial terms. However, that situation has changed with the primary broadcaster now being Sky Sports. Terrestrial monies have possibly been cut by 40-50% as a result.

It's less to do with market saturation, and more to do with what domestic broadcasters can afford for a sport that still runs well behind soccer in both countries, and GAA in Ireland.

The difference between the two countries - Ireland and Wales - is what the domestic broadcaster is willing to value the number of watching heads. RTE in Ireland is an impoverished national public station that has been losing sports bidding battles for over ten years. Witness the Pro12 moving to Setanta in part, and then being shared with TG4, and eventually RTE not bidding at all in this current deal, and TG4, a niche, Irish language station covering the rights. Contrast that purchasing power with that of BBC Wales and there's no contest - BBC Wales and now S4C will always have deeper pockets to pay for eyeballs. Ireland is further restricted because BBC NI did a separate deal for covering Ulster matches. Sky and BBC both broadcast in Ireland. RTE and TG4 don't have the same - if any - reach in the UK.

The Sky deal levels the playing field somewhat since it broadcasts in both territories and can pick up more heads overall. I don't know what Sky Dish/Platform ownership is in both countries, but given the relative disparity in population, I'd reckon it's on parity.

So when a small minority of Welsh posters were aggressively demanding that we justify why they were bankrolling us with their tv deals...... They actually weren't?

No way!!!

Here is the latest on the tiers btw.

http://forum.leinsterfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24056&p=634510#p634510

Back on topic... isn't it just weird and broken that the team that has won the competition three years in a row won't be top seeds for the draw? Understand the old system was also flawed in many ways, but this is just one extreme to the other.

Hilarious that the seeding for the prem was changed back to playoff winners having insisted that it should be on league position last year.......

If I were a Northampton fan I would be pi$$ed off.

Notch wrote:Back on topic... isn't it just weird and broken that the team that has won the competition three years in a row won't be top seeds for the draw? Understand the old system was also flawed in many ways, but this is just one extreme to the other.

yes.

At least my link was on topic

Your link is very helpful, thank you for posting it.

I really want Ulster to get drawn against Bordeaux-Begles so happy that it will be possible whatever happens. Exeter would be nice too but odds are we're in the same tier.

Wouldn't mind playing Wasps either, it's been a while.

Want Ulster to avoid these teams; Scarlets, Treviso, Ospreys, Leicester, Toulon and Saracens. Welsh fans are no craic, Italian fans superb but few in number, Saracens and Toulon fans don't travel well, Leicester have truly fantastic fans and are a fantastic club but bored stiff of playing them. Bored stiff of playing them all actually, we've played all of those teams recently. Would love some variety.

Would love us to get pitted against these teams; Glasgow, Clermont, Stade Francais, Toulouse, Bath, Exeter, Wasps, Bordeaux.

Indifferent to; Racing Metro, Northampton Saints, Oyonnax

Not so much basing who I want to play on who I think we can/will beat, but rather on the colour and sense of occasion they will bring to Ravenhill on match day. Already payed for my season ticket, might as well hope there are some really big occasions mixed in.

In terms of getting an easy/hard draw, I don't think whether we are in Tier 2 or Tier 3 will make any difference.

Also interesting the detail that whichever 2nd finishing team ends up tier 2 will be joined in tier 2 by their league 3rd place team.

For example. If Munster are 2nd seeds then Ulster will be too.

That would mean both avoiding Toulon. Which gives the lie to it not mattering whether you are 2nd or 3rd seeds.

This is probably as good a place as any to put this. Interview with Paul McNaughton Vice Chairman of the ERCC.

http://downtheblindside.com/episode-25/

They also have an on another podcast of the Head of Marketing/Sponsorship of Heineken who are absolutely thrilled the way their sponsorship of the Champs Cup has gone

For the record, he is a Leinster fan, but has some interesting things to say about how Heineken Ireland drives all the rugby marketing now and have just devised the rugby campaigns for the various countries for the World Cup (which Heineken is a sponsor of)!

Knowing Munster's luck we will get Toulon!

It will just be horrible if POC is with them. I don't think I'd mind him coming with any other French team - just Toulon

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:Also interesting the detail that whichever 2nd finishing team ends up tier 2 will be joined in tier 2 by their league 3rd place team.

For example. If Munster are 2nd seeds then Ulster will be too.

That would mean both avoiding Toulon. Which gives the lie to it not mattering whether you are 2nd or 3rd seeds.

Well yeah, Toulon are the exception to that. But apart from them there isn't much difference.

Jenifer mcladyboy you say Saints fans you should be P$$sed off. Why? Seedings mean very little. They got the weakest group in the ERCC this season and could get the same next season.

Agree Notch Toulon should not be 3rd tier.

If seedings mean very little, why was there any need to change the way they were done? IMO, I think they were done better based on how well you did in the competition. Being good in a league and good at knockout rugby are different. Having 3 of the semi finalists in the same group was stupid last year. The old system was best.

I will never understand why people want to avoid certain teams in the group stages; to win a competition surely you must be capable of beating any team anywhere? If you can't then you are obviously not good enough no?

Thats why I prefer leagues. You play everyone home and away, far fairer way of determining who is the best. Being the best out of 24 games in 9 months is a far better indicator of your ability than being the best out 9 games in 8 months.

sin e I agree - the old system was better but it still had its flaws.

It's ridiculous that the winner will be 3rd tier. Also the winner of the Amlin should qualify for the ERCC or what's the incentive to win?

These are two flaws that should be corrected.

MichaelT it's better to get an easier pool so you have a better chance of a home quarter final and qualification for the next round.

Munster suffered last year because they were with Saracens,Clermont and Sale. One of the semifinalists was always going to miss out.

beshocked wrote:MichaelT it's better to get an easier pool so you have a better chance of a home quarter final and qualification for the next round.

My point was if you really think you are the best team you should be prepared to play anyone anywhere. Its a poor excuse to say 'look at the group we had'. If it works as an excuse for why a team didn't win, you should be able to say the same thing if they did - you only won because you had the easiest pool/ you didn't play this team.

I don't agree with either excuse mind, you win when you deserve and lose when you deserve to. Just hate to see people getting excuses in early.

MichaelT strength of groups do make a huge difference to qualification though.


I wouldn't mind getting one tough team but don't particularly want a pool of death.

Perhaps but for any team it's much harder to win away.

E.g. look at Saracens group last year - Munster and Clermont away - two of the toughest venues in Europe - no wonder they lost those matches.

You say you have to beat anyone anywhere - no you don't. You can get home matches in quarters and semis which makes things easier.

You could still get the toughest teams - let's say Clermont and Toulon but both at home makes them much more beatable.

Was it a surprise that Toulon and Clermont made the final when they had home quarters and semis? I know there are upsets in quarter finals and semis but they are just that - upsets.

I said you should want to play anyone anywhere, not hope you avoid them or only play them at home in a one-off game. I know fine well you don't have to win every game, but thats a different conversation. Has a team ever won the European Cup winning all the games? Not in a good number of years at least.

And you could say that the same teams get to the finals because they get those 'easier' draws. The seedings are very self-serving. The big teams should always be at the end of tournaments is a frequent comment, but the big teams are usually there because they get easier groups to make qualification easier.

Personally, I'd prefer to have the best teams in the knock-outs and not have teams making them because they got an easy group.

Leinster had an easy enough group this year. They could have done with their group being spiced up a bit as could have Northampton's group.

Its just mad ending up with 3 semi finalists (for 2 years running) all being in the same group.

The aim should be to have equally matched groups so that there are no pools of death nor the opposite. However that is impossible to achieve because the criteria for grouping always should take into account nationality/league. A pool containing four teams from the same league would be boring fare and turn off viewers contemptuous of the familiarity.

Personally don't mind groups of death. Would be jumping for joy if Saracens, Leinster and Toulon all end up in the same group because it'll break the cycle of having the same teams in the last four. Lately it's been very dull to watch; even if they have been the best teams in that time frame. Yes it's up to the rest of the teams to up their game to keep up, but a group of death shaking the tournament up by pitting three of the regular semi-finalists against each other will just make the whole thing more exciting and less predictable. Just think it's nuts that the seeding system ranks domestic success higher than European success. Winning any one of the four major tournaments should put you into the first seeds.

We say we want a perfectly balanced tournament, but the more balanced it is, the more predictable it is. How much more exciting was it to see Edinburgh make the semi-final instead of the usual suspects in 2012? They came out of an unusually inviting group and pulled off an upset in the quarter-final- suddenly the underdog was a game away from a Final. Very good value for the neutral. Everyone likes it when things get shaken up. Seeing Saracens, Leinster, Toulon and Clermont in the semis again would do exactly what Aukster says- have me turning off because the familiarity is too much. I say, bring on the groups of death. Bring on the upsets and the underdogs.

Don't mind Ulster being in them either. Like going to see big games at Ravenhill and the bigger, the better. We were drawn in a group of death the last time we reached the Heineken Cup Final and no-one gave us a chance. Was a fantastic season for us.

That would make sense Notch (three league winners and cup winner).

Seeding has been cursed by plenty since they were introduced (with plenty cursing the system without it). They help maintain the status quo (with keeping the better teams apart) and then they didn't even do that well. No surprises the 'new' ones are being slated (and absolutely no surprise who's doing it).

beshocked wrote:Jenifer mcladyboy you say Saints fans you should be P$$sed off. Why?

Because Saracens having finished top of the log but losing the playoffs had the rules changed to seed in league finish order last year. Then this year when they come fourth and win the playoffs they have it changed back again to be the same as everyone else. You couldn't make it up.

beshocked wrote:
Seedings mean very little.

Then A/ Why did they bother and B/ I'll take Bath Stade and Treviso so. Give us a good shot at a home quarter.

beshocked wrote:They got the weakest group in the ERCC this season and could get the same next season.

By fluke. Someone has to get the Italian team. Statistically they would be unlikely to continue to do so.

beshocked wrote:
Agree Notch Toulon should not be 3rd tier.

They're not they're 2nd.

Notch, Leinster were not in the last 4 last season.

This the way the semi finals have gone:
12-13: Toulon, Munster, Saracens, Clermont.
13-14: Toulon, Munster, Saracens, Clermont.
14-15: Toulon, Leinster, Saracens, Clermont.

That is all a tad boring (even for someone whose team regularly has a chance of taking the knckouts.

Sin é wrote:Notch, Leinster were not in the last 4 last season.

This the way the semi finals have gone:
12-13: Toulon, Munster, Saracens, Clermont.
13-14: Toulon, Munster, Saracens, Clermont.
14-15: Toulon, Leinster, Saracens, Clermont.

Maybe I'm being stupid, but don't the two bolded lines kind of... contradict each other?

HammerofThunor wrote:That would make sense Notch (three league winners and cup winner).

Seeding has been cursed by plenty since they were introduced (with plenty cursing the system without it). They help maintain the status quo (with keeping the better teams apart) and then they didn't even do that well. No surprises the 'new' ones are being slated (and absolutely no surprise who's doing it).

Well, the English may have slated the system before the change and the Irish may slate it now but as far as I'm concerned everybody is right because both systems are really flawed. If anything it's more frustrating now, because they had the chance to make a completely fresh start and they blew it by going too far in the other direction.

Jenifer mcladyboy

It didn't stop Saints getting the easiest group.

Don't know why they bothered with the seedings.

Getting the easiest group was fluke but it happened.

Okay they still should be first tier.



Notch I agree with that. Both systems are really flawed. They could improve it now though by making it so those teams who win the ERCC are ranked tier 1 and the team that wins the Amlin qualifies for the ERCC.

beshocked wrote:and the team that wins the Amlin qualifies for the ERCC.

This will never happen though, as it gives a side outside of England and France too much of a chance of being in the top tier comp, which was not negotiated for in the first place, only 6 teams from our league, and six from England and France with one other qualifier, and for some reason the Pro12 sides always have to play their qualifier away from home.

LordDowlais wrote:the Pro12 sides always have to play their qualifier away from home

Thats not true - From EPC Rugby page

Champions Cup play-offs:

Match 1: Aviva Premiership (seventh-ranked club or Challenge Cup winner from the Aviva Premiership if not already qualified) v PRO12 (highest-ranked club not already qualified)
Home advantage to be decided by toss of coin

Match 2: winner of Match 1 v Top 14 (seventh-ranked club)
Winner of Match 1 will have home advantage

So first play off - coin toss, second game is the first game winners at home.

This was already discussed on the Gloucester Connacht thread.

MichaelT wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:the Pro12 sides always have to play their qualifier away from home

Thats not true - From EPC Rugby page

Champions Cup play-offs:

Match 1: Aviva Premiership (seventh-ranked club or Challenge Cup winner from the Aviva Premiership if not already qualified) v PRO12 (highest-ranked club not already qualified)
Home advantage to be decided by toss of coin

Match 2: winner of Match 1 v Top 14 (seventh-ranked club)
Winner of Match 1 will have home advantage

So first play off - coin toss, second game is the first game winners at home.

This was already discussed on the Gloucester Connacht thread.

Sorry I was not on that match thread, but seriously a toss of a coin ? Surely it should be the home advantage goes to the side that has the most points in their respective leagues or something like that.

Lord dowlais actually it's 7 from the Pro12 though I wanted 6,6,8 - that's what I always wanted with the winner of the Amlin and ERCC qualifying automatically.


I don't believe in this playoff rubbish.

beshocked wrote:Lord dowlais actually it's 7 from the Pro12

Ok, if you count one of the two Italians, but do they really count ? The rest of us have to duke it out between us, those two just have to duke it out between themselves.

7 teams qualify from the Pro 12 don't they you still have the stupid country auto qualification so you're missing an italian team?

LordDowlais wrote:Sorry I was not on that match thread, but seriously a toss of a coin ? Surely it should be the home advantage goes to the side that has the most points in their respective leagues or something like that.

I quite like the basic-ness of it. Removes any chance of whinging along the lines of 'well you have poorer teams in your league, no wonder you had more points or tries' or 'we would have done better if it wasn't for the injuries/ ref decision in march/ poor pitch in winter'.

Although it does make me think of that ending to Only Fools when Del Boy has the two headed coin and Rodney still shouts tails when they try to rig the bet.

How did you post change without an edit LD. The Italians still count as Pro 12 team so it's still 7.

I do agree with Notch that the current system is really flawed too.

The restructure was meant to lead to a stronger top tier competition and Amlin but if there's no reward for doing well in the Amlin and ERCC it devalues them.... Really short sighted thinking.

Lorddowlais a strong Italy is important. I was disappointed that the ERCC final was moved to London. One Italian and Scottish side auto qualifying for the ERCC is important IMO.

A side like Edinburgh,Connacht,Cardiff or Zebre should qualify for the ERCC if they win the Amlin - it's disappointing that has not been implemented.

I think it's unfair Gloucester will not be in the ERCC. They should be rewarded for performing well in the Amlin.

The reward for winning the amlin is surely winning the amlin?!

No 7&1/2 wrote:The reward for winning the amlin is surely winning the amlin?!

Amlin still getting free advertising I see

I agree. There's achievement in winning lesser trophies in their own right. It shouldn't just be seen as a (potential) springboard to the Champions Cup.

It can be both. Doing well in the league is it's own reward too- it also happens to determine which competition you enter.

I would much rather see a team being rewarded with top tier European rugby for winning an actual trophy than coming top of the bottom half of your league and then winning a few random playoffs.

Challenge Cup winner should be in the Champion Cup. There is a reasonably good chance the Challenge Cup winner won't qualify via the league, if the Champions Cup winner couldn't finish the top 6 they shouldn't be there (and winning it is it's own reward).

The argument against the Amlin winner getting a qualifying spot in the ERC Cup is that is an easier route to qualification than finishing in the top half of their league, and that is probably true.

OTOH of course the Amlin winner should have a reward for winning the thing.

That reward should be a bye through the first playoffs and a home game against the winner of the first playoff. So in Gloucester's case they would still have faced Bordeaux (assuming BB beat Connacht) at home, but they wouldn't have had the previous week's game against Connacht.

If the Amlin winner had already qualified by league position then their spot would go the 7th placed team in their league.

Having the easiest playoff route to the ERC Cup should be incentive enough for the Challenge Cup winner.

Draw will be made on 17 June
http://www.epcrugby.com/news/30992.php#.VXl3pvlViko

Having the Amlin winner go straight into the ERCC would make it a more prestigious competition meaning teams are playing at a higher level rather than sending out second strings.

It wold also remove the need for the ridiculous playoff system

Having the Amlin winner go straight into the ERCC would make for a fresh whipping boy for the rest of the ERCC teams and lead to an imbalanced group,


Different ways of looking at the same facts

lostinwales wrote:Having the Amlin winner go straight into the ERCC would make for a fresh whipping boy for the rest of the ERCC teams and lead to an imbalanced group,


Different ways of looking at the same facts

Don't see where you get the imbalance argument from? With the exception of Newcastle and L. Irish all the quarter finalists of this years competition were in contention for a ERCC place going into the last games of the season

marty2086 wrote:Having the Amlin winner go straight into the ERCC would make it a more prestigious competition meaning teams are playing at a higher level rather than sending out second strings.

It wold also remove the need for the ridiculous playoff system

Only if the winner hadn't already qualified.

If there were no play-off system and the Amlin winner had already qualified by League position there would be one ERC Cup place left to fill - so who does that go to? The Amlin runner-up, the next in the Challenge Cup winner's league, the next in the Challenge Cup winner's Union...? That was the problem the last time with teams getting in on the back of someone else's success.

All three leagues should have a policy of giving their Challenge Cup winner their playoff slot and the ERCC should give that team a bye from the first playoff.