Advertisement
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Heineken Cup to be replaced by Club World Cup

«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 21,027 ✭✭✭✭ Squidgy Black


    I'm not really sure what they're trying to achieve with this.

    You remove a chunk of games from the calendar, but not in a meaningful way for a lot of teams where you're not replacing them with other revenues.

    Unless they have some indication that there's some massive sponsor dying to come on board and the TV revenue will be significantly greater, there's not much point to it when you factor in travel and timezones.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,174 ✭✭✭ troyzer


    I'm not really sure what they're trying to achieve with this.

    You remove a chunk of games from the calendar, but not in a meaningful way for a lot of teams where you're not replacing them with other revenues.

    Unless they have some indication that there's some massive sponsor dying to come on board and the TV revenue will be significantly greater, there's not much point to it when you factor in travel and timezones.

    I suspect the idea is that they host it in one country for the duration of the six weeks, big sponsors etc. A proper world cup tournament feel.

    It's an awful idea.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,294 ✭✭✭ davo2001


    troyzer wrote: »

    How about posting a link for the article that's not behind a ****ing paywall?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,174 ✭✭✭ troyzer


    davo2001 wrote: »
    How about posting a link for the article that's not behind a ****ing paywall?

    Apologies, I have a subscription. Owen Slot broke it but I imagine there will be free links soon.

    I can copy and paste the article?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,593 ✭✭✭ CrabRevolution


    troyzer wrote: »
    I think this deserves its own thread.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/plan-to-scrap-champions-cup-for-new-global-competition-cvx98rmmd

    Laporte is implying that there's big interest from the RFU.

    Do the USA have a very big influence on World Rugby, or why do they always get a prime spot in the latest plans for big competitions?

    I know there's the big potential market/grow the game angle, but it always looks so jarring when these proposals come out to see the "traditional" 2nd tier countries cast adrift, and the USA leapfrogging them to a spot at the top table.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,174 ✭✭✭ troyzer


    Do the USA have a very big influence on World Rugby, or why do they always get a prime spot in the latest plans for big competitions?

    I know there's the big potential market/grow the game angle, but it always looks so jarring when these proposals come out to see the "traditional" 2nd tier countries cast adrift, and the USA leapfrogging them to a spot at the top table.

    You've answered your own question.

    Money is all that matters


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,174 ✭✭✭ troyzer


    Here's the full article:
    Radical new proposals to boost rugby’s finances with the introduction of an annual Club World Cup could spell the end of the Heineken Champions Cup, the most prestigious competition in the European club game.

    Bernard Laporte, the president of the French Rugby Federation, who is aiming to become vice-chairman of World Rugby next month, has told Midi Olympique of plans he has developed for a six-week club competition to be held every year, featuring 20 teams from around the world.

    Space would be made in the calendar by removing the European club competitions, which Laporte feels do not generate enough money.

    “The European competition is magnificent, with Toulon [as head coach] I was able to lift the trophy three times and I know what it can represent,” Laporte said. “But let’s be frank, it does not generate enough income. If we want to develop this Club World Cup, we have to find dates. Without the Champions Cup, nine weekends are available.”

    At the World Rugby Council meeting next month, Laporte will be running alongside Bill Beaumont, who is seeking re-election as chairman, and they will distribute their manifesto this week at a time when the economic viability of the game worldwide is being threatened by the coronavirus shutdown.

    To address the problems the game will be facing, Laporte is proposing a new window “dedicated to clubs” to allow the creation of his new competition. The format for the global club competition would replicate the structure of the Rugby World Cup, with 20 teams split into four pools of five, followed by quarter-finals, semi-finals and a final.

    Six teams would qualify from Super Rugby, four teams each from England, France and the Pro14 competitions, plus the league champions from Japan and the United States.


    “This is only a proposal,” Laporte said, “but I am sure of one thing: we must create this competition and very quickly. It could be a breath of fresh air for the whole of world rugby.”

    Laporte told Midi Olympique that he has discussed the proposal with Bill Sweeney, the RFU chief executive, along with the presidents of Top 14 clubs in France. “All are excited by such a project,” Laporte said. “The goal of my approach is to find the income that will allow [unions] to finance both the professional and amateur world. This crisis must push us to be innovative. Let’s make this new competition. I am sure that the public and television will follow.”


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,141 ✭✭✭✭ is_that_so




  • Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭ maestroamado


    From a financial point of view they be better fallow the Champions League model where there be several large sponsors of the same event, this model works well as the sponsors compliment each other by association, say for example Ford and Heineken they are not competing with each other. There be more money available this way as i think Champions League has 6/8 big sponsors this is the way this business is going. I expect there be few changes for the next couple of years because of what's happening now...


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,429 ✭✭✭✭ Cookiemunster


    From a financial point of view they be better fallow the Champions League model where there be several large sponsors of the same event, this model works well as the sponsors compliment each other by association, say for example Ford and Heineken they are not competing with each other. There be more money available this way as i think Champions League has 6/8 big sponsors this is the way this business is going. I expect there be few changes for the next couple of years because of what's happening now...

    That was the original plan for the Champions Cup. They problem is that rugby isn't anywhere near as popular as football and nobody other than Heineken (at a vastly reduced rate to their Heineken Cup sponsorship) signed up. The new competition ended up making less money than the Heineken Cup for the English and French teams.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,519 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Neil3030


    6 + (3x4) = 18

    6 groups of 3; group winners and 2 best runners-up making the QF - makes most sense as a tournament structure.

    Touring sides could travel cross-hemisphere and get their one (or max two) away pool games out of the way in a single trip, lasting a week or fortnight.

    But goddam it'd be some slog for European side to go all the way to Aukland for a single match, then home.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,307 ✭✭✭ Dave_The_Sheep


    To be honest, I* have no interest in playing Southern Hemisphere club sides in place of the Heineken Cup.

    What do the NH club sides (as a whole) gain from this? More money? That went great last time the HC was 'replaced'.

    Pushing this agenda now at a time when clubs are in financial dire straits due to an unprecedented global pandemic is absolutely classless as well.

    *I realise that yes, this is not about what I want, but more about money dollarydoos and that's all important.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭ Richie_Rich89


    Do the USA have a very big influence on World Rugby, or why do they always get a prime spot in the latest plans for big competitions?

    I know there's the big potential market/grow the game angle, but it always looks so jarring when these proposals come out to see the "traditional" 2nd tier countries cast adrift, and the USA leapfrogging them to a spot at the top table.


    This the same USA who were Olympic champions twice years before Ireland ever won a Grand Slam?


  • Registered Users Posts: 246 ✭✭ pjdarcy


    If the idea is to reenergise southern hemisphere rugby they're going down the wrong path. It can be expensive enough to travel to an away fixture for a heineken cup game so how many Irish fans do they think would travel to New Zealand or Japan for an away fixture in this competition? Also, most southern hemisphere rugby fans don't give a toss about northern hemisphere rugby (in my limited experience)


  • Subscribers Posts: 36,217 ✭✭✭✭ sydthebeat


    This the same USA who were Olympic champions twice years before Ireland ever won a Grand Slam?

    you mean in the olympics in 1920 when only two teams took part?
    USA and France

    or the 1924 olympics when three teams entered? with the above two being joined by Romania.

    The USA have traditionally been a second tier team in rugby, nothing at all controversial in that statement.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭ Richie_Rich89


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    you mean in the olympics in 1920 when only two teams took part?
    USA and France

    or the 1924 olympics when three teams entered? with the above two being joined by Romania.

    The USA have traditionally been a second tier team in rugby, nothing at all controversial in that statement.

    The original comment implied the USA weren't a "traditional" second tier team, as if they have no history in the game or something.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,365 ✭✭✭✭ molloyjh


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    you mean in the olympics in 1920 when only two teams took part?
    USA and France

    or the 1924 olympics when three teams entered? with the above two being joined by Romania.

    The USA have traditionally been a second tier team in rugby, nothing at all controversial in that statement.

    As burn goes, this is a good 'un.


  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭ briandebum


    I think the idea of doing this tournament annually is absolutely daft.

    Just from a logistics standpoint, playing home and away seems like a non runner as the away side will probably be hockeyed. (We already see home teams win the majority of the time in the champions cup, and results wont improve after flying across the world).

    The other option is to do it world cup style and have all the matches in one place. This means clubs are losing matchday revenue. Also fans of clubs are definitely less likely to travel than they would for the international game, I'm not sure what sort of atmosphere you'd get for say Crusaders vs Bath in Johannesburg?

    So I think in terms of replacing the champions cup it's a non-runner. Maybe you could do one every 4 years or something like that?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,593 ✭✭✭ CrabRevolution


    The original comment implied the USA weren't a "traditional" second tier team, as if they have no history in the game or something.
    My phrasing might not have been great, but usually when I see people talk of "2nd tier" they meant Georgia, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga etc. Further back you might have had Japan, Italy, Argentina etc.

    I've almost never heard people include the USA in this bracket, no matter how many remarkably weak olympics they won 100 years ago.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 10,879 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Quin_Dub


    briandebum wrote: »
    I think the idea of doing this tournament annually is absolutely daft.

    Just from a logistics standpoint, playing home and away seems like a non runner as the away side will probably be hockeyed. (We already see home teams win the majority of the time in the champions cup, and results wont improve after flying across the world).

    The other option is to do it world cup style and have all the matches in one place. This means clubs are losing matchday revenue. Also fans of clubs are definitely less likely to travel than they would for the international game, I'm not sure what sort of atmosphere you'd get for say Crusaders vs Bath in Johannesburg?

    So I think in terms of replacing the champions cup it's a non-runner. Maybe you could do one every 4 years or something like that?

    This is the key piece..

    Unless it's held in Europe or South Africa every time , TV revenue will be marginal (compared to prime time European cup) as the KO times will be crap and few beyond die hard fans few will get up to watch it. Why would Sky/BT etc. pay more for games at 7am on a Saturday/Sunday morning than they currently pay for Games at much better timeslots in their schedules.

    The Super teams aren't that much of a draw...

    If it's always in Europe/SA then NZ and Aus won't watch it either so really doesn't help them (and lets be fair , up until the recent Covid related financial issues it's really Aus and NZ that have cash problems)

    It's a stupid idea...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,135 ✭✭✭✭ Larbre34


    Not specific to this idea, but generally regarding Bernard Laporte in rugby, in politics, in life.

    He needs to **** off. He needs to keep ****ing off. He needs to keep ****ing off until he reaches a fence with a sign on it which says "you can't **** off past here..." Then he needs to summon up all his courage, climb over the fence, dream the impossible dream, and keep ****ing off forever.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,282 ✭✭✭✭ Podge_irl


    Suspect this will go the way of the Nations Championship or whatever it was supposed to be called.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭ Richie_Rich89


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Not specific to this idea, but generally regarding Bernard Laporte in rugby, in politics, in life.

    He needs to **** off. He needs to keep ****ing off. He needs to keep ****ing off until he reaches a fence with a sign on it which says "you can't **** off past here..." Then he needs to summon up all his courage, climb over the fence, dream the impossible dream, and keep ****ing off forever.

    Great coach. Toulon now are a shadow of the team they were under him. Weren't great before he took over either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,429 ✭✭✭✭ Cookiemunster


    EPCR released a statement saying that there have been negotiations about a a tournament every 4 years to complement the Champions Cup and Challenge Cup, but that right ow all the focus is on reorganising the knock outs of this seasons competitions.

    https://www.epcrugby.com/2020/04/06/statement-club-world-cup/


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,997 ✭✭✭ AbusesToilets


    Only way something like this would work is in the context of a Pan European League. Take the top 4 teams from that, with the top 4 from Super rugby in a straight knock out tournament, in one country.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 10,879 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Quin_Dub


    Great coach. Toulon now are a shadow of the team they were under him. Weren't great before he took over either.

    A shadow of the team they were without Boudjellals money you mean..

    Any coach would have won things with the team that Boudjellal bought for him..


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭ Richie_Rich89


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    A shadow of the team they were without Boudjellals money you mean..

    Any coach would have won things with the team that Boudjellal bought for him..

    It's common enough to come across that view, that they just won because they're a money team. Leo Cullen certainly engages in sour grapes in this article https://www.the42.ie/leo-cullen-leinster-toulon-champions-cup-2512624-Dec2015/

    Any coach would have won things with the team Boudjellal bought for him? Any coach like Saint-André, Umaga, Dominguez, Cockerill, Galthié? - i.e the coaches they actually had at different times who weren't nearly as successful?

    They had Boudjellal's money long before Laporte came on board and after he left as well. Other owners like Lorenzetti and Altrad aren't exactly short a few bob either and they haven't been successful to the same degree. It was Laporte's coaching that was the difference.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,213 ✭✭✭✭ bilston


    troyzer wrote: »
    You've answered your own question.

    Money is all that matters

    Right now in rugby money is very important, it shouldn't be a dirty word. It's completely understandable that Unions would be trying to maximise the money. A bit like what all businesses do.

    Not that I think is necessarily a good idea.


    Some sort of world club championship played alongside the European Cup would be more attractive to me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,213 ✭✭✭✭ bilston


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    you mean in the olympics in 1920 when only two teams took part?
    USA and France

    or the 1924 olympics when three teams entered? with the above two being joined by Romania.

    The USA have traditionally been a second tier team in rugby, nothing at all controversial in that statement.

    I was shocked when I checked to see who posted and found out that it wasn't Jaco!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 695 ✭✭✭ JPCN1


    I have found latterly that the rugby I enjoy most is watching my local club in the AIL.

    Commercialism is not the be all and end all.


Advertisement