Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

irishbucsfan · 25-09-2013 01:33AM

Phonehead wrote: »

OMG.... they are businesses.... their business is professional rugby....... they get profits from their business.... Surely you can see that right? Profits=Professional rugby by extension they of course care about survival of their own game.. But they are also driven by profits unlike the provincial teams!

And what do you think funds the Unions? Do they run on good will?

You've said above that they only let the Italians into the Pro 12 thanks to financial incentives.

So if they are both out to make money from the game, and they are both interested in the "survival" of the sport, then why should the clubs not be allowed organise their own competitions?

25-09-2013 01:41AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I've studied history to 3rd level. I studied history of sport there. So no need to be so needlessly condescending when you are so incredibly wrong.

I'm not interested in handing the reigns over to anyone. You would need a majority to do anything, are you suggesting the English and French would be aligned on every issue?

Or else would you break out your crystal ball and suggest a change that would be in the remit of the ERC that would be as disastrous as you are suggesting?

My point about history and power relates to your perspective. You seem to see this as a once off fight that will be resolved eventually and that's it, end of story. I see this as an event that will change the dynamic of the relationship between clubs and unions in Europe and will affect and cause further power struggles between them in the years to come. You might argue that rules prevent that from happening, but rules matter little to actors when a lot of money is at stake.

I'm not suggesting that the French and the English will side together on every issue, but making the voices of Ireland, Italy, Scotland, and Wales so small that they need to band together just to match one of the others is a recipe for disaster and exploitation. Someone who studied history at third level should be only too aware of the inherent dangers of reducing the voices of participants to virtually nothing.

The ERC has organised and presided over a wildly successful European competition that has grown in revenue and mindshare year after year. I would hesitate to cast aside an arrangement that has done so much for the game on this continent for an accord that seemingly promises only to do much for English clubs.

Trojan · 25-09-2013 01:42AM

Cool the jets lads.

Phonehead · 25-09-2013 01:46AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

And what do you think funds the Unions? Do they run on good will?

You've said above that they only let the Italians into the Pro 12 thanks to financial incentives.

So if they are both out to make money from the game, and they are both interested in the "survival" of the sport, then why should the clubs not be allowed organise their own competitions?

I give up, you really can't see the huge differences in comparing Leinster to Saracens. They are both out to make money but for different reasons, Leinster (IRFU) are out to make money to run the game from grassroots up to the Professional game. Saracens are out to make as much as they can in order for their owners to draw a profit.

Yes they the Celtic Nations wanted financial incentives because they wanted something to ensure they didn't make a loss with sending teams to play in Italy, also while the addition of the Italians didn't make the TV pot any bigger so they said sorry Italy we have our own grassroots game to run. Is it wrong on a purely ethical rugby development standpoint... maybe but I'm sure they haven't profited much out of it.

You are trying to compare this with a money and control grab by private organisations in the form of Premiership teams and it makes no sense! Your logic is that every team should have an equal vote and say in how a European wide competition is run.... tell me how well does the Champions league in soccer run under this format where the Clubs have the control??? oh wait one governing body rules it! interesting that

irishbucsfan · 25-09-2013 02:24AM

wittycynic wrote: »

My point about history and power relates to your perspective. You seem to see this as a once off fight that will be resolved eventually and that's it, end of story. I see this as an event that will change the dynamic of the relationship between clubs and unions in Europe and will affect and cause further power struggles between them in the years to come. You might argue that rules prevent that from happening, but rules matter little to actors when a lot of money is at stake.

I'm not suggesting that the French and the English will side together on every issue, but making the voices of Ireland, Italy, Scotland, and Wales so small that they need to band together just to match one of the others is a recipe for disaster and exploitation. Someone who studied history at third level should be only too aware of the inherent dangers of reducing the voices of participants to virtually nothing.

The ERC has organised and presided over a wildly successful European competition that has grown in revenue and mindshare year after year. I would hesitate to cast aside an arrangement that has done so much for the game on this continent for an accord that seemingly promises only to do much for English clubs.

It's not a once off fight, it's a constant struggle that will remain. However there is no reason that the 12 sides provided by the 4 Rabo Unions should have twice the voting powers of the 26 sides provided by the other 2 unions. It completely doesn't work, as evidenced by the current scenario. For them to make any change they have to break the competition.

The majority of the teams in the ERC competitions are unhappy with the terms. You have to either accept that and accept changes need to be made to the governance of the competitions or else remain bitter while the competition moves on without you. The participants are the power.

Splitting the rights in the competition by participation is the best way to ensure power and remuneration remains in touch with what each team is providing to the tournament. An equal qualification structure across 3 equal leagues ensures the participation becomes fairer than it is currently.

Those are the proposals. And to me they are fair. There is no reason that 12 participants in the competition should be able to outvote 26 participants 2 to 1. If groups who are representing a majority of sides (for example it could be a Rabo teams + French teams) are agreed on something, then they should be able to get things done. Not be outvoted by a group who then continue to fillibuster and delay as much as possible to force the status quo to remain. 3 meetings this year, next one at the end of October. There is no wonder the clubs are fed up.

And I'm yet to see an example of something within the remit of the ERC that would harm rugby the way that some people are suggesting.

irishbucsfan · 25-09-2013 02:28AM

Phonehead wrote: »

I give up, you really can't see the huge differences in comparing Leinster to Saracens. They are both out to make money but for different reasons, Leinster (IRFU) are out to make money to run the game from grassroots up to the Professional game. Saracens are out to make as much as they can in order for their owners to draw a profit.

Leinster do not return profits into the grassroots of the game. You are completely wrong. The accounts are there for all to see. The provinces are not even self sufficient without the IRFU investing further money out of international pots.

Yes they the Celtic Nations wanted financial incentives because they wanted something to ensure they didn't make a loss with sending teams to play in Italy, also while the addition of the Italians didn't make the TV pot any bigger so they said sorry Italy we have our own grassroots game to run. Is it wrong on a purely ethical rugby development standpoint... maybe but I'm sure they haven't profited much out of it.

Whats good for the goose is not good for the gander and all that, eh?

"Sorry Italy, you can't have money from our pot, but well make sure we all vote together and get you money out of the ERC pot"

You are trying to compare this with a money and control grab by private organisations in the form of Premiership teams and it makes no sense! Your logic is that every team should have an equal vote and say in how a European wide competition is run.... tell me how well does the Champions league in soccer run under this format where the Clubs have the control??? oh wait one governing body rules it! interesting that

The fact you are trying to compare the ERC to UEFA actually makes me wonder if you know what the ERC are responsible for? They are not equivalent at ALL, they are entirely different organisations.

Phonehead · 25-09-2013 02:53AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Leinster do not return profits into the grassroots of the game. You are completely wrong. The accounts are there for all to see. The provinces are not even self sufficient without the IRFU investing further money out of international pots.

Whats good for the goose is not good for the gander and all that, eh?

"Sorry Italy, you can't have money from our pot, but well make sure we all vote together and get you money out of the ERC pot"

The fact you are trying to compare the ERC to UEFA actually makes me wonder if you know what the ERC are responsible for? They are not equivalent at ALL, they are entirely different organisations.

You ignore the IRFU in brackets part, making your point invalid as the IRFU fund both Leinster and grassroots :rolleyes: Actually my mistake... the IRFU are not out to make a profit at all, they are out to garner money to invest in the game... do you get my point yet?

Italy once again... I have highlighted that this is pointless as you are not comparing like with like

The premise is the same in that one controlling body oversees the competition, yes soccer is far more advanced in it's organisation structure but unfortunately Rugby will never get to that point... however you want the businesses to control it which I am totally against and our debating is useless so I'm really leaving you to this thread on your own.... lol I swear to myself I'm not responding anymore:D

LuckyLloyd · 25-09-2013 08:13AM

Almaviva wrote: »

Can anyone please give a summary for those of us not following the blow by blow of this issue with the case for and against each side (the substantive issue of a European trophy and how it is structured - not the who sad what, did a deal with whom when, did or didnt attend whatever meeting etc which will all evaporate in time) ?

Is it that French and English clubs believe they have a raw deal(would agree with them) in the HC money share out, have tried to force HEC to restructure it, and have been ignored or werent going to get any change that suited them implemented? And so are prepared to leave it rather than continue as is (seems the sensible move) ?

Well we could talk about that, but to be honest the structuring of competitions is an obvious side show to what this is really about. It's really about Premiership Rugby going and signing with BT for the creation of a European Competition and them needing to make the competition happen to honour that agreement and have control over that competition. The talk about competition structures and Italian sides and the Eastern Europeans is a PR tool.

What needs to happen here is for the Premiership to be left in the cold holding their rapidly devalued BT Contract so that they never dare to threaten the future of the European Club game again. After that, there should be an honest conversation about improving the structure of the competition. And by "honest", I mean a conversation where everyone involved is actually looking to play in the tournament being discussed.

25-09-2013 08:37AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's not a once off fight, it's a constant struggle that will remain. However there is no reason that the 12 sides provided by the 4 Rabo Unions should have twice the voting powers of the 26 sides provided by the other 2 unions. It completely doesn't work, as evidenced by the current scenario. For them to make any change they have to break the competition.
.

.

I am once again going to call you out for Gerrymandering.

This also

irishbucsfan wrote:

Splitting the rights in the competition by participation is the best way to ensure power and remuneration remains in touch with what each team is providing to the tournament.

Means that whatever imbalance exists today, exists forever. It is a regressive ideal.

Flat Taxation policies don't work.

25-09-2013 08:46AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's not a once off fight, it's a constant struggle that will remain. However there is no reason that the 12 sides provided by the 4 Rabo Unions should have twice the voting powers of the 26 sides provided by the other 2 unions. It completely doesn't work, as evidenced by the current scenario. For them to make any change they have to break the competition.

The majority of the teams in the ERC competitions are unhappy with the terms. You have to either accept that and accept changes need to be made to the governance of the competitions or else remain bitter while the competition moves on without you. The participants are the power.

Splitting the rights in the competition by participation is the best way to ensure power and remuneration remains in touch with what each team is providing to the tournament. An equal qualification structure across 3 equal leagues ensures the participation becomes fairer than it is currently.

Those are the proposals. And to me they are fair. There is no reason that 12 participants in the competition should be able to outvote 26 participants 2 to 1. If groups who are representing a majority of sides (for example it could be a Rabo teams + French teams) are agreed on something, then they should be able to get things done. Not be outvoted by a group who then continue to fillibuster and delay as much as possible to force the status quo to remain. 3 meetings this year, next one at the end of October. There is no wonder the clubs are fed up.

And I'm yet to see an example of something within the remit of the ERC that would harm rugby the way that some people are suggesting.

You may see it as fair but I'm utterly unconvinced that reducing the votes of the Celtic nations and Italy to virtually nothing will serve the interests of the sport in Europe. You've admonished people on this forum for suggesting that England and France will block vote yet seem to readily argue that the Rabo nations always vote together and will do so in the future. I don't think that's a consistent point.

Secondly, participants are the participants and they should not necessarily carry the power to organise events. There's a very good reason that most sporting tournaments are arranged by governing bodies that are largely independent of the participants and that's to ensure that the whims of blocks of participants, sometimes the majority, do not negatively affect the quality or impact of the tournament. Just because majority of participants want to see a change does not mean it should automatically happen, especially as such a change may disproportionately affect a minority.

The reason that a model of equal voting power has been employed is stop England and France riding roughshod over everyone else. These nations have good bargaining power like many teams, big audiences and big player pools. The Celtic nations and Italy are given an equal say at the table to help offset their weaker bargaining positions. Never in the history of humanity has the act of giving a powerful group or groups complete authority to decide the fate of minorities worked out well. I strongly suspect it won't on this occasion either, at least not for Celtic nations and Italy.

25-09-2013 08:48AM

Imagine if Cyclists were in charge of the rules of the Tour de France.

"So lads, what about drug testing?"

"Piss off."

the perfect ten · 25-09-2013 10:26AM

"And I'm yet to see an example of something within the remit of the ERC that would harm rugby the way that some people are suggesting."

I was surprised when the following happened recently.

Olympus XV from Spain qualified for this year's Amlin Challenge Cup. After the fixtures were published in July they announced that they would be unable to fulfill them because of the financial burden.

I would have thought that in the interest of promoting rugby in Spain the ERC would have been able to find some mechanism of funding their participation in the competition. Instead they ended up withdrawing from it.

As far as the present dispute is concerned, I think both sides are doing a lot of grandstanding but that, at the end of the day, there will definitely be some sort of top level European competition next season. It is in everyone's financial interest.

Maguined · 25-09-2013 11:41AM

IBF I just want to ask you about the meritocracy point.

You have a valid point that it is somewhat unfair that the same poor Italian and Scottish teams get into the HEC automatically while all the French and English clubs have to compete in their league for their spot.

However do you not think the number of slots are also unfair? Currently we have the below for the 24 club format.

England 6
France 6
Ireland 3
Scotland 2
Wales 3
Italy 2
HEC winner 1
ECC winner 1

Do England and France really deserve 6 slots each though? They want a revised 20 man format that loses Rabo sides however if we look at the ERC rankings for the top 18 teams (assuming they want to keep the 2 winners slots) we get the below

Rank Team Points
1 IrelandLeinster 35
2 FranceToulon 26
3 FranceToulouse 26
4 FranceClermont Auvergne 25
6 IrelandMunster 22
7 IrelandUlster 20
9 EnglandNorthampton Saints 18
10 EnglandHarlequins 15
11 WalesCardiff Blues 15
12 EnglandSaracens 13
13 EnglandLeicester Tigers 13
14 FrancePerpignan 13
15 ScotlandEdinburgh 11
17 WalesOspreys 10
18 WalesScarlets 9
19 ScotlandGlasgow Warriors 8
20 FranceMontpellier 7
21 IrelandConnacht 7

I had to remove the Amlin teams as the ERC include those teams in their total rankings. So the top 18 european clubs give us

England 4
France 5
Ireland 4
Scotland 2
Wales 3
Italy 0

Since this is the most meritocratic do you think this would be the best approach for the RCC or revised HEC? Does this also not mean that the current slots are unfair as Italy and Ireland are being screwed for places that are given to the English and French?

The PRL can talk about wanting an elite competition all they want and denounce the Italian and Scottish sides but when they still demand 6 places for English teams when they don't deserve 6 places by merit or have 6 elite clubs then they are just being hypocrites.

irishbucsfan · 25-09-2013 11:56AM

Using the rankings to show the quality of sides in Europe is complete flawed way of doing things. Because it's dependent on the current system which you started off by saying is unfair. They get points for participation and they get more participation.

I think the 3 leagues are about even. Last year there were 3 Top 14 and Premiership quarter finalists and 2 Rabo (Irish).

Edit: And just as a further point, the combined results, from elsewhere, of Cardiff, Llanelli, Glasgow, Zebre, Treviso, Ospreys and Edinburgh from last season were 42 games played, 5 won, 37 lost.

irishbucsfan · 25-09-2013 12:10PM

wittycynic wrote: »

You may see it as fair but I'm utterly unconvinced that reducing the votes of the Celtic nations and Italy to virtually nothing will serve the interests of the sport in Europe. You've admonished people on this forum for suggesting that England and France will block vote yet seem to readily argue that the Rabo nations always vote together and will do so in the future. I don't think that's a consistent point.

They may not vote together on everything, but being in the same league certainly makes it more likely as their interests are much more aligned. Give me examples of other issues if you're trying to say the English and French will dominate voting in a block. I've asked this plenty of times and no one has, either because they don't understand what's within the scope of the ERC or because they realise there actually isn't that much there.

Secondly, participants are the participants and they should not necessarily carry the power to organise events. There's a very good reason that most sporting tournaments are arranged by governing bodies that are largely independent of the participants and that's to ensure that the whims of blocks of participants, sometimes the majority, do not negatively affect the quality or impact of the tournament. Just because majority of participants want to see a change does not mean it should automatically happen, especially as such a change may disproportionately affect a minority.

But the participants are already organising the tournament! The Unions represent the Irish, Welsh and Scottish sides directly and FIR represent Zebre directly and Treviso indirectly I believe. So you can't say the tournament should not be organised by the participants to defend the status quo! It's just one of the (many) reasons why the constant comparisons between UEFA and the ERC are a million miles off the mark. You have participants who all share one domestic league together controlling 66% of the competition.

But if you split it by participant, you'd have every side on an equal footing. You'd have no one group capable of dictating or filibustering in the way we've seen already. And if the majority of the sides in the tournament (in whatever format) favoured a motion (for another example English and Rabo sides telling the new Top 16 they're not getting 2 extra places) then it would get done.

The reason that a model of equal voting power has been employed is stop England and France riding roughshod over everyone else. These nations have good bargaining power like many teams, big audiences and big player pools. The Celtic nations and Italy are given an equal say at the table to help offset their weaker bargaining positions. Never in the history of humanity has the act of giving a powerful group or groups complete authority to decide the fate of minorities worked out well. I strongly suspect it won't on this occasion either, at least not for Celtic nations and Italy.

We're giving no one complete authority over anything. How many times does that have to be said? Are you still making the assumption they'll vote together over everything?

ArmaniJeanss · 25-09-2013 12:23PM

Maguined wrote: »

Do England and France really deserve 6 slots each though? They want a revised 20 man format that loses Rabo sides however if we look at the ERC rankings for the top 18 teams (assuming they want to keep the 2 winners slots) we get the below

Rank Team Points
1 IrelandLeinster 35
2 FranceToulon 26
3 FranceToulouse 26
4 FranceClermont Auvergne 25
6 IrelandMunster 22
7 IrelandUlster 20
9 EnglandNorthampton Saints 18
10 EnglandHarlequins 15
11 WalesCardiff Blues 15
12 EnglandSaracens 13
13 EnglandLeicester Tigers 13
14 FrancePerpignan 13
15 ScotlandEdinburgh 11
17 WalesOspreys 10
18 WalesScarlets 9
19 ScotlandGlasgow Warriors 8
20 FranceMontpellier 7
21 IrelandConnacht 7

I had to remove the Amlin teams as the ERC include those teams in their total rankings. So the top 18 european clubs give us

England 4
France 5
Ireland 4
Scotland 2
Wales 3
Italy 0

This is flawed reasoning as the more difficult qualification for English/French teams means that its plausible that there are teams below this Top 18 who are better than Edinburgh or Scarlets. But Edinburgh by virtue of auto qualifying have a guaranteed base score on this ranking table that say the 8th best team in France don't have.

It'd be akin to claiming St Pats are de facto better than West Ham because the latter have picked up zero European ranking points in the last 5 years.

Maguined · 25-09-2013 12:36PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Using the rankings to show the quality of sides in Europe is complete flawed way of doing things. Because it's dependent on the current system which you started off by saying is unfair. They get points for participation and they get more participation.

I think the 3 leagues are about even. Last year there were 3 Top 14 and Premiership quarter finalists and 2 Rabo (Irish).

Edit: And just as a further point, the combined results, from elsewhere, of Cardiff, Llanelli, Glasgow, Zebre, Treviso, Ospreys and Edinburgh from last season were 42 games played, 5 won, 37 lost.

Okay let me phrase it another way, you believe in meritocracy for the teams that qualify from each league but do you think there should also then be meritocracy for how many from each league?

Can you propose a more fair method than using the ERC rankings? If these rankings are based on the performances on clubs in their HEC games and you think it is unfair then surely you believe there are teams that were not good enough to qualify but you believe would of been good enough to have performed better?

Do you believe the Premiership have 6 elite clubs? I personally would of said 4 and the ERC rankings seem to agree with that.

25-09-2013 12:44PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They may not vote together on everything, but being in the same league certainly makes it more likely as their interests are much more aligned. Give me examples of other issues if you're trying to say the English and French will dominate voting in a block. I've asked this plenty of times and no one has, either because they don't understand what's within the scope of the ERC or because they realise there actually isn't that much there.

There could be plenty of issues: match scheduling, squad numbers, the dividing of all monies arising from sponsorship or television deals, future governance arrangements. I don't have a crystal ball and I don't know how the English and French will vote on any of these issues. One thing has become crystal clear from the current debacle and the positions taken by the English clubs: if the English clubs' agenda is not agreed with then they are willing to break European rugby in two to get precisely what they want. That is not a mentality that I would like to see gain hugely increased voting power.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

But the participants are already organising the tournament! The Unions represent the Irish, Welsh and Scottish sides directly and FIR represent Zebre directly and Treviso indirectly I believe. So you can't say the tournament should not be organised by the participants to defend the status quo! It's just one of the (many) reasons why the constant comparisons between UEFA and the ERC are a million miles off the mark. You have participants who all share one domestic league together controlling 66% of the competition.

There is a world of difference between national governing bodies running a tournament and collections of clubs running it. The ERC is run by governing bodies while this new arrangement would be run largely by clubs. That's what the EPL has been arguing for. The motivations and goals of clubs and national governing bodies differ, and that is precisely why clubs should not be permitted to run the competition.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

But if you split it by participant, you'd have every side on an equal footing. You'd have no one group capable of dictating or filibustering in the way we've seen already. And if the majority of the sides in the tournament (in whatever format) favoured a motion (for another example English and Rabo sides telling the new Top 16 they're not getting 2 extra places) then it would get done.

That's completely untrue, instead of requiring a majority of nations to agree on a decision, you will now require only two to dominate this new European rugby accord. In short, anything that suits England and France, even if it is to the catastrophic detriment of all other participants will be agreed upon and there will be little the Celtic nations and Italy will be able to do but sit and accept it.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

We're giving no one complete authority over anything. How many times does that have to be said? Are you still making the assumption they'll vote together over everything?

No, but if they vote together on anything that weakens the position of rugby in the Celtic nations and Italy it'll mean a bad deal for European rugby in general.

Maguined · 25-09-2013 12:51PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

This is flawed reasoning as the more difficult qualification for English/French teams means that its plausible that there are teams below this Top 18 who are better than Edinburgh or Scarlets. But Edinburgh by virtue of auto qualifying have a guaranteed base score on this ranking table that say the 8th best team in France don't have.

It'd be akin to claiming St Pats are de facto better than West Ham because the latter have picked up zero European ranking points in the last 5 years.

I agree it is flawed but so is automatically assuming England should get 6 places in the HEC each year, that number is completely arbitrary and not based on meritocracy so if the format should be reduced down to 20 clubs I also think a look at which leagues deserve X slots would also be good for meritocracy and competition.

ArmaniJeanss · 25-09-2013 01:07PM

Maguined wrote: »

I agree it is flawed but so is automatically assuming England should get 6 places in the HEC each year, that number is completely arbitrary and not based on meritocracy so if the format should be reduced down to 20 clubs I also think a look at which leagues deserve X slots would also be good for meritocracy and competition.

100% agree. If they do go with 6-6-6 I'd like it to only be short term.
After 2/3 years it should possible for it to change via a pre-agreed merit points system (similar to the UEFA coeffcient).
In theory each league should get 33% of the ranking points if all are equal, however if one league over performs and gets say 37% of the ranking points over a 3 year period then it should move to 7-6-5 in favour of that league.
Reassess at end of every season.

irishbucsfan · 25-09-2013 01:11PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

100% agree. If they do go with 6-6-6 I'd like it to only be short term.
After 2/3 years it should possible for it to change via a pre-agreed merit points system (similar to the UEFA coeffcient).
In theory each league should get 33% of the ranking points if all are equal, however if one league over performs and gets say 37% of the ranking points over a 3 year period then it should move to 7-6-5 in favour of that league.
Reassess at end of every season.

Yep absolutely, I've said all along a system of coefficiency would be great to see. But it has to start from zero and on an even 6/6/6 system.

Grandpa Hassan · 25-09-2013 01:20PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

100% agree. If they do go with 6-6-6 I'd like it to only be short term.
After 2/3 years it should possible for it to change via a pre-agreed merit points system (similar to the UEFA coeffcient).
In theory each league should get 33% of the ranking points if all are equal, however if one league over performs and gets say 37% of the ranking points over a 3 year period then it should move to 7-6-5 in favour of that league.
Reassess at end of every season.

Sounds like an awful lot of complexity. Surely a 6-6-6, with the other 2 places taken by either the previous winner (or the 7th place from that league if the winner is in the top 6 of their league) and a brief end of season play off for the last spot between the 7th from each league, however that might be arranged. Its an extra game, but I'm sure that the 7th paced teams would absolutely be up for it

irishbucsfan · 25-09-2013 01:23PM

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Sounds like an awful lot of complexity. Surely a 6-6-6, with the other 2 places taken by either the previous winner (or the 7th place from that league if the winner is in the top 6 of their league) and a brief end of season play off for the last spot between the 7th from each league, however that might be arranged. Its an extra game, but I'm sure that the 7th paced teams would absolutely be up for it

It's not that complex actually and it's worked well in soccer for years. It's just a simple ranking system based on previous years.

Coefficiency would definitely get my vote. But it wouldn't be able to start for a couple of years at least.

eire_lad · 25-09-2013 01:26PM

There should at least be one team from Italy and Scotland guranteed a place in the european cup regardless if finishing in teh rabo. Keep it 24 team. winner and amlin through again.

6 from each league leaving 2 more spaces available. If an italian and scottish team have already qualified through teh rabo, let the other 2 place go to the english / french.

Think this could work...It the financial stuff that hard to work out

irishbucsfan · 25-09-2013 01:32PM

eire_lad wrote: »

There should at least be one team from Italy and Scotland guranteed a place in the european cup regardless if finishing in teh rabo. Keep it 24 team. winner and amlin through again.

6 from each league leaving 2 more spaces available. If an italian and scottish team have already qualified through teh rabo, let the other 2 place go to the english / french.

Think this could work...It the financial stuff that hard to work out

The competition will be reduced to 20 teams. That's pretty much a done deal either way it seems, all sides have agreed on it. It's a positive change.

molloyjh · 25-09-2013 01:39PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The competition will be reduced to 20 teams. That's pretty much a done deal either way it seems, all sides have agreed on it. It's a positive change.

Hang on, I thought the ERC was refusing to budge on anything and were stone-walling?

irishbucsfan · 25-09-2013 01:43PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Hang on, I thought the ERC was refusing to budge on anything and were stone-walling?

They were, then the PRL and LNR said they were done with negotiations and suddenly the ERC are coming out saying they'll move on everything.

Initially though, that certainly wasn't the case. Look at the history of JP Lux's statements.

Phonehead · 25-09-2013 02:16PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They were, then the PRL and LNR said they were done with negotiations and suddenly the ERC are coming out saying they'll move on everything.

Initially though, that certainly wasn't the case. Look at the history of JP Lux's statements.

"Move on everything" excellent all sorted then because the Business men only wanted fairness in qualification and an even split per team of the money. If the ERC have agreed why are we still discussing

Damn my exile didn't last long:o:o

irishbucsfan · 25-09-2013 02:43PM

Phonehead wrote: »

"Move on everything" excellent all sorted then because the Business men only wanted fairness in qualification and an even split per team of the money. If the ERC have agreed why are we still discussing

Damn my exile didn't last long:o:o

No they wanted a change in the way the comepetition is governed as well. Which they have said publically since last September. So whoever told you they want that is either incorrect or you have mistaken what they've said.

LeinsterDub · 25-09-2013 02:53PM

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_8941026,00.html

"If the competition is not approved then that would have absolutely catastrophic implications for Celtic rugby," Craig told BBC Sport.

So they are ruining the Heineken Cup for our own good

Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

Comments