Absolutely taking the urine

First topic message reminder :

So much for this new European utopia we are supposed to be having, so much for the excuse of making the second tier of the European cup more attractive and competitive, none of the French sides put out a first team in the second tier competition, I was watching the Blues game and it was a farce. But of course, who can we complain to, now that this brave new world are run by the clubs ? We cannot go to the ERC to complain as they are not running the competition, where do we go ? This second tier competition is not worth a w@nk, I would have much rather seen the top tier with the likes of Cardiff and Edinburgh in it rather than watching them wiping the floor with the French 3rd choice teams in a take it or leave it for the French second tier comp.

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

beshocked wrote:True but they have never been in the Amlin pool stages and wouldn't have been in the Amlin quarter finals if it wasn't for the drop down rule.

The drop down ruling was one of the most idiotic rulings by the ERC. I am glad it's been dropped.

Agreed, but it did suddenly make the knockout stages relevant to Pro12 fans.
.

No it didn't.  

I suggest you go back and have a look at the activity from Leinster fans when they won it. Blues fans talk about winning it now. Just because the Scots had no involvement in recent times does mean that others didn't have their interest piqued.

Yeah right - I have never heard anyone do this. No one cares - and read Notchs comments above for how patronising this is.

Top tier - 16 teams.

Best team from each of the 6 Nations as decided by Play-off/League positions.
Two tournament winners.

Other 8 spots via a 32 team qualifying competition. 24 teams who do not qualify play in second tier.

LondonTiger wrote:Top tier - 16 teams.

Best team from each of the 6 Nations as decided by Play-off/League positions.
Two tournament winners.

Other 8 spots via a 32 team qualifying competition. 24 teams who do not qualify play in second tier.

That would work and answer my dislike of the current setup  Lot of games tho if the winner comes thru qualification One of the english football cups works like this doesn't it? division 1 and 2 get byes?

TJ wrote:5,5 8 plus 2 would have been much fairer tho ;-)  Oh - and fairness can be an absolute but its hard to see from an interested observer.  Thats getting into some deep philosophy tho

No it can't. And there is nothing deep to it.

And what is patronising to say that fans were interested in a 2nd tier competition when their team was in it?

TJ wrote:Wayne - not by a long way are the best 20 teams in Europe in the cup.  Take Bordeaux for example.  3rd in the french league, stuffing teams for fun ( unless they play their thirds in the second tier comp).  Not in the cup.  Castre however are in the cup despite being rubbish this year.  

TJ, it is meritocratic on each league and that means when the last time the League was completed and that was last season. Manchester United before this weekends matches were in 4th place ie Champions League spot, if they finish there at the end of the season, they will be in NEXT YEARS Champions League.

Its not meritocratic in any form and the best 20 teams are not in it. So wrong on both counts.

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:5,5 8 plus 2 would have been much fairer tho ;-)  Oh - and fairness can be an absolute but its hard to see from an interested observer.  Thats getting into some deep philosophy tho

No it can't. And there is nothing deep to it.

And what is patronising to say that fans were interested in a 2nd tier competition when their team was in it?

I suggest you read some utilitarianism for some thoughts about fairness and you need to read notches post above - he explains it well

Utilitarianism is useless for making decisions like this as it's impossible to compare utility across people when you don't know exactly how important it is to them

Just because you really really hate the new cup doesn't mean that carries more weight than the larger number of people who are pleased (English and french club fans). And vice versa.

PRL wanted the last 2 spots to go to the winners of both comps. Pro12 Unions wanted 7 spots so they came up with the current compromise.

Well the Euro rugby argument has been around and around but I think this is the first time we've brought in moral philosophy. I'm not sure that the continuation of this argument is in itself utilitarian, in that is neither maximising benefit for anyone nor reducing suffering.

Quite the opposite

There's been some discussion on this thread about the play-off system for the Champions Cup 20th spot.  The changes they made in the summer stated that the winner of the Challenge Cup gets their league's place in the play-off if they haven't already qualified for the competition by league position. What hasn't been fully spelt out is what happens (however unlikely) if the Challenge Cup winner doesn't come from the three leagues.  The assumption is that there would be three play-off games rather than just two, with the French side playing the winner at the same time as the PRO12 side plays the English (home advantage decided by the toss of coin in both instances, as it now is for the PRO12 v English match).

My preference would be that the 20th spot automatically goes to the Challenge Cup winner.  However the question is what happens if they have already qualified by league position, which I expect to happen this year and most.  Just going to the next team in their league wouldn't be right.  You could give it to the other Challenge Cup finalist, but what if they've already qualified as well, do you then go to the semi-finalists, which one? (certainly from an English perspective historically teams doing well in the Challenge usually acts as a springboard for the league; Bath, Sale & Wasps topped their Challenge Cup pools last year, with Bath the losing finalist and all three are in the Champions this year)  It's if the Challenge Cup winner has already qualified that I would be happy for play-offs to be used.

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:5,5 8 plus 2 would have been much fairer tho ;-)  Oh - and fairness can be an absolute but its hard to see from an interested observer.  Thats getting into some deep philosophy tho

No it can't. And there is nothing deep to it.

And what is patronising to say that fans were interested in a 2nd tier competition when their team was in it?

I assume TJ wants to employ a clairvoyant. They would predict which teams would be strongest. This would suit me as it would mean Gloucester would be in the top competition.

Back in the real world however, I accept that Gloucester were crap last year and this is the price they pay.

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:5,5 8 plus 2 would have been much fairer tho ;-)  Oh - and fairness can be an absolute but its hard to see from an interested observer.  Thats getting into some deep philosophy tho

No it can't. And there is nothing deep to it.

And what is patronising to say that fans were interested in a 2nd tier competition when their team was in it?

I suggest you read some utilitarianism for some thoughts about fairness and you need to read notches post above - he explains it well

why would I waste my time reading about philosophy? 1) it's just definition/theory 2) it's about the greatest good, which itself is opinion based. So no, there is no absolute definition of fairness.

And again, I miss be a bit slow as I can't see anything in Notch's post that suggests it's patronising to suggest fans are interested in competitions their team is in, even if it's 2nd tier. I think you are the only 'fan' I've seen who won't support their team because they're in the second tier.

You are all missing my point, and the reason why I started this thread, I, like many others, were sold a dream that the new European competitions were going to be a new utopia for European rugby, the French and English wanted more Pro12 teams in the Amlin to make it more competitive and more marketable, that's all fair enough, so how on earth, and I blame the French mostly for this, can they expect all these great new things from a competition when they just stick two fingers up at it anyway. The French do not want anything to do with the competition, so I say, tell them not to bother with it, we get some other countries involved in it, Georgia, Russia, Romania and cut their takings from Europe so that the clubs playing in the top tier only, get a cut of the money. We have a good point to force this through, so I say, unless they take it serious, then they should not be in it, thus if they are not in it, they only get the money that their six teams in the top tier are allocated.

You expect revolution in a day?

The first few Euro Cups were poorly supported. This tier two competition is already better than last seasons. Of course the fact that Blues are selecting a team of reserves at the weekend does not help.

You weren't sold anything. You had no choice. Neither, in spite of them blustering and pretending otherwise, did many of the Unions.

Both cups are already an improvement. This is just your first season properly engaged in the 2nd tier.

quinsforever wrote:You weren't sold anything. You had no choice. Neither, in spite of them blustering and pretending otherwise, did many of the Unions.

Both cups are already an improvement. This is just your first season properly engaged in the 2nd tier.

No it isn't, I have supported the Dragons in it for years.

Also, just for you to know, I was told by people on here and through the media, that the second tier competition needed better sides in it to make it more competitive and marketable, well the French putting out their proper teams would have been a start. After seeing the French sides do this for years and to see them STILL doing it after all the chaos we have just had is a p1ss take.

quinsforever wrote:You weren't sold anything. You had no choice. Neither, in spite of them blustering and pretending otherwise, did many of the Unions.

Both cups are already an improvement. This is just your first season properly engaged in the 2nd tier.

The Challenge in the Challenge Cup is keeping your eyes open.....

I think it should be ironically renamed as The Eyeopener Cup. At least it would cut down on a 'C'.

Lorddowlais I think you have quite unrealistic expectations.

New utopia? You're not that naive are you?

The top tier European competition does seem to be more competitive this season which I think is great. Some of the weaker sides were told to play in the Amlin.

If these weaker sides prove themselves then they'll be back in the top tier next season.

Also surely weaker sides means you'll cruise through the 2nd tier and have a better shot at silverware?

beshocked wrote:Lorddowlais I think you have quite unrealistic expectations.

New utopia? You're not that naive are you?

The top tier European competition does seem to be more competitive this season which I think is great. Some of the weaker sides were told to play in the Amlin.

If these weaker sides prove themselves then they'll be back in the top tier next season.

Also surely weaker sides means you'll cruise through the 2nd tier and have a better shot at silverware?

I am not talking about the top tier, FFS will people please try and see what I am saying.

If the French do not want to be in the second tier comp, then fine, let them leave it, but we should then cut their European money to coincide with the teams they have left in it, in the top tier, six teams, so six teams worth of money. With the French out of the way, we could invite the Russians and Georgians into the competition, and give them the money, they are more or less knocking on the door anyway, and a full Russian side will be no worse than a third rate French side.

beshocked wrote:
Also surely weaker sides means you'll cruise through the 2nd (1st) tier and have a better shot at silverware?

Lord knows that was a true statement for quite a few French and English sides in ye olde HEC............................. but they didn't seem to want to buy that argument as it was kinda considered insulting.

secretfly in the top tier I want to take on the best sides.

Zebre and Connacht were not top tier sides last season - sure it was nice to pick up 19 points from those matches and allowed Saracens to qualify for the quarter finals but it was unfair on the rest of the teams in the competition.

The best sides aren't in the 2nd tier, they are in the top tier as they should be.

I don't disagree with wanting a more competitive 2nd tier but that's not down to me - it's down to the sides taking part.

The problem with inviting Russians and Georgians is that it wouldn't strengthen the 2nd tier plus neither are what I would call European.

A bit late to this party, but having looked at the weekends Challenge Cup results I'm not sure your argument holds up LD.

8 French teams played, they won 4 and lost 4 of their matches. The defeats were away at Kingsholm, away at Cardiff, away at The Sportsground, and one defeat at home.

Whilst we all know that the French are never going to go hell for leather in this competition, the only one of those defeats which would be considered a shock was Stade getting beat at home, and these things happen. The competition is what it is, and ultimately it's not much different this year from last, other than there are a couple less whipping boys from tier 2 nations.

The Pro12 teams record this weekend was similar to that of the French, played 5, won 3 lost 2, with the Premiership teams also played 5, won 3 lost 2.

On that basis I'm not sure how the French teams can be seen as devaluing the competition after 1 round. How about we wait and see how the pool stages pan out and who qualifies and by what margins, before deciding whether or not the competition has been a success, and if not, whose fault it is.

http://www.epcrugby.com/matchcentre/fixtures_challenge_cup.php

beshocked wrote:secretfly in the top tier I want to take on the best sides.

Zebre and Connacht were not top tier sides last season - sure it was nice to pick up 19 points from those matches and allowed Saracens to qualify for the quarter finals but it was unfair on the rest of the teams in the competition.

The best sides aren't in the 2nd tier, they are in the top tier as they should be.

I don't disagree with wanting a more competitive 2nd tier but that's not down to me - it's down to the sides taking part.

The problem with inviting Russians and Georgians is that it wouldn't strengthen the 2nd tier plus neither are what I would call European.

Please tell me your joking.

LordDowlais wrote:

beshocked wrote:

The problem with inviting Russians and Georgians is that it wouldn't strengthen the 2nd tier plus neither are what I would call European.

Please tell me your joking.

Technically the bulk of Russia's land mass is not in Europe

To be georgaphically accurate, the bulk of Europe is in Asia Where Russia is.

Urals are just a name that makes Europe feel important.... they don't slice a continent in two.

No I am not joking. They aren't European not in my opinion anyway.

Would you say the Russians are proud Europeans?

beshocked wrote:No I am not joking. They aren't European.

then what is European?

'Euopean' is what Farrage ain't...

that's the best definition I can come up with off the top of my head

beshocked wrote: No I am not joking. They aren't European not in my opinion anyway.

Would you say the Russians are proud Europeans?

Even I'm not a proud 'European'...??

SecretFly wrote:'Euopean' is what Farrage ain't...

that's the best definition I can come up with off the top of my head

Taking that further - British is what Salmond ain't. Therefore Vlad "the Impaler" Putin is british, tehrefore of course Russia should be in

Londontiger well that's debatable isn't it. Personally I wouldn't call Russians or Georgians Europeans.

My definition would probably be those in the EU or EFTA as they identify with the trading blocs of Europe.

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote: No I am not joking. They aren't European not in my opinion anyway.

Would you say the Russians are proud Europeans?

Even I'm not a proud 'European'...??

I am - for 3 days every two years.

beshocked wrote:Londontiger well that's debatable isn't it. Personally I wouldn't call Russians or Georgians Europeans.

My definition would probably be those in the EU or EFTA as they identify with the trading blocs of Europe.

Damn - so if Farrage and Cameron have their way I can no longer be european during the Ryder cup?

Nationalism going on here guys!!!  I thought it was banned during the Scottish Independence debate?  It was at the very least a very dirty word indeed in some circles.

So...in the interests of non-Nationalistic jingoism......................  Russia should be what it feels and shouldn't feel it can't be a member of the proud Nationalistic club that is the European Union.

let's hug 'em...let's kiss 'em...let's say we're all the one......  that'd kill off Putin's ideology pretty quick

I'll be in a boat then, rowing myself away from all the love-in schmaltz going down Eurussia, on my way to my spiritual non-European homeland of the Americas

LondonTiger wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote: No I am not joking. They aren't European not in my opinion anyway.

Would you say the Russians are proud Europeans?

Even I'm not a proud 'European'...??

I am - for 3 days every two years.

I gratefully miss all that cotton coated colourful jumper shyte myself Fist Pump for Europe guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Its probably a good idea not to invite the Russians and Georgians .. there would probably the first ever international incident caused by rugby

Can you imagine what Putin would do if the Georgians thrashed Russia?!

Londontiger

that's just my personal definition.

My point about Russia and Georgia is if you look at a geographical map they were very much in a grey area when it comes to defining "Europe".

Georgia is next to Azerbaijan and Turkey. Russia is basically it's own entity as it's partly in Europe and Asia - I would call it neither Asia or European.

Plus another important point neither Russia and Georgia are part of the old boys rugby club like those of France,Ireland,England,Scotland and Wales.

Oh and I feel like Putin led Russia is anti Western.

BamBam wrote:Its probably a good idea not to invite the Russians and Georgians .. there would probably the first ever international incident caused by rugby

Can you imagine what Putin would do if the Georgians thrashed Russia?!

Invade Scotland?

beshocked wrote:Londontiger

that's just my personal definition.

My point about Russia and Georgia is if you look at a geographical map they were very much in a grey area when it comes to defining "Europe".

Georgia is next to Azerbaijan and Turkey. Russia is basically it's own entity as it's partly in Europe and Asia - I would call it neither Asia or European.

Plus another important point neither Russia and Georgia are part of the old boys rugby club like those of France,Ireland,England,Scotland and Wales.

What about Turkey and Israel......................... they're in the Eurovision ain't they? Shyte songs usually but then.............. it's a shyte song special so everybody gets to write one for the occasion.

Secretfly you're definition of what is Europe is Eurovision?

Israel? European? Really?

Also think of the logistics of travelling fans to Russia -firstly there is the distance but also you might be caught in another war and god forbid if you are a homosexual!

Not sure Nigel Owens would be allowed in Russia!

beshocked wrote: Secretfly you're definition of what is Europe is Eurovision?
Israel? European? Really?

Also think of the logistics of travelling fans to Russia -firstly there is the distance but also you might be caught in another war and god forbid if you are a homosexual!

Not sure Nigel Owens would be allowed in Russia!

Nevermind my definition of Europe beshocked... my definition of Europe doesn't even include Ireland if I had my way .

But it's definitions that are out there that I'm talking about.  

"Israel?  European?  Really?" - you tell me.  But the competition they're in is called EUROvision...................................  so it needs explanation.  And no matter what explanation you might come up with, it'd be enough of a one to allow Russia and Georgia into a EUROrugby contest - even if they weren't from Europe.  Turkey meanwhile is down from Western Russia - it isn't West of Russia in Europe...it's down from Russia - same longitude.  Are they 'European'?

This is all quite fun though as during the historic 606 extended debate.............................. Russia and Georgia was all the rage in some circles where people wanted 'change for the better' and wanting to let the little nations into Big rugby to give them a leg up.

Oh it was a very popular argument against the bad boy Traditional Unions trying to keep all the jewelery for themselves.  "What about poor Russia and Georgia and Portugal and them little lads that are crying to get to play against us??!!"  was the call.

Oh that pulled my heartstrings right enough as I giggled at the idea that Russia would need help at anything (being so poor and all)

Now that the new competitions are up and running, the story changes.  "Russia and Georgia???  In amongst us?  Them lads with us?  The hell with them lads, let them do their own thing!"

I agree - let them do their own thing.

secretfly no Turkey is not what I would call Europe either.

I suppose it depends if you want "European" 2nd tier to not really be European and have teams that will be smashed every week like Lorddowlais would want if he got his way with Russian and Georgian sides.

A "European" leage should be an aim like a brother or sister of the Pro12 - having sides from Belgium,Germany,Romania and Georgia.

There are many ways of defining Europe. The only one that really matters here is that in rugby union Georgia and Russia are both part of European Rugby (the new name for AER-FIRA). It doesn't matter that one of the hotbeds of Russia rugby is about as far east as Mongolia. The Russia union is part of the European Rugby collective, therefore, for rugby, they are European.

But that is the point of the qualification competition. The Russians and Georgians will play against the Romanians and Italians to get access to the 2nd tier. The same Italians that were getting thrashed by 60 points previously. If they can't beat them they don't get in. Once they've reached a level where they can, they'll get in. Once they're competing the rules should be changed to give them automatic access to the 2nd tier. If they get to the point they're winning it, consideration should be given to them being involved in the 1st tier automatically.

And Fly, you're doing a slight twisting of facts there. The argument, at least mine, was that if you're saying that Scotland and Italy MUST have involvement in the top tier because of develop issues rather than 'earning' it then why shouldn't the other countries be involved. Why should Scotland get 2 places and Georgia none? Because they've been playing longer? Because they've got a bigger voice on the IRB? Because we play them a lot and it makes more money for us?

The point in all this, that I am trying to make, is that certain unions are turning a blind eye to sides fielding weeker teams in a European competition, but they are still getting the same rewards as teams who are taking it more seriously, if certain clubs do not want anything to do with it then say so, perhaps then the money being wasted on French 3rd string sides in the competition could be spent better elsewhere.

It is what it is, why worry about it?

Unions turning a blind eye? All team rotate and rest. When they do it is up to them. Those 3rd strings, as you've catogorised them are still better than the teams you would replace them with. It's like saying that teams rest players in the PRO12 and Jeff so replace them with others.

And the French get less per team than anyone else.

beshocked wrote:Londontiger

that's just my personal definition.

My point about Russia and Georgia is if you look at a geographical map they were very much in a grey area when it comes to defining "Europe".

Georgia is next to Azerbaijan and Turkey. Russia is basically it's own entity as it's partly in Europe and Asia - I would call it neither Asia or European.

Plus another important point neither Russia and Georgia are part of the old boys rugby club like those of France,Ireland,England,Scotland and Wales.

Oh and I feel like Putin led Russia is anti Western.

I think that feeling you have might just be correct!

HammerofThunor wrote:
And Fly, you're doing a slight twisting of facts there. The argument, at least mine, was that if you're saying that Scotland and Italy MUST have involvement in the top tier because of develop issues rather than 'earning' it then why shouldn't the other countries be involved. Why should Scotland get 2 places and Georgia none? Because they've been playing longer? Because they've got a bigger voice on the IRB? Because we play them a lot and it makes more money for us?

Because they had a right to them, as England had a right to 6 (still does) and France had a right to 6 (still does).  Because they had nothing more than the right to them, based on the same principles as England and France had a right to their entrants.  And I don't like other Nations (namely England and France) - competitor nations - using the power of money and threats to change the ground rules and taking those rights from them.  That to me is killing [rephrase - attempting to!] off a competitor, downing a rival.  Not right.

.... and THAT was always my retort, Hammer

But we'll leave that entertaining past behind us and debate this new juicy future of just why Russia can be in the EUROvision but should be banned from EURO rugby because they're not EUROpean

I love debates like that.  I actually agree with beshocked that our competitions (ERCCTier1 and... ERCCTier2 ) don't need to absolutely involve all European nations.  There is room for other contests in Europe and beyond - the European population can certainly accomodate it.  Nothing wrong with a competitor European contest between Russia, Georgia etc, etc.

So I've always argued that other Rugby Nations can develop freely amongst themselves in other groupings like the one we have for the 6N, and in that I agree with beshocked.  

But his reasons for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hmmm...........................  that's the fun bit in discussion terms.

HammerofThunor wrote:Unions turning a blind eye? All team rotate and rest. When they do it is up to them.  Those 3rd strings, as you've catogorised them are still better than the teams you would replace them with.  It's like saying that teams rest players in the PRO12 and Jeff so replace them with others.

And the French get less per team than anyone else.

Well, youv'e changed your tune then, when the Pro12 side's were resting THEIR players in the league, and playing them in Europe, it was unfair, a farce, it needed to be changed. Also, I do not care how much money the French get, if they are not going to take the competition seriously, then they shouldn't get anything.