Sam Warburton discusses European Competition

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24069627

"I can understand from the English and French point of view," said Warburton.
"I do agree there should be a qualifying system from the Rabodirect.
"I don't think they should hand it out to each country, it should be the top six to qualify and it would make the Rabo more interesting.
"I can agree with the English and French perspective that there should be tougher qualification."

"Hopefully, whatever happens, the Cardiff Blues will be playing in the top tier of European rugby next season," said Warburton.
"If that was the case, then at least the standard of the Rabo would be improved because there would have to be full teams.
"I have always said if all the top teams fielded their best sides in the Rabo, it would be a competitive and great league.
"So there are pros and cons and hopefully the Blues will remain in Europe somehow.
"I cannot really imagine it happening and I am sure something will be worked out - and that the regions will play European rugby and I hope that is the case."

Now I have to disagree that places shoudl not be handed out to each country. If it is a EUROPEAN competition, then there should be at least one entry from each of the 6Ns countries - expanding if European club rugby grows.

The real travesty in my eyes is the challenge cup. Does anyone in rugby actually want a 2nd tier European competition that is generally won by sides that qualify for it via a backdoor route from the main competition.

I believe there should be just one competition for Europe inviting champion teams from wherever they hail from. If a Spanish side wins their league for example have they not earned the right to compete in the HC. Granted they would be whipping boys but how can you state you are champions of Europe without equal country participation.

BTW beschocked are you really comparing Scarlets HC pedigree with Exeter. That's like comparing Leinster with Saracens. There is no comparison because historically both teams have been more successful than other in europe. The beauty is any team can beat any team on the day but history usually shows favour to Europe's elite teams over time. Any side is capable of early exits in any given season but that doesn't make them a bad team. Such is the difficulty these days of getting out of your group.

I've also stated on several occasions that England and France also have up major advantages to all other competing nations. Budgets and selecting a raft of non home grown players are just two examples.

The argument of Pro 12 sides resting players is also rather rich considering most English sides (with the exception of Saracens & Leicester) have probably 80% squads who are free to play a entire full calendar. This is clearly echoed by the Leicester who moans about this every couple of months.

By contrast the Ospreys, Leinster, Munster etc (with the exception of the Dragons & Connacht who rarely qualify for the main event anyway) are constantly worrying about the loss of substantial squad numbers to International, Sevens, U20, U18 commitments. So the point of resting players is still mute as this will always be the case due to the nature of their squad development pathways.

England by contrast don't have this and I've lost count with how many French based Fijian, Tongans etc don't appear for international commitments for family reasons (when everyone knows they have not been released by their clubs).

To be honest, the more I think about it the more I actually think the French and English have a advantage because they can actually field consistent teams without restrictions and can actually have bigger squads to combat fatigue if they weren't so obsessed with blowing all their cash trying to lure the big names to their clubs so create some kind of superstar ethos. Why don't they actually try to run their clubs as going concerns and only spend the money that is prudent to do so.

Its not like you heard the Pro 12 moaning when the HC was being dominated by the French and English in the early years.

To see a decent European Cup there must be both a wage cap and a cap on the number of overseas players based on something that is universally fair throughout the league.

The benefits in reducing the cost of competing in European rugby for all parties involved will be massively beneficial.

" England by contrast don't have this and I've lost count with how many French based Fijian, Tongans etc don't appear for international commitments for family reasons (when everyone knows they have not been released by their clubs)."

Like whom? Don't try to bring up Samu Manoa either as he didn't feature by choice and was called up and capped in the summer.

" By contrast the Ospreys, Leinster, Munster etc (with the exception of the Dragons & Connacht who rarely qualify for the main event anyway) are constantly worrying about the loss of substantial squad numbers to International, Sevens, U20, U18 commitments. So the point of resting players is still mute as this will always be the case due to the nature of their squad development pathways."

Or because they are largely subsidised by their unions. The unions pay large amounts for this player release. The RFU AND FFR are unwilling to offer a similar financial commitment (mainly due to their being so many clubs) and so cannot guarantee the same access.

Also, given that the England under 20s are reigning 6N and JWC champions that indicates that the AP clubs do release players for age grade rugby as much as anyone else. EPS players are also liable to rest weeks but the clubs are allowed to choose which games in each period of the season they are available or not for.

Sam, you really didn't think any of your points through but ill humour you all the same.

Ill go to point 2 first:

Firstly the yes England still require the same international releases. However your argument is totally flawed as England have 12 representing teams. Therefor if England select 30 players for their main squad its divided between significantly more teams thus lessening the disruptions of international rugby (with the exception of Leicester and Saracens as I have stated previously). If you then however then take irish rugby by contrast the selection of 30 players comes out of 3 teams (as Connacht rarely supply any internationals historically speaking). So the disruption is larger to the individual provinces. When you then scale all the other commitments in as stated the issue becomes even bigger. English clubs by contrast lose historically a smaller % of players during international windows and as stated previously rarely release players either to outside of the international window or to third rate international sides.

Regarding players who have not represented the likes of Fiji, Tonga etc the list is rather long. You only have to look at the Pacific cup squads for the WC qualifiers to realize how many players had not been selected for the competitions. Manoa is actually another perfect example. Why? Because even the most hardened Northampton fan will tell you that the USA have previously requested him and in fact he declined to focus on his club rugby. This was never proven as Northampton would never release that statement as it is against IRB directorate but part of his current contract deal was extended on the basis he would be available to Northampton during 6 nations periods. If you insist I will publish a list of all the current international players who are currently not representing their nations. I'm not stating that the Pro 12 is any different mind you as this was similar with Isa at Leinster but as our foreign contingents are limited it plays a far less significant part for the HC.

Student-A1 wrote:

Notch wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

Notch wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

Notch wrote:

Cyril wrote:Why should there be guarranteed representation by all nations?

I just don't understand it. It produces mis-matches and is unhelpful in the long term.

For the good of the wider game? Because giving these Unions the money and pull to keep top home-grown players is in the interests of rugby fans across Europe? Because exposing a number of these players to Heineken Cup level is in the interests of the national teams, hence contributing to a better and more competitive Six Nations? Because it's incredibly unfair if the English and French get guaranteed representation and nobody else does?

If you look at it right now the top Welsh team are Ospreys, the top Irish team are Leinster, the top Scottish team are Glasgow and the top Italian team are Treviso.

Any of those sides could hold their own in the Aviva Prem or Top14 and if you don't think they could- you're an idiot. They are not weak sides. I would be surprised if any of them finished lower than 7th in the Pro12 this season and I view all of them as realistic contenders for the playoffs so its quite some distance from giving the Zebres of this world a free pass.

I agree that all 4 teams look like good sides and would be able to perform in the HEC. But as they are such good teams they would qualify as of right into the premier competition from the league they compete in annually, and be worthy of their place. They would then face equally worthy teams who just like them have gone through the same qualification process from their annually competed league and now meet to determine who can call themselves the premier team of the premier competition.

If we think we fairly split it up into 6, 6 and 8 for the Pro12 all four sides would qualify automatically in fact.

I don't think 6, 6, and 8 is fair. I believe 6, 6, and 6 is fair. 3 leagues with each the same number of guaranteed spots. I fail to see how anyone can deem that anything but fair.

With all due respect, you're not very intelligent if you can't see how 6 teams for one nation, 6 teams for another, and then 6 to be divided between FOUR nations wouldn't be perceived as fair. To the extent that you nearly come across as a WUM in making that statement. We already accept that the English and French should have more places and larger share of the money. We're already dealing with a system that is weighted towards the English and French, we're prepared to further compromise on that and you think that 6, 6, 8 isn't fair... jesus wept.

When we talk about 6, 6, 8 that represents a MASSIVE compromise from the nations that constitute the Pro12. As in, we're giving away loads and gaining very little in return. It would require a lot of change on our side and almost no change whatsoever in France and England. It would benefit the English and French to a much great extent than anyone else. All indicators are that the other unions (IRFU, WRU, SRU, FIR) are willing to accept that. If the people in the boardrooms of the PRL and LNR have the same attitude as you then compromise is literally impossible. If thats how they look on a deal that favours them, then the process is already doomed.

With no respect warranted or given I believe that the lack of intelligence is on your part, I never mentioned a nation competing in this club/region/province competition. I mentioned 3 competing leagues all gunning for positions in the premier European cup, with those clubs who don't manage qualification for that year being put into a worthy 2nd tier European competition. They will then have the right to go for a place the following year. No one nation will miss out on Europe and no one nation or team is given anything without it being earned. I really don't know how I can dumb that down any further so you are capable of understanding but if you need to I will strive to.

That's a complete red herring. The competition isn't organised by leagues, it's organised by unions. A league that is comprised of teams from four unions is not the same as a league comprised of one. They should not be treated the same way. There is a very fundamental difference between how rugby is organised in the Pro12 countries to how it's done in England and France, these differences are crucial and the implications of them are crucial. If you willfully ignore that and try and crush a completely different model for professional rugby into the same confines as a one nation club league the compromise we all want will not happen. There has to a meeting in the middle between the view you put forward and the view of the other unions, my proposal is one thats heavily weighted towards the Franglo side and it's still unacceptable  

If you don't want there to be a European Cup, thats fine, just say so! Just say I don't want the Pro12 sides to be involved in Europe. Because if thats your red line that cannot be crossed, there won't be a European Cup in the coming seasons. But if there is to be European Cup that involves teams from outside France and England, then a compromise like 6, 6, 8 will have to be made. The IRFU, WRU, SRU and FIR are willing to give the LNR and PRL some of what they want- a lot of what they want. They should take that as the victory it is. But the attitude is 'we get everything we want or we walk away'. Well- that attitude needs to change if we're going to save the best club/provincial tournament in world rugby.

What gets me as well with the new European comp they are proposing is that equal voting shares will be handed out.  So basically its 33% England 33% France and 33% whoever else joins.  Whats funny is how they state they are constantly outvoted but then propose a system where they will essentially outvote everyone else as England and France always vote together on the main issues.  

So my question from a Welsh point of view would be "If in 3 years time another vote is held under the new competition voting and format and the proposal comes in that Welsh sides get paid less and French & English sides get more, how exactly would that voting system not cause a situation where the vote is railroaded through and our interests are protected?"  

I do appreciate however that currently this is happening to England & France on their proposals currently but do find it funny that they are essentially proposing the same thing but in reversal.

Personally I reckon there should be a preliminary first round draw with every team getting drawn against another in a straight off play off format for HC qualification.  I would have no problem if that resulted in no Pro 12 representation but English clubs would never agree to that format as it could result in no English team participating potentially.  Lets be fair, given the French squads its not probable they won't qualify for the event.  But to me that would actually be the fairest way and then the qualifying teams from wherever they are from could qualify for the event and it would naturally weed out the weak teams.

Welshmushroom wrote:What gets me as well with the new European comp they are proposing is that equal voting shares will be handed out.  So basically its 33% England 33% France and 33% whoever else joins.  Whats funny is how they state they are constantly outvoted but then propose a system where they will essentially outvote everyone else as England and France always vote together on the main issues.  

So my question from a Welsh point of view would be "If in 3 years time another vote is held under the new competition voting and format and the proposal comes in that Welsh sides get paid less and French & English sides get more, how exactly would that voting system not cause a situation where the vote is railroaded through and our interests are protected?"  

I do appreciate however that currently this is happening to England & France on their proposals currently but do find it funny that they are essentially proposing the same thing but in reversal.

Personally I reckon there should be a preliminary first round draw with every team getting drawn against another in a straight off play off format for HC qualification.  I would have no problem if that resulted in no Pro 12 representation but English clubs would never agree to that format as it could result in no English team participating potentially.  Lets be fair, given the French squads its not probable they won't qualify for the event.  But to me that would actually be the fairest way and then the qualifying teams from wherever they are from could qualify for the event and it would naturally weed out the weak teams.

Fairly sensible comments. Dont the group stages weed out the weak teams though? It also gives them the opportunity to have a set amount of fixtures which is important for development and pay days rather than one game and off you go.

GunsGerms wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:What gets me as well with the new European comp they are proposing is that equal voting shares will be handed out.  So basically its 33% England 33% France and 33% whoever else joins.  Whats funny is how they state they are constantly outvoted but then propose a system where they will essentially outvote everyone else as England and France always vote together on the main issues.  

So my question from a Welsh point of view would be "If in 3 years time another vote is held under the new competition voting and format and the proposal comes in that Welsh sides get paid less and French & English sides get more, how exactly would that voting system not cause a situation where the vote is railroaded through and our interests are protected?"  

I do appreciate however that currently this is happening to England & France on their proposals currently but do find it funny that they are essentially proposing the same thing but in reversal.

Personally I reckon there should be a preliminary first round draw with every team getting drawn against another in a straight off play off format for HC qualification.  I would have no problem if that resulted in no Pro 12 representation but English clubs would never agree to that format as it could result in no English team participating potentially.  Lets be fair, given the French squads its not probable they won't qualify for the event.  But to me that would actually be the fairest way and then the qualifying teams from wherever they are from could qualify for the event and it would naturally weed out the weak teams.

Fairly sensible comments. Dont the group stages weed out the weak teams though? It also gives them the opportunity to have a set amount of fixtures which is important for development and pay days rather than one game and off you go.

would it not make it a more compelling HC if all teams were there by merit, it's not just the lower teams that need development. They would still get fixtures in the amlin.

It would still then go to the normal group stage with the additional games as revenue for those that got past the qualifying round. Maybe you could give straight bi's to the champion winning team of every league as they maybe warrant automatic inclusion. But if you're real ambition is to separate the weak sides, keep everyone in the playoff format and let them duke it out for the Group Stage qualification and increased revenue from the extra games.

It would at least put an end to the your league is weak routine as no one could argue about merit of qualification.

I fail to see peoples point about Zebra needing to play in Heineken to grow. Why is it so much more beneficial for them to play Harlequins as apposed to Bath in the Amlin?? The exposure of playing big French or English teams with big fan bases and histories should be experience enough and also by making the Amlin a worthwhile and respected tournament.

When Exeter got promoted to the premiership, they were gifted no place in the Heineken, they earn't it in what is not a level playing field in the Premiership with how the shares are distributed (a debate for another day). They grew the club properly.

By devaluing the places available in the HEC by giving them out to some and not always earned it is having a knock on effect of devaluing the Amlin which is not good for growth.

I think these are the sentiments of many French & English regarding this particular aspect of the debate.  The Amlin even as it is offers plenty of scope for teams to develop, arguably more so given the greater likelihood of actually winning matches and having more competitive battles because teams are more comparable in ability.  And what the Amlin can do for these teams would only increase if the quality is made more homogenous by introducing a few more PRO12 sides, creating a 3rd tier and not having HC teams drop down after failing to make the QFs.

In terms of less money, well the ERC give a lump sum and it's up to the unions as to how they would split it (in England it's split the same).  If anything, being more likely to make the knockout rounds and actually win the competition, with the extra gates and prize money there's potential to earn more.

I'm a huge rabo fan and i want top 6 to qualify on merits, top 6 from each league, it's ok to me, amlin stronger too.

This imply one thing though, please no games during AI or even 6N, so that team are as close to full strenght as possible, i mean Treviso were missing close to 20 players for a game last year, this is not acceptable.

nathan wrote:would it not make it a more compelling HC if all teams were there by merit, it's not just the lower teams that need development. They would still get fixtures in the amlin.

No it wouldnt at all. The HCup is already the best club competition in the world and part of that is because of the diversity of nations represented. It would be farcical and less interesting if the same two nations got to the final every year.

nathan wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:What gets me as well with the new European comp they are proposing is that equal voting shares will be handed out.  So basically its 33% England 33% France and 33% whoever else joins.  Whats funny is how they state they are constantly outvoted but then propose a system where they will essentially outvote everyone else as England and France always vote together on the main issues.  

So my question from a Welsh point of view would be "If in 3 years time another vote is held under the new competition voting and format and the proposal comes in that Welsh sides get paid less and French & English sides get more, how exactly would that voting system not cause a situation where the vote is railroaded through and our interests are protected?"  

I do appreciate however that currently this is happening to England & France on their proposals currently but do find it funny that they are essentially proposing the same thing but in reversal.

Personally I reckon there should be a preliminary first round draw with every team getting drawn against another in a straight off play off format for HC qualification.  I would have no problem if that resulted in no Pro 12 representation but English clubs would never agree to that format as it could result in no English team participating potentially.  Lets be fair, given the French squads its not probable they won't qualify for the event.  But to me that would actually be the fairest way and then the qualifying teams from wherever they are from could qualify for the event and it would naturally weed out the weak teams.

Fairly sensible comments. Dont the group stages weed out the weak teams though? It also gives them the opportunity to have a set amount of fixtures which is important for development and pay days rather than one game and off you go.

would it not make it a more compelling HC if all teams were there by merit, it's not just the lower teams that need development. They would still get fixtures in the amlin.

I actually think the Amlin is a waste of time as a development tool. 6 or 8 games hardly provide enough games for teams in Spain, Portugal, Romania etc to improve. Look at the improvement of the Italian sides since joining the Pro 12. I don't think anyone could argue that they have improved more from playing in a better league than any European competition has done in the past.

I therefore think if the agenda of other national development is a priority, the better leagues have to accommodate their teams. Sadly this wont be feasible for either the English or French leagues. Personally I would love the Pro 12 to adapt to include additional teams over time as you cant just add a host of teams without affecting the level of the competition. So once the Italians have integrated to competitive level, I would add 2 teams from another Union, etc.

The format would have to change though where maybe in the future the Pro 12 consisted of 23 Teams that only play each other once per season with the home and away fixtures alternating each season. So Munster would play Ospreys in one season at home but next season would play them away. That would really make the top 4 race each season very interesting in the Pro 12

It would also provide some real fan interest in my view as tickets to watch say those games would be snapped up as it would be another 2 years before they could see that particular team again.

I actually think it would help the national sides as well as it would encourage away teams to improve as there would not be a reverse fixture to rely on. Thus neutralizing the home and away advantage in a format which would probably see away teams field their best sides all the time.

For those that say all Unions should be repesented why should it be limited to only the 6 Nation Unions? Why shouldn't the top team from all European Unions be involved?

broadlandboy wrote:For those that say all Unions should be repesented why should it be limited to only the 6 Nation Unions? Why shouldn't the top team from all European Unions be involved?

Because they don't have professional teams. If there is a move towards a fully professional and sustainable side based in Spain or Georgia or wherever else, I would like them to be involved in European competition.

Spains representative team Olympus Rugby (a combined side representing several semi-pro clubs) withdrew from the Amlin this year due to cost issues, so it seems thats still a far way off. But when/if we reach the point were these countries do have a genuine case for becoming fully competitive I want to know that the European tournaments are in the hands of people who will give them a fair hearing, in the same way I do with the second tier of European Rugby and the Six Nations.

I think mistakes have been made with Aironi and Zebre and that balance can be redressed. I think there is the will to change and I think that we can move towards a compromise in terms of most teams in the Pro12 having to qualify but there being one team from each of the four nations guaranteed each year. I think that would make the competition stronger and any mismatches you talk of would not materialise. Treviso and the Scottish sides have demonstrated that they can add value to the competition and hold their own. Italy and Scotland deserve to be represented in Europe; they are at a level the other European unions have not reached. I think they- and England, France, Ireland and Wales- should be guaranteed some form of participation in the top flight of any pan-European competition.

timhen wrote:

I fail to see peoples point about Zebra needing to play in Heineken to grow. Why is it so much more beneficial for them to play Harlequins as apposed to Bath in the Amlin?? The exposure of playing big French or English teams with big fan bases and histories should be experience enough and also by making the Amlin a worthwhile and respected tournament.

When Exeter got promoted to the premiership, they were gifted no place in the Heineken, they earn't it in what is not a level playing field in the Premiership with how the shares are distributed (a debate for another day). They grew the club properly.

By devaluing the places available in the HEC by giving them out to some and not always earned it is having a knock on effect of devaluing the Amlin which is not good for growth.

I think these are the sentiments of many French & English regarding this particular aspect of the debate.  The Amlin even as it is offers plenty of scope for teams to develop, arguably more so given the greater likelihood of actually winning matches and having more competitive battles because teams are more comparable in ability.  And what the Amlin can do for these teams would only increase if the quality is made more homogenous by introducing a few more PRO12 sides, creating a 3rd tier and not having HC teams drop down after failing to make the QFs.

In terms of less money, well the ERC give a lump sum and it's up to the unions as to how they would split it (in England it's split the same).  If anything, being more likely to make the knockout rounds and actually win the competition, with the extra gates and prize money there's potential to earn more.

+1

mbernz wrote:

timhen wrote:

I fail to see peoples point about Zebra needing to play in Heineken to grow. Why is it so much more beneficial for them to play Harlequins as apposed to Bath in the Amlin?? The exposure of playing big French or English teams with big fan bases and histories should be experience enough and also by making the Amlin a worthwhile and respected tournament.

When Exeter got promoted to the premiership, they were gifted no place in the Heineken, they earn't it in what is not a level playing field in the Premiership with how the shares are distributed (a debate for another day). They grew the club properly.

By devaluing the places available in the HEC by giving them out to some and not always earned it is having a knock on effect of devaluing the Amlin which is not good for growth.

I think these are the sentiments of many French & English regarding this particular aspect of the debate.  The Amlin even as it is offers plenty of scope for teams to develop, arguably more so given the greater likelihood of actually winning matches and having more competitive battles because teams are more comparable in ability.  And what the Amlin can do for these teams would only increase if the quality is made more homogenous by introducing a few more PRO12 sides, creating a 3rd tier and not having HC teams drop down after failing to make the QFs.

In terms of less money, well the ERC give a lump sum and it's up to the unions as to how they would split it (in England it's split the same).  If anything, being more likely to make the knockout rounds and actually win the competition, with the extra gates and prize money there's potential to earn more.

+1

+2

Also with Exeter they have grown their fan base, maybe more clubs (Rabo and Aviva) should take a close look at what the Chiefs are doing down in Devon.

Best 4 from Jeff, best 4 from France, best 8 from the rest (RABO + Italy).
A neat 16 to go into to the HEC.

gregortree wrote:Best 4 from Jeff, best 4 from France, best 8 from the rest (RABO + Italy).
A neat 16 to go into to the HEC.

How do you propose to address the issue that England and France are guarenteed 4 teams every year where other nations arent guarenteed entry at all?

How is that fair?

None of it is fair Guns, but I accept your point.

I think that would be better than we could possibly hope for gregortree. The English and French are NOT going to be giving up places. I can't see any agreement on that.

Besides, I think 20 teams or even the current arrangement of 24 teams makes for a better, more diverse tournament.

What would it take for the RFU to take over the PRL? Anyone know?

I seriously doubt that's even on the table Guns. The RFU is never going to see civil war with the PRL as the way forward if they get their EPS and access to players in international windows.

Long term there may be conflict between the two, but right now- no.

Notch wrote:I seriously doubt that's even on the table Guns. The RFU is never going to see civil war with the PRL as the way forward if they get their EPS and access to players in international windows.

Long term there may be conflict between the two, but right now- no.

I know its not on the table but Id imagine its something the RFU have thought about and to be honest for the benefit of English rugby they definitely should have control of the PRL. Maybe they can just buy them out? Why not?

The PRL is an organisation set up to represent the interests of the top professional clubs in England. How do you seriously take over such an organisation? what do you do - slap the wrists of the top clubs and tell them not to talk to each other?

" Firstly the yes England still require the same international releases. However your argument is totally flawed as England have 12 representing teams. Therefor if England select 30 players for their main squad its divided between significantly more teams"

Welshmushroom the Rabo teams are funded to produce international players whilst the clubs are run as businesses. You can't take the cash off the unions and then bitch about them funding you afterwards. The AP clubs do not receive anywhere near the same funding but still have to provide players when asked. This includes additional training weeks, additional AI fixtures (every other year) and provide EPS players with rest weeks. The players are spread more thinly but so is the EPS payments.

"Manoa is actually another perfect example. Why?Because even the most hardened Northampton fan will tell you that the USA have previously requested him and in fact he declined to focus on his club rugby. "

Only during the RWC. He didn't have a pro club rugby contract before then. He chose to go pro rather than go to the RWC. He has since represented his country. You stated that English clubs were not releasing players, that is untrue. The PRL have asked that any matches outside of the international windows require the Union calling up the player to provide insurance against injury. Wales the only union to try and call up a player outside an international window have flatly refused to offer insurance to cover player injury and so were not granted access. The WRU were happy to whine in the papers about it though.

Cyril wrote:Qualification should be by league NOT by nation.

Not sure if that's a wind up attempt or your genuine opinion Cyril, to your credit you and the lack of tone on forums make it difficult to tell  

6 English teams and 6 French teams against (probably, judging by recent Rabo finishes) groups of 3 Irish, 2 Welsh, 1 Scottish and 0 Italian sides is horrendously unequal. Not to mention future tables could, in that regard, exclude up to two Rabo nations from the HC. That my friend is not fair representation as PRL naively assert.

We all contribute directly to the Six Nations, therefore we should all be guaranteed some form of representation, no matter how small. That is not excluding the possibility of the HC becoming more inclusive and drafting in clubs from other Euro nations, either as part of direct reforms or over time.

When PRL try to justify their position they constantly fail to take into account the sensitive factor of the Rabo as a league catering for 4 nations rather than just one. If we all had national leagues of 12 sides then I'd agree wholeheartedly but we don't and we certainly won't any time in the near future. Qualification rules ought to take this into account and function accordingly to ensure any vague pretence of true FAIRNESS.

There were few to no complaints when French and English sides were dominating almost on an annual basis. They spoke up only once it had become clear the balance had shifted towards Rabo sides. They do not have a developed and diverse Euro tournament in mind with this move, only their own interests, that much has been clear throughout this debacle. Their position is contradictory and invalid to nations part of the Rabo. They may walk away and play in isolation between themselves or they might decide they want back in once they realise they can't bully the Rabo sides into cooperating.

Knowsit17 wrote:

Cyril wrote:Qualification should be by league NOT by nation.

Not sure if that's a wind up attempt or your genuine opinion Cyril, to your credit you and the lack of tone on forums make it difficult to tell  

6 English teams and 6 French teams against (probably, judging by recent Rabo finishes) groups of 3 Irish, 2 Welsh, 1 Scottish and 0 Italian sides is horrendously unequal. Not to mention future tables could, in that regard, exclude up to two Rabo nations from the HC. That my friend is not fair representation as PRL naively assert.

We all contribute directly to the Six Nations, therefore we should all be guaranteed some form of representation, no matter how small. That is not excluding the possibility of the HC becoming more inclusive and drafting in clubs from other Euro nations, either as part of direct reforms or over time.

When PRL try to justify their position they constantly fail to take into account the sensitive factor of the Rabo as a league catering for 4 nations rather than just one. If we all had national leagues of 12 sides then I'd agree wholeheartedly but we don't and we certainly won't any time in the near future. Qualification rules ought to take this into account and function accordingly to ensure any vague pretence of true FAIRNESS.

There were few to no complaints when French and English sides were dominating almost on an annual basis. They spoke up only once it had become clear the balance had shifted towards Rabo sides. They do not have a developed and diverse Euro tournament in mind with this move, only their own interests, that much has been clear throughout this debacle. Their position is contradictory and invalid to nations part of the Rabo. They may walk away and play in isolation between themselves or they might decide they want back in once they realise they can't bully the Rabo sides into cooperating.

That's just not true. See this article which I believe was in the year wasps won:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2310220/Threat-to-Heineken-remains.html

All the negativity and running down of the Pro12 and Warbs comes out with this... Unusually poor character from him, needs to learn when it's a good idea to keep his trap shut.

Knowsit17 wrote:...There were few to no complaints when French and English sides were dominating almost on an annual basis. They spoke up only once it had become clear the balance had shifted towards Rabo sides...

Completely wrong. The French and English clubs were arguing very clearly for change while they were winning the Cup.

I'd put my house the top four from the rabo would wipe the slate with the jeff
Either as teams or collectively
No competition
Next !

alive555 wrote:
I'd put my house the top four from the rabo would wipe the slate with the jeff
Either as teams or collectively
No competition
Next !

Come on now man, I know there is a housing shortage, but just giving yours away isn't the answer.

The Saint wrote:All the negativity and running down of the Pro12 and Warbs comes out with this... Unusually poor character from him, needs to learn when it's a good idea to keep his trap shut.

I wonder if the European Cup were to be six teams from each league whether the leagues would be up for re-negotiating the numbers at later dates.

If the quality of one league improves, then there should be more teams from that nation, if a leagues quality drops there should be less.

maestegmafia wrote:

The Saint wrote:All the negativity and running down of the Pro12 and Warbs comes out with this... Unusually poor character from him, needs to learn when it's a good idea to keep his trap shut.

I wonder if the European Cup were to be six teams from each league whether the leagues would be up for re-negotiating the numbers at later dates.

If the quality of one league improves, then there should be more teams from that nation league, if a leagues quality drops there should be less.

I think there should, though only if the PR012 lower sides improve.  I wouldn't mind us or the French having less than 6, but I wouldn't want the PRO12 to drop below that and I'd be happy for them to have more if they were more competitive.

If it was 6 from each league though, that format would mean teams qualifying by winning the Heineken & the Amlin, so if one league was noticeably stronger that would likely translate into that league having more in the Heineken anyway, so it probably wouldn't be necessary.