The European club rugby debacle continues part IV: the quest for peace

Winters

BT's take on things and an interview with Mark McCafferty himself. Note that their playoff don't include the Pro12. A good watch.

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2014/04/european-rugby-explained-and-nick.html?m=1

How nice of Mark to "give us" an extra slot..

OldRio

Worrying times ahead thats for sure.

Dub.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This is just more melodrama with no explanation.

There may be a solid argument for why clubs shouldn't be involved in running club rugby, but it has yet to be made.

The new ERC doesn`t just contain clubs. Clubs cannot be allowed control of a competition that contains Provinces, Regions and Districts.

irishbucsfan

Dub. wrote: »

The new ERC doesn`t just contain clubs. Clubs cannot be allowed control of a competition that contains Provinces, Regions and Districts.

"Provinces, Regions and Disctricts" are clubs under IRB definition.

Either way, it's not an argument that makes any sense without actually explaining why they should be allowed proportional control.

Winters

Poppycock. Leinster is 72 clubs.

The Irish provinces are representative sides on a level above the club system.

Yes European rugby is a mash of two differing rugby systems, one a fully meritocratic club league like soccer the other a representative side format like Super Rugby and who knows which is better but certainly the ignorance from the soccer type model side of the argument was a large sticking point.

irishbucsfan

Winters wrote: »

Poppycock. Leinster is 72 clubs.

The Irish provinces are representative sides on a level above the club system.

Yes European rugby is a mash of two differing rugby systems, one a fully meritocratic club league like soccer the other a representative side format like Super Rugby and who knows which is better but certainly the ignorance from the soccer type model side of the argument was a large sticking point.

The provinces are clubs. There isn't even any grey area, it's black and white. The fact a different descriptor is used is entirely irrelevant.

Winters

The differences between the likes of Cork Constitution and Munster Rugby shouldn't need explaining to you.

Anyway, here's some more interesting reading..

http://whiffofcordite.com/2014/04/14/what-the-fans-want/

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/please-munster-shove-boudjellal-back-over-the-line-he-has-crossed-30180596.html

irishbucsfan

Winters wrote: »

The differences between the likes of Cork Constitution and Munster Rugby shouldn't need explaining to you.

It doesn't, but the definition of a club is there for everyone to see. It's really very straightforward. We can choose to differentiate provinces from clubs domestically, but it's not the correct IRB defnition.

Winters

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/heineken-cup/neil-francis-meritocracy-my-arse-its-about-money-and-control-nothing-else-30201302.html

Neil Francis tells it like it is.

Molester Stallone

Winters wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/heineken-cup/neil-francis-meritocracy-my-arse-its-about-money-and-control-nothing-else-30201302.html

Neil Francis tells it like it is.

Seems like he's read every internet forum & cobbled together all the best bits for effect.
Outside of his arse, nothing we haven't seen before in that piece

irishbucsfan

This poster put it as well as anyone could.

its_phil

Winters wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/heineken-cup/neil-francis-meritocracy-my-arse-its-about-money-and-control-nothing-else-30201302.html

Neil Francis tells it like it is.

Proves what a fool of a writer he is that he didn't know there is going to be a playoff involving the Rabo teams next year.

Winters

Please don't make me picture Neil Francis' arse.

.ak

irishbucsfan wrote: »

"Provinces, Regions and Disctricts" are clubs under IRB definition.

Either way, it's not an argument that makes any sense without actually explaining why they should be allowed proportional control.

Maybe by IRB definition but the truth of the matter is they are completely different to what the clubs are in England for example, and I won't patronise you with the reasons but I would presume you know the differences, therefor a competition that has these very different entities cannot be ran by one entity. What's good for club rugby in England might not be good for 'club' rugby in Ireland. The competition should be ran by all involved parties, not just the clubs.

irishbucsfan

.ak wrote: »

Maybe by IRB definition but the truth of the matter is they are completely different to what the clubs are in England for example, and I won't patronise you with the reasons but I would presume you know the differences, therefor a competition that has these very different entities cannot be ran by one entity. What's good for club rugby in England might not be good for 'club' rugby in Ireland. The competition should be ran by all involved parties, not just the clubs.

Which is exactly what the new structure is.

.ak

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Which is exactly what the new structure is.

Right. I'm not disagreeing with that at all.

irishbucsfan

.ak wrote: »

Right. I'm not disagreeing with that at all.

Then I don't understand your point?

Unless you are saying the provinces are not clubs, which is not true. Making the very obvious point that they are different to English and Welsh regions doesn't change the fact that in the eyes of rugby they are all clubs, and the new competition will be run equally by the clubs.

.ak

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Then I don't understand your point?

Unless you are saying the provinces are not clubs, which is not true. Making the very obvious point that they are different to English and Welsh regions doesn't change the fact that in the eyes of rugby they are all clubs, and the new competition will be run equally by the clubs.

Sorry, I misread your first post. I thought you were saying clubs should run a club competition, but I see you actually said clubs should be apart of running it. My mistake.

baker59

CatFromHue wrote: »

http://www.espn.co.uk/heineken-cup-2013-14/rugby/story/221419.html

"From 2015 season, if the previous season's challenge Cup winner has not already qualified through its finishing position in its league, it will participate in the play-off by taking a place given to its league"

Although it seems unlikely, it could be possible that the winner of the champions cup and challenge cup fail to secure qualification through their league positions. The winner of the challenge cup goes to the playoff and the winner of the champions cup is not in Europe the next season.

Can anyone confirm this or correct me?

Podge_irl

baker59 wrote: »

"From 2015 season, if the previous season's challenge Cup winner has not already qualified through its finishing position in its league, it will participate in the play-off by taking a place given to its league"

Although it seems unlikely, it could be possible that the winner of the champions cup and challenge cup fail to secure qualification through their league positions. The winner of the challenge cup goes to the playoff and the winner of the champions cup is not in Europe the next season.

Can anyone confirm this or correct me?

I have no idea, but a similarly unlikely scenario of a FIRA team winning the challenge cup appears to be completely unaccounted for.

Winters

I've been accused of scaremongering but failure to heed these warnings will be disastrous for rugby as we know it.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/heineken-cup/odds-being-stacked-against-irish-teams-under-the-new-champions-cup-format-1.1776748

Buer

I rarely dabble in the dark recesses of the internet known as "The European club rugby debacle continues part IV: the quest for peace" but Thornley's article today did raise an eyebrow (which is handily and kindly linked by Winters above).

I don't really follow the whole situation too closely. I familiarise myself with it when it becomes real. So one thing stood out reading the piece which was that the only seeded teams will be the league winners.

So, let me get this straight. If, for example, Leinster win the Pro12, Saracens win the AP and, for argument's sake, Montpellier (who are on fire) win the T14 this season they will be the only teams seeded? Lets also assume that France earns the final spot in the play off for the 20th side.

Does this mean we can potentially be looking at a pool of Leinster, Toulon, Clermont and Northampton? Or Saracens, Ulster, Toulouse and Castres?

irishbucsfan

Buer wrote: »

I rarely dabble in the dark recesses of the internet known as "The European club rugby debacle continues part IV: the quest for peace" but Thornley's article today did raise an eyebrow (which is handily and kindly linked by Winters above).

I don't really follow the whole situation too closely. I familiarise myself with it when it becomes real. So one thing stood out reading the piece which was that the only seeded teams will be the league winners.

So, let me get this straight. If, for example, Leinster win the Pro12, Saracens win the AP and, for argument's sake, Montpellier (who are on fire) win the T14 this season they will be the only teams seeded? Lets also assume that France earns the final spot in the play off for the 20th side.

Does this mean we can potentially be looking at a pool of Leinster, Toulon, Clermont and Northampton? Or Saracens, Ulster, Toulouse and Castres?

Yeah that's how it seems to have gone now.

As I said before it seems mad to me. The seeding system was very broken but it could have been fixed, rather than scrapped.

There will be a lot less variance in the strength of groups, but they still should have implemented a working seeding system. Maybe they will after 3 years of the new competition when they have a workline base for it or something, I'm not sure of their motives on it.

Podge_irl

Yeah, the current seeding system is dodgy but none at all is bonkers.

Eod100

There was talk of one stage that English and French clubs would be separated to a certain extent but not sure if that's still on the cards.

Guess from an Irish point of view, the possibility (however slim or not) of 3 provinces been in the 1 pool is a disaster.

Think the competition is struggling to decide what it is, it's not purely meritocratic due to Rabo qualifying system which was probably a bit of a compromise to please Rabo sides. Some of the French teams who qualify via Top14 might not be too bothered with it. Then you're gonna have 3 out of 5 runners-up qualifying for knock-out stages, so luck of the draw could very much come into it especially when the pools are unseeded apart from 3 league winners.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yeah that's how it seems to have gone now.

As I said before it seems mad to me. The seeding system was very broken but it could have been fixed, rather than scrapped.

There will be a lot less variance in the strength of groups, but they still should have implemented a working seeding system. Maybe they will after 3 years of the new competition when they have a workline base for it or something, I'm not sure of their motives on it.

I'm not Thornios biggest fan but he has a point here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/heineken-cup/odds-being-stacked-against-irish-teams-under-the-new-champions-cup-format-1.1776748

Gerry Thornley wrote:

Yet the odds are being loaded more heavily against the Irish teams. For starters, the new European Cup will only seed the three league winners (which seems a little risible given two groups would thus have no seeds). In other words, achievements over the past five years in European rugby (which would have earned Leinster and Munster top seeding, with Ulster second seeks) will no longer count.

In fact his whole article is pretty good. Some might view it as scaremongering, but I reckon it's all pretty reasonable. We can already see the Pro12 sides being plundered by England and France. They are getting proportionally more out of this new competition than anyone else and along with the increase in revenues from their domestic league (again proportionally more than the Pro12 will be getting) the financial gulf has grown hugely, and continues to grow. Add to that the fact that the gap between the 6 Nations and the European final is shorter and that will undoubtedly have a bigger impact on the like of the Irish provinces than the clubs in France or England who contribute less proportionally to their national sides.

With the Pro12 being less and less competitive the incentive for players to leave that league will increase. With the financial gains the English and French have made that will only add to the likelihood of Irish players going abroad. I'm seriously worried about where this is all taking us.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

They are getting proportionally more out of this new competition than anyone else

This is where it all falls down. They are not getting more than anyone. They are getting the exact same. That is what everything was about, they are getting the same out of the competition as everyone else. Show one area of the competition where they are getting more than anyone else and you might have a point. You won't be able to, because it doesn't exist.

That is the problem with Thornley's article. He's effectively attempting to make the point that a fair deal is unfair for us, because we got so much out of it in the past. Everyone should be treated equally so long as that doesn't include us.


In your example about seeding, again I don't see any decent point at all. The seeding is gone because it was based on an unfair system. They could have weighted it better but they scrapped it. That isn't an attack on Celtic rugby. That affects absolutely everyone. The two teams that lose the most points from that decision in the long term are Toulon and Clermont, last season's finalists. Everyone is being treated the exact same.

former legend

If one of the main arguments of the English clubs was that the Pro12 teams had an unfair advantage in the HC, then they were never going to agree to a seeding which carries that advantage over into the new competition.

It's too late to bring in a seeding now for next season but hopefully they'll come up with some system for subsequent seasons.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This is where it all falls down. They are not getting more than anyone. They are getting the exact same. That is what everything was about, they are getting the same out of the competition as everyone else. Show one area of the competition where they are getting more than anyone else and you might have a point. You won't be able to, because it doesn't exist.

That is the problem with Thornley's article. He's effectively attempting to make the point that a fair deal is unfair for us, because we got so much out of it in the past. Everyone should be treated equally so long as that doesn't include us.

Badly phrased, but at this stage you know full well what I mean. The increase they are getting is proportionally more. So the financial gap widens. I've only made this point hundreds of times at this stage. The whole point of the Pro12 sides getting more from the HEC was to go some way to balancing up existing inequities in the finances in Europe.

For so long we heard the English club men use phrases like "level playing field" etc. And if, like you are doing, you limit your view to the European competition alone then they are leveling the playing field. If you look at the bigger picture they are just ensuring the field is more tilted in their favour.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

Badly phrased, but at this stage you know full well what I mean. The increase they are getting is proportionally more. So the financial gap widens. I've only made this point hundreds of times at this stage. The whole point of the Pro12 sides getting more from the HEC was to go some way to balancing up existing inequities in the finances in Europe.

For so long we heard the English club men use phrases like "level playing field" etc. And if, like you are doing, you limit your view to the European competition alone then they are leveling the playing field. If you look at the bigger picture they are just ensuring the field is more tilted in their favour.

If they are getting proportionately more because we've made everything even, then it just goes to prove that things were not fair under the old system. No point pretending we were promised the extra money we were getting in the past. We were not guaranteed it by virtue of the fact we were already getting it. Yes they are getting more out of the new system, but that is because they were getting much less under the old system, so I don't really understand why that's surprising at all.