French fans reject the new c cup

http://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Actualites/Le-rugby-francais-est-il-devenu-fou/407167

Equipe have a poll up on the new c cup. It asks "After 18 years of existence and increased popularity of this competition (h cup) do you think that this new project is detrimental for rugby?"

72% have voted yes, 28% no.
13,800 or so voted.

"Les clubs français et anglais menacent de créer une nouvelle Coupe d'Europe la saison prochaine. Sur fond de guerre entre Fédération anglaise et ERC, l’organisme qui gère les deux Coupes d’Europe, se profile une Rugby Champions Cup au profil encore flou, les Ecossais, Irlandais et Gallois n’ayant pas rejoint la fronde franco-anglaise.
Alors qu'après 18 ans d'existence la compétition a gagné en popularité, ce projet est-il préjudiciable pour le rugby ?"

Oui
72%

Non
28%

The phrasing of the question speaks volumes for the writers opinion, even so, this is a large majority against the idea of this new competition. The other polls are interesting too.

How keen will the LNR be to fight for a tournament that their fans don't embrace?

Problem being advertising/hopsitality money speak these days not the real fans.

Thats just gimmicky journalism the reality in France is the authorities in France want more control over the international players an agreement similar to the English clubs and RFU, more time training before the AI and 6N and agreed rest periods.Also they are very concerned about the level of non qualified french players in the TOP14 so would like to introduce incentives to encourage young french players.
These are all bargaining chips in their negotiations with the clubs which require money and the clubs will give ground if the new cup competition gets approval.

Intotouch wrote:http://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Actualites/Le-rugby-francais-est-il-devenu-fou/407167

Equipe have a poll up on the new c cup. It asks "After 18 years of existence and increased popularity of this competition (h cup) do you think that this new project is detrimental for rugby?"

72% have voted yes, 28% no.
13,800 or so voted.

"Les clubs français et anglais menacent de créer une nouvelle Coupe d'Europe la saison prochaine. Sur fond de guerre entre Fédération anglaise et ERC, l’organisme qui gère les deux Coupes d’Europe, se profile une Rugby Champions Cup au profil encore flou, les Ecossais, Irlandais et Gallois n’ayant pas rejoint la fronde franco-anglaise.
Alors qu'après 18 ans d'existence la compétition a gagné en popularité, ce projet est-il préjudiciable pour le rugby ?"

Oui
72%

Non
28%

The phrasing of the question speaks volumes for the writers opinion, even so, this is a large majority against the idea of this new competition. The other polls are interesting too.

How keen will the LNR be to fight for a tournament that their fans don't embrace?

 Just a little bit.

How many of the votes can be tracked to the same IP in Lux's home/office?

Intotouch wrote:Equipe have a poll up on the new c cup. It asks "After 18 years of existence and increased popularity of this competition (h cup) do you think that this new project is detrimental for rugby?"

That 'innocent' question is up there with Mrs Merton asking Debbie McGee, "So, what first attracted you to the millionaire, Paul Daniels?"

So the FFR will happily approve the c cup if it gets more access to international players and a jiff that actually works. Interesting.

That wasn't quite what he said, but that is what the FFR want out of this most of all. 

Rather than JIFF it'll probably more like the English on 'play X FQ players a week and you'll get X Euros'.

Intotouch wrote:So the FFR will happily approve the c cup if it gets more access to international players and a jiff that actually works. Interesting.

Hass there been any article saying this (I didn't translate the one above). Otherwise this is assumption. What I have seen the FFR have said is that the LNR aren't allowed to go into this new competition and have to get back around the table.

Cyril wrote:

Intotouch wrote:Equipe have a poll up on the new c cup. It asks "After 18 years of existence and increased popularity of this competition (h cup) do you think that this new project is detrimental for rugby?"

That 'innocent' question is up there with Mrs Merton asking Debbie McGee, "So, what first attracted you to the millionaire, Paul Daniels?"

And the answer was, "His toupé"

Would a million really cover the sacrifice of doing tricks with Paul before bedtime to keep limber?

I have many rugby mad in-laws in Toulouse and the thought of a Euro competition without Munster and Leinster is not going down well amongst the fans.

As they would see it any EC without those 2 teams would be seriously devalued and any resulting winner wouldn't really be able to call themselves 'European Champions'.

Unscientific it might be but I think the L'Equipe poll isn't far off the truth.

True MunsterMac. I'm sure most true rugby fans want to see the HC stay

MunsterMac wrote:I have many rugby mad in-laws in Toulouse and the thought of a Euro competition without Munster and Leinster is not going down well amongst the fans.

As they would see it any EC without those 2 teams would be seriously devalued and any resulting winner wouldn't really be able to call themselves 'European Champions'.

Unscientific it might be but I think the L'Equipe poll isn't far off the truth.

thats because munster and leinster are really good sides.

do your relatives feel the same way about Zebre, Connacht or Edinburgh?

presumably a competition which is more meritocratic would mean the "European champions" label would be even more valid if it was more challenging and more competitive?

quinsforever wrote:

MunsterMac wrote:I have many rugby mad in-laws in Toulouse and the thought of a Euro competition without Munster and Leinster is not going down well amongst the fans.

As they would see it any EC without those 2 teams would be seriously devalued and any resulting winner wouldn't really be able to call themselves 'European Champions'.

Unscientific it might be but I think the L'Equipe poll isn't far off the truth.

thats because munster and leinster are really good sides.

do your relatives feel the same way about Zebre, Connacht or Edinburgh?

presumably a competition which is more meritocratic would mean the "European champions" label would be even more valid if it was more challenging and more competitive?

How can it be more challenging if all the best teams are already in the competition? Or do you want to see the number of sides reduced?

How could the HC be more challenging or competitive than it is at the moment?

All the best club sides in Europe play in it and if you are going to win it you're going to have to beat the Leinsters, Toulouses, Clermonts and Leicesters of this world.

The only way you could make it "more challenging and more competitive" would be to have S15 teams in it.

Plus you have to allow for a certain amount of romance in a tournament like the HC like Treviso beating Biaritz, Connacht beating Quins or Edinburgh getting to the semis a couple of seasons ago.

Without shocks like that you just have a sterile punch bag of a competition.

better balanced groups, and more high-quality matches without makeweight teams

group 3 this year? hardly fair on the other groups that sarries and toulouse have no challenge in their group stage.

MunsterMac wrote:How could the HC be more challenging or competitive than it is at the moment?

All the best club sides in Europe play in it and if you are going to win it you're going to have to beat the Leinsters, Toulouses, Clermonts and Leicesters of this world.

The only way you could make it "more challenging and more competitive" would be to have S15 teams in it.

Plus you have to allow for a certain amount of romance in a tournament like the HC like Treviso beating Biaritz, Connacht beating Quins or Edinburgh getting to the semis a couple of seasons ago.

Without shocks like that you just have a sterile punch bag of a competition.

+1 Treviso's rate of improvement is scary. They were whipping boys only 2-3 seasons ago and are now a very scary prospect to play away from home (they have already beaten Munster this season). Also Connacht have gone from having about 400 season ticket holders to about 4000. Mainly down to being in the HC.

The HC is essential for development.

i get my romance from the missus:kiss: 

not sure i want it in HC. its supposed to be the elite european club competition.

put the makeweights in the amlin. they will get better matches rather than getting regularly whipped and skewing the draw.

It was never set up to be an 'elite competition' that term has only come up recently. It was set up to help develope rugby in Europe. Sure the competition started off with Romanian teams.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

MunsterMac wrote:How could the HC be more challenging or competitive than it is at the moment?

All the best club sides in Europe play in it and if you are going to win it you're going to have to beat the Leinsters, Toulouses, Clermonts and Leicesters of this world.

The only way you could make it "more challenging and more competitive" would be to have S15 teams in it.

Plus you have to allow for a certain amount of romance in a tournament like the HC like Treviso beating Biaritz, Connacht beating Quins or Edinburgh getting to the semis a couple of seasons ago.

Without shocks like that you just have a sterile punch bag of a competition.

+1 Treviso's rate of improvement is scary. They were whipping boys only 2-3 seasons ago and are now a very scary prospect to play away from home (they have already beaten Munster this season). Also Connacht have gone from having about 400 season ticket holders to about 4000. Mainly down to being in the HC.

The HC is essential for development.

well if my local club was getting EUR 2.5million per annum guaranteed from the HC i am pretty sure i could build a decent side.

its just your opinion on development. totally valid. i just have a very different one.

and i definitely dont think the HC is the right place for development.

quinsforever wrote:

MunsterMac wrote:I have many rugby mad in-laws in Toulouse and the thought of a Euro competition without Munster and Leinster is not going down well amongst the fans.

As they would see it any EC without those 2 teams would be seriously devalued and any resulting winner wouldn't really be able to call themselves 'European Champions'.

Unscientific it might be but I think the L'Equipe poll isn't far off the truth.

thats because munster and leinster are really good sides.

do your relatives feel the same way about Zebre, Connacht or Edinburgh?

presumably a competition which is more meritocratic would mean the "European champions" label would be even more valid if it was more challenging and more competitive?

I look at it in a way that getting Zebre, Connacht or Edinburgh (who made the semis 18 months ago) helps some teams out when they get them in their group - otherwise the big teams would just dominate and always end up with a home QF. For instance, Biarritz would never have made the knockouts so often if it was not for regularly getting an Italian team.

By the way, Connacht are only in the Heineken Cup because Leinster have won it (and the Amlin) in the last few years. That extra spot for the Heineken Cup has now gone to a French club who probably won't be interested as they will be too busy with their league competition.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:It was never set up to be an 'elite competition' that term has only come up recently. It was set up to help develope rugby in Europe. Sure the competition started off with Romanian teams.

yes but its controlled by unions who really just want to perpetuate the 6 nations and keep control of national players. once it became commercially successful, unions adjusted their domestic team setup to maximise the monies coming form HC, to help them achieve national team success.

absolutely zero effort by ERC to broaden the competition internationally once the money started really feeding the national team setups.

The makeweights were in the Amlin...and an Elite club strolled to victory in it last year.  There's a ton of ways to embarrass makeweights and it seems no matter where they go, they get embarrassed.

Better to be embarrassed (or surprise an elite side by embarrassing them!) in the HEC than slogging through a second tier Amlin event and still have a HEC standard side take the honours in that contest too.

SecretFly wrote:The makeweights were in the Amlin...and an Elite club strolled to victory in it last year.  There's a ton of ways to embarrass makeweights and it seems no matter where they go, they get embarrassed.

Better to be embarrassed (or surprise an elite side by embarrassing them!) in the HEC than slogging through a second tier Amlin event and still have a HEC standard side take the honours in that contest too.

we can put them in that new 3rd tier we're going to create:) 

MunsterMac wrote:How could the HC be more challenging or competitive than it is at the moment?

All the best club sides in Europe play in it and if you are going to win it you're going to have to beat the Leinsters, Toulouses, Clermonts and Leicesters of this world.

The only way you could make it "more challenging and more competitive" would be to have S15 teams in it.

Plus you have to allow for a certain amount of romance in a tournament like the HC like Treviso beating Biaritz, Connacht beating Quins or Edinburgh getting to the semis a couple of seasons ago.

Without shocks like that you just have a sterile punch bag of a competition.

Methinks you just summarised the essence of a great tournament. Perfect.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

MunsterMac wrote:I have many rugby mad in-laws in Toulouse and the thought of a Euro competition without Munster and Leinster is not going down well amongst the fans.

As they would see it any EC without those 2 teams would be seriously devalued and any resulting winner wouldn't really be able to call themselves 'European Champions'.

Unscientific it might be but I think the L'Equipe poll isn't far off the truth.

thats because munster and leinster are really good sides.

do your relatives feel the same way about Zebre, Connacht or Edinburgh?

presumably a competition which is more meritocratic would mean the "European champions" label would be even more valid if it was more challenging and more competitive?

I look at it in a way that getting Zebre, Connacht or Edinburgh (who made the semis 18 months ago) helps some teams out when they get them in their group - otherwise the big teams would just dominate and always end up with a home QF. For instance, Biarritz would never have made the knockouts so often if it was not for regularly getting an Italian team.

By the way, Connacht are only in the Heineken Cup because Leinster have won it (and the Amlin) in the last few years. That extra spot for the Heineken Cup has now gone to a French club who probably won't be interested as they will be too busy with their league competition.

thats a good way to look at it. i equally understand how some people want to change it.

Quinns

And therein lies the nub of the issue.

What you want is a HC that is run by businessmen who look upon it purely as money making product excluding all those who they look upon as weak links in the buisness 'model'.

What I want is a European competition that makes money (as it does as the moment) is truly representitive of European rugby, allows for the sporting drama of the odd shock and allows weaker clubs / countries the possibiliy of development.

Even FIFA and UEFA two of the richest and most successful sporting organisations in the world recognise the need to allow teams like St Kitts and Nevis, Sligo Rovers, Andorra etc to enter and compete in the same competitions as Brazil, Real madrid and Germany.

MunsterMac wrote:Quinns

And therein lies the nub of the issue.

What you want is a HC that is run by businessmen who look upon it purely as money making product excluding all those who they look upon as weak links in the buisness 'model'.

What I want is a European competition that makes money (as it does as the moment) is truly representitive of European rugby, allows for the sporting drama of the odd shock and allows weaker clubs / countries the possibiliy of development.

Even FIFA and UEFA two of the richest and most successful sporting organisations in the world recognise the need to allow teams like St Kitts and Nevis, Sligo Rovers, Andorra etc to enter and compete in the same competitions as Brazil, Real madrid and Germany.

i understand completely.

but just remember that EVERYONE has to qualify for all those international and international club competitions. and not all nations get teams into the champions league pool stage, there are several rounds of pre-qualification, and the level a nation's team goes in at depends on the "coefficient" attached to success of all the teams representing each league.

If those businessmen looked upon it purely as money making surely they would invest somewhere else as they are not making any at the moment & they are successful at making money else where

So to be consistent, quins, presumably you were totally against inviting Italy into the 6Ns when they originally joined (or indeed France going even further back)?

broadlandboy wrote:If those businessmen looked upon it purely as money making surely they would invest somewhere else as they are not making any at the moment & they are successful at making money else where

bb, I tend to agree - i think it's more about willy wanging for many of them

my opinion, as clearly expressed, is about the international CLUB competition. where commercially run clubs compete against union controlled clubs/provinces/regions.

what happens in the international arena is up to the unions. and lets not pretend they aren't after more money too.

6N = extra matches = more money

quinsforever wrote:my opinion, as clearly expressed, is about the international CLUB competition. where commercially run clubs compete against union controlled clubs/provinces/regions.

what happens in the international arena is up to the unions. and lets not pretend they aren't after more money too.

6N = extra matches = more money

so no i wasnt against italy becoming part of the 6N. at least it meant scotland might win a few games... 

quinsforever wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:It was never set up to be an 'elite competition' that term has only come up recently. It was set up to help develope rugby in Europe. Sure the competition started off with Romanian teams.

yes but its controlled by unions who really just want to perpetuate the 6 nations and keep control of national players. once it became commercially successful, unions adjusted their domestic team setup to maximise the monies coming form HC, to help them achieve national team success.

absolutely zero effort by ERC to broaden the competition internationally once the money started really feeding the national team setups.

There is only so much the IRB and ERC can do to develope the game around Europe and the world, at some stage it will need the backing of the government, just like with Italy. The IRB is already funding tournaments such as the pacific nations cup, so simple does not have the funds to get clubs from minor nations to compete in Europe.

There is still so much more development to do in the 'tier one' nations. Scotland only has something like 35000-40000 players. The West of Ireland is developing nicely but still has a long way to go. Union is barely played in the north of England etc,etc.

quinsforever wrote:

quinsforever wrote:my opinion, as clearly expressed, is about the international CLUB competition. where commercially run clubs compete against union controlled clubs/provinces/regions.

what happens in the international arena is up to the unions. and lets not pretend they aren't after more money too.

6N = extra matches = more money

so no i wasnt against italy becoming part of the 6N. at least it meant scotland might win a few games... 

In between being rude, could you consider whether it is better to:
(a) all grow together and have a superior competition that raises the standard for all clubs and hence also the standard of international NH rugby; or,
(b) have one (or a minority) party improve relative to all others, hence decreasing the standard of competition across the board?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:If those businessmen looked upon it purely as money making surely they would invest somewhere else as they are not making any at the moment & they are successful at making money else where

bb, I tend to agree - i think it's more about willy wanging for many of them

Interesting thing about the "big tycoon bankrolls rugby team" scenario.

Sure they do it out of a love of the sport. (some of them out of a love of control too)

The way it works is. They stuff a lot of money in, then it becomes their plaything. Then they want more.

No one can say no to them as they have put in so much cash that no one else will be able to, and none of the fans want to go back to being the poor to mediocre team they were before daddy warbucks picked them out of the gutter.

The tycoon has a perfect out any time he is not getting his way. "Look at all the money I sank into you, I have no chance of getting it back and it is not working out now"

Result. Club focked.

Bring that up to HEC level and it could be Result: Comp focked. Or even Result: Rugby focked

Leinster fan,
To your point, Rugby is still a small sport. I don't think there is a lot of funds floating around to invest. So any development and investment is done on a shoestring. It is not easy to grow and export our sport. I believe it is important, however, to at least try to support countries where we do see some green shoots. Spain, Portugal, Georgia, Romania, Russia, for instance in a third tier would make some sense, if it could be funded.

quinsforever wrote:

MunsterMac wrote:Quinns

And therein lies the nub of the issue.

What you want is a HC that is run by businessmen who look upon it purely as money making product excluding all those who they look upon as weak links in the buisness 'model'.

What I want is a European competition that makes money (as it does as the moment) is truly representitive of European rugby, allows for the sporting drama of the odd shock and allows weaker clubs / countries the possibiliy of development.

Even FIFA and UEFA two of the richest and most successful sporting organisations in the world recognise the need to allow teams like St Kitts and Nevis, Sligo Rovers, Andorra etc to enter and compete in the same competitions as Brazil, Real madrid and Germany.

i understand completely.

but just remember that EVERYONE has to qualify for all those international and international club competitions. and not all nations get teams into the champions league pool stage, there are several rounds of pre-qualification, and the level a nation's team goes in at depends on the "coefficient" attached to success of all the teams representing each league.

Oh please god no, not the coefficient stuff again.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

quinsforever wrote:my opinion, as clearly expressed, is about the international CLUB competition. where commercially run clubs compete against union controlled clubs/provinces/regions.

what happens in the international arena is up to the unions. and lets not pretend they aren't after more money too.

6N = extra matches = more money

so no i wasnt against italy becoming part of the 6N. at least it meant scotland might win a few games... 

In between being rude, could you consider whether it is better to:
(a) all grow together and have a superior competition that raises the standard for all clubs and hence also the standard of international NH rugby; or,
(b) have one (or a minority) party improve relative to all others, hence decreasing the standard of competition across the board?

Asbo was against letting the French into the "Home nations" championship. Then again it was 2 years before he was born back in 1910.

doctor_grey wrote:Leinster fan,
To your point, Rugby is still a small sport.  I don't think there is a lot of funds floating around to invest.  So any development and investment is done on a shoestring.  It is not easy to grow and export our sport.  I believe it is important, however, to at least try to support countries where we do see some green shoots.  Spain, Portugal, Georgia, Romania, Russia, for instance in a third tier would make some sense, if it could be funded.  

I totally agree. But I think the only countries that could potentially support clubs, even in a third tier comp would be Russia, Georgia and Romania. The Spanish team that entered the Amlin the last few season wasn't even the best in the league, they just had the most funds and even they ended up bust. I can only see the same result for this Portuguese team.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:If those businessmen looked upon it purely as money making surely they would invest somewhere else as they are not making any at the moment & they are successful at making money else where

bb, I tend to agree - i think it's more about willy wanging for many of them

Interesting thing about the "big tycoon bankrolls rugby team" scenario.

Sure they do it out of a love of the sport. (some of them out of a love of control too)

The way it works is. They stuff a lot of money in, then it becomes their plaything. Then they want more.

No one can say no to them as they have put in so much cash that no one else will be able to, and none of the fans want to go back to being the poor to mediocre team they were before daddy warbucks picked them out of the gutter.

The tycoon has a perfect out any time he is not getting his way. "Look at all the money I sank into you, I have no chance of getting it back and it is not working out now"

Result. Club focked.

Bring that up to HEC level and it could be Result: Comp focked. Or even Result: Rugby focked

Mate, do you really think a big boy wants to mess about with tiny little Rugby?  Compared to soccer, we are not much more than a pimple.  Shame, but true.  Our stadia are small and mostly not modern, though improving.  The club facilities are not pretty.  Heck, we are not realy pretty.  No glamour to speak of, and I say that proudly.  There is really no ego to be gratified in Rugby, of any real measure, at least.  Cripe our salary cap in England is smaller than the annual salaries of many individual soccer players.   So, I don' think this scenario works.  

I really do think most people in Rugby are in it for the right reasons.  Even in Bath, Craig is a former Rugby player, and played at a good level too.

If you ask a question in a manner that suggests you are looking for support for your point of view, thost that don't agree won't bother voting more often than not.

13000 votes aren't that many to suggest a general consensus anyway.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Leinster fan,
To your point, Rugby is still a small sport.  I don't think there is a lot of funds floating around to invest.  So any development and investment is done on a shoestring.  It is not easy to grow and export our sport.  I believe it is important, however, to at least try to support countries where we do see some green shoots.  Spain, Portugal, Georgia, Romania, Russia, for instance in a third tier would make some sense, if it could be funded.  

I totally agree. But I think the only countries that could potentially support clubs, even in a third tier comp would be Russia, Georgia and Romania. The Spanish team that entered the Amlin the last few season wasn't even the best in the league, they just had the most funds and even they ended up bust. I can only see the same result for this Portuguese team.

Didn't know that about the Spanish team. Shame, I suppose. The question would still how to target any investment, assuming there is money, commitment, and a true will to grow the sport there. Up to now, it seems a lot of the development has come from French/Basque clubs like Biarritz who play some matches over the border in San Sebastian.

doctor_grey wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:If those businessmen looked upon it purely as money making surely they would invest somewhere else as they are not making any at the moment & they are successful at making money else where

bb, I tend to agree - i think it's more about willy wanging for many of them

Interesting thing about the "big tycoon bankrolls rugby team" scenario.

Sure they do it out of a love of the sport. (some of them out of a love of control too)

The way it works is. They stuff a lot of money in, then it becomes their plaything. Then they want more.

No one can say no to them as they have put in so much cash that no one else will be able to, and none of the fans want to go back to being the poor to mediocre team they were before daddy warbucks picked them out of the gutter.

The tycoon has a perfect out any time he is not getting his way. "Look at all the money I sank into you, I have no chance of getting it back and it is not working out now"

Result. Club focked.

Bring that up to HEC level and it could be Result: Comp focked. Or even Result: Rugby focked

Mate, do you really think a big boy wants to mess about with tiny little Rugby?  Compared to soccer, we are not much more than a pimple.  Shame, but true.  Our stadia are small and mostly not modern, though improving.  The club facilities are not pretty.  Heck, we are not realy pretty.  No glamour to speak of, and I say that proudly.  There is really no ego to be gratified in Rugby, of any real measure, at least.  Cripe our salary cap in England is smaller than the annual salaries of many individual soccer players.   So, I don' think this scenario works.  

I really do think most people in Rugby are in it for the right reasons.  Even in Bath, Craig is a former Rugby player, and played at a good level too.

I did say that they did it because they loved the sport in the main. Not sure about yerman in Toulon whether he played. No Idea about the Sarries guy either.

It's a bit like going back to your old school and telling the teacher what to do.

quinsforever wrote:

but just remember that EVERYONE has to qualify for all those international and international club competitions. and not all nations get teams into the champions league pool stage, there are several rounds of pre-qualification, and the level a nation's team goes in at depends on the "coefficient" attached to success of all the teams representing each league.

Going on my very limited knowledge of football, I'd assume you are right, quins.  In that pre-qualification means (and correct me on this if need be) that no declared quota of English sides has a God-given right to be in the pool stages?  And yet that's exactly what automatic 6 for English clubs and 6 for French clubs mean in HEC.  In the new understanding, going on PRL/LNR proposals, no longer would Any of the Pro12 nations have automatic places but French and English sides maintain their quota - regardless of quality.

Way back when this debate began, I casually said that if it is claimed that a truly meritocratic (all encompassing) European competition is needed then let's start at the very beginning and state that, to begin with, no Nation has any alloted number of entrants.  No 6 for England, no 3 for Ireland, no 2 for Scotland.  Then base your entrants on results based across all three leagues - no guarantee of number quota for any Nation.  Highest results (points, tries scored, bonus points etc) across all three Leagues would dictate the final participants. (I remember doing a study of what that would mean, taking the results of a few full years of the three leagues and I think I can remember that Top14 habitually had most qualifiers (more games obviously helped that! - we'd have to equalise that too ), and Aviva and Pro12 pretty much had equal numbers.  24 best sides in Europe.  Nothing less, nothing more.

That format would be truly revolutionary, it would mean all sides had a major incentive not just to perform in their own leagues, but also to perform well in relation to results coming in every weekend from the other Leagues.  The competition for HEC would be year long and HOT, not just when it comes to the specific European contest itself.  There then could be no excuses about players being protected or sides playing tag rugby in their league to protect themselves for HEC.  But also it would clear up the idea that some are more 'equal' than others - in that no league or Nation would retain their quotas in any new competition... All nations would work hard for every team entry.

If it is truly meritocratic then there should be no guarantees of 2 for Italy, 3 for Wales or 6 for France.

doctor_grey wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:If those businessmen looked upon it purely as money making surely they would invest somewhere else as they are not making any at the moment & they are successful at making money else where

bb, I tend to agree - i think it's more about willy wanging for many of them

Interesting thing about the "big tycoon bankrolls rugby team" scenario.

Sure they do it out of a love of the sport. (some of them out of a love of control too)

The way it works is. They stuff a lot of money in, then it becomes their plaything. Then they want more.

No one can say no to them as they have put in so much cash that no one else will be able to, and none of the fans want to go back to being the poor to mediocre team they were before daddy warbucks picked them out of the gutter.

The tycoon has a perfect out any time he is not getting his way. "Look at all the money I sank into you, I have no chance of getting it back and it is not working out now"

Result. Club focked.

Bring that up to HEC level and it could be Result: Comp focked. Or even Result: Rugby focked

Mate, do you really think a big boy wants to mess about with tiny little Rugby?  Compared to soccer, we are not much more than a pimple.  Shame, but true.  Our stadia are small and mostly not modern, though improving.  The club facilities are not pretty.  Heck, we are not realy pretty.  No glamour to speak of, and I say that proudly.  There is really no ego to be gratified in Rugby, of any real measure, at least.  Cripe our salary cap in England is smaller than the annual salaries of many individual soccer players.   So, I don' think this scenario works.  

I really do think most people in Rugby are in it for the right reasons.  Even in Bath, Craig is a former Rugby player, and played at a good level too.

You have to take soundbite/press release stuff from 'top guys in business' with a pinch of salt.

Craig is fond of mentioning to the media that he spent 'five seasons at Racing Metro' during the 80s, forgetting that Racing Metro weren't formed until 2001.

He wasn't even at Racing Club, he was at US Metro in the French old second division. Probably in their 3rds most of the time.

US Metro were about the same standard as Lydney RFC back then.

I'm not saying that all successful 'business guys' are shameless liars, obviously.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:I did say that they did it because they loved the sport in the main. Not sure about yerman in Toulon whether he played. No Idea about the Sarries guy either.

It's a bit like going back to your old school and telling the teacher what to do.

Sorry, you certainly said they were in for the right reasons.  Although I missed that, I didn't really think you we saying the opposite.

I really don't know abut YOUR mate in Toulon, but he has a lot of quag, that's for sure.  Made selling comic books, I read.  I also read he is very loyal to Toulon, the city.  Wonder if he wants to marry my daughter..........

The Sarries head dude, Nigel Wray, bought Saracens back at the start of professional Rugby in the mid-1990s.  He was part of some pretty poor Saracens teams for years.  Was a player before, but, I don't know when or where.  Certainly committed to his club and to the sport.  

I don't see Craig and Wray, as the type to get involved and run away if the right people are not dancing his tune.   Wray has proven it over almost 20 years.  Craig does make me a wee bit nervous, to be fair.

So, speaking for English club owners, I realy think we are OK.  Look at Mr. Duckworth at Worcester, the crew at Gloucester, Barwells at Saints, Leicester as fan owned, and people involved at lower levels.  Generally good folks.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

quinsforever wrote:my opinion, as clearly expressed, is about the international CLUB competition. where commercially run clubs compete against union controlled clubs/provinces/regions.

what happens in the international arena is up to the unions. and lets not pretend they aren't after more money too.

6N = extra matches = more money

so no i wasnt against italy becoming part of the 6N. at least it meant scotland might win a few games... 

In between being rude, could you consider whether it is better to:
(a) all grow together and have a superior competition that raises the standard for all clubs and hence also the standard of international NH rugby; or,
(b) have one (or a minority) party improve relative to all others, hence decreasing the standard of competition across the board?

makes me   you didn't like my joke. would have thought a rugby fan on a forum like this might have had a bit more of a sense of humour. was pretty funny after all.

(a) sounds better in a vacuum, but i question the link between club and international success (wales and ireland would be cases in point), and anyway there are obviously some people who matter who dont think the HC is a superior competition. emotive, generally positive sounding terms like "grow together" and "superior competition" could just as easily be used to describe what is being proposed by the evil empire...

and (b) sounds bad, but then thats not whats being proposed either. it's a potential future outcome that you apparently think is a certainty but which is by no means clear at all.

yerman the doc wrote:

I really don't know abut YOUR mate in Toulon, but he has a lot of quag,

So, speaking for English club owners, I realy think we are OK.  Look at Mr. Duckworth at Worcester, the crew at Gloucester, Barwells at Saints, Leicester as fan owned, and people involved at lower levels.  Generally good folks.

Sorry man. I forgot that English people didn't get the phrase yerman (female equivelent = yewwan)

It translates as "that bloke"

Good info on Wray. Thanks.

What about yerman Diamond. I hear he played 300 games for Sale.

Glad to hear Dick cockman re signed for Leicester much as we all love to hate him he is a passionate Leicester man.

Casartelli wrote:You have to take soundbite/press release stuff from 'top guys in business' with a pinch of salt.

Craig is fond of mentioning to the media that he spent 'five seasons at Racing Metro' during the 80s, forgetting that Racing Metro weren't formed until 2001.

He wasn't even at Racing Club, he was at US Metro in the French old second division.  Probably in their 3rds most of the time.

US Metro were about the same standard as Lydney RFC back then.

I'm not saying that all successful 'business guys' are shameless liars, obviously.

Listen mate, I don't really trust any of these guys.  I believe it is important to take every media offering with a healthy dose of scepticism.  But you just did a service by encapsulating exactly why so much of this discussion has turned people off.  People here have quoted freely people who seem to verbalise their own points of view and then denigrate the quotes of people saying something else.  Clearly forgetting all these folks are in the same fetid bathwater and everyone's quotes publicised in the media are there for a specific purpose.  Therefore, they must be looked at with your pinch of salt, or a barf bag.  

My only point is the boy was involved with Rugby before and is not some come-lately who has money to throw around and knows nothing of our sport.  Sorry if I was not clear.