Two new H Cup structures to be considered

Following a meeting held in ERC offices today, the ERC has undertaken to examine two new proposals for change to the current comp structures.

The English and French have proposed a 20 team H Cup, 20 team Challenge Cup, and an undefined third tier comp.

The Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Italians have proposed a 32 team comp, comprising 10 teams from Pro 12 and Premiership, and 12 teams from the Top 14. There appears to be no other comp in their proposals. Some media reports say that this proposal was turned down by the French at a meeting last week in Paris, where there was also seeming agreement on the French proposal to move the completion of the comp to earlier in the season.

These proposals will be evaluated along with the current two competitions for discussion at the next meeting.

Each union has been asked to present its proposals/suggested re-structuring for the next meeting - apparently.

No discussions on commercial arrangements until the rugby structure is agreed.

Next meeting to be held in December. Still all to play for.

I agree still all to play for. Great to see the FFR and RFU looking at making this work.

Pothale, I assume the first proposal with the three tiers will be on a promotion relegation basis?

Or will it be qualification dependant on the Pro 12, TOp 14 and Premiership performances?

Either way I think that makes more sense, it provides more teams entry into the HC and the posiblity for teams to be promoted/qualified to the top tier.

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/19503.php#.UJDUf2tYCSM



ERC stakeholder meeting
30 October 2012 18:16pm

ERC stakeholders have requested ERC to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the proposals for change to European club rugby tournaments for the 2014/15 season and beyond.

Following a productive meeting of representatives of ERC stakeholders in Dublin today (Tuesday, 30 October 2012), the two proposed format changes of a 20-club and a 32-club Heineken Cup, along with the current Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup tournament models, will be evaluated in detail.
This evaluation will examine the rationale for the proposed changes to both tournaments, as well as the impact on all stakeholders of any change to the format and structure of the competitions.

The evaluation will be completed during the six-week period before the fourth meeting of ERC stakeholders which will be held in London on Wednesday, 12 December.

The current Accord, which was agreed by all stakeholders in 2007, includes a two-year notice period which began on 1 June 2012 to allow for negotiations towards the formulation of a new Accord. The structure and format of both the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup remain in place until the end of the 2013/14 season.

ERC Stakeholder Meeting attendees:

Jean-Pierre Lux (ERC Chairman)
Derek McGrath (ERC Chief Executive)
Rob Andrew (RFU)
Mark McCafferty (Premiership Rugby)
Bruce Craig (Premiership Rugby)
Michel Palmié (FFR)
Olivier Keraudren (FFR)
Patrick Wolff (LNR)
René Bouscatel (LNR)
Philip Browne (IRFU)
Peter Boyle (IRFU)
Fabrizio Gaetaniello (FIR)
Mark Dodson (SR)
Ian McLauchlan (SR)
Roger Lewis (WRU)
Steve Phillips (WRU)

Notes

• Representatives of ERC stakeholders have to date attended three meetings within the consultation process aimed at the formulation of a new Accord: 18 September 2012 (Dublin), 8 October 2012 Rome, 30 October 2012 (Dublin).

• 44 clubs from eight countries participate in the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup annually.

Interesting.

After being excluded from the last meeting, it appears that England will be pitching up with Squeaky (I hope his mum remembers to pack his Lego set to keep him busy), the delightful McCafferty, and Bruce Craig (whoever he is).

Also Italy has just one delegate.

Bruce Craig - the multi-millionaire owner of Bath, a man with strong links to French clubs and the key driver for change to HEC.

Also the man who along with french representation discussed with SA counterparts setting up a joint competition.

LondonTiger wrote:Bruce Craig - the multi-millionaire owner of Bath, a man with strong links to French clubs and the key driver for change to HEC.

Also the man who along with french representation discussed with SA counterparts setting up a joint competition.

Do you have any info on that LT?

It was something they apaprently did in the summer - cannot remember which paper I read. From memory the commecial benefits were attractive to all parties - but the logistics make it a non-starter.

greytiger wrote:Interesting.

After being excluded from the last meeting, it appears that England will be pitching up with Squeaky (I hope his mum remembers to pack his Lego set to keep him busy), the delightful McCafferty, and Bruce Craig (whoever he is).

Also Italy has just one delegate.

The RFU were at the last meeting. PRL weren't.

Cheers, thanks.

Until the PRL accept that they cannot get everything they want at the expense of others and get to grips with the fact that the competition is bigger than the english clubs then there will be no agreement. the PRL will have to compromise and back down - or else be isolated and marginalised. It has happened before, it can happen again.

the bullies - and that is what the PRL are- must be resisted.

Every one needs to compromise. Which was what happened last time.

I think the 32 team comp is a non starter.

10 from Rabo, 10 from Prem and 12 from Top14? Well what happens to the 2 teams from each league who are left out? Do they just not play any rugby or is there another competition below it but with virtually no one in it of note. Surely this goes against the desire to make the Amlin comp a better product.

If its to be a 20 team comp then everyone has to give a bit as far as I am concerned.

You cannot just expect the Rabo to give up 4 places with nothing from Eng or Fra.

Top 8 Rabo
Top 5 Prem
Top 5 Top14 ?

plus the 2 winners of Amlin and HC for me is the best compromise. The Rabo would give up 2 spaces whilst the English and French give up 1. However each league has the chance to make up those lost numbers by winning a comp.

32 is dreadfully bloated.

For me 16 teams. Top 4 from each league plus a guarantee that each country is represented by at least one team. Any remaining spots based on ERC rankings.

This then is an elite competition and we also get a decent second tier competition.

TJ,

the PRL will have to compromise and or back down

my guess is compromise.

LondonTiger wrote:32 is dreadfully bloated.

For me 16 teams. Top 4 from each league plus a guarantee that each country is represented by at least one team. Any remaining spots based on ERC rankings.

This then is an elite competition and we also get a decent second tier competition.

I disagree. Eight pools of four. Top two of each direct to the HEC KOs. Bottom two to Amlin KOs.

doctornickolas wrote:I think the 32 team comp is a non starter.

10 from Rabo, 10 from Prem and 12 from Top14? Well what happens to the 2 teams from each league who are left out? Do they just not play any rugby or is there another competition below it but with virtually no one in it of note. Surely this goes against the desire to make the Amlin comp a better product.

If its to be a 20 team comp then everyone has to give a bit as far as I am concerned.

You cannot just expect the Rabo to give up 4 places with nothing from Eng or Fra.

Top 8 Rabo
Top 5 Prem
Top 5 Top14 ?

plus the 2 winners of Amlin and HC for me is the best compromise. The Rabo would give up 2 spaces whilst the English and French give up 1. However each league has the chance to make up those lost numbers by winning a comp.

I agree with that split per league were it to go to a 20 team competition, with the Rabo Unions able to decide on how they divide up the places (personally I would go 3 Irish, 3 Welsh, 1 Scottish and 1 Italian).

The only issue I have with it is much as with the current system, you have to have some pools where 2 qualify and some with only 1, which can lead to claims of unfairness in relation to weaker pools etc. The alternative is the RWC model with 4 pools of 5 teams, but in terms of getting the pool games played that is likely a non starter as the fixture list is congested as it is.

LondonTiger wrote:32 is dreadfully bloated.

For me 16 teams. Top 4 from each league plus a guarantee that each country is represented by at least one team. Any remaining spots based on ERC rankings.

This then is an elite competition and we also get a decent second tier competition.

I like the idea of going down to 16 teams but on a 5 - 5 - 5 basis plus previous winner (thus extra place awarded to that league). Could mean you just have 2 groups of 8 playing each other once with the top two of each group going to the semi's.

I just can't see the English and the French agreeing to 5 - 5 - 8. I think they want parity in terms of qualifying places and at least parity in terms of the allocation of the cash.

greytiger wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:32 is dreadfully bloated.

For me 16 teams. Top 4 from each league plus a guarantee that each country is represented by at least one team. Any remaining spots based on ERC rankings.

This then is an elite competition and we also get a decent second tier competition.

I disagree. Eight pools of four. Top two of each direct to the HEC KOs. Bottom two to Amlin KOs.

Surely 1st in the pool to the quarter-final and 2nd in the pool to the Amlin quarter?

I don't like the idea of a 32 team competition at all. The pool stages would be uninteresting, no more clashes like Clermont vs Leinster or Toulouse vs Leicester in the early stages of the competition. No thanks.

Were the 20 team model in place this season, and with the places split as above, the teams who are currently in the Heino who would have missed out and dropped into the Amlin for the season would be...

Sale Sharks
Zebre
Racing Metro
Edinburgh

None of those have set the competition alight this season with Edinburgh being nilled twice, Zebre having 0 points and unlikley to get any. Them being in the Amlin would strengthen that competition, as they would be very competitive there, and you could lose 4 of the teams that just get humped every round in that competition, into a third tier competition with some other Spanish, Romanian and Georgian teams amongst others.

I only see positives from that propsal to be honest.

For the 32 team format with 10 English clubs qualifing.

Do you think this would reduce the intensity of the Prem?

After all we Pro 12 teams are always told that H-cup places for top 6 would improve our league, so would th ereverse weaken the Prem?

Teams taking it less seriuos knowing that they already have qualified for Europe, and the bottom 2 would be far to worried about avoiding relegration, to think about qualifing for H-cup.

So would 10 teams qualifing make the English Prem a lesser competation?

doctornickolas wrote:I think the 32 team comp is a non starter.

10 from Rabo, 10 from Prem and 12 from Top14? Well what happens to the 2 teams from each league who are left out? Do they just not play any rugby or is there another competition below it but with virtually no one in it of note. Surely this goes against the desire to make the Amlin comp a better product.

If its to be a 20 team comp then everyone has to give a bit as far as I am concerned.

You cannot just expect the Rabo to give up 4 places with nothing from Eng or Fra.

Top 8 Rabo
Top 5 Prem
Top 5 Top14 ?

plus the 2 winners of Amlin and HC for me is the best compromise. The Rabo would give up 2 spaces whilst the English and French give up 1. However each league has the chance to make up those lost numbers by winning a comp.

i am liking this

Kingshu wrote:For the 32 team format with 10 English clubs qualifing.

Do you think this would reduce the intensity of the Prem?

After all we Pro 12 teams are always told that H-cup places for top 6 would improve our league, so would th ereverse weaken the Prem?

Teams taking it less seriuos knowing that they already have qualified for Europe, and the bottom 2 would be far to worried about avoiding relegration, to think about qualifing for H-cup.

So would 10 teams qualifing make the English Prem a lesser competation?

Potentially yes and is one of the reasons why it would never be accepted. It seems preposterous that it has even been tabled as an option, given the feelings of the French and English on the subject.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

doctornickolas wrote:I think the 32 team comp is a non starter.

10 from Rabo, 10 from Prem and 12 from Top14? Well what happens to the 2 teams from each league who are left out? Do they just not play any rugby or is there another competition below it but with virtually no one in it of note. Surely this goes against the desire to make the Amlin comp a better product.

If its to be a 20 team comp then everyone has to give a bit as far as I am concerned.

You cannot just expect the Rabo to give up 4 places with nothing from Eng or Fra.

Top 8 Rabo
Top 5 Prem
Top 5 Top14 ?

plus the 2 winners of Amlin and HC for me is the best compromise. The Rabo would give up 2 spaces whilst the English and French give up 1. However each league has the chance to make up those lost numbers by winning a comp.

i am liking this

I had a simalir model, however instead of H-cup winners and Almin winner getting extra places. (as just because a team wins doesn't make a team maybe 5 places below it in league good enough).

No instread H-cup and Almin winners come out of the Unions allocation. However each of the 3 Leagues has would be given a co-efficient based on European performamce of all thier teams in Europe. The top 2 of these 3 leagues gain an extra place each. meaning that the 2 strongest leagues are rewarded an extra spot each, (much fairer to reward a strong league, than a league with a strong team).

Provisions
1) that if Pro 12 spot is league based not assigned to Union,
2) if non 6 nation team wins Almin it gains on of these two spots, and only strongest league gets additional spot.

Toadfish wrote:

Kingshu wrote:For the 32 team format with 10 English clubs qualifing.

Do you think this would reduce the intensity of the Prem?

After all we Pro 12 teams are always told that H-cup places for top 6 would improve our league, so would th ereverse weaken the Prem?

Teams taking it less seriuos knowing that they already have qualified for Europe, and the bottom 2 would be far to worried about avoiding relegration, to think about qualifing for H-cup.

So would 10 teams qualifing make the English Prem a lesser competation?

Potentially yes and is one of the reasons why it would never be accepted. It seems preposterous that it has even been tabled as an option, given the feelings of the French and English on the subject.

Think they can table for discussion whatever they wish. you don't even know the format of it, could be straight home and away knock out to the final, Less games French may have liked it (I know they didn't).

Equally you could say for the 20 team format with Pro 12 Unions losing 4 places as preposterous that it has even been tabled as an option, given the feelings of the Scottish, Welsh, Irish and Italians on the subject.

Wise up

Sorry Kingshu, I don't like your model for the extra places mate and would prefer the extra places to go to Amlin or HC winners. It is simpler.

Effectively in your system a team could win the Amlin, finish 6th in their league and not qualify whilst a team who finishes 9th in their league and wins nothing qualify instead based on performances of other teams in their league. I don't see how that is fair on a side who slog their guts out to win a trophy. I know you are saying they qualify as part of the initial allocation, but that then means a team finishing above them in the league and in a qualifying position doesn't, which seems a bit unfair also.

Kingshu wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

Kingshu wrote:For the 32 team format with 10 English clubs qualifing.

Do you think this would reduce the intensity of the Prem?

After all we Pro 12 teams are always told that H-cup places for top 6 would improve our league, so would th ereverse weaken the Prem?

Teams taking it less seriuos knowing that they already have qualified for Europe, and the bottom 2 would be far to worried about avoiding relegration, to think about qualifing for H-cup.

So would 10 teams qualifing make the English Prem a lesser competation?

Potentially yes and is one of the reasons why it would never be accepted. It seems preposterous that it has even been tabled as an option, given the feelings of the French and English on the subject.

Think they can table for discussion whatever they wish. you don't even know the format of it, could be straight home and away knock out to the final, Less games French may have liked it (I know they didn't).

Equally you could say for the 20 team format with Pro 12 Unions losing 4 places as preposterous that it has even been tabled as an option, given the feelings of the Scottish, Welsh, Irish and Italians on the subject.

Wise up

I think it is you that needs to wise up. You need to keep the French and the English at the table and so proposing a format that is pretty much the opposite of what they want is preposterous.

In terms of your method of allocating the extra two places it simply doesn't work as the Rabo league already has an additional 3 places. You've used the 'individual nations rather than a league' to get to that point but then pivot back to a league format to get potentially extra places? Just doesn't work.

LondonTiger wrote:32 is dreadfully bloated.

For me 16 teams. Top 4 from each league plus a guarantee that each country is represented by at least one team. Any remaining spots based on ERC rankings.

This then is an elite competition and we also get a decent second tier competition.

Agree with this.

All countries guaranteed one spot the rest based on performance.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Sorry Kingshu, I don't like your model for the extra places mate and would prefer the extra places to go to Amlin or HC winners. It is simpler.

Effectively in your system a team could win the Amlin, finish 6th in their league and not qualify whilst a team who finishes 9th in their league and wins nothing qualify instead based on performances of other teams in their league. I don't see how that is fair on a side who slog their guts out to win a trophy. I know you are saying they qualify as part of the initial allocation, but that then means a team finishing above them in the league and in a qualifying position doesn't, which seems a bit unfair also.

No Ozzy you misunderstand, The union does not get an extra place for winning, but the winner gets a spot from its Union.
So say an English team Win it and finish 6th, RFU has 5 places meaning Cup winner and top 4 in league qualify, 5th place may get in if Avivia is one of the 2 strongest leaagues.

For 2nd part "I don't see how that is fair on a side who slog their guts out to win a trophy. I know you are saying they qualify as part of the initial allocation, but that then means a team finishing above them in the league and in a qualifying position doesn't, which seems a bit unfair also"

This happens in the other leagues, Spurs missed out on Europe this year because Chelsea won Champions league but finished below them, hence of the 4 prem places top 3 plus chelsea got in instead of top 4. Just tough on Spurs

But there again 8x3 pools could be devised to allow no free passes (including incumbent holders) , no lucky losers, no golden tickets, allow h/a quarters and semis and accommodate a neutral final venue.

With no extra weeks in the present calendar.

I don't misunderstand Kingshu, I get what you are saying, but under your system this is a realistic occurence....

A french team win the Heino and finish 6th, so they get one of the 5 spots allocated to the Top 14, meaning the team finishing 5th is out.

Rabo and AP have a better coefficient meaning the 9th placed Rabo team get a spot over the 5th placed Top 14 side. To me that devalues the competition.

You want the best teams in, and working out coefficients of overall league performance will not assist with achieving that.

Also, just because something happens in another sport it does not mean that it is right or we should adopt it.

Basic principle of country participation or league participation has to be worked out first.

Until that gets sorted out, discussions will get nowhere. Every other discussion flows from this.

The status quo - created by all six unions - is that it is a country-based competition. If some unions want to move it to a league-based competition then they're going to have to argue their case for doing so.

So far, they've failed.

The 32 team comp stays true to country participation.
The 20 team comp doesn't - as currently publicly explained by its proponents.

If there were agreement that country participation should be the basis for the competition amongst all six nations, then the 20 team comp is still achieveable.

I think the PRL will not persuade (force) four unions to change from automatic country spots to league performance-based ones. Unless they are willing to do the same. Which they're not.

Leaving that aside, I think the 20 team comp with a second, and possible third tier, is the better of the two.

Every country should be entitled to at least one spot in the top tier competition.

However there should also be competition for places.

In my proposal you would have seen the following qualify directly for a 16 team HEC:

Leinster
Ospreys
Munster
Glasgow
Treviso
Harlequins
Leicester
Saracens
Northampton
Toulouse
Clermont
Toulon
Castres

With the 3 remaining spots filled by:

Biarritz
Cardiff
Ulster

I think one of the big issues is the Amlin challenge cup. It's a poor tournament in the Group stages and doesn't really get going until the Qf's when the HC rejects come in.

It's padded out with mickey-mouse teams creating huge mismatches and some pitiful crowds.
The first 2 rounds of this year competition has seen an average score of 50.7-15.5 with an average crowd of 4283.

So it suffers from a low profile and relative to the HC, it makes the disparity between the Champions league and Europa league look small!!

I guess the 3 tier proposal would improve it but I fear for the proposed 3rd tier competition. It would have to be massively subsidised by ERC as it would be smaller in profile than the current Amlin and probably the current B&I (which is also sponsorless and subsidised) and I could see it wither and die after a couple of seasons.

Does anyone know what the Rabo is proposing for the remaining teams that aren't in their 32 team HC would they go into the development competition.

Brendan wrote:Does anyone know what the Rabo is proposing for the remaining teams that aren't in their 32 team HC would they go into the development competition.

The 32 man proposal scraps any second tier competition. So 6 clubs would be sat on their tod, and the rest of Europe can go hang.

LondonTiger wrote:

Brendan wrote:Does anyone know what the Rabo is proposing for the remaining teams that aren't in their 32 team HC would they go into the development competition.

The 32 man proposal scraps any second tier competition. So 6 clubs would be sat on their tod, and the rest of Europe can go hang.

We don't know that it scraps the 2nd tier, but an equilavent 3rd tier comp could be introduced, with those bottom 6 cups.

Have a feeling (not based on anything but logic), that pro 12 proposal will be 8 groups of 4. 1st and 2nd in each group play for cup, 3 and 4th play for shield.

Knock outs
Cup
1st in group 1 plays 2nd in group 8 at home, etc untill theres a final.
Shield
3rd in group 1 play 4th in group 8 at home

So cup is first Teir Shield 2nd tier. and a 3rd tier comp can still be introduced with 6 top level teams as well as developing teams, could even be open to championship and French division 1?

LondonTiger wrote:

Brendan wrote:Does anyone know what the Rabo is proposing for the remaining teams that aren't in their 32 team HC would they go into the development competition.

The 32 man proposal scraps any second tier competition. So 6 clubs would be sat on their tod, and the rest of Europe can go hang.

Which would make the bottom three or four places in all leagues exceptionally competitive, as if you fail to make the grade the revenue from ticekt sales etc will plummit as you will be play atleast three games less. Where as at the moment, you can finish second to bottom, or just be promoted, get lucky with the draw and end up getting into the knock-out stage in the Amlin as you have drawn a French side on their way down in your pool.

If used ERC ranking points solely to determine groups

Group 1
Leinster
Leicester Tigers
Scarlets
Benetton Treviso

2
Toulouse
Stade Francais
Glasgow Warriors
Racing Metro 92

3
Biarritz
Harlequins
Saracens
Montpellier

4
Munster
Toulon
Gloucester
Exeter Chiefs

5
Cardiff
Edinburgh
London Irish
Worcester Warriors

6
Northampton
Ospreys
Connacht
Agen

7
Clermont Auvergne
Perpignan
Sale Sharks
Bayonne

8
Ulster
Bath
Castres Olympique
Zebre

Kingshu - how comes the Ospreys get a pool with only three teams in it? They trying to cheat their way into the HEC knockout stages again?

Being fair those pools seem a bit fairer than what we have now as there are no pools with obviously weaker sides in.

corrected it should be Agen

Agen Bayonne and Zebre all have no points, soput them alphabetically.

of course this would be first year, and a new points sytem would be in place to decide later years, and there is the question and number of teams from one country in a group limitations? personally I don't see a need.

LondonTiger wrote:32 is dreadfully bloated.

For me 16 teams. Top 4 from each league plus a guarantee that each country is represented by at least one team. Any remaining spots based on ERC rankings.

This then is an elite competition and we also get a decent second tier competition.

That way there would only be one Irish team which would be a bit ridiculous given the two finalists last year were Irish and Munster are still one of the better teams every year.

Thought this might interest a few people.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10844936

That seams to be a lot fairer right up than the BBC's. Celtic league have amde noises about having a Rainbow cup with SA in the past. Think this is SA using it as a chance to get a stronger footing in SANZAR, likewise French and English with ERC. Don't believe it would come off.

GunsGerms wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:32 is dreadfully bloated.

For me 16 teams. Top 4 from each league plus a guarantee that each country is represented by at least one team. Any remaining spots based on ERC rankings.

This then is an elite competition and we also get a decent second tier competition.

That way there would only be one Irish team which would be a bit ridiculous given the two finalists last year were Irish and Munster are still one of the better teams every year.

Wrong there would have been 3 Irish teams. Leinster and Munster qualifying by finishing in the top 4 and Ulster because of their ERC ranking. If you had read the follow up post that outlined the teams you woul dhave seen how strong the 16 team top competition would have been.

once again I ask. Why should the rabo teams lose a lot of their representation and the english teams not? Why should the rabo teams be punished for Englands failings?

TJ wrote:once again I ask. Why should the Rabo teams lose a lot of their representation and the English teams not? Why should the Rabo teams be punished for England's failings?

That, right there, is the nub of this whole fetid affair.

I think the 4 'Rabo' unions should start putting pressure on the English and French unions to get it sorted. The English and French can throw their weight around in the HEC but at international level its 4 vs 2.

TJ wrote:once again I ask. Why should the rabo teams lose a lot of their representation and the english teams not? Why should the rabo teams be punished for Englands failings?

Because their unions agree to it. The numbers of each team and how they qualify is up for negotiation. If it turns out that the number of English/French teams stay as they are and the PRO12 unions lose places then it's because they agreed to it.

Simply as that. If they don't and either the English and French back down or the competition ends then that will also be because that's what is agreed.

It's no different to when the competition was originally formed or to any of the changes that have occurred since then.

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:once again I ask. Why should the rabo teams lose a lot of their representation and the english teams not? Why should the rabo teams be punished for Englands failings?

Because their unions agree to it. The numbers of each team and how they qualify is up for negotiation. If it turns out that the number of English/French teams stay as they are and the PRO12 unions lose places then it's because they agreed to it.

Simply as that. If they don't and either the English and French back down or the competition ends then that will also be because that's what is agreed.

It's no different to when the competition was originally formed or to any of the changes that have occurred since then.

I think the question he's asking (and stop me if I'm wrong, TJ) is whether such a proposal would be a reasonable thing to expect the unions to accept.

So, to ask the question again, is it a reasonable development from the status quo for the unions represented in the Pro 12 to lose representation in the European Cup, while the RFU and FFR don't?