European rugby, the interest just isn't there

First topic message reminder :

I know I will get a bashing off some quarters on here, but sorry it has to be said, looking at the crowds for the two semi-finals on the weekend, it would seem the interest is not there. The aggregate figure for the two games was a paltry 38,968 people, there was more people than that for the Cardiff Blues V Leicester semi final a few years ago 44,212 turned up that day.

This proves that the greedy club owners have ruined a once prestigious competition, admired by thousands and getting better year on year. Where are all these new massive sponsorship deals ? Where is all this money we are supposed to be swimming in ? 

All I saw on the weekend was empty seats, the future of the European club competition for me looks bleak, dwindling crowds, the same teams ALL the time in the knockout stages, lack of interest, the French already consider their own league a priority, for me something drastic needs to be done as it would seem the writing is on the wall for one of our favourite club competitions, it's sad, as it's been well and truly ruined by the greedy club owners.

Take a read of some of these, you might find them interesting:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/04/25/empty-seats-as-saracens-and-racing-92-won-through-must-be-a-wake/
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/much-better-europe-champions-cup-11238143

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation I think the English teams and their fans have a responsibility to step up and bail NH rugby out of the mess they have created.

We had a GREAT competition. OK so no England team had won since 2007, but these things go in cycles so instead of being patient they decided to wreck the whole thing. It has now been reduced to a side-show in terms of the season. Instead of being a grand finale which everyone in the NH could look forward to, they have reduced it to a side-show. The European Cup (either of them) is no longer a focus of fans as can be seen by the shockingly low attendances at the semi-fiinals - I was being texted to come to the Leicester game the day before the match. I had thought Leicester were one of the better supporioted English teams and they couldn't sell out a SF for a MAJOR European competition?

They (the selfish bods who destroyed the HEC) promiosed us a competition to rival fottball's Club Championship; they promised a raft of sponsors and more money for all the clubs (not just the chosen few); they promised us an exciting competition. Instead they have given us a competition from which fans of all clubs seem to be totally disengaged because they were so desperate to get their hands on the loot.

They should be ashmaed of themselves.

So now they need to do something to get fans' interest back inthe comnpetition - make it worthwhile; market it properly; make it the highlight of the season; get some sponsors on board; sort out the ridiculous TV situation. In sum make it something whichneutral fans will want to go to BECAUSE the best rugby of the season, whether on the pitch or for the atmosphere in the stadium or in the town where the Final is being played is worth the neutral fan making the effort to bother to buy tickets for and go to it. Not like this year or last year.

PS I attended HEC Finals even when my team wasn't playing and it was great fun seeing many rugby supporters from clubs all over Europe wearing their own club shirts and enjoying the rugby and the fun arouind town.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

TJ wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:And would connachts funding from IRFU have been doubled without the ERC changes? Genuine qn

Is it not relative?  Did Welsh and Scottish and Italian rugby get more money?  Or are we saying that's why Connacht rose on their own merits as Welsh sides sank?
The amount of money only matters when one group gets far more than another...  so how much money have BT injected into AP?

The scots and Italians got a guarantee that they would get no less money under the new format.  As the new format has a much smaller income this resulted in the English / frenchclubs getting LESS money ( not sure if the welsh / irish got the same guarantee)

Pretty sure this is bollox, a pure fabrication - I'd be interested to see any evidence, though.

Also pretty sure that Welsh/Irish had the same guarantee, although celts would have suffered financially by losing the bulk of the Italian Pro12 bribe.

It was widely reported that due to the lack of sponsers for the new european cup that the total amount of money in the new cup was less and with the pro 12 having minimum income guaranteed that the english and french teams got LESS

KiaRose wrote:

nathan wrote:
You are comparing apples to oranges and coming up with something that excuses the urine poor performances of the pro 12 teams this season.

It's a league based cup, not a international one. Your get a certain amount of places from each of the leagues, simple.

It's is blindingly obvious to anyone who with an interest in rugby why the Pro12 teams had "urine poor performances" this year.  Their representation in the RWC was significantly greater than the teams from the English and French leagues.  For example, the Scottish team were choosing mainly from their TWO preofeesional teams; the Welksh from ofur; the Irish from four and the Italians from, two.  The English were choosing from 12 and the French from 14.  Also the English players returned to their clubs a week before any of the pro12 players giving them an extra week to bed back in with their club squads.  The European competition started two weeks after the RWC was over ... not surprising the Pro12 teams were poor.

Glasgow had 31 players at the WC

Having said all that there was a real lack of marketting this year and that can be easily corrected next year assuming decent sponsers can be found

I also hope for some sanity to reappear and a more equitable spread of teams are playing in future years. Winners of the minnows cup should always get a place in the main event as should the winners of the main event.

KiaRose wrote:Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation I think the English teams and their fans have a responsibility to step up and bail NH rugby out of the mess they have created.

We had a GREAT competition.  OK so no England team had won since 2007, but these things go in cycles so instead of being patient they decided to wreck the whole thing.  It has now been reduced to a side-show in terms of the season.  Instead of being a grand finale which everyone in the NH could look forward to, they have reduced it to a side-show.  The European Cup (either of them) is no longer a focus of fans as can be seen by the shockingly low attendances at the semi-fiinals - I was being texted to come to the Leicester game the day before the match.  I had thought Leicester were one of the better supporioted English teams and they couldn't sell out a SF for a MAJOR European competition?

They (the selfish bods who destroyed the HEC) promiosed us a competition to rival fottball's Club Championship; they promised a raft of sponsors and more money for all the clubs (not just the chosen few); they promised us an exciting competition.  Instead they have given us a competition from which fans of all clubs seem to be totally disengaged because they were so desperate to get their hands on the loot.

They should be ashmaed of themselves.

So now they need to do something to get fans' interest back inthe comnpetition - make it worthwhile; market it properly; make it the highlight of the season; get some sponsors on board; sort out the ridiculous TV situation.  In sum make it something whichneutral fans will want to go to BECAUSE the best rugby of the season, whether on the pitch or for the atmosphere in the stadium or in the town where the Final is being played is worth the neutral fan making the effort to bother to buy tickets for and go to it.  Not like this year or last year.

PS I attended HEC Finals even when my team wasn't playing and it was great fun seeing many rugby supporters from clubs all over Europe wearing their own club shirts and enjoying the rugby and the fun arouind town.

There will be fans interest in it when the pro12 teams do better next year after there World Cup hangover

Not as much interest as previously no. I simply have little interest in english clubs playing each other or french clubs playing each other as I can see them do this in the league. By losing a lot of the cross border element the competition is less interesting intrinsically. Like having a world cup that is actually the 6N plus NZ and SA ( but not Aus or Arg) - its not as interesting

Well if you want that, the pro 12 teams have to perform better. it wouldn't just be English and French teams then.

How exactly has the competition changed to make it harder for the pro 12 teams? It hasn't, it's just being used as an excuse because they have been crap this season.

It would still be mainly english and french teams with far too many english / english games and french / french games. there will still be too little representation from 4 of the 6 nations in european rugby and still no place for Georgia romania etc - its cross border competition that is interesting and we get less of this with the current set up

TJ wrote:It was widely reported that due to the lack of sponsers for the new european cup that the total amount of money in the new cup was less and with the pro 12 having minimum income guaranteed that the english and french teams got LESS

If it was "widely reported" it should be easy to provide the references. Just for completeness, of course.

Edit: and I get it. Pro12 supporters what more of their teams in so they get to play more of the same teams 4 times a year +

TJ wrote:It would still be mainly english and french teams with far too many english / english games and french / french games.  there will still be too little representation from 4 of the 6 nations in european rugby and still no place for Georgia romania etc - its cross border competition that is interesting and we get less of this with the current set up

You mean the current setup where the pro 12 teams have had a poor season, should you not be focusing on why they have been poor this year?

Myth No 1

The changes to the European Cup have "wrecked" the competition for PRO12 clubs.

Greater financial income from domestic league TV deals has meant that top English and French clubs have greater spending power.   Increased salary caps have also increased size and quality of squads.  The four unions involved in the PRO12 are guaranteed the same amount of money from the 2008 deal as now.   A number of the Pro12 clubs have said that the meritocracy changes have made the league better, and more competitive.  And, with increased financial strength for English and French clubs from their domestic deals, made European comps tougher to compete in with better squads for some of the top clubs.

Myth No 2

The allocation of money in the European Comps is fairer now with it split three ways between three leagues.  Each gets 33%.  Clubs now get the same amount of money.

In most cases, the money goes to individual unions, not to league management companies.  How the unions allocate some or all of that money to their clubs is an individual matter for the unions.   In England's case, the RFU gave control of this to PRL.   How PRL distributes the money is not clear - by shareholding? by teams currently in premiership?  FFR agreed with LNR to distribute monies amongst the T14 clubs and clubs in Pro D1.   IRFU allocates monies to provincial clubs annually which includes competition monies from Pro12 and Euro comps.   Connacht historically does not receive as much funding as the other three provinces although this may change in the future.  WRU allocates some but not all monies to its four regions.  

In effect, different amounts of money go to different clubs in different unions.

Myth No 3

The Pro12 clubs are finding it harder now that they have to qualify on merit.

PRO 12 clubs really means Irish provinces since Welsh or Scottish teams rarely if ever made it to knockout stages anyway.   Irish provinces, in the main, were in the top 6 of the PRO12 anyway so qualified on merit.

It's arguable that it is the change to the seeding structure for the European that has made it more difficult for PRO 12 clubs, which is linked to where a club finishes in the league.  And, the reduction in the number of teams, means that there are less "easy" points available from weaker teams being included.

Myth No 4

Pro12 clubs have to play their best players more often in the league in order to qualify for Europe.

This would require detailed research to correctly answer this, but there is no obvious evidence that players subject to player management protocols play any more games than they did previously.   Nonetheless, if they are no longer playing as many European games as a result of not progressing to knockout stages, then obviously they would be able to play in more league matches.   However, this isn't known until over halfway through the season.  Proposed changes to the PRO 12 league would support the contention that top players do not play any more often in the league, and that changes to the league is the only way to achieve that, not changes to the European Cups.

nathan wrote:

TJ wrote:It would still be mainly english and french teams with far too many english / english games and french / french games.  there will still be too little representation from 4 of the 6 nations in european rugby and still no place for Georgia romania etc - its cross border competition that is interesting and we get less of this with the current set up

You mean the current setup where the pro 12 teams have had a poor season, should you not be focusing on why they have been poor this year?

We know the main reason - WC hangover.

I shall say it again as you seem very hard of understanding. The interest in international competitions comes from seeing matches that we don't see in the leagues. IE the cross border matches. the european cup now has less of these interesting matches. Therefore the competition attracts less interest than before. Its not rocket science.

As a Munster fan, I am pretty gutted that they were not near the semi finals or final in this competition but that has nothing to do with the competition, more to do with Munster's poor performances in Europe so nothing to grumble at from my side.

I still tuned into as many games as I could and even enjoyed yesterdays game. Sarries deserved that win and well done to them and their fans.

I hope that next season the Pro-12 teams put in better performances.

eirebilly wrote:As a Munster fan, I am pretty gutted that they were not near the semi finals or final in this competition but that has nothing to do with the competition, more to do with Munster's poor performances in Europe so nothing to grumble at from my side.

I still tuned into as many games as I could and even enjoyed yesterdays game. Sarries deserved that win and well done to them and their fans.

I hope that next season the Pro-12 teams put in better performances.

I doubt we will see improved performances next season. The World cup hangover was never an issue in the past for the provinces. Unless Ulster can keep their squad fit I can't see the provinces making an impact next year, too many out of form players.

TJ wrote:

nathan wrote:

TJ wrote:It would still be mainly english and french teams with far too many english / english games and french / french games.  there will still be too little representation from 4 of the 6 nations in european rugby and still no place for Georgia romania etc - its cross border competition that is interesting and we get less of this with the current set up

You mean the current setup where the pro 12 teams have had a poor season, should you not be focusing on why they have been poor this year?

We know the main reason - WC hangover.  

I shall say it again as you seem very hard of understanding.  The interest in international competitions comes from seeing matches that we don't see in the leagues.  IE the cross border matches.  the european cup now has less of these interesting matches.  Therefore the competition attracts less interest than before.  Its not rocket science.

How different has it been. Counting the groups this year showed no increase of league vs league.

TJ wrote:The interest in international competitions comes from seeing matches that we don't see in the leagues... the european cup now has less of these interesting matches.

Well there are fewer games now so this would obviously the case. However, in relative terms, there are exactly the same number of these games as before. And there always will be with 4 team pools from 3 leagues, for obvious reasons. The pool stages are clearly based on performance and the quality of the teams rather than be structure.

Just to reiterate, every single pool has two teams from the same league. No more, no less. Just as it was in the other structure.

Since the Original Post was concerned with attendance figures at matches I thought it would be interesting to view the figures now that the 2016 season is over.

Challenge Cup

European Challenge Cup Finals Era:
Finals Average: 14,445 (18 finals played)
Highest: 2010 - Cardiff vs Toulon - 48,990
Lowest: 2000 - Pau vs Castres - 6000

Last 3 seasons Game average - 5084 (only 3 seasons due to missing data on previous years)
Highest total average - 2012/2013 - 5307
Lowest total average - 2014/2015 - 4802

European Rugby Challenge Cup Finals era:
Finals Average: 21,436 (2 finals played)
Highest: 2016 - Montpellier vs Quins - 28,556
Lowest: 2015 - Gloucester vs Edinburgh - 14,316

Total Game average - 5662 (2 tournaments played)
Highest total average - 2014/2015 - 5,846
Lowest total average - 2015/2016 - 5,662


Heineken/European Rugby Champions Cup

Heineken Cup Era:
Finals Average: 59,820 (19 finals played) (Final 10 year average - 77,199)
Highest: 2012 - Leinster vs Ulster - 81,774
Lowest:  1996 - Toulouse vs Cardiff - 21, 800

Total Game average - 10409 (19 tournaments played) (final 10 years - 13291) (final 5 years - 14134)
Highest total average - 2008/2009 - 14,900
Lowest total average - 1995/1996 - 5,542

European Rugby Champions Cup Era
Finals Average: 57,319 (2 finals played)
Highest: 2016 - Saracens vs Racing 92 - 58,017
Lowest: 2015 - Toulon vs Clermont - 56,662

Total Game average - 14475 (2 tournaments played)
Highest total average - 2014/2015 - 14,715
Lowest total average - 2015/2016 - 14,263

None of these stats take into account capacity or venues chosen for finals.


Looking purely at the figures the new era is showing similar averages to the Heineken Cup, so the title to this thread does not seem to be correct. Of course you can prove anything with statistics, especially when you cherry pick. Hopefully the averages give a clearer idea on how the 2 eras drew in the crowds to stadiums as a whole.

englishborn wrote:Since the Original Post was concerned with attendance figures at matches I thought it would be interesting to view the figures now that the 2016 season is over.

Challenge Cup

European Challenge Cup Finals Era:
Finals Average: 14,445 (18 finals played)
Highest: 2010 - Cardiff vs Toulon - 48,990
Lowest: 2000 - Pau vs Castres - 6000

Last 3 seasons Game average - 5084 (only 3 seasons due to missing data on previous years)
Highest total average - 2012/2013 - 5307
Lowest total average - 2014/2015 - 4802

European Rugby Challenge Cup Finals era:
Finals Average: 21,436 (2 finals played)
Highest: 2016 - Montpellier vs Quins - 28,556
Lowest: 2015 - Gloucester vs Edinburgh - 14,316

Total Game average - 5662 (2 tournaments played)
Highest total average - 2014/2015 - 5,846
Lowest total average - 2015/2016 - 5,662


Heineken/European Rugby Champions Cup

Heineken Cup Era:
Finals Average: 59,820 (19 finals played) (Final 10 year average - 77,199)
Highest: 2012 - Leinster vs Ulster - 81,774
Lowest:  1996 - Toulouse vs Cardiff - 21, 800

Total Game average - 10409 (19 tournaments played) (final 10 years - 13291) (final 5 years - 14134)
Highest total average - 2008/2009 - 14,900
Lowest total average - 1995/1996 - 5,542

European Rugby Champions Cup Era
Finals Average: 57,319 (2 finals played)
Highest: 2016 - Saracens vs Racing 92 - 58,017
Lowest: 2015 - Toulon vs Clermont - 56,662

Total Game average - 14475 (2 tournaments played)
Highest total average - 2014/2015 - 14,715
Lowest total average - 2015/2016 - 14,263

None of these stats take into account capacity or venues chosen for finals.


Looking purely at the figures the new era is showing similar averages to the Heineken Cup, so the title to this thread does not seem to be correct. Of course you can prove anything with statistics, especially when you cherry pick. Hopefully the averages give a clearer idea on how the 2 eras drew in the crowds to stadiums as a whole.

Your stats are skewed

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:The interest in international competitions comes from seeing matches that we don't see in the leagues... the european cup now has less of these interesting matches.

Well there are fewer games now so this would obviously the case. However, in relative terms, there are exactly the same number of these games as before. And there always will be with 4 team pools from 3 leagues, for obvious reasons. The pool stages are clearly based on performance and the quality of the teams rather than be structure.

Just to reiterate, every single pool has two teams from the same league. No more, no less. Just as it was in the other structure.

Ah but Munster v Treviso 4 times is more interesting than Wasps v Bath 4 times.

It is a well known fact, and will be highlighted by BoJo tomorrow.

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:The interest in international competitions comes from seeing matches that we don't see in the leagues... the european cup now has less of these interesting matches.

Well there are fewer games now so this would obviously the case. However, in relative terms, there are exactly the same number of these games as before. And there always will be with 4 team pools from 3 leagues, for obvious reasons. The pool stages are clearly based on performance and the quality of the teams rather than be structure.

Just to reiterate, every single pool has two teams from the same league. No more, no less. Just as it was in the other structure.

But not from DIFFERENT COUNTRIES thats the basic point you PRL apologists seem unable to grasp. By reducing the number of entrants from the smaller countries the competition is less interesting to the neutral fan

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:The interest in international competitions comes from seeing matches that we don't see in the leagues... the european cup now has less of these interesting matches.

Well there are fewer games now so this would obviously the case. However, in relative terms, there are exactly the same number of these games as before. And there always will be with 4 team pools from 3 leagues, for obvious reasons. The pool stages are clearly based on performance and the quality of the teams rather than be structure.

Just to reiterate, every single pool has two teams from the same league. No more, no less. Just as it was in the other structure.

But not from DIFFERENT COUNTRIES  thats the basic point you PRL apologists seem unable to grasp.  By reducing the number of entrants from the smaller countries the competition is less interesting to the neutral fan

There is the same amount  of countries as previously.  

Which teams are missing that troubles your rugby heart so?

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:The interest in international competitions comes from seeing matches that we don't see in the leagues... the european cup now has less of these interesting matches.

Well there are fewer games now so this would obviously the case. However, in relative terms, there are exactly the same number of these games as before. And there always will be with 4 team pools from 3 leagues, for obvious reasons. The pool stages are clearly based on performance and the quality of the teams rather than be structure.

Just to reiterate, every single pool has two teams from the same league. No more, no less. Just as it was in the other structure.

But not from DIFFERENT COUNTRIES  thats the basic point you PRL apologists seem unable to grasp.  By reducing the number of entrants from the smaller countries the competition is less interesting to the neutral fan

So your back tracking that its about leagues and are now saying neutrals prefer the Pro 12. Being a neutral myself I'd prefer Saints Tigers to Dragons Treviso for example.

Munchkin wrote:

englishborn wrote:Since the Original Post was concerned with attendance figures at matches I thought it would be interesting to view the figures now that the 2016 season is over.

Challenge Cup

European Challenge Cup Finals Era:
Finals Average: 14,445 (18 finals played)
Highest: 2010 - Cardiff vs Toulon - 48,990
Lowest: 2000 - Pau vs Castres - 6000

Last 3 seasons Game average - 5084 (only 3 seasons due to missing data on previous years)
Highest total average - 2012/2013 - 5307
Lowest total average - 2014/2015 - 4802

European Rugby Challenge Cup Finals era:
Finals Average: 21,436 (2 finals played)
Highest: 2016 - Montpellier vs Quins - 28,556
Lowest: 2015 - Gloucester vs Edinburgh - 14,316

Total Game average - 5662 (2 tournaments played)
Highest total average - 2014/2015 - 5,846
Lowest total average - 2015/2016 - 5,662


Heineken/European Rugby Champions Cup

Heineken Cup Era:
Finals Average: 59,820 (19 finals played) (Final 10 year average - 77,199)
Highest: 2012 - Leinster vs Ulster - 81,774
Lowest:  1996 - Toulouse vs Cardiff - 21, 800

Total Game average - 10409 (19 tournaments played) (final 10 years - 13291) (final 5 years - 14134)
Highest total average - 2008/2009 - 14,900
Lowest total average - 1995/1996 - 5,542

European Rugby Champions Cup Era
Finals Average: 57,319 (2 finals played)
Highest: 2016 - Saracens vs Racing 92 - 58,017
Lowest: 2015 - Toulon vs Clermont - 56,662

Total Game average - 14475 (2 tournaments played)
Highest total average - 2014/2015 - 14,715
Lowest total average - 2015/2016 - 14,263

None of these stats take into account capacity or venues chosen for finals.


Looking purely at the figures the new era is showing similar averages to the Heineken Cup, so the title to this thread does not seem to be correct. Of course you can prove anything with statistics, especially when you cherry pick. Hopefully the averages give a clearer idea on how the 2 eras drew in the crowds to stadiums as a whole.

Your stats are skewed

The finals stats are skewed. The HC never gave away free tickets for a final

Sin é wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:
The WRU, Manchester City FC, the FA were not regarded as cohosts, so why should the GAA be?

What an odd question. How have you arrived at it? Nobody has claimed anywhere in this thread that the GAA should be regarded as cohosts.

You claimed that the IRFU 'can't host it alone' (ie, the GAA will be needed for their stadia).

Yes, I stated a fact.

marty2086 wrote:
Well lets look past your insult and ask why would it be clear when the difference between the two is important or aren't you aware of it? A franchise would be privately owned operating under a name whereas a licensed team is still Union owned just privately operated but you fire the insults out to mask your ignorance on the subject.

Maybe you would like to read Philip Brownes interview on Irish Rugby a while back and answer that question then come back and tell me how awkward it is for you

You seem unaware that the NZRU calls its Super Rugby teams 'franchises'. That's awkward.

I read Browne's whine about he can't sell anything off. It's complete bluster. Selling off the Branches would take a week's preparation for any of the top four accountancy firms. It's easy to do.

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Sin é IIRC the PRL/NLR wanted to discuss changes but the others said NO. It was only  at the last minute (18 months(of the 2 year period that was needed) after notice given) that the others said they would talk but by then PRL had signed the agreement with BT because they couldn't sit around & wait to see if anything in the Hec changed. The BT agreement was actually signed before the Sky deal with the HEC,this caused the problem & the solution was to split broadcasting.

Thats not what happened. McCafferty was on the Commerical Board of the ERC and would have been privy to the TV negotiations. He then went missing. Wheeler was still attending ERC board meetings as was Bill Beaumont. McCafferty had sold off the English team's rights to the ERC's competition which you say they were quitting  

If they were quitting the competition because they couldn't get their way, why were they selling the English tv rights?

What a wonderful misrepresentation.

PRL sold TV rights to BT Sport on the basis of them no longer playing in ERC competitions. IF (see that word) there was to be a new competition, BT Sport would have the rights for the sum agreed.

Nothing more to it than that.

Sin é wrote:
French had signed up. It was just the English clubs who got themselves in an impossible situation which required Bill Beaumont getting down on his hands and knees and beg the others to keep the England clubs involved. Then the PRL approached the Welsh clubs to play some lucrative Anglo Welsh thingy which ended up with the Welsh withdrawing which is when it got messy. The ones to do best out of this whole thing are of course the Scots

Wholly wrong. Incredibly so.

Still no answer then Phil?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:The interest in international competitions comes from seeing matches that we don't see in the leagues... the european cup now has less of these interesting matches.

Well there are fewer games now so this would obviously the case. However, in relative terms, there are exactly the same number of these games as before. And there always will be with 4 team pools from 3 leagues, for obvious reasons. The pool stages are clearly based on performance and the quality of the teams rather than be structure.

Just to reiterate, every single pool has two teams from the same league. No more, no less. Just as it was in the other structure.

But not from DIFFERENT COUNTRIES  thats the basic point you PRL apologists seem unable to grasp.  By reducing the number of entrants from the smaller countries the competition is less interesting to the neutral fan

So your back tracking that its about leagues and are now saying neutrals prefer the Pro 12. Being a neutral myself I'd prefer Saints Tigers to Dragons Treviso for example.

No I am not. Its always been about countries and now that nor did I say the neutrals prefer the pro 12 - its that the interest in cross border competitions like the euro cup come from seeing matchups that you don't get in the leagues ie cross border matchups - and now we have less of them.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Still no answer then Phil?

To what?

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:The interest in international competitions comes from seeing matches that we don't see in the leagues... the european cup now has less of these interesting matches.

Well there are fewer games now so this would obviously the case. However, in relative terms, there are exactly the same number of these games as before. And there always will be with 4 team pools from 3 leagues, for obvious reasons. The pool stages are clearly based on performance and the quality of the teams rather than be structure.

Just to reiterate, every single pool has two teams from the same league. No more, no less. Just as it was in the other structure.

But not from DIFFERENT COUNTRIES  thats the basic point you PRL apologists seem unable to grasp.  By reducing the number of entrants from the smaller countries the competition is less interesting to the neutral fan

So your back tracking that its about leagues and are now saying neutrals prefer the Pro 12. Being a neutral myself I'd prefer Saints Tigers to Dragons Treviso for example.

No I am not.  Its always been about countries and now that nor did I say the neutrals prefer the pro 12 - its that the interest in cross border competitions like the euro cup come from seeing matchups that you don't get in the leagues ie cross border matchups - and now we have less of them.  

I don't think we did have less in the groups did we?

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Still no answer then Phil?

To what?

Ha. Why should I be scared of the Welsh joining the English league.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Still no answer then Phil?

To what?

Ha. Why should I be scared of the Welsh joining the English league.

Where did I claim that of you personally?

On another thread. You don't think I should be anymore? Good to know.

No 7&1/2 wrote:On another thread. You don't think I should be anymore? Good to know.

Could you provide the link?

Thanks.

It's in your history, link's under your name to the right.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's in your history, link's under your name to the right.

Great, so you'll know where to find it. Off you go.

Ha. This is why you run away then, to pretend you didn't do it!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ha. This is why you run away then, to pretend you didn't do it!

Or when you run away as you can't show the link.

I've no recollection of the context of the post, so I can't help you. Sorry. I've no exposure or knowledge as to your rugby hue, either, so there is zero context to go on.

Never mind.

Never mind just avoid like normal.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:The interest in international competitions comes from seeing matches that we don't see in the leagues... the european cup now has less of these interesting matches.

Well there are fewer games now so this would obviously the case. However, in relative terms, there are exactly the same number of these games as before. And there always will be with 4 team pools from 3 leagues, for obvious reasons. The pool stages are clearly based on performance and the quality of the teams rather than be structure.

Just to reiterate, every single pool has two teams from the same league. No more, no less. Just as it was in the other structure.

But not from DIFFERENT COUNTRIES  thats the basic point you PRL apologists seem unable to grasp.  By reducing the number of entrants from the smaller countries the competition is less interesting to the neutral fan

So your back tracking that its about leagues and are now saying neutrals prefer the Pro 12. Being a neutral myself I'd prefer Saints Tigers to Dragons Treviso for example.

No I am not.  Its always been about countries and now that nor did I say the neutrals prefer the pro 12 - its that the interest in cross border competitions like the euro cup come from seeing matchups that you don't get in the leagues ie cross border matchups - and now we have less of them.  

I don't think we did have less in the groups did we?

I am now confused. Is TJ stating he dislikes match-ups from the same league, or match-ups from the same country? He explicitly states that the interest is matches you do not get in the league, yet seems perfectly happy with seeing more repeated Pro12 fixtures.


As has already been pointed out, this season each pool had two teams that would face each other in the league. Are we to believe that people are more interested in seeing Glasgow/Scarlets or Munster/Treviso doubled up rather than the Anglo/French matchups?

As has also been pointed out before the old cup had these same number of duplicate match-ups per pool, so more overall.

Are people really saying that they believe 4 pools with two Pro12 teams and two pools with two French teams was more interesting? (as per the last HC)

No 7&1/2 wrote:Never mind just avoid like normal.

So no link.

Told you where it is, if you want to avoid its down to you.

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:The interest in international competitions comes from seeing matches that we don't see in the leagues... the european cup now has less of these interesting matches.

Well there are fewer games now so this would obviously the case. However, in relative terms, there are exactly the same number of these games as before. And there always will be with 4 team pools from 3 leagues, for obvious reasons. The pool stages are clearly based on performance and the quality of the teams rather than be structure.

Just to reiterate, every single pool has two teams from the same league. No more, no less. Just as it was in the other structure.

But not from DIFFERENT COUNTRIES  thats the basic point you PRL apologists seem unable to grasp.  By reducing the number of entrants from the smaller countries the competition is less interesting to the neutral fan

So your back tracking that its about leagues and are now saying neutrals prefer the Pro 12. Being a neutral myself I'd prefer Saints Tigers to Dragons Treviso for example.

No I am not.  Its always been about countries and now that nor did I say the neutrals prefer the pro 12 - its that the interest in cross border competitions like the euro cup come from seeing matchups that you don't get in the leagues ie cross border matchups - and now we have less of them.  

I don't think we did have less in the groups did we?

I am now confused. Is TJ stating he dislikes match-ups from the same league, or match-ups from the same country? He explicitly states that the interest is matches you do not get in the league, yet seems perfectly happy with seeing more repeated Pro12 fixtures.


As has already been pointed out, this season each pool had two teams that would face each other in the league. Are we to believe that people are more interested in seeing Glasgow/Scarlets or Munster/Treviso doubled up rather than the Anglo/French matchups?

As has also been pointed out before the old cup had these same number of duplicate match-ups per pool, so more overall.

Are people really saying that they believe 4 pools with two Pro12 teams and two pools with two French teams was more interesting? (as per the last HC)

He then states it is cross league games which bring more interest, so yes confusing.

Jeepers. How clear can I be!

Cross border competition is more interesting to neutrals. IE matchups that are not seen in the regular season.

Now there are less of these games as there is less variety of entrants. Under the old format for example 2 scots teams were in the competition so we had twice as many Scots / English games as we do now

The english / english games and French / french games make up a bigger % of the pool games than was the case under the old format. therefore there are less of the more interesting games that only happen in the euro cup

One thing I feel bound to add. I did during all the arguements about the format decry the idea that qualification would make the pro12 more entertaining - and on this I will accept I am wrong

However I still am adamant that the balance is wrong and that by ensuring that 2 countries have 2/3 of the places has simply led to a less interesting competition

I would also add that due to the short timescales and lack of sponsers this years tournament was poorly marketed. Hopefully that can be corrected for next year

There aren't fewer though TJ.

No 7&1/2 wrote:There aren't fewer though TJ.

Technically there are fewer, as there is one pool less. Just as there are fewer same league matches and of course fewer matches. The proportion is however the same.

TJ the competition going from HC to European Champions Cup hasn't really changed for Scottish sides - you made very little impact in the HC and are making very little impact in the European Champions Cup.

It is up to the Scottish sides to start upping their game. The English sides in general have upped their game this season in Europe - GS and strong European Champions cup representation in the knock out stages are the results.

I would love to see either Glasgow or Edinburgh having a strong campaign but you need to perform.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Told you where it is, if you want to avoid its down to you.

No, you claimed a way of me finding it. Your claim, you prove it.

Claim? Just something you said and never explaihed when asked. If you don't remember why I should be afraid that the Welsh will join the English league fair enough, they were your thoughts.