How will the Rabo respond to the Franglos now?

by Portnoy's Complaint Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:33 pm

First topic message reminder :

Well the French LNR and the English PRL weren't joking after all. Whither the Rabo?

The door remains open.

by ScarletSpiderman Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:17 pm

GunsGerms wrote:Pity though that sky have bought it. Really like watching the Rabo on RTE and TG4.

At the moment they have only bought 30 games, and the rest will be on BBC, S4C, RTE, TG4, Sport Italia etc as normal.

by GunsGerms Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:24 pm

Oh great, didnt realise. Usually when Sky buys something they buy exclusive rights dont they?

by Exiledinborders Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:28 pm

Sin é wrote:With the support of Sky (whose nose is out of joint with the English), its quite possible that the Rabo could become the best club competition (most hyped :)in the world.

When you think of all the Welsh, Scots & Irish living in England, the Rabo could be a very attractive product for Sky to invest heavily in.

Sky are interested in audiences not some sort of revenge because they lost out in tender process. The Sky deal for the Rabo is worth far less than the BT deal for the AP or the forthcoming deal for the Top 14 is likely to be. The Rabo does not even generate much interest locally based on match attendances which are half those in the AP.

by GunsGerms Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:34 pm

I dont think Rabo attendances are half AP attendances. Do you have the exact figures? I think the overall attendance in the Rabo was 1.2m last year which really isnt that bad especially when you consider that the AP and Top14 have been around much longer.

by Sin é Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:38 pm

Sky don't have exclusive rights to the Rabo, so obviously they are paying less.

I wasn't thinking of Sky being out for revenge. I was thinking more on the lines that the Rabo will be the only rugby content Sky will have if the Franglos kill off the Heineken Cup.

There would also be an opportunity to market the Rabo in the USA as well as Aus & NZ and they have the network for that, unlike BT.

by Sin é Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:42 pm

Rabo attendances last season: 1,106,873. Average 8,199.
English Premiership: 1,684,804*. Average 12,480)

*Thats with Sarries giving away most of their tickets.

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:10 pm

Again no source, Sine é. Followed by a clearly hypothesised comment.

Club by club published attendance figures are enlightening reading across the leagues.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:13 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:
Sin é wrote:With the support of Sky (whose nose is out of joint with the English), its quite possible that the Rabo could become the best club competition (most hyped :)in the world.

When you think of all the Welsh, Scots & Irish living in England, the Rabo could be a very attractive product for Sky to invest heavily in.

Sky are interested in audiences not some sort of revenge because they lost out in tender process. The Sky deal for the Rabo is worth far less than the BT deal for the AP or the forthcoming deal for the Top 14 is likely to be. The Rabo does not even generate much interest locally based on match attendances which are half those in the AP.

I've read somewhere that the French may serve notice on their current TV deal with Canal+ and get in to bed with a Qatari TV company thus doubling their take - I wonder how that will affect negotiations?

by formerly known as Sam Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:19 pm

Don't see it will As, the ERC incumbents will surrender no quarter and that includes lucrative tv deals arranged by nations independently. I still think had the ERC not been so hungry to retain their power in the first place and allowed the PRL and French clubs to sell their tv rights free from ERC interference there would be a much bigger revenue pot and this mess could have largely avoided through negotiation.

by Sin é Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:31 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Again no source, Sine é. Followed by a clearly hypothesised comment.

Club by club published attendance figures are enlightening reading across the leagues.

Do a search on the internet and you will get all the info you need.

And it is well known that Sarries invest in lost leaders (by giving out free tickets or tickets at reduced prices) to try and build up their fan base.

by Welsh Magician Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:32 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Again no source, Sine é. Followed by a clearly hypothesised comment.

Club by club published attendance figures are enlightening reading across the leagues.

The attendances were not half, far from it. How about you go and find some sources that say they were half before you make things up?

by Sin é Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:34 pm

formerly known as Sam wrote:Don't see it will As, the ERC incumbents will surrender no quarter and that includes lucrative tv deals arranged by nations independently. I still think had the ERC not been so hungry to retain their power in the first place and allowed the PRL and French clubs to sell their tv rights free from ERC interference there would be a much bigger revenue pot and this mess could have largely avoided through negotiation.

The French league have cut a separate deal with Canal+ for the Heineken cup (and have being doing so for years).

Its Sky who look to have exclusive rights for the Heineken Cup in the English speaking countries.

by formerly known as Sam Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:39 pm

Sky who have it at below market value and renew it without having any other competition. Fair enough. Had the ERC rebuked the PRL but allowed the BT deal I still think the goodwill generated would have led to negotiations that would have sorted the issues.

by GunsGerms Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:44 pm

The Rabo attendances will always lag behind because away fans have to travel (mostly by airplane) a lot further than away fans in England who can just jump on a bus or train or drive. Thats partially why only the derby games and knockout matches in the Rabo attract really, really big crowds.

Obvioulsy some teams struggle to get numbers at times but if the Welsh teams alone start attracting the crowds they should I reckon the Rabo could equal the AP for attendances despite the challenges with travel.

by Sin é Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:47 pm

formerly known as Sam wrote:Sky who have it at below market value and renew it without having any other competition. Fair enough. Had the ERC rebuked the PRL but allowed the BT deal I still think the goodwill generated would have led to negotiations that would have sorted the issues.

The ERC were hardly going to allow a deal to happen that they haven't been presented with the details of what has been agreed.

If the BT deal was so good, why didn't the Franglos present it to the ERC for their input before committing to it. It seems a bit weird that we haven't been told yet what the English Premiership part of the deal is worth and what the Franglo competition is worth (and will it remain the same if its not a European competition.

by Sin é Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:49 pm

GunsGerms wrote:The Rabo attendances will always lag behind because away fans have to travel (mostly by airplane) a lot further than away fans in England who can just jump on a bus or train or drive. Thats partially why only the derby games and knockout matches in the Rabo attract really, really big crowds.

Obvioulsy some teams struggle to get numbers at times but if the Welsh teams alone start attracting the crowds they should I reckon the Rabo could equal the AP for attendances despite the challenges with travel.

That could all change though if there is no Heineken Cup games to travel to in the south of France. I can see Aironi & Treviso being very attractive away games for the Rabo fans.

by ScarletSpiderman Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:52 pm

formerly known as Sam wrote:Sky who have it at below market value and renew it without having any other competition. Fair enough. Had the ERC rebuked the PRL but allowed the BT deal I still think the goodwill generated would have led to negotiations that would have sorted the issues.

I think that ERC may have been willing to do that if BT had been experinced at covering Rugby matches, and had been going for some time. I have a feeling that BT being new-boys in the sports arena, and the fact they could do an ITV Sport, may have swayed the decision to stay with the more stable option of Sky.

by GunsGerms Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:53 pm

Aironi dont exist anymore though.

by Mad for Chelsea Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:54 pm

first post on the subject from me, I'd ask you to be gentle, but it probably won't happen Wink

anyway, as I see it the situation arose as follows. Quite a while ago, the English and French clubs express dissatisfaction at the way the HC and European Club rugby in general is run: they're not happy with their relative lack of revenue, with qualification processes, and with the fact the Rabo nations have a 4-2 majority vote on all possible changes. So far, so fine. People may disagree with these concerns, but no one can deny the right to raise them.

Nothing happens... The deadline approaches, and unhappy at the lack of progress, the French and English serve notice that they'll be leaving the HC and setting up their own competition.

The big question, and one I suspect we have no way of answering is: why did nothing happen? This has been dragging along for a while, and yet from the outside it seems there has been no real attempt to find a solution. Rumours flying that with their majority vote the Rabo Unions have blocked all attempted changes. Rumours also around that the French and English have been unwilling to negotiate past their initial proposal of 6+6+6 and the majority of the income.

Part of the problem is that both sides have very different viewpoints. The Celts (and Italians?) basically see the Club game as first and foremost helping the national side, whereas the French and English see it as a worthy competition in its own right. I suspect part of this is that quite a lot of Celts (thinking the Welsh in particular) have never really identified with the Regions concept. Is that a fair view? Perhaps the "club" culture simply needs time to grow. In that sense, making the Rabo more competitive would surely be a good thing. I'm not saying it's not competitive right now, but you have both Italian and both Scottish teams who are guaranteed HC qualification every year for instance.

Anyway, going through some of the arguments from both sides:

- "the Franglos will eventually get their way, as without them the HC can't survive". Unfortunately this has the ring of truth to it, certainly if the Franglos don't participate in the HC I can't see it going on for very long, as it simply becomes a secondary Rabo competition. The problem may come from the Franglos attempting to set up their own independent competition. I'm no legal expert, but would imagine such a thing isn't easily possible...

- "Things are fine as they are, this is just the English whingeing because they're not winning anymore". First off, worth noting that the French who dominated last year aren't happy either. Secondly, if two of six partners (and those who bring in the most $$) aren't happy with the situation, clearly things aren't fine.

- "6+6+6 (teams) is perfectly fair". No it isn't, not really, when you consider the current split is 6+6+10. Some compromise is needed IMO.

- "a European competition needs participation from all countries". I would argue that it doesn't, especially if there is a secondary European competition in place as well. Ultimately, I side with the view the HC should be Europe's premier Club competition, and thus feature the elite. In Football, all countries aren't represented in the CL for instance. It is important of course that all countries have the chance to qualify clubs for the competition. I'm not going to get started on clubs from Spain, Russia, etc. for the moment.

I rather hoped that when this subject first arose there would be some compromise found, because I do love the HC as a competition, though I don't like the current balance much (in particular I'm not a fan of the 6 groups system which inevitably results in whoever's playing Zebre nabbing one of the best losers spots, for instance, complete luck of the draw). However, for whatever reason, that compromise hasn't been reached, so I'm not really sure where we go from there.

by GunsGerms Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:04 pm

The odds are already stacked in favour of English and French sides. Both those nations are guarenteed 6 clubs in the HC every year. None of Ireland, Wales, Scotland or Italy will ever have that amount of clubs in the HC so I dont see what the issue is. Absolutely right not to conceed any gound on the ridiculous proposals.

by broadlandboy Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:19 pm

GunsGerm
The English are only guarenteed 50% of their top teams,France 43% yet Wales & Ireland are guarenteed 75% and Scotland & Italy 100%

by Mad for Chelsea Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:20 pm

that's a bit like saying the Football CL is unfair because England have 4 spots (3 guaranteed) whereas Lithuania have to scrap to just get one. OK not exactly but you get the point... Are you seriously saying the current arrangement is unfair to the Rabo teams? Refusing to concede any grounds gets you exactly where we are today (though we're not sure that's how we got there): in a big, deep mess...

by GunsGerms Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:23 pm

broadlandboy wrote:GunsGerm
The English are only guarenteed 50% of their top teams,France 43% yet Wales & Ireland are guarenteed 75% and Scotland & Italy 100%

Thats only because there are more English teams than Irish, Welsh etc. Percentages mean nothing when you look at the bigger picture.

by ScarletSpiderman Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:25 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:that's a bit like saying the Football CL is unfair because England have 4 spots (3 guaranteed) whereas Lithuania have to scrap to just get one. OK not exactly but you get the point... Are you seriously saying the current arrangement is unfair to the Rabo teams? Refusing to concede any grounds gets you exactly where we are today (though we're not sure that's how we got there): in a big, deep mess...

Sadly it is not the representation that is the issue. Honestly if the Rabo nations came out and said we will keep the same amount of teams as we have now, but we will split the tournament money 33% to the RFU/PRL, 33% to the PRL/FFR, and the rest split evenly amongst our sides (8.25% each) then the HEC would be continuing unchanged. IMO that is the reason for arguing the representation, as it means that the amount of the cash given out gets questioned too.

by GunsGerms Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:26 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:that's a bit like saying the Football CL is unfair because England have 4 spots (3 guaranteed) whereas Lithuania have to scrap to just get one. OK not exactly but you get the point... Are you seriously saying the current arrangement is unfair to the Rabo teams? Refusing to concede any grounds gets you exactly where we are today (though we're not sure that's how we got there): in a big, deep mess...

Of course it is. The more clubs you have in top competition the stronger your international team should be in theory. Having three times more teams in the Hcup than Scotland can only be a good thing for Englands chances in the 6N.

by Mad for Chelsea Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:27 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:that's a bit like saying the Football CL is unfair because England have 4 spots (3 guaranteed) whereas Lithuania have to scrap to just get one. OK not exactly but you get the point... Are you seriously saying the current arrangement is unfair to the Rabo teams? Refusing to concede any grounds gets you exactly where we are today (though we're not sure that's how we got there): in a big, deep mess...
Sadly it is not the representation that is the issue. Honestly if the Rabo nations came out and said we will keep the same amount of teams as we have now, but we will split the tournament money 33% to the RFU/PRL, 33% to the PRL/FFR, and the rest split evenly amongst our sides (8.25% each) then the HEC would be continuing unchanged. IMO that is the reason for arguing the representation, as it means that the amount of the cash given out gets questioned too.

maybe, maybe not. I just feel that when you have two proposals on the table, very different from each other, simply saying "we won't budge from our proposal" isn't a good way to get negotiations rolling...

by Mad for Chelsea Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:30 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:that's a bit like saying the Football CL is unfair because England have 4 spots (3 guaranteed) whereas Lithuania have to scrap to just get one. OK not exactly but you get the point... Are you seriously saying the current arrangement is unfair to the Rabo teams? Refusing to concede any grounds gets you exactly where we are today (though we're not sure that's how we got there): in a big, deep mess...
Of course it is. The more clubs you have in top competition the stronger your international team should be in theory. Having three times more teams in the Hcup than Scotland can only be a good thing for Englands chances in the 6N.

would hardly be a "top competition" if there were six Scottish and Italian teams in it though. Ultimately once more you seem to be saying the sole benefit of the HC should be international teams, I don't agree, I want a top European Club (or franchise) competition to exist in its own right...

by **Notch** Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:31 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:that's a bit like saying the Football CL is unfair because England have 4 spots (3 guaranteed) whereas Lithuania have to scrap to just get one. OK not exactly but you get the point... Are you seriously saying the current arrangement is unfair to the Rabo teams? Refusing to concede any grounds gets you exactly where we are today (though we're not sure that's how we got there): in a big, deep mess...
Of course it is. The more clubs you have in top competition the stronger your international team should be in theory. Having three times more teams in the Hcup than Scotland can only be a good thing for Englands chances in the 6N.

Actually I was going to use the football CL as an example of good practice. Even the top teams from the smallest countries in Europe have a fair chance to qualify for the biggest tournament.

Under all proposals re. qualification for the Heineken Cup, there's a chance the best team from Scotland or Italy or Wales might not get a chance to play in the top tournament and they would be from one of the six strongest Unions...

by ScarletSpiderman Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:33 pm

Mad for Chelsea - your right someone needs to budge. But the whole HEC/ERC issue is very complex. The ERC was made up of the 6 Unions, and each had two votes when issues were raised. The RFU gave one of their votes to the PRL, and the FFR did the same with the LNR. And recently (I believe) the WRU have done the same and give the RRW one of the votes. So now the votes are divided up as-:
RFU (1 vote)
PRL (1 vote)
FFR (1 vote)
LNR (1 vote)
WRU (1 vote)
RRW (1 vote)
SRU (2 votes)
IRFU (2 votes)
FIR (2 votes)

So diplomatically, the odds sit at 2 (3 if FFR get being their clubs) to 10 (RFU appear to be tied in contractually, 9 if FFR back their clubs). So it is more or a less a 1 for change 3 against issue.

by broadlandboy Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:33 pm

GunsGerm
So you are looking to reduce the number of clubs rather than increase them

by GunsGerms Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:35 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:that's a bit like saying the Football CL is unfair because England have 4 spots (3 guaranteed) whereas Lithuania have to scrap to just get one. OK not exactly but you get the point... Are you seriously saying the current arrangement is unfair to the Rabo teams? Refusing to concede any grounds gets you exactly where we are today (though we're not sure that's how we got there): in a big, deep mess...
Of course it is. The more clubs you have in top competition the stronger your international team should be in theory. Having three times more teams in the Hcup than Scotland can only be a good thing for Englands chances in the 6N.
would hardly be a "top competition" if there were six Scottish and Italian teams in it though. Ultimately once more you seem to be saying the sole benefit of the HC should be international teams, I don't agree, I want a top European Club (or franchise) competition to exist in its own right...

It is the biggest club rugby competition in the world under the current structure so your arguement doesnt hold up.

Im not saying the sole point should be international rugby but that definitely should be a priority. Hasnt that always been the point of the club game? It doesnt even feature at all in the PRLs consciousness which is why they should be vetoed.

by GunsGerms Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:36 pm

broadlandboy wrote:GunsGerm
So you are looking to reduce the number of clubs rather than increase them

I would counter offer the PRL a reduction in entrants yes. I certainly wouldnt conceed to any of the PRLs demands. Id rather there was no Hcup than tip the balance irrevocably in England and France's favour.

by **Notch** Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:37 pm

GunsGerms wrote:Oh great, didnt realise. Usually when Sky buys something they buy exclusive rights dont they?

I get the feeling Sky are testing the water with this deal- they could go either way.

by broadlandboy Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:37 pm

Notch
They still have the chance to qualify for the top competiton.
If they can not get into the top 6 in their "domestic" league what makes you think they could when the top Comp?

by GunsGerms Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:39 pm

broadlandboy wrote:Notch
They still have the chance to qualify for the top competiton.
If they can not get into the top 6 in their "domestic" league what makes you think they could when the top Comp?

Edinburgh got to the semis the same year they finished bottom of the Rabo.

by beshocked Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:39 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:that's a bit like saying the Football CL is unfair because England have 4 spots (3 guaranteed) whereas Lithuania have to scrap to just get one. OK not exactly but you get the point... Are you seriously saying the current arrangement is unfair to the Rabo teams? Refusing to concede any grounds gets you exactly where we are today (though we're not sure that's how we got there): in a big, deep mess...
Of course it is. The more clubs you have in top competition the stronger your international team should be in theory. Having three times more teams in the Hcup than Scotland can only be a good thing for Englands chances in the 6N.

No it's not the same. In the Irish clubs/regions all the best players fit into 4 clubs. The talent pool and money is shared among 4 clubs.

In the AP the talent pool and money is shared among 12 teams.

Imagine how strong Saraquins and Northampton Tigers would be if these 4 clubs combined. Also Bathster would probably be quite strong too.

The best of Scotland - Edinburgh and Glasgow should do better than 1 win in 12 matches!

by lostinwales Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:43 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:GunsGerm
So you are looking to reduce the number of clubs rather than increase them
I would counter offer the PRL a reduction in entrants yes. I certainly wouldnt conceed to any of the PRLs demands. Id rather there was no Hcup than tip the balance irrevocably in England and France's favour.

I can understand that but I can also see that the English and French clubs see a competition where they provide the majority of the contestants yet they do not feel that they have equality in representation in its governance. All teams are equal its just that some are more 'equal' than others...

by broadlandboy Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:43 pm

Guns
Thought you would bring up Edinburgh but they still did not win it which was the question asked

by **Notch** Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:44 pm

Smeg it. Offer them a 6-6-6 split, last two places reserved for the Pro12 to make sure every nation has at least one entrant with the two extra sides entering as bottom seeds, and an even amount of money for each team in Aviva Prem, Top14 and Pro12.

So 38 equal slices going 38 ways. Same qualification rules and every nation represented. Sorted.

by GunsGerms Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:44 pm

beshocked wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:that's a bit like saying the Football CL is unfair because England have 4 spots (3 guaranteed) whereas Lithuania have to scrap to just get one. OK not exactly but you get the point... Are you seriously saying the current arrangement is unfair to the Rabo teams? Refusing to concede any grounds gets you exactly where we are today (though we're not sure that's how we got there): in a big, deep mess...
Of course it is. The more clubs you have in top competition the stronger your international team should be in theory. Having three times more teams in the Hcup than Scotland can only be a good thing for Englands chances in the 6N.
No it's not the same. In the Irish clubs/regions all the best players fit into 4 clubs. The talent pool and money is shared among 4 clubs.

In the AP the talent pool and money is shared among 12 teams.

Imagine how strong Saraquins and Northampton Tigers would be if these 4 clubs combined. Also Bathster would probably be quite strong too.

The best of Scotland - Edinburgh and Glasgow should do better than 1 win in 12 matches!

Then feel free to restructure your league. Your teams will improve without detriment to any of the Rabo nations chances. Perfect solution IMO.

by **Notch** Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:45 pm

broadlandboy wrote:Notch
They still have the chance to qualify for the top competiton.
If they can not get into the top 6 in their "domestic" league what makes you think they could when the top Comp?

There is no domestic league though. Thats the point.

by GunsGerms Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:45 pm

lostinwales wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:GunsGerm
So you are looking to reduce the number of clubs rather than increase them
I would counter offer the PRL a reduction in entrants yes. I certainly wouldnt conceed to any of the PRLs demands. Id rather there was no Hcup than tip the balance irrevocably in England and France's favour.
I can understand that but I can also see that the English and French clubs see a competition where they provide the majority of the contestants yet they do not feel that they have equality in representation in its governance. All teams are equal its just that some are more 'equal' than others...

Every nation has the same amount of votes.

by ScarletSpiderman Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:47 pm

Notch wrote:Smeg it. Offer them a 6-6-6 split, last two places reserved for the Pro12 to make sure every nation has at least one entrant with the two extra sides entering as bottom seeds, and an even amount of money for each team in Aviva Prem, Top14 and Pro12.

So 38 equal slices going 38 ways. Same qualification rules and every nation represented. Sorted.

Money goes to the regions/club/province directly and not to the union/prl/lnr. Add that in and I would shake hands on that Hug

by broadlandboy Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:48 pm

And how well did that go for Wales?

by Mad for Chelsea Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:51 pm

Notch wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:that's a bit like saying the Football CL is unfair because England have 4 spots (3 guaranteed) whereas Lithuania have to scrap to just get one. OK not exactly but you get the point... Are you seriously saying the current arrangement is unfair to the Rabo teams? Refusing to concede any grounds gets you exactly where we are today (though we're not sure that's how we got there): in a big, deep mess...
Of course it is. The more clubs you have in top competition the stronger your international team should be in theory. Having three times more teams in the Hcup than Scotland can only be a good thing for Englands chances in the 6N.
Actually I was going to use the football CL as an example of good practice. Even the top teams from the smallest countries in Europe have a fair chance to qualify for the biggest tournament.

Under all proposals re. qualification for the Heineken Cup, there's a chance the best team from Scotland or Italy or Wales might not get a chance to play in the top tournament and they would be from one of the six strongest Unions...

but surely if the qualification process is top 6 from Rabo they DO have a chance to qualify?? Same as in football, clubs first have to place well in the league the previous year. At the moment Scottish clubs don't have to do that... Of course the comparison is limited because in football several Nations don't share the same league. Then again, being slightly mischievous Swansea didn't have a chance to qualify for this season's CL despite being the top Welsh team Wink

by ScarletSpiderman Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:58 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:but surely if the qualification process is top 6 from Rabo they DO have a chance to qualify?? Same as in football, clubs first have to place well in the league the previous year. At the moment Scottish clubs don't have to do that... Of course the comparison is limited because in football several Nations don't share the same league. Then again, being slightly mischievous Swansea didn't have a chance to qualify for this season's CL despite being the top Welsh team

Being even more mischievious, a few seasons back when Cardiff made the FA Cup final, didn't the FA say that they would not enter them into Europe (can't remember which cup, Europa?) because they were not English?

by beshocked Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:05 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
beshocked wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:that's a bit like saying the Football CL is unfair because England have 4 spots (3 guaranteed) whereas Lithuania have to scrap to just get one. OK not exactly but you get the point... Are you seriously saying the current arrangement is unfair to the Rabo teams? Refusing to concede any grounds gets you exactly where we are today (though we're not sure that's how we got there): in a big, deep mess...
Of course it is. The more clubs you have in top competition the stronger your international team should be in theory. Having three times more teams in the Hcup than Scotland can only be a good thing for Englands chances in the 6N.
No it's not the same. In the Irish clubs/regions all the best players fit into 4 clubs. The talent pool and money is shared among 4 clubs.

In the AP the talent pool and money is shared among 12 teams.

Imagine how strong Saraquins and Northampton Tigers would be if these 4 clubs combined. Also Bathster would probably be quite strong too.

The best of Scotland - Edinburgh and Glasgow should do better than 1 win in 12 matches!
Then feel free to restructure your league. Your teams will improve without detriment to any of the Rabo nations chances. Perfect solution IMO.

Thanks for your concern but my team does just fine. My point is you would expect sides that have the best players in the country in their sides to do better.

Ospreys had most of the 2008 grandslam winning side but didn't do very well in the HC that year.

by **Notch** Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:07 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Then again, being slightly mischievous Swansea didn't have a chance to qualify for this season's CL despite being the top Welsh team

That should serve as a warning to the Welsh sides about taking Nigel Wrays 'indecent proposal' Wink

by hawalsh Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:25 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Notch wrote:Smeg it. Offer them a 6-6-6 split, last two places reserved for the Pro12 to make sure every nation has at least one entrant with the two extra sides entering as bottom seeds, and an even amount of money for each team in Aviva Prem, Top14 and Pro12.

So 38 equal slices going 38 ways. Same qualification rules and every nation represented. Sorted.
Money goes to the regions/club/province directly and not to the union/prl/lnr. Add that in and I would shake hands on that

That's practically what the French & English clubs have been after from the off, you wouldn't have seen any hesitation in their acceptance if that was on the table.

by ScarletSpiderman Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:25 pm

Notch wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:Then again, being slightly mischievous Swansea didn't have a chance to qualify for this season's CL despite being the top Welsh team
That should serve as a warning to the Welsh sides about taking Nigel Wrays 'indecent proposal'

Like I said on a different thread (anglo-welsh league?), the regions joining the Jeff with relegation to the welsh prem doesn't work. That just wouldn't work. How could, for aguement sake, the Ospreys be relegated to the Welsh prem to play against Swansea, Neath and Bridgend? That would mean for 6 fixtures a season the Ospreys would be playing against one of their own feeder teams, and could weaken that team in order to win. Makes no sense. Also there would be some real issues who plays/owns where, Cardiff & Cardiff Blues being based at the Arms Park, and Llanelli & The Scarlets being based at PYS. It would only work IF they disbanded all the regions, and went back to the old welsh prem etc. In which case it should be Ponty, Llandovery, Llanelli & Bedwas, going into the Jeff, and I really can't see anyone from the English side of the bridge buying into that (thank god!).

by Sponsored content