Toulon want to scrap the Champions Cup .....

by Sin é Tue 22 Mar - 3:56

First topic message reminder :

and replace it with a Euro Super League

Looks like he wants more Celts in it - 6 French, 6 English & 8 Pro12

http://www.the42.ie/mourad-boudjellal-european-super-league-2671582-Mar2016/

I'd prefer this to any old B&I league.

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 24 Mar - 2:32

LordDowlais wrote:
bumble wrote:
carpet baboon wrote:But back to the actual topic. I think it's a good idea. I like that he's talked about promotion and relegation. And coming right after NZ want a discussion on the global season iits well placed to be given some serious thought.

But, and the biggest of big buts, I can't see how the different unions, clubs, provinces and regions will ever find a common ground to go forward with,and the worst thing to do would be to force through a ill fitting league that's alienated half the participants.

In theory it's the best idea for theNH. In reality I can't see it happening

How would you envisage promotion and relegation working for the Celtic countries?

There is a link I posted on here where Mourad Boudjellal has said that the two levels below this super league would be a British and Irish/Italian league and a French league. The bottom sides in the super league would get relegated and promoted to and from those leagues, it seems a very good idea if you ask me.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/toulon-owner-calls-new-european-11076811

So if I get my head around this right, there will always be the same number of French sides in the tournament and there will always be the same amount of B&I(&I) sides, but the make up of those could/would alter depending on who ends up in the relegation/promotion places?

by carpet baboon Thu 24 Mar - 2:34

bumble wrote:
carpet baboon wrote:But back to the actual topic. I think it's a good idea. I like that he's talked about promotion and relegation. And coming right after NZ want a discussion on the global season iits well placed to be given some serious thought.

But, and the biggest of big buts, I can't see how the different unions, clubs, provinces and regions will ever find a common ground to go forward with,and the worst thing to do would be to force through a ill fitting league that's alienated half the participants.

In theory it's the best idea for theNH. In reality I can't see it happening

How would you envisage promotion and relegation working for the Celtic countries?

Honestly I'm not sure. If you did it strictly on bottom club down and top club up you could end up with the top league being just two nations and that wouldn't be good for anyone.
But how else do you do? If the second leagues winner is French they replace the bottom placed French team of the top league? Bit unfair if that team finished the league in 7th.

That's one of the many many stumbling blocks

by bumble Thu 24 Mar - 2:37

Someone's full allocation is going to have to miss out if it is 8 teams from the pro12. Wales online have it as all 4 Irish but only 2 Welsh teams. Unless you go:

3 Irish
3 Welsh
1 Scottish
1 Italian

by carpet baboon Thu 24 Mar - 2:39

bumble wrote:Someone's full allocation is going to have to miss out if it is 8 teams from the pro12. Wales online have it as all 4 Irish but only 2 Welsh teams. Unless you go:

3 Irish
3 Welsh
1 Scottish
1 Italian

Didn't they just pick the top 8 teams?

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 24 Mar - 2:40

bumble wrote:Someone's full allocation is going to have to miss out if it is 8 teams from the pro12. Wales online have it as all 4 Irish but only 2 Welsh teams. Unless you go:

3 Irish
3 Welsh
1 Scottish
1 Italian

Surely it would be purely top 8?

by bumble Thu 24 Mar - 2:40

If it's top 8, then there might be no Scottish teams at all. Or no Welsh teams. Or no Irish teams.

by carpet baboon Thu 24 Mar - 2:42

bumble wrote:If it's top 8, then there might be no Scottish teams at all. Or no Welsh teams. Or no Irish teams.

Again this is another of the major problems in even starting this league

by bumble Thu 24 Mar - 2:44

carpet baboon wrote:
bumble wrote:If it's top 8, then there might be no Scottish teams at all. Or no Welsh teams. Or no Irish teams.

Again this is another of the major problems in even starting this league

It's not a problem if you look at it sensibly from a logical point of view. It should be done on pan European level, rather than just picking the best 8 teams in terms of form in May 2019.

But the relegation thing is an issue. Because if one team gets relegated from each Celtic nation every season - and you only have 1 team from Scotland in the tier 1 competition, then that team might find it hard to not get relegated.

by The Great Aukster Thu 24 Mar - 2:45

bumble wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:In a professional sport money is king - by definition.

What surprises me is there are Pro12 fans who cannot see that the Euro Super league proposal is the best way for Pro12 teams to compete at a high level with player exposure etc.

What other way are they going to get a share of the French and English tv markets?

As for killing the Pro12, it could be the opposite where the Pro12 becomes the League for other European nations to potentially gain access to the Euro Super League. Those aspirant nations wanting to justify higher Test status need to prove they can sustain a pro team at club level first. Georgia, Portugal, Romania and Spain should be able to provide a team each that would be a proving ground for their Test Players, but more crucially grow the game in their countries and potentially the revenues for the Pro12 with a much wider market.

Agree with most of that, but I'm afraid a Pr012 fixture of Cardiff v Tiblisi doesn't particularly enthrall.

You don't think it would enthrall Georgians? One team representing a country bigger than Wales that supposedly likes rugby couldn't find the funds to get Gorgodze et all to play for them?
The assumption is that they wouldn't be any good yet there are plenty calling for them to be part of the 6N so that circle doesn't square. If these countries truly believe in the game and they want to progress then they would invest in it the way Ceausescu did with Romania to legitimise their claims for a higher level of Test rugby (and it would give the Italians a kick up the backside as well).

by bumble Thu 24 Mar - 2:46

The Great Aukster wrote:

You don't think it would enthrall Georgians? One team representing a country bigger than Wales that supposedly likes rugby couldn't find the funds to get Gorgodze et all to play for them?
The assumption is that they wouldn't be any good yet there are plenty calling for them to be part of the 6N so that circle doesn't square. If these countries truly believe in the game and they want to progress then they would invest in it the way Ceausescu did with Romania to legitimise their claims for a higher level of Test rugby (and it would give the Italians a kick up the backside as well).

Oh it would enthrall the Georgians. In the same way Grimsby Town FC would be enthralled to play Barcelona every week.

by Guest Thu 24 Mar - 2:47

From reading the original article, I thought Boudjellal envisaged a top 8, but not sure. Would he really want those finishing bottom to be included in his dream of rugby elites? Surely it would be no different to the Euro competition we already have, or not much different, if it was the same criteria. Although I suppose this would be an only chance for whatever 8 gets picked. The remaining 4 would sink.

by carpet baboon Thu 24 Mar - 2:48

The Great Aukster wrote:
bumble wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:In a professional sport money is king - by definition.

What surprises me is there are Pro12 fans who cannot see that the Euro Super league proposal is the best way for Pro12 teams to compete at a high level with player exposure etc.

What other way are they going to get a share of the French and English tv markets?

As for killing the Pro12, it could be the opposite where the Pro12 becomes the League for other European nations to potentially gain access to the Euro Super League. Those aspirant nations wanting to justify higher Test status need to prove they can sustain a pro team at club level first. Georgia, Portugal, Romania and Spain should be able to provide a team each that would be a proving ground for their Test Players, but more crucially grow the game in their countries and potentially the revenues for the Pro12 with a much wider market.

Agree with most of that, but I'm afraid a Pr012 fixture of Cardiff v Tiblisi doesn't particularly enthrall.

You don't think it would enthrall Georgians? One team representing a country bigger than Wales that supposedly likes rugby couldn't find the funds to get Gorgodze et all to play for them?
The assumption is that they wouldn't be any good yet there are plenty calling for them to be part of the 6N so that circle doesn't square. If these countries truly believe in the game and they want to progress then they would invest in it the way Ceausescu did with Romania to legitimise their claims for a higher level of Test rugby (and it would give the Italians a kick up the backside as well).

But Ceausescu was a loonatic who had most his athletes on a serious drug programming, and threatened them and there family with imprisonment if they didn't win. Not sure we should go down that route

by munkian Thu 24 Mar - 2:58

carpet baboon wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
bumble wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:In a professional sport money is king - by definition.

What surprises me is there are Pro12 fans who cannot see that the Euro Super league proposal is the best way for Pro12 teams to compete at a high level with player exposure etc.

What other way are they going to get a share of the French and English tv markets?

As for killing the Pro12, it could be the opposite where the Pro12 becomes the League for other European nations to potentially gain access to the Euro Super League. Those aspirant nations wanting to justify higher Test status need to prove they can sustain a pro team at club level first. Georgia, Portugal, Romania and Spain should be able to provide a team each that would be a proving ground for their Test Players, but more crucially grow the game in their countries and potentially the revenues for the Pro12 with a much wider market.

Agree with most of that, but I'm afraid a Pr012 fixture of Cardiff v Tiblisi doesn't particularly enthrall.

You don't think it would enthrall Georgians? One team representing a country bigger than Wales that supposedly likes rugby couldn't find the funds to get Gorgodze et all to play for them?
The assumption is that they wouldn't be any good yet there are plenty calling for them to be part of the 6N so that circle doesn't square. If these countries truly believe in the game and they want to progress then they would invest in it the way Ceausescu did with Romania to legitimise their claims for a higher level of Test rugby (and it would give the Italians a kick up the backside as well).

But Ceausescu was a loonatic who had most his athletes on a serious drug programming, and threatened them and there family with imprisonment if they didn't win. Not sure we should go down that route

We'll try anything at Rodney Parade.

by LordDowlais Thu 24 Mar - 3:50

carpet baboon wrote:But Ceausescu was a loonatic who had most his athletes on a serious drug programming, and threatened them and there family with imprisonment if they didn't win. Not sure we should go down that route

hmmmmmm...... I don't know, I think this has legs. Peter Thomas take note. Very Happy

by doctor_grey Thu 24 Mar - 3:59

marty2086 wrote:
carpet baboon wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
carpet baboon wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
doctor_grey wrote: And again, total transparency is critical. Without it, any pretense of an equal playing field is nonsense and another likely reason this concept is dead on arrival.

Yes, this is vital, in any competition if we are going to have meritocracy.

Unfortunately all sides seem unwilling on this part

Who's unwilling?

Honestly I think all parties would be against compete transparency in some way, or even finding a acceptable middle ground.
To many people to please

All parties like who? The Irish provinces issue accounts to their branch members and the IRFU publish their accounts too in their annual report as do the SRU, the Regions publish their accounts too, the Italians Im sure have accounts they have to publish.

All that's needed is a team within the relevant bodies to monitor and investigate the matters, its not like the information has to be published publically beyond what already is.

Does the IRFU and/or the Provinces report the salary compensation by player, and name each player? That is the fundamental level of transparency needed for all players on all teams involved. In my opinion, this scares the pants off those who manage the unions and teams.

by whocares Thu 24 Mar - 4:05

he also said in the interview that "only French qualified players could be allowed to play In the new French top 12". while this would be good news for the French team it would only increase the gap between the 6 French clubs playing euro rugby and the 12 others elite ones. Ultimately this 2 tier competition will kill the top 12 financially speaking as it cannot be sustainable if you remove the likes of Clermont, Toulon and Toulouse forever. sponsors and TVs would just run away from it.

by carpet baboon Thu 24 Mar - 4:07

Dr grey. How transparent are the NFL wages?

by exile jack Thu 24 Mar - 4:18

Does anyone know the latest news if any on Boudjellal's request for Toulon to join the Aviva,or to buy an Aviva team, or the proposals to increase the Aviva by 2 teams?

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 24 Mar - 4:26

whocares wrote:he also said in the interview that "only French qualified players could be allowed to play In the new French top 12". while this would be good news for the French team it would only increase the gap between the 6 French clubs playing euro rugby and the 12 others elite ones. Ultimately this 2 tier competition will kill the top 12 financially speaking as it cannot be sustainable if you remove the likes of Clermont, Toulon and Toulouse forever. sponsors and TVs would just run away from it.

Or it would end up like the football premier league, and a bit like the English Premiership in rugby, where you get the better players moving from the relegated side to the promoted side. I believe Niall Quinn made a career off doing that in football. But you end up with the same two or three sides locked in the promotion/relegation cycle year on year whilst the bulk remain untouchable.

by The Great Aukster Thu 24 Mar - 4:27

bumble wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:

You don't think it would enthrall Georgians? One team representing a country bigger than Wales that supposedly likes rugby couldn't find the funds to get Gorgodze et all to play for them?
The assumption is that they wouldn't be any good yet there are plenty calling for them to be part of the 6N so that circle doesn't square. If these countries truly believe in the game and they want to progress then they would invest in it the way Ceausescu did with Romania to legitimise their claims for a higher level of Test rugby (and it would give the Italians a kick up the backside as well).

Oh it would enthrall the Georgians. In the same way Grimsby Town FC would be enthralled to play Barcelona every week.

Not suggesting they play every week, just once in Tbilisi and once in Cardiff. I'd also respectfully suggest the Blues may not automatically fare too well against what would be in effect the Georgian National side.

by The Great Aukster Thu 24 Mar - 4:54

carpet baboon wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
bumble wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:In a professional sport money is king - by definition.

What surprises me is there are Pro12 fans who cannot see that the Euro Super league proposal is the best way for Pro12 teams to compete at a high level with player exposure etc.

What other way are they going to get a share of the French and English tv markets?

As for killing the Pro12, it could be the opposite where the Pro12 becomes the League for other European nations to potentially gain access to the Euro Super League. Those aspirant nations wanting to justify higher Test status need to prove they can sustain a pro team at club level first. Georgia, Portugal, Romania and Spain should be able to provide a team each that would be a proving ground for their Test Players, but more crucially grow the game in their countries and potentially the revenues for the Pro12 with a much wider market.

Agree with most of that, but I'm afraid a Pr012 fixture of Cardiff v Tiblisi doesn't particularly enthrall.

You don't think it would enthrall Georgians? One team representing a country bigger than Wales that supposedly likes rugby couldn't find the funds to get Gorgodze et all to play for them?
The assumption is that they wouldn't be any good yet there are plenty calling for them to be part of the 6N so that circle doesn't square. If these countries truly believe in the game and they want to progress then they would invest in it the way Ceausescu did with Romania to legitimise their claims for a higher level of Test rugby (and it would give the Italians a kick up the backside as well).

But Ceausescu was a loonatic who had most his athletes on a serious drug programming, and threatened them and there family with imprisonment if they didn't win. Not sure we should go down that route

Well certainly that aapproach would focus a lot of minds, but I was referring more to the investment of money into facilities and players.

If a minor rugby nation's sporting body really wanted to invest in rugby they have little incentive at the moment. Test sides outside the existing ones don't have the cache to make any money or attract top nations or have any route to get into prestigious competitions other than the RWC. However a properly funded club side in the Pro12 is compete on an international stage and offering some return on investment with a pathway to national glory much shorter than the traditional football one.

Of course that would depend on promotion and relegation to the elite league, which Mr Boudjellal will undoubtedly come round to eventually.

by bumble Thu 24 Mar - 4:55

The Great Aukster wrote:
bumble wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:

You don't think it would enthrall Georgians? One team representing a country bigger than Wales that supposedly likes rugby couldn't find the funds to get Gorgodze et all to play for them?
The assumption is that they wouldn't be any good yet there are plenty calling for them to be part of the 6N so that circle doesn't square. If these countries truly believe in the game and they want to progress then they would invest in it the way Ceausescu did with Romania to legitimise their claims for a higher level of Test rugby (and it would give the Italians a kick up the backside as well).

Oh it would enthrall the Georgians. In the same way Grimsby Town FC would be enthralled to play Barcelona every week.

Not suggesting they play every week, just once in Tbilisi and once in Cardiff. I'd also respectfully suggest the Blues may not automatically fare too well against what would be in effect the Georgian National side.

Presumably neither would Munster, given last week's result.

What a team Tiblisi are .

by wolfball Thu 24 Mar - 14:49

Some people are looking for meritocracy in wage spending. Then there is the huge red herring fight over what causes wage inflation. The cause of the wage inflation isn't really relevant as weird as that sounds. The structure of how money moves through the system is all that matters.

There are only really two professional models in widespread team sport. The US draft model, or the European money-wins model. Both are "fair" in their own way. European model means that you are allowed spend your money how you wish. Freedom to spend how you wish! The US model means that the playing field is leveled to a certain extent. Freedom for all teams to have a chance of winning! Besides the irony of the US system being socialist, and the European system pure capitalism, these are your two options. So LD etc which do you want? I think the US system sounds great. Every year there are a few big clubs that dominate but over 5-10 years even small teams get their shot. The EU system though, well even that can throw up surprises like Leicester (and Connacht this year to a lesser extent). So which do you want? And don't shout meritocracy unless you explain exactly what you mean by that word. One can argue that a wage cap is meritocratic just as much as one could argue that having a team from a big city which means they have more money to spend on players is just as meritocratic.

by **George Carlin** Thu 24 Mar - 17:58

I don't believe that anyone has ever seen Mourad Boudjellal and Donald Trump in the same room.

by exile jack Thu 24 Mar - 18:45

wolfball wrote:Some people are looking for meritocracy in wage spending. Then there is the huge red herring fight over what causes wage inflation. The cause of the wage inflation isn't really relevant as weird as that sounds. The structure of how money moves through the system is all that matters.

There are only really two professional models in widespread team sport. The US draft model, or the European money-wins model. Both are "fair" in their own way. European model means that you are allowed spend your money how you wish. Freedom to spend how you wish! The US model means that the playing field is leveled to a certain extent. Freedom for all teams to have a chance of winning! Besides the irony of the US system being socialist, and the European system pure capitalism, these are your two options. So LD etc which do you want? I think the US system sounds great. Every year there are a few big clubs that dominate but over 5-10 years even small teams get their shot. The EU system though, well even that can throw up surprises like Leicester (and Connacht this year to a lesser extent). So which do you want? And don't shout meritocracy unless you explain exactly what you mean by that word. One can argue that a wage cap is meritocratic just as much as one could argue that having a team from a big city which means they have more money to spend on players is just as meritocratic.

And the NFL is underpinned by a very strong,nationwide school and collegiate system, the latter attracting huge game attendances.There are of course no international matches with the NFL but our friend in Toulon has no interest in player development,player release,age-grade,sevens,U20 and international rugby.He is dedicated to Toulon alone.That's his right and his choice but being careful what we wish for is a well tested principle.

What makes me laugh is the fact that the regions and departments of mainland France have geographical identities every bit as strong as the Irish provinces and Welsh regions(or villages,towns,cities and valleys if you prefer).I would love to be at the meeting where Boudjellal tells 8 Top 14 and 16 Pro D2 clubs they are not part of the new elite.That would be some meeting.It would be a national political issue.

by Guest Fri 25 Mar - 1:04

wolfball wrote:Some people are looking for meritocracy in wage spending. Then there is the huge red herring fight over what causes wage inflation. The cause of the wage inflation isn't really relevant as weird as that sounds. The structure of how money moves through the system is all that matters.

There are only really two professional models in widespread team sport. The US draft model, or the European money-wins model. Both are "fair" in their own way. European model means that you are allowed spend your money how you wish. Freedom to spend how you wish! The US model means that the playing field is leveled to a certain extent. Freedom for all teams to have a chance of winning! Besides the irony of the US system being socialist, and the European system pure capitalism, these are your two options. So LD etc which do you want? I think the US system sounds great. Every year there are a few big clubs that dominate but over 5-10 years even small teams get their shot. The EU system though, well even that can throw up surprises like Leicester (and Connacht this year to a lesser extent). So which do you want? And don't shout meritocracy unless you explain exactly what you mean by that word. One can argue that a wage cap is meritocratic just as much as one could argue that having a team from a big city which means they have more money to spend on players is just as meritocratic.

It is weird as it misses the context of the debate. I get your point though, if you're saying that it's not the money, but how the money is spread. That's would only be true if it was applied globally though. As things stand, it is very relevant.

by **Notch** Fri 25 Mar - 3:13

George Carlin wrote:I don't believe that anyone has ever seen Mourad Boudjellal and Donald Trump in the same room.

Because if they ever were we'd just lock them in there and throw away the key?

by **LondonTiger** Fri 25 Mar - 3:17

George Carlin wrote:I don't believe that anyone has ever seen Mourad Boudjellal and Donald Trump in the same room.

Mainly because DJ built a wall to keep out a less orange skinned person than himself.

by doctor_grey Fri 25 Mar - 3:35

LondonTiger wrote:
George Carlin wrote:I don't believe that anyone has ever seen Mourad Boudjellal and Donald Trump in the same room.

Mainly because DJ built a wall to keep out a less orange skinned person than himself.

at least one of those two dudes have their own hair (I think).

by wolfball Fri 25 Mar - 11:33

Munchkin wrote:
wolfball wrote:Some people are looking for meritocracy in wage spending. Then there is the huge red herring fight over what causes wage inflation. The cause of the wage inflation isn't really relevant as weird as that sounds. The structure of how money moves through the system is all that matters.

There are only really two professional models in widespread team sport. The US draft model, or the European money-wins model. Both are "fair" in their own way. European model means that you are allowed spend your money how you wish. Freedom to spend how you wish! The US model means that the playing field is leveled to a certain extent. Freedom for all teams to have a chance of winning! Besides the irony of the US system being socialist, and the European system pure capitalism, these are your two options. So LD etc which do you want? I think the US system sounds great. Every year there are a few big clubs that dominate but over 5-10 years even small teams get their shot. The EU system though, well even that can throw up surprises like Leicester (and Connacht this year to a lesser extent). So which do you want? And don't shout meritocracy unless you explain exactly what you mean by that word. One can argue that a wage cap is meritocratic just as much as one could argue that having a team from a big city which means they have more money to spend on players is just as meritocratic.

It is weird as it misses the context of the debate. I get your point though, if you're saying that it's not the money, but how the money is spread. That's would only be true if it was applied globally though. As things stand, it is very relevant.

It's irrelevant in terms of solutions. I mean no one is suggesting to ban more money going into rugby as a whole. I think few people think that if paying all players 1M a year was feasible and affordable that we shouldn't do it (with the injury rate and risk so high). There is money pouring into club rugby. Via TV, private owners, and from the international game (via unions). Now the money is there, the structure for dispersion is all that matters. The debate over who is worse French clubs or the IRFu has been done to death on these boards. Your point on the global issue is very relevant though. Super rugby is in trouble no matter what happens

And just a side point. American sports afford huge wages due to massive TV deals. With the unbundling of sports from cable predicted over the next 10 years, there are good arguments that american sports will have huge income reductions. It will be fascinating to watch if their current mode can survive those changes.

by rosbif Fri 25 Mar - 21:38

This is never going to happen ,Mourad Boudjellal is a meglomainiac only interested in Toulon ,doesn't care jolt about the wider game, the Celts are interested because they think there is more money and the Avia league will never go for it as crowds would be smaller ,less money.

by marty2086 Fri 25 Mar - 22:23

rosbif wrote:This is never going to happen ,Mourad Boudjellal is a meglomainiac only interested in Toulon ,doesn't care jolt about the wider game, the Celts are interested because they think there is more money and the Avia league will never go for it as crowds would be smaller ,less money.

Nice generalisation there

by Knowsit17 Sat 26 Mar - 0:52

Club rugby in Europe really has gone feudal.

by Guest Sat 26 Mar - 2:14

According to the following article, EPCR want the winners from Super Rugby and the Champions Cup to play each other.

So, although there are too many games already, the EPCR want more. It will be interesting to see what Boudjellal
makes of it. I'm thinking he will be all for it, even though he complains of a cramped schedule.

There were some on here that thought the new competition was the next step to a European elite league (during the battle to dismantle ERC), and Boudjellal's vision goes some way to confirm that, and maybe this EPCR move. I might be reading too much into it though.

Anyway, here's the article:

EPCR, THE GOVERNING body over the European Rugby Champions Cup , have this afternoon confirmed they are attempting to set up a match between their champions and the winners of Super Rugby.
The non-compatible playing seasons make northern hemisphere v southern hemisphere matches difficult events to schedule. However, EPCR are in discussions with (southern hemisphere governing body) SANZAR and ‘actively formulating a strategy on how best to organise and market a match in the future’ between the winners the respective tournaments.
Planning, the EPCR says, remains at an early stage. However they also outline the need for ‘appropriate timing’ so that teams can play the game at full strength.

Link

by **Rugby Fan** Sun 27 Mar - 20:54

Wray wants a better calendar.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/26/saracens-nigel-wray-rugby-calendar

I don't think anyone really disagrees. It's just that any adjustments will likely involve some initial loss of revenue, and no-one wants to be on the wrong end of a new deal.

by broadlandboy Sun 27 Mar - 21:04

Will not make any difference to number of games a player can play. I think we are all in agreement that about 30 games is the most a player can play in a season,for welfare grounds, the higher the level the more intense the fewer games can be played. So the top players have approximately 12 Internationals, 6-9 European games leaving approximately 10 games at domestic level.

by Shifty Sun 27 Mar - 21:32

I love the idea, BUT if you were going to do any kind of Euro Cup, then realistically you'd need 24 teams as suggested but with 4 teams from each of the 6 Nations, I know in reality Scotland and Italy have only 2 teams but if you REALLY wanted to sort European rugby out then that would be the way forward. As it is though I'd be happy with is The Ospreys could merge with the Scralets into a West Wales team, and the Blue and Dragons into an East Wales team. While I assume Munster would merge with Leinster, and Connacht with Ulster.

It won't happen because with the Aviva and Top 14 it's like turkeys voting for Christmas.

by Shifty Sun 27 Mar - 22:02

rosbif wrote:This is never going to happen ,Mourad Boudjellal is a meglomainiac only interested in Toulon ,doesn't care jolt about the wider game, the Celts are interested because they think there is more money and the Avia league will never go for it as crowds would be smaller ,less money.

To be honest the French do have a tendency to look at the big picture far more than the English have tended to do over the years. For me two 20 team leagues would be better in my opinion. The club season is typically 39 weeks long with 2-3 weeks of pre-season friendlies and 10 weeks for the off season. Though if they wanted to not have clashes in the November internationals, and during the 6 Nations then they'd have to shave 8 weeks of fixtures off that. Then again why not just merge the Top 14, Aviva, and Pro 12 into a massive 38 team competition and just play each other once a season? 37 games for the league.

by **Notch** Sun 27 Mar - 22:28

Shifty wrote:37 games for the league.

That's way too many. Right now we have between 28 and 33 games for the British and Irish sides and between 32 and 38 games for the French- not including pre-season friendlies- and it's already far too many games.

by doctor_grey Sun 27 Mar - 22:36

broadlandboy wrote:Will not make any difference to number of games a player can play. I think we are all in agreement that about 30 games is the most a player can play in a season,for welfare grounds, the higher the level the more intense the fewer games can be played. So the top players have approximately 12 Internationals, 6-9 European games leaving approximately 10 games at domestic level.

For me I would establish the maximum number of games per player per season at 26 - no more than 50% of the year, assuming in general one match per week. 30 still seems too much for me. But then:
(1) something will have to give from the Internationals, Euro Rugby, Club
(2) ain't gonna happen

Shifty wrote:
rosbif wrote:This is never going to happen ,Mourad Boudjellal is a meglomainiac only interested in Toulon ,doesn't care jolt about the wider game, the Celts are interested because they think there is more money and the Avia league will never go for it as crowds would be smaller ,less money.

To be honest the French do have a tendency to look at the big picture far more than the English have tended to do over the years. For me two 20 team leagues would be better in my opinion. The club season is typically 39 weeks long with 2-3 weeks of pre-season friendlies and 10 weeks for the off season. Though if they wanted to not have clashes in the November internationals, and during the 6 Nations then they'd have to shave 8 weeks of fixtures off that. Then again why not just merge the Top 14, Aviva, and Pro 12 into a massive 38 team competition and just play each other once a season? 37 games for the league.

To me the 38 team league makes the most sense. If no league matches during internationals, then we have Rugby for 49 weeks. To remedy that, I think a larger Euro league could be played like the NFL with conferences and divisions to maintain local rivalries and also manage the total number of games down to a manageable level. They have 32 teams and play 16 games with division rivals playing each other twice per season. For this Euro Rugby league perhaps the total number of matches can be about 25 whilst still rigidly enforcing the max. number of games per season? Or something like that. Interesting suggestion.

by Shifty Sun 27 Mar - 22:44

I guess it depends on how many games we actually want to play. The reality is clubs can't spend months of the year doing nothing, they have bills and wages to pay and it's been proven most would prefer to play through international periods to increase revenue. Even regarding player welfare, players can't be in 2 places at once, so playing through international periods should not be a problem.

by Shifty Sun 27 Mar - 23:36

10 week off season

8 weeks internationals + 3 week tour in off season (internationals miss pre-season friendlies, to catch up)

2-3 weeks pre-season friendlies

31-32 weeks left for club season

So what we have left is either a 16 team league, home and away (30 weeks), or a 32 team league where everyone plays each other once, in a similar format to the 6 Nations.

Personally I'd much rather have one massive 42 team tournament played through international windows etc, scrapping pre-season friendlies. With everyone playing each other once.

4 Welsh (Scarlets, Ospreys, Blues, Dragons)

2 Italian -Treviso, Zebre (Parma)

2 Scottish - Glasgow, Edinburgh,

4 Irish - Leinster, Ulster, Munster, Connacht

12 English -

14 French -

1 x Spanish (Madrid)
1 x Georgian ( Tbilisi)
1 x German (Heidelberg)
1 x Romania (Bucharest)
1 x Russian (Moscow, Monio)
1 x Portugal (Lisbon)

Teams from Russia, Romania, Georgia, Portugal and Spain have previously competed in the European Rugby Challenge Cup.

Everyone is involved, we have growth potential for the 6 largest non 6 Nations unions.

by TJ Mon 28 Mar - 4:11

thebandwagonsociety wrote:It has merit.
Pro12 is dead as a competition as it is, only comments and reports on it are anti-Irish and refereeing bias. Irish provinces need to get away from the regions. If this was a viable mechanism to achieve that then great.

Rubbish - the pro 12 is going just fine - different teams winning it, upsets, some great games, rising crowds, increasing TV income.

by **Notch** Mon 28 Mar - 4:45

Shifty wrote:I guess it depends on how many games we actually want to play. The reality is clubs can't spend months of the year doing nothing, they have bills and wages to pay and it's been proven most would prefer to play through international periods to increase revenue. Even regarding player welfare, players can't be in 2 places at once, so playing through international periods should not be a problem.

Well what I would like to say is in that case and we need to schedule games we should play different development competitions during international windows- a Cup maybe- and try and keep the flagship competitions as one with less games and higher quality.

Because right now we have important Pro12 games falling in international windows and so on, and thats an issue. I would rather the Pro12 have 11 high quality regular season games and playoffs but every team and Union commits to putting out strong teams for all the fixtures than 22 much lower quality games that are frequently played with reserves because of international call-ups etc. That would be much better for the brand and better for the clubs in the long-run, because they could charge more for the Pro12 games and Pro12 season tickets with fans knowing they are paying to see the best whilst for other games in the other competition you appreciate it might be about who is available.

by Shifty Mon 28 Mar - 21:06

Notch wrote:
Shifty wrote:I guess it depends on how many games we actually want to play. The reality is clubs can't spend months of the year doing nothing, they have bills and wages to pay and it's been proven most would prefer to play through international periods to increase revenue. Even regarding player welfare, players can't be in 2 places at once, so playing through international periods should not be a problem.

Well what I would like to say is in that case and we need to schedule games we should play different development competitions during international windows- a Cup maybe- and try and keep the flagship competitions as one with less games and higher quality.

Because right now we have important Pro12 games falling in international windows and so on, and thats an issue. I would rather the Pro12 have 11 high quality regular season games and playoffs but every team and Union commits to putting out strong teams for all the fixtures than 22 much lower quality games that are frequently played with reserves because of international call-ups etc. That would be much better for the brand and better for the clubs in the long-run, because they could charge more for the Pro12 games and Pro12 season tickets with fans knowing they are paying to see the best whilst for other games in the other competition you appreciate it might be about who is available.

You mean like the LV Cup or the British and Irish Cup?

by Fanster Mon 28 Mar - 22:58

Wow, anyone actually considering geting into bed with Boudjallel needs their head read...

The european tournament is 1 season in and already the 2 Italian teams are falling to peices, the new format is boring and stale, and the way to create a more interesting and sustainable future is to go further down the rabbit hole, devalue the Aviva and the Pro by combining them, while allowing the French stand alone status, before using a dull and uninteresting 2 nation dominated format in the name of 'higher quality matches'.

I despair.

by Sponsored content