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

Fanster wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:If there are concerns about a gulf between the haves and the have-nots, wouldn't a reduction in prize money redress the amount of having that the haves have, and the amount of not having that the have-nots have?

Well if that is the case, its not merit driven (since everyone gets the same and Toulon are going to win anyway). It discourages teams from competing (i.e., take the money and run).

Saracens are running at a huge deficit even though they are meant to be one of the have-alls.

Do you think that's why the English and French clubs were largely unsuccessful in the HC when they were receiving so much less money than the other teams?

You mean when they chose to have more teams and split the larger slice of the pie thinly?

Lets not everyone distort facts.

Regardless of who chose to do what, the simple fact was that each individual club from England and France received less participation money from ERC than the other teams in the HC.

I'm questioning whether this might have de-motivated them in comparison to the current more equal (on an individual basis) distribution that is being criticised and will apparently lead to the downfall of the premier European competition.

Cyril wrote:If it's all evil and pointless to you now:

1. write to your provinces demanding they withdraw from the RCC (or employ better negotiators)
2. boycott the RCC games (and only attend Pro12 games - or boycott totally if you really want your province to get the message)
3. stop paying any broadcaster subscriptions

I pay no such thing and never will but will continue to avail of their broadcasts

Pete330v2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:If it's all evil and pointless to you now:

1. write to your provinces demanding they withdraw from the RCC (or employ better negotiators)
2. boycott the RCC games (and only attend Pro12 games - or boycott totally if you really want your province to get the message)
3. stop paying any broadcaster subscriptions

I pay no such thing and never will but will continue to avail of their broadcasts

Cheapskate scrounger!

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:If there are concerns about a gulf between the haves and the have-nots, wouldn't a reduction in prize money redress the amount of having that the haves have, and the amount of not having that the have-nots have?

Well if that is the case, its not merit driven (since everyone gets the same and Toulon are going to win anyway). It discourages teams from competing (i.e., take the money and run).

Saracens are running at a huge deficit even though they are meant to be one of the have-alls.

Do you think that's why the English and French clubs were largely unsuccessful in the HC when they were receiving so much less money than the other teams?

How does winning the trophy 13 out of 19 times between English and French teams equate as "largely unsuccessful"?

Only 7 English and French clubs won HC, out of probably around 30 participating clubs throughout its history. Hence, a fairly large majority of about 23 clubs have failed to succeed in winning the trophy, hence "largely unsuccessful".

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:If there are concerns about a gulf between the haves and the have-nots, wouldn't a reduction in prize money redress the amount of having that the haves have, and the amount of not having that the have-nots have?

Well if that is the case, its not merit driven (since everyone gets the same and Toulon are going to win anyway). It discourages teams from competing (i.e., take the money and run).

Saracens are running at a huge deficit even though they are meant to be one of the have-alls.

Do you think that's why the English and French clubs were largely unsuccessful in the HC when they were receiving so much less money than the other teams?

You mean when they chose to have more teams and split the larger slice of the pie thinly?

Lets not everyone distort facts.

Regardless of who chose to do what, the simple fact was that each individual club from England and France received less participation money from ERC than the other teams in the HC.

I'm questioning whether this might have de-motivated them in comparison to the current more equal (on an individual basis) distribution that is being criticised and will apparently lead to the downfall of the premier European competition.

They don't receive less than the Irish Provinces who get nothing! IRFU takes all the money (including half the gates of semi finals). Leicester earned more than Leinster did from their QF played in Dublin.

What is a big disadvantage for the Irish clubs when they play away QFs, the split of the gate receipts generally are very small - i.e., Munster would get more gate money at home to one of the Italians clubs in the Pro12 than they would earn away to Saracens for an Away CC QF/semi.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:If there are concerns about a gulf between the haves and the have-nots, wouldn't a reduction in prize money redress the amount of having that the haves have, and the amount of not having that the have-nots have?

Well if that is the case, its not merit driven (since everyone gets the same and Toulon are going to win anyway). It discourages teams from competing (i.e., take the money and run).

Saracens are running at a huge deficit even though they are meant to be one of the have-alls.

Do you think that's why the English and French clubs were largely unsuccessful in the HC when they were receiving so much less money than the other teams?

You mean when they chose to have more teams and split the larger slice of the pie thinly?

Lets not everyone distort facts.

Regardless of who chose to do what, the simple fact was that each individual club from England and France received less participation money from ERC than the other teams in the HC.

I'm questioning whether this might have de-motivated them in comparison to the current more equal (on an individual basis) distribution that is being criticised and will apparently lead to the downfall of the premier European competition.

That actually isn't true. The ERC didn't pay the clubs (they couldn't under Irish tax laws if they were to retain tax free status). They paid the various country Unions. It was the RFU/FFR/WRU etc. who distributed the money.

Cyril wrote:If it's all evil and pointless to you now:

1. write to your provinces demanding they withdraw from the RCC (or employ better negotiators)
2. boycott the RCC games (and only attend Pro12 games - or boycott totally if you really want your province to get the message)
3. stop paying any broadcaster subscriptions

1: Nope. I don't expect any of the Provinces to pull out. They're not that petty, and, as yet, they have no good reason.

2: Why damage our own teams for the sake of not liking everything about the new cup? I doubt any feel so strongly about it that they would do that.

3: You would have to admit having two broadcasters is hardly ideal. Fans shouldn't have to pay for two subscriptions. Fans may not be able to afford to pay for two subscriptions. This split in broadcasters is a backward step in promoting the championship, and promoting rugby in general.

Is this new championship any better than the old? It's subjective. Some will feel the new format is an improvement, some won't. Some will feel how the money is divided is fairer, some won't. I can't believe anyone will think a split in broadcasting is an improvement, and I can't believe anyone will think it's better organised.

It's early days for the championship though, and things can improve moving in to the future. Hopefully.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:If there are concerns about a gulf between the haves and the have-nots, wouldn't a reduction in prize money redress the amount of having that the haves have, and the amount of not having that the have-nots have?

Well if that is the case, its not merit driven (since everyone gets the same and Toulon are going to win anyway). It discourages teams from competing (i.e., take the money and run).

Saracens are running at a huge deficit even though they are meant to be one of the have-alls.

Do you think that's why the English and French clubs were largely unsuccessful in the HC when they were receiving so much less money than the other teams?

How does winning the trophy 13 out of 19 times between English and French teams equate as "largely unsuccessful"?

Only 7 English and French  clubs won HC, out of probably around 30 participating clubs throughout its history. Hence, a fairly large majority of about 23 clubs have failed to succeed in winning the trophy, hence "largely unsuccessful".

So just shy of 25% of the English and French clubs have won the Cup.Then you look at the Rabo and guess what 3 out of the 15 teams (24 if you include the original Welsh clubs ) that have played in the league have won the Cup.The English and French win rate is looking pretty good to me.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:If there are concerns about a gulf between the haves and the have-nots, wouldn't a reduction in prize money redress the amount of having that the haves have, and the amount of not having that the have-nots have?

Well if that is the case, its not merit driven (since everyone gets the same and Toulon are going to win anyway). It discourages teams from competing (i.e., take the money and run).

Saracens are running at a huge deficit even though they are meant to be one of the have-alls.

Do you think that's why the English and French clubs were largely unsuccessful in the HC when they were receiving so much less money than the other teams?

How does winning the trophy 13 out of 19 times between English and French teams equate as "largely unsuccessful"?

Only 7 English and French  clubs won HC, out of probably around 30 participating clubs throughout its history. Hence, a fairly large majority of about 23 clubs have failed to succeed in winning the trophy, hence "largely unsuccessful".

You're being disingenuous. The fact that a few AP/T14 teams have dominated over others in their respected leagues is hardly the fault of ERC.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Well I don't have Sky or BT Sport and am able to watch all the games!

Me too! In lovely HD.

RDW - I never took you to be a hypocritical pirate who would cheat professional rugby of it's very lifeblood, so presumably you go to all the games? Considering some are happening concurrently that is some feat!

The Great Aukster wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Well I don't have Sky or BT Sport and am able to watch all the games!

Me too! In lovely HD.

RDW - I never took you to be a hypocritical pirate who would cheat professional rugby of it's very lifeblood, so presumably you go to all the games? Considering some are happening concurrently that is some feat!

Joking aside, global broadcasting is a joke for RCC (and the ERCC before it to be fair) - I live in the US, and have to use dodgy streams/VPN as UK/Irish, even though I would be happy to pay for high quality ones if there was a global subscription model. When streams freeze at 78 mins of a tight match, I just about throw furniture around the place

The Great Aukster wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Well I don't have Sky or BT Sport and am able to watch all the games!

Me too! In lovely HD.

RDW - I never took you to be a hypocritical pirate who would cheat professional rugby of it's very lifeblood, so presumably you go to all the games? Considering some are happening concurrently that is some feat!

RDW, can you tell us how you're getting all the games on HD without Sky or BT - or will have to ask my 21-y-o son who downloads Game of Thrones every week and is looking forward to downloading next series of True Detective. I go through the motions of tut-tutting him about this awful behaviour and tell him do all the downloads on his own laptop - but it's nice to keep up to date with GoT without being screwed further by Sky

Munchkin wrote:

Cyril wrote:If it's all evil and pointless to you now:

1. write to your provinces demanding they withdraw from the RCC (or employ better negotiators)
2. boycott the RCC games (and only attend Pro12 games - or boycott totally if you really want your province to get the message)
3. stop paying any broadcaster subscriptions

1: Nope. I don't expect any of the Provinces to pull out. They're not that petty, and, as yet, they have no good reason.

2: Why damage our own teams for the sake of not liking everything about the new cup? I doubt any feel so strongly about it that they would do that.

3: You would have to admit having two broadcasters is hardly ideal. Fans shouldn't have to pay for two subscriptions. Fans may not be able to afford to pay for two subscriptions. This split in broadcasters is a backward step in promoting the championship, and promoting rugby in general.

Is this new championship any better than the old? It's subjective. Some will feel the new format is an improvement, some won't. Some will feel how the money is divided is fairer, some won't. I can't believe anyone will think a split in broadcasting is an improvement, and I can't believe anyone will think it's better organised.

It's early days for the championship though, and things can improve moving in to the future. Hopefully.

The improvement for me in the games being split is that I get to watch far more of them.  When they were all on Sky many of the matches were on the red button (some weren't shown at all, I remember most of Exeter's weren't a few years back), and either going to games or being out doing things most weekends my Virgin Media* system would only allow me to record the main matches.  I believe Sky users could opt to record the red button matches but not both.  Pretty much all the games get their own channel now, so I can record all of them and watch them during the week.

What the old and new competition should have done is what the AP has been doing for a while, give the broadcasters the live rights and then host all the matches in full on their website for free after the weekend.

*Sky tried to install a dish but couldn't get a signal because of the height of the trees

Munchkin wrote:

Cyril wrote:If it's all evil and pointless to you now:

1. write to your provinces demanding they withdraw from the RCC (or employ better negotiators)
2. boycott the RCC games (and only attend Pro12 games - or boycott totally if you really want your province to get the message)
3. stop paying any broadcaster subscriptions

1: Nope. I don't expect any of the Provinces to pull out. They're not that petty, and, as yet, they have no good reason.

2: Why damage our own teams for the sake of not liking everything about the new cup? I doubt any feel so strongly about it that they would do that.

3: You would have to admit having two broadcasters is hardly ideal. Fans shouldn't have to pay for two subscriptions. Fans may not be able to afford to pay for two subscriptions. This split in broadcasters is a backward step in promoting the championship, and promoting rugby in general.

Is this new championship any better than the old? It's subjective. Some will feel the new format is an improvement, some won't. Some will feel how the money is divided is fairer, some won't. I can't believe anyone will think a split in broadcasting is an improvement, and I can't believe anyone will think it's better organised.

It's early days for the championship though, and things can improve moving in to the future. Hopefully.

Good to see you don't think it's all bad then

I was beginning to think that all the things Irish fans criticise Chunky for re. the Pro12 is exactly what you do with the RCC.

Well as a Leinster fan, that draw shows what happens when you have a sh1te season and we've only ourselves to blame. Can't see a best runner-up coming from Pool 5, with very few try bonus points and likelihood that all four teams will take points off each other. This could easily be the lowest points pool with winner going through on a 4-2 win-loss with about 18 pts and so the winner is likelyu to get an away QF.

As for Leinster, we have Sexton back and hopefully we will have a decent coach in place before the pool starts. We can win the group and Toulon are not unbeatable as the end of the Top 14 showed. Heart says Leinster but sadly head says Toulon - will be nice to see Paulie against us.

Munster get a nice jammy group with Treviso offering a potential 10pts - should be aiming for at least a best runner-up and ideally win the group. Stade might have won the Bouclier but like all French teams are dodgy on the road, but for Munster Paulie is going to be a huge loss and there's a gaping hole right now in the Munster second row. Think it'll be Munster or Leicester in whichever order.

I think Ulster can be happy enough with the draw. Oyonnax will probably decide early on that they haven't much chance of qualifying and so concentrate on the Top 14 and put out reserve teams especially for their away games. Toulouse not what they were and will also struggle away from home. Saracens or Ulster in whichever order.

In pool 2, can Clermont recover from yet another choke. Should win the group with Ospreys and Exeter scrapping from 2nd place.

In pool 5, some earlier posters seem to have dismissed Glasgow as a group winner, but if they have then they haven't seen much of this year's Pro12. Best Scottish side in years and I fancy them to win the pool with Northampton and Scarlets fighting over 2nd place.

So my pool winners are Saracens, Clermont, Glasgow, Munster/Leicester and Toulon with the 3 best runners-up Ulster, Munster/Leicester and Ospreys/Exeter

For info for early punters, below are early odds from Paddy Power. If you believe those odds then us Celts might as well wave the white flag, give up on the Championship and concentrate on the Pro 12. Paddy Power think it's going to a carve-up between the English and French - some of the odds offered look totally nuts - but then how often do the bookies get it wrong. Oh sorry, they did get the Top 14 totally arseways!

Clermont Auvergne 3/1
Toulon 9/2
Racing 9/1
Northampton 9/1
Saracens 9/1
Stade Francais 10/1
Bath 14/1
Toulouse 14/1
Munster 16/1
Leinster 16/1
Ulster 25/1
Leicester 40/1
Wasps 50/1
Glasgow 50/1
Bordeaux 80/1
Ospreys 125/1
Scarlets 150/1
Exeter 150/1
Treviso 500/1
Oyonnax 500/1

Paddy Power are better known for their string of tasteless and offensive ads/promotions than for being a reliable indicator of results.

Wasps and Glasgow worth a punt at 50/1....fancy Sarries or Bath to give the French the biggest challenge.

Bit of a fall from grace for the Irish sides.

Toulon at 9/2 would be a cracking punt for anyone with a few spare grand they want to convert into more grand. Please Mr Paddypower just take my money please, I'll be back to collect in 2016.

4 in a row ...surely not possible.....

hawalsh wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Cyril wrote:If it's all evil and pointless to you now:

1. write to your provinces demanding they withdraw from the RCC (or employ better negotiators)
2. boycott the RCC games (and only attend Pro12 games - or boycott totally if you really want your province to get the message)
3. stop paying any broadcaster subscriptions

1: Nope. I don't expect any of the Provinces to pull out. They're not that petty, and, as yet, they have no good reason.

2: Why damage our own teams for the sake of not liking everything about the new cup? I doubt any feel so strongly about it that they would do that.

3: You would have to admit having two broadcasters is hardly ideal. Fans shouldn't have to pay for two subscriptions. Fans may not be able to afford to pay for two subscriptions. This split in broadcasters is a backward step in promoting the championship, and promoting rugby in general.

Is this new championship any better than the old? It's subjective. Some will feel the new format is an improvement, some won't. Some will feel how the money is divided is fairer, some won't. I can't believe anyone will think a split in broadcasting is an improvement, and I can't believe anyone will think it's better organised.

It's early days for the championship though, and things can improve moving in to the future. Hopefully.

The improvement for me in the games being split is that I get to watch far more of them.  When they were all on Sky many of the matches were on the red button (some weren't shown at all, I remember most of Exeter's weren't a few years back), and either going to games or being out doing things most weekends my Virgin Media* system would only allow me to record the main matches.  I believe Sky users could opt to record the red button matches but not both.  Pretty much all the games get their own channel now, so I can record all of them and watch them during the week.

What the old and new competition should have done is what the AP has been doing for a while, give the broadcasters the live rights and then host all the matches in full on their website for free after the weekend.

*Sky tried to install a dish but couldn't get a signal because of the height of the trees

You can get to watch all of them if you subscribe to both broadcasters, however, it's a bit unfair to expect fans to pay for both, and more so for those who can't afford to pay for both. True that with the one broadcaster you may miss a few games, but with two it's possible to miss half of those games, with some of those being a battle between the big clubs. There's also the possibility of viewers losing interest as some games are missed throughout the competition. It isn't great promotion.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's why you would and wouldn't LD just wondered what fanster thinks. I don't think the fact that 1 club is from Ireland and 1 from Scotland and both play in the same league makes much of a difference to 1 team from Coventry playing a team from Bath and they both play in the same league. We're talking about tv viewing here as well so it doesn't even matter that you get a nice trip out somewhere sunny.

Not watching a huge amount of Pro 12 rugby there is definitely more variety in a team from Scotland, with their own union, own pathway system and own culture playing a team from Wales with their own unions, pathways and cultutre, as opposed to a team from Bath playing a team from Exeter, a mere 1 hour and 30 drive awy, or say a team from Bath against a team form Gloucester a mere hour drive away.

Until recently Celtic and Italian teams were of interest to anyone who liked 6N rugby also, due to the shear number of internationals on show, in combinations, whereas English and French clubs now seem to be mashed full of international players from all over the globe as individuals, and its difficult to care about Hibbards performance say at Gloucester because the props either side of him aren't good, and the rest of the pack isn't great.

I find match ups between players funny because of that reason too.

There are plenty of reasons why Rugby fans hold themselves in such high regard, especially over football fans, however in recent years I don't think thats true anymore, with the way fans just accept actions of those in power and sacrifice all their beleifs for the almighty dollar.

You have plenty of internationals everywhere now. In a viewing capacity though your first point doesn't hold weight does it?

Now once again this isn't discussion, this is you trying to point score for some reason, probably to do with the fact you feel differently to me toward the competition. If your going to resort to trying to score points please read carefully, instead of getting outraged half way through and reacting.

As a Welshmen I will not take any more interest in Toulon, Northampton, Gloucester, or Bath because they all have a Welshman in the first XV, now seeing potential international combinations would interest me, like Webb and Biggar at Ospreys, or Tipuric, Lydiate, Baker, but watching single international players is useless, because you can't possibly weight an individuals performance due to the million and 1 variables.

Cyril wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Cyril wrote:If it's all evil and pointless to you now:

1. write to your provinces demanding they withdraw from the RCC (or employ better negotiators)
2. boycott the RCC games (and only attend Pro12 games - or boycott totally if you really want your province to get the message)
3. stop paying any broadcaster subscriptions

1: Nope. I don't expect any of the Provinces to pull out. They're not that petty, and, as yet, they have no good reason.

2: Why damage our own teams for the sake of not liking everything about the new cup? I doubt any feel so strongly about it that they would do that.

3: You would have to admit having two broadcasters is hardly ideal. Fans shouldn't have to pay for two subscriptions. Fans may not be able to afford to pay for two subscriptions. This split in broadcasters is a backward step in promoting the championship, and promoting rugby in general.

Is this new championship any better than the old? It's subjective. Some will feel the new format is an improvement, some won't. Some will feel how the money is divided is fairer, some won't. I can't believe anyone will think a split in broadcasting is an improvement, and I can't believe anyone will think it's better organised.

It's early days for the championship though, and things can improve moving in to the future. Hopefully.

Good to see you don't think it's all bad then

I was beginning to think that all the things Irish fans criticise Chunky for re. the Pro12 is exactly what you do with the RCC.

Anyone has a right to criticise PRO12. The problem is when certain criticisms are asserted as factual, but without evidence to support those assertions.
Personally I was underwhelmed by this years championship, but that could well be more to do with the Euro war that proceeded it, and the fact that Ulster didn't make it out of the group. I don't think it was well organised, but I do understand that it was a first for this new competition and better to judge after 2 or 3 years. That's not to say I won't voice my opinions of it now, of course, and explain those things which disappoint me about it  
It's my view that this new competition has to at the very least be equal to the old, if not surpass it. Time will tell.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:If there are concerns about a gulf between the haves and the have-nots, wouldn't a reduction in prize money redress the amount of having that the haves have, and the amount of not having that the have-nots have?

Well if that is the case, its not merit driven (since everyone gets the same and Toulon are going to win anyway). It discourages teams from competing (i.e., take the money and run).

Saracens are running at a huge deficit even though they are meant to be one of the have-alls.

Do you think that's why the English and French clubs were largely unsuccessful in the HC when they were receiving so much less money than the other teams?

You mean when they chose to have more teams and split the larger slice of the pie thinly?

Lets not everyone distort facts.

Regardless of who chose to do what, the simple fact was that each individual club from England and France received less participation money from ERC than the other teams in the HC.

I'm questioning whether this might have de-motivated them in comparison to the current more equal (on an individual basis) distribution that is being criticised and will apparently lead to the downfall of the premier European competition.

So your saying the ERC dictated what Leicester were given, and how many representitives the Aviva prem had?

If your argument is 'regardless of who chose to do what' shouldn't that apply to the Pro 12 nations creating the pro 12 league, with regards to Pro 12 representation in the euro comp? Wales had more than 3 slots before regionalisation, should them going region be regardless of who chose to do what?
Are you finally agreeing the negotiations of this new euro are innacurate based on the Pro 12's decision to combine is regardless?

Cyril wrote:Paddy Power are better known for their string of tasteless and offensive ads/promotions than for being a reliable indicator of results.

Innovation is rarely appreciated in it's own time, but as far as their maketting strategies go they are leading the way in BSc and MSc marketting theatre examples!

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's why you would and wouldn't LD just wondered what fanster thinks. I don't think the fact that 1 club is from Ireland and 1 from Scotland and both play in the same league makes much of a difference to 1 team from Coventry playing a team from Bath and they both play in the same league. We're talking about tv viewing here as well so it doesn't even matter that you get a nice trip out somewhere sunny.

Not watching a huge amount of Pro 12 rugby there is definitely more variety in a team from Scotland, with their own union, own pathway system and own culture playing a team from Wales with their own unions, pathways and cultutre, as opposed to a team from Bath playing a team from Exeter, a mere 1 hour and 30 drive awy, or say a team from Bath against a team form Gloucester a mere hour drive away.

Until recently Celtic and Italian teams were of interest to anyone who liked 6N rugby also, due to the shear number of internationals on show, in combinations, whereas English and French clubs now seem to be mashed full of international players from all over the globe as individuals, and its difficult to care about Hibbards performance say at Gloucester because the props either side of him aren't good, and the rest of the pack isn't great.

I find match ups between players funny because of that reason too.

There are plenty of reasons why Rugby fans hold themselves in such high regard, especially over football fans, however in recent years I don't think thats true anymore, with the way fans just accept actions of those in power and sacrifice all their beleifs for the almighty dollar.

You have plenty of internationals everywhere now. In a viewing capacity though your first point doesn't hold weight does it?

Now once again this isn't discussion, this is you trying to point score for some reason, probably to do with the fact you feel differently to me toward the competition. If your going to resort to trying to score points please read carefully, instead of getting outraged half way through and reacting.

As a Welshmen I will not take any more interest in Toulon, Northampton, Gloucester, or Bath because they all have a Welshman in the first XV, now seeing potential international combinations would interest me, like Webb and Biggar at Ospreys, or Tipuric, Lydiate, Baker, but watching single international players is useless, because you can't possibly weight an individuals performance due to the million and 1 variables.

Just asking why you think all Pro 12 is better than All English. Culture makes not a blind bit of difference on tv and you will certainly see plenty of English talent in the English teams. I can t see your logic which is why Im asking no need to be defensive. I get others reasoning of wanting it biased to 1 league to represent all nations or at least 6 of them.

I've never mention pro 12 teams being better, I've not mentioned the qulity at all, except to mention a Pro 12 team not cutting the mustard!

I merely claimed that having less diverse teams from around europe is a small part of why I am not particularly interesed in this competition. With a make up of mainly English and French teams, who's head to heads I can see elsewhere, and in certain aspects better fought due to their priorities, the Euro competition is less Euro, and more Anglo French and freinds.

If you don't think culture makes a difference to how a team plays I suggest you go and watch the south sea island nations play, some super rugby, or T14, everyone has their own style and unique ways of doing things, sadly this culture and techniues are fading to a more generic style due to fear of failure and money being king.

Fanster wrote:

Cyril wrote:Paddy Power are better known for their string of tasteless and offensive ads/promotions than for being a reliable indicator of results.

Innovation is rarely appreciated in it's own time, but as far as their maketting strategies go they are leading the way in BSc and MSc marketting theatre examples!

I truly wouldn't expect any different from you  . You previously found sexism, homophobia, xenophobia etc pretty amusing so I bet it's right up your street!

Better to watch in the sense that you would prefer to watch rather than the quality. in the 2nd point fair enough you can see Bath vs Wasps in the prem but in the same way you can see Glasgow Scarlets in the pro 12. In relation to culture I thoughty our point was that the culture clash of a Scottish team vs Italian was better than 2 clashes down the road. We re really talking styles of play and you ll know not all english teams play the same.

I still think its gwlad cyril.

Munchkin wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Cyril wrote:If it's all evil and pointless to you now:

1. write to your provinces demanding they withdraw from the RCC (or employ better negotiators)
2. boycott the RCC games (and only attend Pro12 games - or boycott totally if you really want your province to get the message)
3. stop paying any broadcaster subscriptions

1: Nope. I don't expect any of the Provinces to pull out. They're not that petty, and, as yet, they have no good reason.

2: Why damage our own teams for the sake of not liking everything about the new cup? I doubt any feel so strongly about it that they would do that.

3: You would have to admit having two broadcasters is hardly ideal. Fans shouldn't have to pay for two subscriptions. Fans may not be able to afford to pay for two subscriptions. This split in broadcasters is a backward step in promoting the championship, and promoting rugby in general.

Is this new championship any better than the old? It's subjective. Some will feel the new format is an improvement, some won't. Some will feel how the money is divided is fairer, some won't. I can't believe anyone will think a split in broadcasting is an improvement, and I can't believe anyone will think it's better organised.

It's early days for the championship though, and things can improve moving in to the future. Hopefully.

Good to see you don't think it's all bad then

I was beginning to think that all the things Irish fans criticise Chunky for re. the Pro12 is exactly what you do with the RCC.

Anyone has a right to criticise PRO12. The problem is when certain criticisms are asserted as factual, but without evidence to support those assertions.
Personally I was underwhelmed by this years championship, but that could well be more to do with the Euro war that proceeded it, and the fact that Ulster didn't make it out of the group. I don't think it was well organised, but I do understand that it was a first for this new competition and better to judge after 2 or 3 years. That's not to say I won't voice my opinions of it now, of course, and explain those things which disappoint me about it  
It's my view that this new competition has to at the very least be equal to the old, if not surpass it. Time will tell.

A large number of the criticisms thrown at the RCC (on here) are basically made up so you can see why it seems weird that posters get jumped on for criticising the Pro12 (for example) but the RCC is, apparently, completely fair game. Hypocrisy is part of human nature (I know, I do it too ) but it just seems a bit like some folk are never going to admit that we are (and will continue to see) improvements.

I thought there were some cracking games in the last tournament (plus the best final for a while) and there are some great fixtures coming up for the next one. I don't think it's cut and dry at all, like some are making out.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I still think its gwlad cyril.

Nah, Gwlad's a complete dingbat, but it's mainly just straight-ahead abuse rather than something more complex and sinister

No 7&1/2 wrote:Better to watch in the sense that you would prefer to watch rather than the quality. in the 2nd point fair enough you can see Bath vs Wasps in the prem but in the same way you can see Glasgow Scarlets in the pro 12. In relation to culture I thoughty our point was that the culture clash of a Scottish team vs Italian was better than 2 clashes down the road. We re really talking styles of play and you ll know not all english teams play the same.

Your right, and to be honest Bath was a really poorly chosen example as they have become an extremely interesting team to watch, As is Exeter now I think of it.

It's not that I don't want to watch English v English teams, or French v French teams, it's that I do, regularly. I don't watch a massive amount of Pro 12 rugby, mainly because everytime it's on I can't understand the languages (Alba / Welsh etc), so when I do get to watch them with prime camera work, full stadiums etc it still feels like I'm watching an old school european battle, even if it is when they play teams from the same league.

I miht just be in an old mentality whereeuropean rugby gives us the best and brightest from each nation, whereas the best and brightest from each nation now play under French or English badges, except for the Irish, and the rest are developmental or experimental teams with war horses, clubmen and cheap SH labour. The odd flash in the pan is all that can be expected fro these teams in the great scheme of things, even the powerhouses of Leinster could conceivably bottom their group next year.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Better to watch in the sense that you would prefer to watch rather than the quality. in the 2nd point fair enough you can see Bath vs Wasps in the prem but in the same way you can see Glasgow Scarlets in the pro 12. In relation to culture I thoughty our point was that the culture clash of a Scottish team vs Italian was better than 2 clashes down the road. We re really talking styles of play and you ll know not all english teams play the same.

Your right, and to be honest Bath was a really poorly chosen example as they have become an extremely interesting team to watch, As is Exeter now I think of it.

It's not that I don't want to watch English v English teams, or French v French teams, it's that I do, regularly. I don't watch a massive amount of Pro 12 rugby, mainly because everytime it's on I can't understand the languages (Alba / Welsh etc), so when I do get to watch them with prime camera work, full stadiums etc it still feels like I'm watching an old school european battle, even if it is when they play teams from the same league.

I miht just be in an old mentality whereeuropean rugby gives us the best and brightest from each nation, whereas the best and brightest from each nation now play under French or English badges, except for the Irish, and the rest are developmental or experimental teams with war horses, clubmen and cheap SH labour. The odd flash in the pan is all that can be expected fro these teams in the great scheme of things, even the powerhouses of Leinster could conceivably bottom their group next year.

Strange. You would think a Welshman would be aware of English language options

And what about the fact that Sky Sports as well as the BBC also provide coverage... This mysterious character needs another vacation if you ask me.

Firstly, I don't have sky as mentioned before. Secondly whenever I see Scottish games on regular TV it's on BBC alba, and Welsh games on S4C, I've also managed the odd game on TG4 is it?

Again why are you trying to score cheap points, and trip me up? what do you gain? Have you ever 'won' the internet before?

Fanster wrote:Firstly, I don't have sky as mentioned before. Secondly whenever I see Scottish games on regular TV it's on BBC alba, and Welsh games on S4C, I've also managed the odd game on TG4 is it?

Again why are you trying to score cheap points, and trip me up? what do you gain? Have you ever 'won' the internet before?

Well in a way the split broadcasts are helping you as at least you get some pro 12 teams and all the english on BT.

Cyril wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Cyril wrote:If it's all evil and pointless to you now:

1. write to your provinces demanding they withdraw from the RCC (or employ better negotiators)
2. boycott the RCC games (and only attend Pro12 games - or boycott totally if you really want your province to get the message)
3. stop paying any broadcaster subscriptions

.

Good to see you don't think it's all bad then

I was beginning to think that all the things Irish fans criticise Chunky for re. the Pro12 is exactly what you do with the RCC.

Anyone has a right to criticise PRO12. The problem is when certain criticisms are asserted as factual, but without evidence to support those assertions.
Personally I was underwhelmed by this years championship, but that could well be more to do with the Euro war that proceeded it, and the fact that Ulster didn't make it out of the group. I don't think it was well organised, but I do understand that it was a first for this new competition and better to judge after 2 or 3 years. That's not to say I won't voice my opinions of it now, of course, and explain those things which disappoint me about it  
It's my view that this new competition has to at the very least be equal to the old, if not surpass it. Time will tell.

A large number of the criticisms thrown at the RCC (on here) are basically made up so you can see why it seems weird that posters get jumped on for criticising the Pro12 (for example) but the RCC is, apparently, completely fair game. Hypocrisy is part of human nature (I know, I do it too ) but it just seems a bit like some folk are never going to admit that we are (and will continue to see) improvements.

I thought there were some cracking games in the last tournament (plus the best final for a while) and there are some great fixtures coming up for the next one. I don't think it's cut and dry at all, like some are making out.

I haven't read all the criticisms of the champions cup, but the ones I have read are really expressing an opinion rather than making assertions. Very different to your PRO12 example, methinks.

Well I would be one of those that don't agree we have seen improvements. I preferred the old format. I would rather see more teams involved. I don't like that it's more elite. That's just me though and ,as I said, it's subjective. The split broadcasting is a different matter. In that sense the competition is worse, and I believe it weakens the champions cup.
I do agree there has been some great games. Great games alone don't make the new competition better than the previous. I will take the good though, and looking at the pools it's easy to see there should be some great games to look forward to, and I do look forward to them. It's certainly not all glum even if I would like to see some things change.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:Firstly, I don't have sky as mentioned before. Secondly whenever I see Scottish games on regular TV it's on BBC alba, and Welsh games on S4C, I've also managed the odd game on TG4 is it?

Again why are you trying to score cheap points, and trip me up? what do you gain? Have you ever 'won' the internet before?

Well in a way the split broadcasts are helping you as at least you get some pro 12 teams and all the english on BT.

If only this was a 'yay I can watch the Aviva prem' thread eh?

My point is I had sky for the Heineken cup, which it then didn't have so I decided to drop it.

The new competition simply isn't that much of interest to me, being less diverse, and thus so less competitive in the process. The match ups of certain groups look great on paper until 1 or 2 of the teams decide they can't qualify and give up (Historically this has been the french, so so glad theres more of them now!).

I may be interested once it has gotten over the stigma of the PRL's heist maybe, and is run a little better, and reverts to one TV channel etc etc, but for now it's just warm up to international rugby for me.

Why is diversity linked to competitiveness? Also, what do you mean by diversity. You've said before that it was seeing the same teams play each other from the league but that was even worse in the previous iteration, with often at least 4 out of 6 pools having two pro 12 teams every year, up to 5 out of 6. That's a lot of repetition. And it was the same 10 teams every year, with Connacht or Dragons added occasionally.

Perhaps we have different definitions of diversity.

Also, RDW_Scotland is GreyGhost Always wanted to be banned.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:Firstly, I don't have sky as mentioned before. Secondly whenever I see Scottish games on regular TV it's on BBC alba, and Welsh games on S4C, I've also managed the odd game on TG4 is it?

Again why are you trying to score cheap points, and trip me up? what do you gain? Have you ever 'won' the internet before?

Well in a way the split broadcasts are helping you as at least you get some pro 12 teams and all the english on BT.

If only this was a 'yay I can watch the Aviva prem' thread eh?

My point is I had sky for the Heineken cup, which it then didn't have so I decided to drop it.

The new competition simply isn't that much of interest to me, being less diverse, and thus so less competitive in the process. The match ups of certain groups look great on paper until 1 or 2 of the teams decide they can't qualify and give up (Historically this has been the french, so so glad theres more of them now!).

I may be interested once it has gotten over the stigma of the PRL's heist maybe, and is run a little better, and reverts to one TV channel etc etc, but for now it's just warm up to international rugby for me.

Sorry you said you were a rugby fan so was just offering the positive. Just swap back to sky then but then you ll have a similar issue of not enough Aviva prem.

Fanster wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:If there are concerns about a gulf between the haves and the have-nots, wouldn't a reduction in prize money redress the amount of having that the haves have, and the amount of not having that the have-nots have?

Well if that is the case, its not merit driven (since everyone gets the same and Toulon are going to win anyway). It discourages teams from competing (i.e., take the money and run).

Saracens are running at a huge deficit even though they are meant to be one of the have-alls.

Do you think that's why the English and French clubs were largely unsuccessful in the HC when they were receiving so much less money than the other teams?

You mean when they chose to have more teams and split the larger slice of the pie thinly?

Lets not everyone distort facts.

Regardless of who chose to do what, the simple fact was that each individual club from England and France received less participation money from ERC than the other teams in the HC.

I'm questioning whether this might have de-motivated them in comparison to the current more equal (on an individual basis) distribution that is being criticised and will apparently lead to the downfall of the premier European competition.

So your saying the ERC dictated what Leicester were given, and how many representitives the Aviva prem had?

If your argument is 'regardless of who chose to do what' shouldn't that apply to the Pro 12 nations creating the pro 12 league, with regards to Pro 12 representation in the euro comp? Wales had more than 3 slots before regionalisation, should them going region be regardless of who chose to do what?
Are you finally agreeing the negotiations of this new euro are innacurate based on the Pro 12's decision to combine is regardless?

No, no, no and probably no, but i don't understand your last point - typos I can overcome, but nonsense is a bit of a challenge.

You seem happy to ascribe thoughts, words and philosophies to others with no justification (albeit with a ?), and with the apparent purpose to create specious arguments over historical events.

Why don't you just create another account and argue amongst yourself?

On the other hand, if you wish to contribute to a discussion about the possible motivation that money can provide to teams, and the differences between remuneration, and possible motivation, between HC/Amlin and Champ/Challenge, then carry on.

If you have significant financial payment based on performance then you have those with resources maintaining they're position by getting more money. If you share the money out or reduce performance payouts then you lose motivation for performance. There's always a downside and what people tend to promote usually gives away their agenda, which we all have.

Cyril wrote:If it's all evil and pointless to you now:

1. write to your provinces demanding they withdraw from the RCC (or employ better negotiators)
2. boycott the RCC games (and only attend Pro12 games - or boycott totally if you really want your province to get the message)
3. stop paying any broadcaster subscriptions

No need for the writin'. T'will all come to pass natural.

Continue to not pay broadcaster subscriptions seems to be more accurate advice.

[quote="Dubbelyew L Overate"]

Fanster wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:If there are concerns about a gulf between the haves and the have-nots, wouldn't a reduction in prize money redress the amount of having that the haves have, and the amount of not having that the have-nots have?

Well if that is the case, its not merit driven (since everyone gets the same and Toulon are going to win anyway). It discourages teams from competing (i.e., take the money and run).

Saracens are running at a huge deficit even though they are meant to be one of the have-alls.

Do you think that's why the English and French clubs were largely unsuccessful in the HC when they were receiving so much less money than the other teams?

You mean when they chose to have more teams and split the larger slice of the pie thinly?

Lets not everyone distort facts.

Regardless of who chose to do what, the simple fact was that each individual club from England and France received less participation money from ERC than the other teams in the HC.

I'm questioning whether this might have de-motivated them in comparison to the current more equal (on an individual basis) distribution that is being criticised and will apparently lead to the downfall of the premier European competition.

So your saying the ERC dictated what Leicester were given, and how many representitives the Aviva prem had?

If your argument is 'regardless of who chose to do what' shouldn't that apply to the Pro 12 nations creating the pro 12 league, with regards to Pro 12 representation in the euro comp? Wales had more than 3 slots before regionalisation, should them going region be regardless of who chose to do what?
Are you finally agreeing the negotiations of this new euro are innacurate based on the Pro 12's decision to combine is regardless?

No, no, no and probably no, but i don't understand your last point - typos I can overcome, but nonsense is a bit of a challenge.

You seem happy to ascribe thoughts, words and philosophies to others with no justification (albeit with a ?), and with the apparent purpose to create specious arguments over historical events.

Why don't you just create another account and argue amongst yourself?

On the other hand, if you wish to contribute to a discussion about the possible motivation that money can provide to teams, and the differences between remuneration, and possible motivation, between HC/Amlin and Champ/Challenge, then carry on.[/quote

So your answer is you don't have an answer?

I'll answer if you want. No, yes, don't understand the question, don't understand the question, don't understand the question.

The question is simple, if the Aviva clubs received less money per club, than say the Irish provinces for representation in europe, it is either the PRL who was paid directly by euro, with a larger slice of the pie than given to the IRFU, who were to blame for sharing the money thinly per club, or what the PRL do is 'regardless of who chose to do what', then the sae argument applies to european representation as a union focus and not a 3 league system, as what the Celtic nations have chosen to do by combining together into 1 cross border league should also be deemed 'regardless of who chose to do what'.

So either end of the argument doesn't hold up, either the English clubs paid for higher representation with a lesser split each, OR the Pro 12 league wasn't fair to the poor English and French clubs who had to fight against the Celtics best and rested.

The arguments made above for the new competitions 'fairness' need to be applied equally to all sides, don't you think?

The point was about money providing the only motivation not fairness.

Fanster wrote:I've never mention pro 12 teams being better, I've not mentioned the qulity at all, except to mention a Pro 12 team not cutting the mustard!

I merely claimed that having less diverse teams from around europe is a small part of why I am not particularly interesed in this competition. With a make up of mainly English and French teams, who's head to heads I can see elsewhere, and in certain aspects better fought due to their priorities, the Euro competition is less Euro, and more Anglo French and freinds.

If you don't think culture makes a difference to how a team plays I suggest you go and watch the south sea island nations play, some super rugby, or T14, everyone has their own style and unique ways of doing things, sadly this culture and techniues are fading to a more generic style due to fear of failure and money being king.

Totally agree - the reduced number of teams has made it very dull. For example Leinster are pooled with 3 teams they played last season. Do we need to see Bath v Wasps again?

The pool stages are much more predictable and with less pools we tend to see the same teams come together in the KO stages compared to the HEC.