One thing I don't understand..

First topic message reminder :

According to scrum.com the IRB has to approve the new tournament the NLR and PRL is setting up.

The Celtic Unions and Italian rugby union said they will only join a tournament that is sanctioned by the IRB.

Essentially the big difference I see is the French and English wants to have a club run tournament, and the powers that be says it has to be union run.

What is the difference and why is it an issue?

So that there are competitive matches & not walk overs.Have you looked at the PRL/LNR proposals as one of them is that Rabo/PRL/LNR teams all get the same for participation regardless of which competition they are in

Feckless Rogue wrote:One thing I don't understand. Why does there have to be tiers? One European Cup for the top pro sides in all 6 Nations. Or more nations if that's even feasible. And every team gets an equal slice of the TV money giving everyone a stable (and equal) financial outlook despite the ups and downs on the field.

Why the insistence on separating it into tiers and giving more money to the big boys?

Words fail me.

broadlandboy wrote:So that there are competitive matches & not walk overs.Have you looked at the PRL/LNR proposals as one of them is that Rabo/PRL/LNR teams all get the same for participation regardless of which competition they are in

What?? Never heard that. I think that should be the way whether we keep the HC or we end up in the club run thing.

Oh and there will always be competitive matches in the latter stages because the cream rises to the top. And competitive matches in the early stages along with some wipeouts. And upsets and giant killings for us romantics.

Like the All Ireland Football Championship or the FA Cup in England. Everyone has a shot at the title.

That was the Pro2 proposal - a 32 team  european cup.  in the group stages it would be seeded, then split into cup , bowl and shield.  Everyone gets a chance at winning, its a true meritocracy without the handicaps built into the PRL proposals.  You would get mismatches in the groups tho.  a bit like the WC does

Feckless Rogue wrote:One thing I don't understand. Why does there have to be tiers? One European Cup for the top pro sides in all 6 Nations. Or more nations if that's even feasible. And every team gets an equal slice of the TV money giving everyone a stable (and equal) financial outlook despite the ups and downs on the field.

Why the insistence on separating it into tiers and giving more money to the big boys?

From what little we have seen, it looks like the PRL/LNR have proposed an equal distribution of money by league, which would allow the relevant unions to distribute the cash equally to all teams if they so wished. This is essentially what the PRL does with its own share of ERC revenue today. Separation into tiers is not about money.

The need for tiers is twofold - the first one is logistics. You couldn't cram a 38-team tournament into the season while still ensuring a minimum number of home games for each team (which is important for everyone. Home gates = money). The second one is to make the flagship competition more competitive - if everyone has to qualify for the tournament through their domestic league, the games will be more evenly matched and therefore worth more overall. There would also be a better mix of teams in the second tier, which would increase its value over time.

If the money is (or could be - I bet Connacht would still get less than their brethren) equal, then the only reasons not to support more meritocracy are pride or because the club game is seen as little more than a warm up for internationals.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Like the All Ireland Football Championship or the FA Cup in England. Everyone has a shot at the title.

Except Mayo