Champions Cup goes from strength to stength.

First topic message reminder :

Great to see this competition throwing up some great games in only its 2nd season.

Just goes to show what the HC could have been.

Great stuff and long may it continue.

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Of course its a reason. If 3 leagues are going to combine to create this comp equal representation is a must. And your turn...

But it was 6 unions that created it....................................

Come on - try to make a logically coherent reason why it should be so biased in favour of 2 unions to the detriment of 4.  

Are you sure about that?  Weren't the WRU openly against this new tournament and wanted to keep the HEC?

Reading this thread is rather amusing actually.  Irish fans condemn welsh regional fans for bashing the pro12 and noting that doing so won't help 'grow the league' yet they're doing the same in a competition which is 2 years old?

Hmm.

gcBlues wrote:

Reading this thread is rather amusing actually.  Irish fans condemn welsh regional fans for bashing the pro12 and noting that doing so won't help 'grow the league' yet they're doing the same in a competition which is 2 years old?

This x 1000

gcBlues wrote:

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Of course its a reason. If 3 leagues are going to combine to create this comp equal representation is a must. And your turn...

But it was 6 unions that created it....................................

Come on - try to make a logically coherent reason why it should be so biased in favour of 2 unions to the detriment of 4.  

Are you sure about that?  Weren't the WRU openly against this new tournament and wanted to keep the HEC?

Reading this thread is rather amusing actually.  Irish fans condemn welsh regional fans for bashing the pro12 and noting that doing so won't help 'grow the league' yet they're doing the same in a competition which is 2 years old?

Hmm.

Em, I couldn't give 2 Poopie about the Chumps Cup as to whether it sinks or swims as its new organisers couldn't give two Poopie about any of the fans - its now all about the money (for example, two subscription tv deals). This is completely different to the attitude Welsh fans have to the pro12 as they profess to wanting it make the Pro12 better.

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So people outside of the 6 nations don't understand quality rugby? Or in fact people from those countries who don't support any of the teams in it don't? Interesting

EDIT: do you mean (for example) Welsh fans will be less interested if there is only one welsh team in it because they don't understand 'quality' but just want to see Welsh teams? Not sure about the 'quality' bit but yeah, that's almost certainly true.  Of course in that case they would have 3 teams in the Challenge Cup and therefore they should have a lot more interest in that. Especially if quality doesn't come into it.

Where does the outside of the 6N come from? Currently European Professional Club Rugby deals with those teams under it's umbrella. I've no idea if someone in Moldova understands what quality rugby actually is, or if they have an idea who Tigers or Scarlets are, but I'd be reasonably confident that they have heard of England and Wales.
Whether a casual fan understands the nuances of a high quality tackle or not, I'd be reasonably confident that they understand the "Champions Cup" is superior to the "Challenge Cup" - the clue is in the title.

When you said 'wider audiences'...I thought you meant actually wider audiences, not just those that may be in the competition even if they're not this year.

So now what you're saying is that Welsh people are more interested in the competition if more Welsh teams are in it. Irish are more more interested if more Irish teams are in it?  Well, ok.  There are 50 million English people, most of whom would be casual fans.  About 6.5 million in Ireland, 5.5 million in Scotland and 3 million in Wales.  If we want to appeal to casual fans would it not be better to have teams based on the ratio of population? So really for every Welsh team we should 2 scottish teams, 2 Irish teams and 18 English teams.

I would suggest that the vast majority of English people are fanatical soccer supporters who think rugby is just for snobs. If they have any interest in rugby, its the international team.

Not quite. A lot think that rugby is rugby league as well. But these are the people who we're trying to entice aren't we? The casual without a team?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So people outside of the 6 nations don't understand quality rugby? Or in fact people from those countries who don't support any of the teams in it don't? Interesting

EDIT: do you mean (for example) Welsh fans will be less interested if there is only one welsh team in it because they don't understand 'quality' but just want to see Welsh teams? Not sure about the 'quality' bit but yeah, that's almost certainly true.  Of course in that case they would have 3 teams in the Challenge Cup and therefore they should have a lot more interest in that. Especially if quality doesn't come into it.

Where does the outside of the 6N come from? Currently European Professional Club Rugby deals with those teams under it's umbrella. I've no idea if someone in Moldova understands what quality rugby actually is, or if they have an idea who Tigers or Scarlets are, but I'd be reasonably confident that they have heard of England and Wales.
Whether a casual fan understands the nuances of a high quality tackle or not, I'd be reasonably confident that they understand the "Champions Cup" is superior to the "Challenge Cup" - the clue is in the title.

When you said 'wider audiences'...I thought you meant actually wider audiences, not just those that may be in the competition even if they're not this year.

So now what you're saying is that Welsh people are more interested in the competition if more Welsh teams are in it. Irish are more more interested if more Irish teams are in it?  Well, ok.  There are 50 million English people, most of whom would be casual fans.  About 6.5 million in Ireland, 5.5 million in Scotland and 3 million in Wales.  If we want to appeal to casual fans would it not be better to have teams based on the ratio of population? So really for every Welsh team we should 2 scottish teams, 2 Irish teams and 18 English teams.

I would suggest that the vast majority of English people are fanatical soccer supporters who think rugby is just for snobs. If they have any interest in rugby, its the international team.

Not quite. A lot think that rugby is rugby league as well.  But these are the people who we're trying to entice aren't we?  The casual without a team?

That's like me saying the majority of Irish people are Guinness drinkers..

The majority of English people don't follow football or indeed probably any sport. But football is the biggest sport by a huge margin, something that is sadly reflected in the media. As in the standard editorial discussion about sports coverage being ..

'We have 19 pages of football and one on everything else, don't you think thats a bit unbalanced? - Well we could drop down to half a page on other sports.'

For me the European competitions are dying on their feet. When the BT deal runs out, European rugby will cease to exist. There is not enough sponsorship coming into it, and England and France see their leagues as the priority. The Pro12 should follow suit. Is it worst than the union run comp ? For me yes, but that is only because there is less diversity in it, too much English and French clubs, and not enough clubs from everywhere else. But obviously members on here from England will see it as the opposite, which is fine.

If it is to continue, I would like to see one competition, where all teams compete in. The second tier comp is getting more and more like the LV= cup. The French and English just give it lip service. So lets just scrap it.

If all the promises were fulfilled by the PRL and the LNR, then I would be more enthusiastic about the two competitions, but they have not. Two separate broadcasters does not help matters either, not all people can afford BT and Sky Sports, this has lessened the interest with the casual fan in my opinion. The thing is, in the past, I used to look on the Heineken cup matches as mini international matches, I do not see this now as there are too many English V English and French V French, but that is just my opinion.

The only worry for about this whole debacle is that it is the first stepping stone to the unions losing control over rugby union. But as has been said, it is only two years old, lets wait and see, but at the moment it has lost it's magic for me.

gcBlues wrote:

Reading this thread is rather amusing actually.  Irish fans condemn welsh regional fans for bashing the pro12 and noting that doing so won't help 'grow the league' yet they're doing the same in a competition which is 2 years old?

Hmm.

It's hard to grow a 'League' (CC) when your natural/automatic part in it has been administratively cut by three-quarters.  You have no emotional need to 'grow' your neighbours carrots for him simply because he's decided to use the little gardening space he had to erect a heated Jacuzzi instead.
'Grow' things you yourself can eat, not for someone that's telling you bluntly that you might be replaced in time by a few Russian or Romanian rabbits, coz they got more potential oligarch owners for big biz bucks buyin and sellin'.

It would have died in the old format as well then. If it's not sustainable and no interest fair enough, it'll die off.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It would have died in the old format as well then. If it's not sustainable and no interest fair enough, it'll die off.

At least the sponsors were paying more money. Anyway, like I have said, it is only two years old, lets see what happens.

There's more money now. But as some fans are obessessed with finance spreadsheets over rugby it seem any comp is doomed.

SecretFly wrote:

gcBlues wrote:

Reading this thread is rather amusing actually.  Irish fans condemn welsh regional fans for bashing the pro12 and noting that doing so won't help 'grow the league' yet they're doing the same in a competition which is 2 years old?

Hmm.

It's hard to grow a 'League' (CC) when your natural/automatic part in it has been administratively cut by three-quarters.  You have no emotional need to 'grow' your neighbours carrots for him simply because he's decided to use the little gardening space he had to erect a heated Jacuzzi instead.
'Grow' things you yourself can eat, not for someone that's telling you bluntly that you might be replaced in time by a few Russian or Romanian rabbits, coz they got more potential oligarch owners for big biz bucks buyin and sellin'.

Are you talking about the Welsh growing the PRO12 so it would benefit the Irish? Now, I'll give you there was a lot of talk that the English weren't needed and they could simply be replaced by teams from other parts of Europe but I think that was just an ideal threat rather than a realistic solution.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Aukster, when you're looking at the ideal format of a club comp you really do need to take emotion out of this. We have 3 leagues, it would be stupid to weight the comp to one of these leagues over the other. I really don't think casual fans (I'm assuming that's what you're meaning with this ie the fans who are just getting into it or may not have seen much rugby) are more likely to take a bigger interest in a Munster vs Treviso against a Toulon vs Clermont. They're just going to turn the tv on and if the game catches their attention great (could happen with any game), the more interested fan ain't going to be bothered if its an all Pro 12 or Aviva or 14 match (that happens to be EC).

Your idea of what is an “ideal format” is obviously different to mine. You mention that “it would be stupid to weight the comp to one of these leagues over the other”. Therefore the current format is obviously stupid (as was the HEC before it) because it has more teams from the Pro12 than the AP and T14.
If the ideal format is to have the best quality teams present then the current competition also fails because there are mid-table teams that qualify – should these mediocre teams really be in an elite competition? This is no different to the HEC beforehand so what is the end game to reach the grail of “quality rugby”. Maybe five from each league and the Challenge winners, or just the top four from each league in four pools of three?

My problem with that road is it inevitably reduces diversity in pursuit of whatever “quality rugby” means – and not knowing if that a good trade off? I haven’t seen the evidence to suggest that elitism will grow the game or increase anything but the divide between the rich and the poor sides.

Regarding the nationality thing I do think casual fans will wonder how (say) the Welsh teams are doing in Europe, and be far more likely to be interested to hear if a Scottish side beats an English one. In the absence of any consensus on what an ideal format actually is, I can appreciate that some feel closer to finding it, while I feel further away.

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So people outside of the 6 nations don't understand quality rugby? Or in fact people from those countries who don't support any of the teams in it don't? Interesting

EDIT: do you mean (for example) Welsh fans will be less interested if there is only one welsh team in it because they don't understand 'quality' but just want to see Welsh teams? Not sure about the 'quality' bit but yeah, that's almost certainly true.  Of course in that case they would have 3 teams in the Challenge Cup and therefore they should have a lot more interest in that. Especially if quality doesn't come into it.

Where does the outside of the 6N come from? Currently European Professional Club Rugby deals with those teams under it's umbrella. I've no idea if someone in Moldova understands what quality rugby actually is, or if they have an idea who Tigers or Scarlets are, but I'd be reasonably confident that they have heard of England and Wales.
Whether a casual fan understands the nuances of a high quality tackle or not, I'd be reasonably confident that they understand the "Champions Cup" is superior to the "Challenge Cup" - the clue is in the title.

When you said 'wider audiences'...I thought you meant actually wider audiences, not just those that may be in the competition even if they're not this year.

So now what you're saying is that Welsh people are more interested in the competition if more Welsh teams are in it. Irish are more more interested if more Irish teams are in it?  Well, ok.  There are 50 million English people, most of whom would be casual fans.  About 6.5 million in Ireland, 5.5 million in Scotland and 3 million in Wales.  If we want to appeal to casual fans would it not be better to have teams based on the ratio of population? So really for every Welsh team we should 2 scottish teams, 2 Irish teams and 18 English teams.

What I’m saying is that people can relate to the international nature of contests even if they have no parochial interest in either team. One English team will spark the English nationalistic spirit just as much as 18 will – in fact far more because their hopes are being pinned on one against many rather than the bully scenario you conjured up.

LordDowlais wrote:For me the European competitions are dying on their feet. When the BT deal runs out, European rugby will cease to exist. There is not enough sponsorship coming into it, and England and France see their leagues as the priority. The Pro12 should follow suit. Is it worst than the union run comp ? For me yes, but that is only because there is less diversity in it, too much English and French clubs, and not enough clubs from everywhere else. But obviously members on here from England will see it as the opposite, which is fine.

If it is to continue, I would like to see one competition, where all teams compete in. The second tier comp is getting more and more like the LV= cup. The French and English just give it lip service. So lets just scrap it.

If all the promises were fulfilled by the PRL and the LNR, then I would be more enthusiastic about the two competitions, but they have not. Two separate broadcasters does not help matters either, not all people can afford BT and Sky Sports, this has lessened the interest with the casual fan in my opinion. The thing is, in the past, I used to look on the Heineken cup matches as mini international matches, I do not see this now as there are too many English V English and French V French, but that is just my opinion.

The only worry for about this whole debacle is that it is the first stepping stone to the unions losing control over rugby union. But as has been said, it is only two years old, lets wait and see, but at the moment it has lost it's magic for me.

This season, in the Champions Cup, there are 2 pairs of French v French, and 1 English v English - that's 6 games out of 60 pool fixtures, on average 1 game out of 10 in each weekend. Easy enough to avoid?

Given the cosmopolitan nature of some of those teams (as it was in HC), it's a bit of a stretch to consider them as nationally representative teams anyway.

The Great Aukster wrote:What I’m saying is that people can relate to the international nature of contests even if they have no parochial interest in either team. One English team will spark the English nationalistic spirit just as much as 18 will – in fact far more because their hopes are being pinned on one against many rather than the bully scenario you conjured up.

So would not 1 Welsh team be just as good as 2 Welsh teams?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:This season, in the Champions Cup, there are 2 pairs of French v French, and 1 English v English - that's 6 games out of 60 pool fixtures, on average 1 game out of 10 in each weekend. Easy enough to avoid?

So far. There will be more. In Ospreys group there are two French sides, thats two French V French games all in one group.

Sin é wrote:

gcBlues wrote:

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Of course its a reason. If 3 leagues are going to combine to create this comp equal representation is a must. And your turn...

But it was 6 unions that created it....................................

Come on - try to make a logically coherent reason why it should be so biased in favour of 2 unions to the detriment of 4.  

Are you sure about that?  Weren't the WRU openly against this new tournament and wanted to keep the HEC?

Reading this thread is rather amusing actually.  Irish fans condemn welsh regional fans for bashing the pro12 and noting that doing so won't help 'grow the league' yet they're doing the same in a competition which is 2 years old?

Hmm.

Em, I couldn't give 2 Poopie about the Chumps Cup as to whether it sinks or swims as its new organisers couldn't give two Poopie about any of the fans - its now all about the money (for example, two subscription tv deals). This is completely different to the attitude Welsh fans have to the pro12 as they profess to wanting it make the Pro12 better.

That's a necessity because ERC quickly sold rights for a HEC (with no English or French teams in as they had given their due notice of intention to leave) for last season to sky when BT announced they had rights to the new comp (of which the English, French and Welsh clubs had signed up for).

That is why it is on both channels, because the blazers at the ERC didn't want the HEC to end so and sold rights for a competition which was in the balance and was unlikely to continue.  Sky got rights for this as a peace deal, it'll move to one channel when the rights are up for renewal. Don't blame the RCC for that, blame the stalling unions who liked the money rolling in for little effort.

But hey, nice try with that excuse...can we have another example of how it's 'about the money' please?

LordDowlais wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:This season, in the Champions Cup, there are 2 pairs of French v French, and 1 English v English - that's 6 games out of 60 pool fixtures, on average 1 game out of 10 in each weekend. Easy enough to avoid?

So far. There will be more. In Ospreys group there are two French sides, thats two French V French games all in one group.

Let me see - now that means that there is one more group with 2 French teams (1) and one with 2 English teams (5)

LordDowlais wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:This season, in the Champions Cup, there are 2 pairs of French v French, and 1 English v English - that's 6 games out of 60 pool fixtures, on average 1 game out of 10 in each weekend. Easy enough to avoid?

So far. There will be more. In Ospreys group there are two French sides, thats two French V French games all in one group.

...and more variety in the opposition for Ospreys, instead of playing another Pro12 team 4 times this season.

gcBlues wrote:

Sin é wrote:

gcBlues wrote:

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Of course its a reason. If 3 leagues are going to combine to create this comp equal representation is a must. And your turn...

But it was 6 unions that created it....................................

Come on - try to make a logically coherent reason why it should be so biased in favour of 2 unions to the detriment of 4.  

Are you sure about that?  Weren't the WRU openly against this new tournament and wanted to keep the HEC?

Reading this thread is rather amusing actually.  Irish fans condemn welsh regional fans for bashing the pro12 and noting that doing so won't help 'grow the league' yet they're doing the same in a competition which is 2 years old?

Hmm.

Em, I couldn't give 2 Poopie about the Chumps Cup as to whether it sinks or swims as its new organisers couldn't give two Poopie about any of the fans - its now all about the money (for example, two subscription tv deals). This is completely different to the attitude Welsh fans have to the pro12 as they profess to wanting it make the Pro12 better.

That's a necessity because ERC quickly sold rights for a HEC (with no English or French teams in as they had given their due notice of intention to leave) for last season to sky when BT announced they had rights to the new comp (of which the English, French and Welsh clubs had signed up for).

That is why it is on both channels, because the blazers at the ERC didn't want the HEC to end so and sold rights for a competition which was in the balance and was unlikely to continue.  Sky got rights for this as a peace deal, it'll move to one channel when the rights are up for renewal.  Don't blame the RCC for that, blame the stalling unions who liked the money rolling in for little effort.

But hey, nice try with that excuse...can we have another example of how it's 'about the money' please?

Not sure what new comp you are referring to, one thing is sure it wasn't going to be a rugby union comp without the approval of the Unions involved. Lets not forget the the PRL signed the tv deal without the permission of the RFU which was required. Similar situation to in France and they had their own troubles with their agreement requiring the permission of the FFR.

The declared reason from the PRL to have a new competition was to earn more money - they have failed in that (with Heineken laughing their heads off because they are paying less now than what they were)!

Look guys, I get what you are saying, and I understand, it's just the competition has lost it's magic for me. For you, it might be better, for me it's not.

Also, I do not accept the higher standard of rugby argument either, the lower placed teams in the English and French leagues are not better than the Cardiff Blues or Edinburgh if you ask me, so the standard is not necessarily higher. What we have done is, swap two mediocre Pro12 clubs with two mediocre French or English clubs.

And the less said about the second tier comp the better.

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Aukster, when you're looking at the ideal format of a club comp you really do need to take emotion out of this. We have 3 leagues, it would be stupid to weight the comp to one of these leagues over the other. I really don't think casual fans (I'm assuming that's what you're meaning with this ie the fans who are just getting into it or may not have seen much rugby) are more likely to take a bigger interest in a Munster vs Treviso against a Toulon vs Clermont. They're just going to turn the tv on and if the game catches their attention great (could happen with any game), the more interested fan ain't going to be bothered if its an all Pro 12 or Aviva or 14 match (that happens to be EC).

Your idea of what is an “ideal format” is obviously different to mine. You mention that “it would be stupid to weight the comp to one of these leagues over the other”. Therefore the current format is obviously stupid (as was the HEC before it) because it has more teams from the Pro12 than the AP and T14.
If the ideal format is to have the best quality teams present then the current competition also fails because there are mid-table teams that qualify – should these mediocre teams really be in an elite competition? This is no different to the HEC beforehand so what is the end game to reach the grail of “quality rugby”. Maybe five from each league and the Challenge winners, or just the top four from each league in four pools of three?

My problem with that road is it inevitably reduces diversity in pursuit of whatever “quality rugby” means – and not knowing if that a good trade off? I haven’t seen the evidence to suggest that elitism will grow the game or increase anything but the divide between the rich and the poor sides.

Regarding the nationality thing I do think casual fans will wonder how (say) the Welsh teams are doing in Europe, and be far more likely to be interested to hear if a Scottish side beats an English one. In the absence of any consensus on what an ideal format actually is, I can appreciate that some feel closer to finding it, while I feel further away.

Again diffrence in ideal from a organisation standpoint and what an individual would like to see.

Sin e, that's not strictly true. The RFU had delegated to the PRL the right to sell their domestic tv rights, and the PRL signed a deal with BT that said "here are the tv rights for the domestic league and we will not sign up to any cross-border competition unless we can assign the rights for games played in England to BT". Technically, they made a commitment not to allow the rights to go to anyone else, rather than actually signing away the rights.

The RFU ummed and ahhed a bit over it but never vetoed it and I don't think they even said outright that the PRL had overstepped its delegated authority.

The rump ERC was equally guilty of creating the mess; they refused to negotiate, and then signed the Sky deal immediately they heard about the BT one.

Also, what's your evidence that the PRL have failed to earn more money? From what I can see, the Pro 12 are no worse off (because that was the deal), and the PRL clubs are earning enough extra that they have been able to raise the salary cap considerably this year, with further increases to come. I don't have the accounts, but that's a pretty big indicator of increased revenue.

Sin é wrote:(with Heineken laughing their heads off because they are paying less now than what they were)!

I was still calling it the Heineken Cup last year - partly out of convenience - but haven't once thought of it that way this year. I suspect the World Cup might have helped wiped the slate clean. I doubt I'm the only one, and I'm certain Heineken know it, so they won't be laughing their heads off.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Sin é wrote:(with Heineken laughing their heads off because they are paying less now than what they were)!

I was still calling it the Heineken Cup last year - partly out of convenience - but haven't once thought of it that way this year. I suspect the World Cup might have helped wiped the slate clean. I doubt I'm the only one, and I'm certain Heineken know it, so they won't be laughing their heads off.

Heineken are still, as I understand it, major sponsors. They're just not the title sponsors because the ERCC strategy is not to have one. They believe they can (ultimately) generate more sponsorship by having a portfolio of brands involved without one dominant one. I say ultimately because I expect that the brinkmanship last year didn't leave enough time to negotiate the optimal portfolio. We will probably only be able to judge how successful they have been in 2-3 years time when the deals are up for renegotiation.

Poorfour wrote:

Heineken are still, as I understand it, major sponsors. They're just not the title sponsors because the ERCC strategy is not to have one. They believe they can (ultimately) generate more sponsorship by having a portfolio of brands involved without one dominant one. I say ultimately because I expect that the brinkmanship last year didn't leave enough time to negotiate the optimal portfolio. We will probably only be able to judge how successful they have been in 2-3 years time when the deals are up for renegotiation.

A wider portfolio of brands..... this is the kind of talk that deadens my senses.

Not directing that at you, Poorfour. You're just giving a run down on the facts.

But this side-show, where fans of rugby (me included) have been for the last few years talking more about sponsorship and products, and brand awareness and market sizes, and growth graphs and broadcasting deals.....than we have about the actual rugby being played. Soulless stuff.
And when fans themselves begin to support their sides by referencing marketing-speak, and plotting out graphs on product value and population densities and old clubs being told they're perhaps now unviable because they too Hicksville for city investors...... well, you know the game isn't really rugby anymore. It's the plaything for roulette gamblers - investment, risk assessment, buy or sell when the price is right.

But if yis are still looking for a catchy name:

The Perrier Rolex Lamborghini Cup???

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:What I’m saying is that people can relate to the international nature of contests even if they have no parochial interest in either team. One English team will spark the English nationalistic spirit just as much as 18 will – in fact far more because their hopes are being pinned on one against many rather than the bully scenario you conjured up.

So would not 1 Welsh team be just as good as 2 Welsh teams?

1 (insert nationality of preference) team would be far better than 0 (insert nationality of choice) teams, if you wish to potentially hook a casual (insert nationality of choice) fan.

It's not that difficult a concept, honestly.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Aukster, when you're looking at the ideal format of a club comp you really do need to take emotion out of this. We have 3 leagues, it would be stupid to weight the comp to one of these leagues over the other. I really don't think casual fans (I'm assuming that's what you're meaning with this ie the fans who are just getting into it or may not have seen much rugby) are more likely to take a bigger interest in a Munster vs Treviso against a Toulon vs Clermont. They're just going to turn the tv on and if the game catches their attention great (could happen with any game), the more interested fan ain't going to be bothered if its an all Pro 12 or Aviva or 14 match (that happens to be EC).

Your idea of what is an “ideal format” is obviously different to mine. You mention that “it would be stupid to weight the comp to one of these leagues over the other”. Therefore the current format is obviously stupid (as was the HEC before it) because it has more teams from the Pro12 than the AP and T14.
If the ideal format is to have the best quality teams present then the current competition also fails because there are mid-table teams that qualify – should these mediocre teams really be in an elite competition? This is no different to the HEC beforehand so what is the end game to reach the grail of “quality rugby”. Maybe five from each league and the Challenge winners, or just the top four from each league in four pools of three?

My problem with that road is it inevitably reduces diversity in pursuit of whatever “quality rugby” means – and not knowing if that a good trade off? I haven’t seen the evidence to suggest that elitism will grow the game or increase anything but the divide between the rich and the poor sides.

Regarding the nationality thing I do think casual fans will wonder how (say) the Welsh teams are doing in Europe, and be far more likely to be interested to hear if a Scottish side beats an English one. In the absence of any consensus on what an ideal format actually is, I can appreciate that some feel closer to finding it, while I feel further away.

Again diffrence in ideal from a organisation standpoint and what an individual would like to see.

Apologies, I thought you were voicing your opinion as to what was ideal. I wasn't aware there was any higher authority on how to define what an ideal format is for a European rugby competition. Which organisation has that standpoint - presumably the EPCR?

SecretFly wrote:...when fans themselves begin to support their sides by referencing marketing-speak...

I don't support rugby because of its marketing but only a fool would think the sport will grow in popularity without it.

Rugby Fan wrote:

SecretFly wrote:...when fans themselves begin to support their sides by referencing marketing-speak...

I don't support rugby because of its marketing but only a fool would think the sport will grow in popularity without it.

Fans have in the past and still use business and marketing lingo to prove their viability and preferential treatment in the power brokering deals that are now coming thick and fast in this new century.  
Fans have often assumed the guardianship of the very arguments the owners of their teams use to promote themselves into places of power in organisational terms. "In order for the game to grow, you guys need to sacrifice yourselves for the greater good and allow the money to be centralised into the denser populated areas with their super franchises".

Supposedly this is meant to draw the desired 'natural' response of " I'm up for that!!  That makes sense now!  Let's the rest of us stop trying to be part of the new way. We're stalling the perfect future for sophisticated rugby."

It has plenty to do with teams, and fans of those teams, thinking their marketing power gives them more legitimacy than other teams in less 'sophisticated' regions.

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Aukster, when you're looking at the ideal format of a club comp you really do need to take emotion out of this. We have 3 leagues, it would be stupid to weight the comp to one of these leagues over the other. I really don't think casual fans (I'm assuming that's what you're meaning with this ie the fans who are just getting into it or may not have seen much rugby) are more likely to take a bigger interest in a Munster vs Treviso against a Toulon vs Clermont. They're just going to turn the tv on and if the game catches their attention great (could happen with any game), the more interested fan ain't going to be bothered if its an all Pro 12 or Aviva or 14 match (that happens to be EC).

Your idea of what is an “ideal format” is obviously different to mine. You mention that “it would be stupid to weight the comp to one of these leagues over the other”. Therefore the current format is obviously stupid (as was the HEC before it) because it has more teams from the Pro12 than the AP and T14.
If the ideal format is to have the best quality teams present then the current competition also fails because there are mid-table teams that qualify – should these mediocre teams really be in an elite competition? This is no different to the HEC beforehand so what is the end game to reach the grail of “quality rugby”. Maybe five from each league and the Challenge winners, or just the top four from each league in four pools of three?

My problem with that road is it inevitably reduces diversity in pursuit of whatever “quality rugby” means – and not knowing if that a good trade off? I haven’t seen the evidence to suggest that elitism will grow the game or increase anything but the divide between the rich and the poor sides.

Regarding the nationality thing I do think casual fans will wonder how (say) the Welsh teams are doing in Europe, and be far more likely to be interested to hear if a Scottish side beats an English one. In the absence of any consensus on what an ideal format actually is, I can appreciate that some feel closer to finding it, while I feel further away.

Again diffrence in ideal from a organisation standpoint and what an individual would like to see.

Apologies, I thought you were voicing your opinion as to what was ideal. I wasn't aware there was any higher authority on how to define what an ideal format is for a European rugby competition. Which organisation has that standpoint - presumably the EPCR?

No problems. Organisational as you'd have 3 equal partners.

The Great Aukster wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:What I’m saying is that people can relate to the international nature of contests even if they have no parochial interest in either team. One English team will spark the English nationalistic spirit just as much as 18 will – in fact far more because their hopes are being pinned on one against many rather than the bully scenario you conjured up.

So would not 1 Welsh team be just as good as 2 Welsh teams?

1 (insert nationality of preference) team would be far better than 0 (insert nationality of choice) teams, if you wish to potentially hook a casual (insert nationality of choice) fan.

It's not that difficult a concept, honestly.

You said 1 English team would spark as much interest as 18. Therefore it doesn't matter how many sides a country has in as long as they have at least 1. So what the chuff was your point?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Aukster, when you're looking at the ideal format of a club comp you really do need to take emotion out of this. We have 3 leagues, it would be stupid to weight the comp to one of these leagues over the other. I really don't think casual fans (I'm assuming that's what you're meaning with this ie the fans who are just getting into it or may not have seen much rugby) are more likely to take a bigger interest in a Munster vs Treviso against a Toulon vs Clermont. They're just going to turn the tv on and if the game catches their attention great (could happen with any game), the more interested fan ain't going to be bothered if its an all Pro 12 or Aviva or 14 match (that happens to be EC).

When you're looking at the ideal format of a [European] club comp, you really do need to take emotion [and existing league structures] out of it. We have [6 nations with 38 clubs currently spread across] 3 leagues. It would be stupid to weight the comp to one [or two] of these leagues over another [when one of the leagues has four countries in it].

A counter point of view?

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:What I’m saying is that people can relate to the international nature of contests even if they have no parochial interest in either team. One English team will spark the English nationalistic spirit just as much as 18 will – in fact far more because their hopes are being pinned on one against many rather than the bully scenario you conjured up.

So would not 1 Welsh team be just as good as 2 Welsh teams?

1 (insert nationality of preference) team would be far better than 0 (insert nationality of choice) teams, if you wish to potentially hook a casual (insert nationality of choice) fan.

It's not that difficult a concept, honestly.

You said 1 English team would spark as much interest as 18. Therefore it doesn't matter how many sides a country has in as long as they have at least 1.  So what the chuff was your point?

It's all in the thread above.

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Aukster, when you're looking at the ideal format of a club comp you really do need to take emotion out of this. We have 3 leagues, it would be stupid to weight the comp to one of these leagues over the other. I really don't think casual fans (I'm assuming that's what you're meaning with this ie the fans who are just getting into it or may not have seen much rugby) are more likely to take a bigger interest in a Munster vs Treviso against a Toulon vs Clermont. They're just going to turn the tv on and if the game catches their attention great (could happen with any game), the more interested fan ain't going to be bothered if its an all Pro 12 or Aviva or 14 match (that happens to be EC).

When you're looking at the ideal format of a [European] club comp, you really do need to take emotion [and existing league structures] out of it.  We have [6 nations with 38 clubs currently spread across] 3 leagues. It would be stupid to weight the comp to one [or two] of these leagues over another [when one of the leagues has four countries in it].  

A counter point of view?

That is the other point of view yes ie the Pro 12 Plus comp. I don' think any league should be getting the lions share. If people want that they can watch the Pro 12, its there already.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Aukster, when you're looking at the ideal format of a club comp you really do need to take emotion out of this. We have 3 leagues, it would be stupid to weight the comp to one of these leagues over the other. I really don't think casual fans (I'm assuming that's what you're meaning with this ie the fans who are just getting into it or may not have seen much rugby) are more likely to take a bigger interest in a Munster vs Treviso against a Toulon vs Clermont. They're just going to turn the tv on and if the game catches their attention great (could happen with any game), the more interested fan ain't going to be bothered if its an all Pro 12 or Aviva or 14 match (that happens to be EC).

When you're looking at the ideal format of a [European] club comp, you really do need to take emotion [and existing league structures] out of it.  We have [6 nations with 38 clubs currently spread across] 3 leagues. It would be stupid to weight the comp to one [or two] of these leagues over another [when one of the leagues has four countries in it].  

A counter point of view?

That is the other point of view yes ie the Pro 12 Plus comp. I don' think any league should be getting the lions share. If people want that they can watch the Pro 12, its there already.

The Pro12 Plus comp Vs the Eng/Fra Plus Comp are the two points of view then.

You don't think any league should be getting the lions share.  It should be split three ways evenly, irrespective of number of teams or countries.   A league is the only divider/arbiter that matters.

Poorfour wrote:Sin e, that's not strictly true. The RFU had delegated to the PRL the right to sell their domestic tv rights, and the PRL signed a deal with BT that said "here are the tv rights for the domestic league and we will not sign up to any cross-border competition unless we can assign the rights for games played in England to BT". Technically, they made a commitment not to allow the rights to go to anyone else, rather than actually signing away the rights.  

They had no right to sell any tv games without the agreement of those who they were playing against, particularly when their chosen media broadcaster only broadcasts in the UK.

The RFU ummed and ahhed a bit over it but never vetoed it and I don't think they even said outright that the PRL had overstepped its delegated authority.

They did say they had overstepped their authority.

The rump ERC was equally guilty of creating the mess; they refused to negotiate, and then signed the Sky deal immediately they heard about the BT one.

They refused to be blackmailed. They had already agreed to the division of money (though I think the Pro12 clubs have done better out of it) and the restructuring of the qualifying process.

Also, what's your evidence that the PRL have failed to earn more money? From what I can see, the Pro 12 are no worse off (because that was the deal), and the PRL clubs are earning enough extra that they have been able to raise the salary cap considerably this year, with further increases to come. I don't have the accounts, but that's a pretty big indicator of increased revenue.

I am referring to the PRL grab power of the ERC for the Champs Cup. They are not earning more money, sponsorship is poor and its a lot more costly to operate from Switzerland (oh, and the Board seem to be all on nice little earners now).

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Aukster, when you're looking at the ideal format of a club comp you really do need to take emotion out of this. We have 3 leagues, it would be stupid to weight the comp to one of these leagues over the other. I really don't think casual fans (I'm assuming that's what you're meaning with this ie the fans who are just getting into it or may not have seen much rugby) are more likely to take a bigger interest in a Munster vs Treviso against a Toulon vs Clermont. They're just going to turn the tv on and if the game catches their attention great (could happen with any game), the more interested fan ain't going to be bothered if its an all Pro 12 or Aviva or 14 match (that happens to be EC).

When you're looking at the ideal format of a [European] club comp, you really do need to take emotion [and existing league structures] out of it.  We have [6 nations with 38 clubs currently spread across] 3 leagues. It would be stupid to weight the comp to one [or two] of these leagues over another [when one of the leagues has four countries in it].  

A counter point of view?

That is the other point of view yes ie the Pro 12 Plus comp. I don' think any league should be getting the lions share. If people want that they can watch the Pro 12, its there already.

The Pro12 Plus comp Vs the Eng/Fra Plus Comp are the two points of view then.

You don't think any league should be getting the lions share.  It should be split three ways evenly, irrespective of number of teams or countries.   A league is the only divider/arbiter that matters.

Yeah countries shouldn't come into it, you don't see Swansea given a place in the Champs league just because they're based in Wales. I also disagree with you Eng/Fra Plus as if its the opposite argument; it should be an equal partnership as humanly possible. The opposite would be me arguing for a lot more teams from France or England as theres more interest there for the casual fan. I'm not that wouldn' t be right or fair to the other 2 leagues. Without all 3 working together there will be no Europe full stop.

Sin é wrote:They had no right to sell any tv games without the agreement of those who they were playing against, particularly when their chosen media broadcaster only broadcasts in the UK.

No they don't we've been through this time and time again. I quote IRB regulations to prove that the sale of TV rights is for the union who's area the game is played in. So for games in England it is for the RFU and the RFU alone (specifically excluding the World Cup). This is another one where it goes away for a bit until people forget and then it get's brought back up again.  Please note that this is no different than the RFU selling the TV rights for their home games, when the opposition isn't even known. Also, don't see the point of BT being a UK broadcaster. Sky don't broadcast in France so...?

They did say they had overstepped their authority.

What they actually said was "While the RFU has not given consent to Premiership Rugby to grant European broadcasting rights, we believe it is important to work with them and with all parties involved to find common ground."  Which is rather ambiguous, did they need to give concent, etc. It would depend on the specific wording of the EPS agreement in 2008. We don't know that but from the press releases from the RFU the clubs were given control over their TV Rights, except for EC and CC games which were given to the ERC. So what happens with European games that aren't EC and CC. No doubt that it's ambiguous, otherwise they wouldn't do it. They might well have been wrong but we don't know that.

They refused to be blackmailed. They had already agreed to the division of money (though I think the Pro12 clubs have done better out of it) and the restructuring of the qualifying process.

That was AFTER they had already given notice. If it had been done before hand we could have just carried on.

I am referring to the PRL grab power of the ERC for the Champs Cup. They are not earning more money, sponsorship is poor and its a lot more costly to operate from Switzerland (oh, and the Board seem to be all on nice little earners now).

You have no idea how much the English clubs are getting out it so stop pretending you do. The regions have said that their salary cap is going up partial due to more European money. They were fixed to the previous amount until the AP teams got their share up to the same level. So for the Regions to get more the clubs would have to get significantly more. Also, is the board not pretty much exactly the same as what it was before? There are two board members from each nation involved. So the power grab was to leave exactly the same people in charge?

http://www.epcrugby.com/epcr/about/board.php[/quote]

It's hard to distinguish between the HC & CC, it's more just like a re-brand, nothing has really changed that much has it?

Basically

Reduced groups resulting to a reduction of teams from the Pro 12 - contrary to a widely held opinion the Celts did not have an issue with this
Rejig of finances meaning a bigger slice of the pot goes to England and France
Early final date to keep the French happy
Move of HQ to Switzerland to keep the French happy
Spilt of the TV rights between 2 TV companies, for British and Irish,  due to the English signing a deal without consulting others - resulting in higher costs for the armchair viewer.
Change in seeding determination which means the new competition has more meaningless matches in the later group stages.
Less teams, outside the top 3 leagues, qualifying for Challenge Cup rugby
Heineken laughing their legs off as they get nearly the same publicity for a third the cost

I think that covers it

Mostly backroom stuff then?

I must admit, I haven't followed the changes too closely living out of the country and support Newcastle (we don't do top level European rugby).

The only major difference I can spot is finance, I can't see it being too different between the teams. I quite liked that the spots weren't dished on a country basis and you had to actually earn them.

What about the sigantories to the competition? That's quite improtant too isn't it?

geoff999rugby wrote:Spilt of the TV rights between 2 TV companies, for British and Irish,  due to the English signing a deal without consulting others - resulting in higher costs for the armchair viewer.


Change in seeding determination which means the new competition has more meaningless matches in the later group stages.

The first point is one of the reasons I usually stay away from these threads now as so many people are completely unwilling to ever accept their "side" are just as much to blame as the other.

PRL were wrong to do an exclusive deal that excluded the others.

ERC were wrong to sell the rights for Europe guaranteeing entry from England and France.


Both parties were wrong.


In the end we have two broadcasters because all the participants wanted the huge amount offered by BT, while the Pro12 countries could not afford to be sued by Sky.





As to your second point I have picked up on. HUH? the flip side is that last seasons ECC saw far more meaninful matches in R6 than any HEC ever. I believe 7 of the 8 1/4 final spots were still up for grabs, with more teams in contention than ever before at that stage.



any way, over and out. Hope you all enjoy the repeated constant bickering, rehashing of old views and unwillingness to accept any other point of view.

The point is a simple one - previously it was worth teams trying to finish as high as possible in their groups as it would affect the seeding for the following year.
That is no longer the case as it is totally decided by a teams position in their respective leagues.

If Ulster, for example lose at home to Toulouse we have nothing to play for.
Send the 'A' team to the 3 away games they are meaningless for us and save the 1st XV for the Pro12.
Not a great spectacle losing by 40 - 50 points away but the situation would demand a prioritization.

As a consequence a team losing 3 of the first 4 games have absolutely nothing to play for, before they did.

The ERC was a body made up with both English and French representatives and at the time of the Sky deal the French had flip flopped back to the ERC side of the argument

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Aukster, when you're looking at the ideal format of a club comp you really do need to take emotion out of this. We have 3 leagues, it would be stupid to weight the comp to one of these leagues over the other. I really don't think casual fans (I'm assuming that's what you're meaning with this ie the fans who are just getting into it or may not have seen much rugby) are more likely to take a bigger interest in a Munster vs Treviso against a Toulon vs Clermont. They're just going to turn the tv on and if the game catches their attention great (could happen with any game), the more interested fan ain't going to be bothered if its an all Pro 12 or Aviva or 14 match (that happens to be EC).

When you're looking at the ideal format of a [European] club comp, you really do need to take emotion [and existing league structures] out of it.  We have [6 nations with 38 clubs currently spread across] 3 leagues. It would be stupid to weight the comp to one [or two] of these leagues over another [when one of the leagues has four countries in it].  

A counter point of view?

That is the other point of view yes ie the Pro 12 Plus comp. I don' think any league should be getting the lions share. If people want that they can watch the Pro 12, its there already.

The Pro12 Plus comp Vs the Eng/Fra Plus Comp are the two points of view then.

You don't think any league should be getting the lions share.  It should be split three ways evenly, irrespective of number of teams or countries.   A league is the only divider/arbiter that matters.

Yeah countries shouldn't come into it, you don't see Swansea given a place in the Champs league just because they're based in Wales. I also disagree with you Eng/Fra Plus as if its the opposite argument; it should be an equal partnership as humanly possible. The opposite would be me arguing for a lot more teams from France or England as theres more interest there for the casual fan. I'm not that wouldn' t be right or fair to the other 2 leagues. Without all 3 working together there will be no Europe full stop.

Ok - you believe that countries shouldn't come into it. You call the previous structure Pro12 Plus - meaning, I presume, that it involves more Pro12 teams than English or French ones. To be precise, it involved 3 Irish, 3 Welsh, 2 Scottish and 2 Italian plus 6 English and 6 French (I'm leaving out holders of H Cup or Challenge Cup since they're applicable to anyone). And you said that if people want that, "they can watch the Pro 12, it's there already". This latter comment doesn't really stand up to scrutiny as a valid observation (12 Eng/Fra teams and 10 Pro12 teams), but I'll let that pass.

You say you disagree with the description of "Eng/Fra Plus as if it's the opposite argument". You say the opposite would be you "arguing for a lot more teams from France or England as theres more interest there for the casual fan." Well, I would point out that in the current season, we have 3 Irish, 2 Welsh, 1 Scottish and 1 Italian plus 6 English and 6 French (plus an anyteam playoff). As I presume you realise, the new structure continues to have more teams from France or England. Which is why I could describe it as a Franglo Plus Cup. And this season's knockout stages may well turn out to be just that, by coincidence.

I do get why PRL sought to switch the competition structure principles away from one based on countries/unions to one based on leagues. As I've said previously, it was a smart move and helped win their battle. And improved their financial bottom line substantially.

It does make me wonder that if, for example, Wales were to revert to an own league participation (I'm not from Wales btw), and the Italians were to revert to their former league, Super 10, would the principle of equal partnership between leagues still hold, or would other factors suddenly be brought into play to decide the number of teams and where they come from. Your previous comment that "as long as whole countries can't provide a whole league it has to be parity between leagues" would seem to point to that.

But as you noted my first comment was that countries shouldn't come into it, leagues and clubs within those leagues so suddenly you don't have 3 Irish, 2 Welsh etc you have Pro 12 teams, Aviva teams Pro 14 teams. Yes if you put 2 leagues together, they outnumber the 3rd. you could say that the Aviva and Pro 12 teams outnumber the French as easily.

If the Welsh, Italian, Scottish, Irish all had their own leagues it would be slightly easier but until that happens we have to do initially with the 3 league concept.

geoff999rugby wrote:the French had flip flopped back to the ERC side of the argument

Don't you mean the french Phillipe Philloped.

I'll get my coat.

Pot Hale wrote:   

It does make me wonder that if, for example, Wales were to revert to an own league participation (I'm not from Wales btw), and the Italians were to revert to their former league, Super 10, would the principle of equal partnership between leagues still hold, or would other factors suddenly be brought into play to decide the number of teams and where they come from.   Your previous comment that "as long as whole countries can't provide a whole league it has to be parity between leagues" would seem to point to that.  

All bidders help themselves and theirs, whether that's teams or broadcasters or Unions.  BT is not only a big Broadcasting company with a lot of money and clout, it's also British and a good deal of its controlling mechanism is in the hands of English people(the biggest constituent of the term 'British'.)  
It's a natural that they'd show a bias in getting into bed with PRL in negotiating terms for a new European rugby future to begin with.  It was a back scratcher game by natural bedfellows. Let's plan something that puts us in the driving seat. There's that word again....'Us'.

But anyway, of course the rules would be changed again if each of the four Nations that now make up the Pro12 suddenly decided to go it alone and somehow create Leagues of their own with 10 to 12 teams in each.
To throw a real spanner in the works, I actually see the 'British' element as having far too much representation in Europe.  

18&3/4 teams to them, 14 to France, and only 3&1/2 to Ireland .... Hmmm, what's that Chunky word????  

Scandalous!

Ok, lets move away from the boring money talk

The real discussion is, will this be a good competition and capture peoples imagination, now and in the future?



At the moment, I feel no - and the reason I feel this is i can not see past the large French and English* clubs (You now the ones that have no salary cap (*if any English ones did break the rules :-) )) winning every year

In essence buying the title

Making the whole tournament meaningless