Expand the Heineken Cup

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

push for the expansion of the Heineken Cup to a 40-team tournament â€" 10 pools of four â€" with a home-and-away 'Round of 16' and enter the losing teams in a concurrent UEFA Cup-style competition. Above all, remember that people want to watch meaningful games and that soccer is not necessarily the business model to copy. Quality, not quantity, is the way forward.[/b]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/...on-heineken-cup

The piece I've quoted comes about 1/3 of the way down the link provided.

Any thoughts? I've expressed my views on a trumped up Heineken Cup in a couple of threads (here and here) and think it could be the best way forward for clubs, Unions, players and fans alike. Would a hypothetical 40 team Heineken Cup be a good idea on top of the domestic leagues or would it be a precursor to a pan-European competition usurping the Magners League, Top 14 and Guinness Premiership entirely?

 

[An Tarbh]

for me it would diminish the quality, we already get too many one sided games in the Heineken Cup so why add more which is what you'd inevitably get with this setup? The quote itself is a contradiction, push for the expansion of the tournament yet they finish with the claim quality not quantity. The 2 are not compatible.

It wouldn't fit in with the domestic leagues either, cause you'd have to find 2 extra weeks in an already crowded fixture list. The proposals in question are also too small for it to be a viable European league that would replace the domestic competitions.

For me the status quo is as good as we're likely to get.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Jan 20 2009, 08:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

for me it would diminish the quality, we already get too many one sided games in the Heineken Cup so why add more which is what you'd inevitably get with this setup? The quote itself is a contradiction, push for the expansion of the tournament yet they finish with the claim quality not quantity. The 2 are not compatible.

It wouldn't fit in with the domestic leagues either, cause you'd have to find 2 extra weeks in an already crowded fixture list. The proposals in question are also too small for it to be a viable European league that would replace the domestic competitions.

For me the status quo is as good as we're likely to get.[/b]

I agree that Kitson's idea of a bigger European Cup on top of the domestic leagues is a poor idea. It merely weakens the current Heineken Cup by incorporating the Challenge Cup into it.

What intrigues me though is that if an expanded Heineken Cup were to be put in place, would the clubs decide to go the whole hog and create a pan-European league out of it? Since 40 clubs would basically be every top level club in Europe, there would be no need for domestic leagues (GP, Top14, ML, Super10) since you're already in a competition with all comers (the 40 team HC). Formalize a pan-European league as the sole top flight league in European rugby and big money could start rolling in.

 

[An Tarbh]

well the clubs wouldn't agree to it in the current circumstances, especially the French I'd imagine

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Jan 20 2009, 09:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

well the clubs wouldn't agree to it in the current circumstances, especially the French I'd imagine[/b]

Hard to say. In my opinion if a proposal was put to any club which could potentially increase their revenue exponentially, they'd agree to it.

It's not as though the clubs are averse to change. In France a pool based Top 16 was realigned as the league based Top 14 only 5 or so years ago. The Premiership is only 20 odd years old and they've explored tinkering with it this year (expansion, ring fencing and contraction have been discussed recently). The Welsh, Scottish and soon the Italian Unions have changed their structure to create "Superclubs" over the last few years. The Magners League is in a constant state of flux and the EDF Cup was trialled between the Welsh regions and English clubs.

Leinster have drawn 48,000 fans for games against Ulster, Munster, Biarritz and Perpignan. Wasps have drawn 30,000+ for their game against Leinster. Munster can draw 26,500 for Heineken Cup games and select Magners League games. Leicester are redeveloping Welford Road into a 30,000 capacity stadium they need to fill. Harlequins and Stade Francais have booked their national headquarters for marquee games. Cardiff have booked the Millenium Stadium for some marquee games. Toulouse use the Municipal Stadium on a semi regular basis for bigger games. Biarritz have moved games to San Sebastian. Perpignan have explored playing in Barcelona's Nou Camp. Bourgoin have played some games in Switzerland. A European League would dramatically increase the amount of marquee games each team would play and thus crowds would increase. That, in my opinion, would be a very attractive proposition for all clubs.

 

[An Tarbh]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snoopy snoopy dog dog @ Jan 20 2009, 09:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Jan 20 2009, 09:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well the clubs wouldn't agree to it in the current circumstances, especially the French I'd imagine[/b]

Hard to say. In my opinion if a proposal was put to any club which could potentially increase their revenue exponentially, they'd agree to it.

It's not as though the clubs are averse to change. In France a pool based Top 16 was realigned as the league based Top 14 only 5 or so years ago. The Premiership is only 20 odd years old and they've explored tinkering with it this year (expansion, ring fencing and contraction have been discussed recently). The Welsh, Scottish and soon the Italian Unions have changed their structure to create "Superclubs" over the last few years. The Magners League is in a constant state of flux and the EDF Cup was trialled between the Welsh regions and English clubs.

Leinster have drawn 48,000 fans for games against Ulster, Munster, Biarritz and Perpignan. Wasps have drawn 30,000+ for their game against Leinster. Munster can draw 26,500 for Heineken Cup games and select Magners League games. Leicester are redeveloping Welford Road into a 30,000 capacity stadium they need to fill. Harlequins and Stade Francais have booked their national headquarters for marquee games. Cardiff have booked the Millenium Stadium for some marquee games. Toulouse use the Municipal Stadium on a semi regular basis for bigger games. Biarritz have moved games to San Sebastian. Perpignan have explored playing in Barcelona's Nou Camp. Bourgoin have played some games in Switzerland. A European League would dramatically increase the amount of marquee games each team would play and thus crowds would increase. That, in my opinion, would be a very attractive proposition for all clubs.
[/b][/quote]

if you're gonna turn club rugby in the NH into a pan European league then you'd have to have 4 pools of 10 teams, playing on a home and away basis with the top 2 going through to the playoffs. The problem is though you wouldn't be guaranteed the derby matches each season which bring in plenty of revenue for the sides, the simple example is that the Irish and Welsh provinces would all be in separate pools. I can't see how it's financially viable to be honest.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Jan 21 2009, 10:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snoopy snoopy dog dog @ Jan 20 2009, 09:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Jan 20 2009, 09:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well the clubs wouldn't agree to it in the current circumstances, especially the French I'd imagine[/b]

Hard to say. In my opinion if a proposal was put to any club which could potentially increase their revenue exponentially, they'd agree to it.

It's not as though the clubs are averse to change. In France a pool based Top 16 was realigned as the league based Top 14 only 5 or so years ago. The Premiership is only 20 odd years old and they've explored tinkering with it this year (expansion, ring fencing and contraction have been discussed recently). The Welsh, Scottish and soon the Italian Unions have changed their structure to create "Superclubs" over the last few years. The Magners League is in a constant state of flux and the EDF Cup was trialled between the Welsh regions and English clubs.

Leinster have drawn 48,000 fans for games against Ulster, Munster, Biarritz and Perpignan. Wasps have drawn 30,000+ for their game against Leinster. Munster can draw 26,500 for Heineken Cup games and select Magners League games. Leicester are redeveloping Welford Road into a 30,000 capacity stadium they need to fill. Harlequins and Stade Francais have booked their national headquarters for marquee games. Cardiff have booked the Millenium Stadium for some marquee games. Toulouse use the Municipal Stadium on a semi regular basis for bigger games. Biarritz have moved games to San Sebastian. Perpignan have explored playing in Barcelona's Nou Camp. Bourgoin have played some games in Switzerland. A European League would dramatically increase the amount of marquee games each team would play and thus crowds would increase. That, in my opinion, would be a very attractive proposition for all clubs.
[/b][/quote]

if you're gonna turn club rugby in the NH into a pan European league then you'd have to have 4 pools of 10 teams, playing on a home and away basis with the top 2 going through to the playoffs. The problem is though you wouldn't be guaranteed the derby matches each season which bring in plenty of revenue for the sides, the simple example is that the Irish and Welsh provinces would all be in separate pools. I can't see how it's financially viable to be honest.
[/b][/quote]

This is why you bring in the American model of divisions based on geography... as it stands now in North American sport as the geography presents a logical nightmare for games the major leagues NHL, MLB, NFL, NBA all have divisions based on geography with the object being that they play the teams within their division (geographic area) more then other teams in other areas...

Take the Montreal Canadiens for example they are grouped in a division with Boston, and Toronto... their two big original six rivals so they play a fair amount of games against them. The NHL is a 30 team league with 82 game seasons last season they played Boston 7 times during the regular season... Thats almost 10% of the regular season games against an original six rival... It works well for North American teams

The NFL plays 16 games a season but I believe 12 of those games have to be against teams in their respective conferences... this guarantees the big matchups of division rivals.


What snoopy is advocating for is something that I had also proposed in the magners league thread about the Italian teams. I believe that rugby has to look outside its national boundaries if it wants to expand the sport. Everything is geared towards producing players for the national teams and their are limits on how many players a team can have from other nations. Having a unified league would let the clubs sign whoever they wanted and not base it off nationality. This would improve the product on field in my opinion as the best players would all be playing in the top league.

This would also transcend into the international game and strengthen it... a unified season would put all the European nations on the same page unifying the season structures. If the teams were to play 22 games a season that would leave 30 weeks free for internationals.

This sort of competition would attract more money and more sponsors then ever before... now you may ask what about national development... well the best players could be spread out all over the league... aka Wales wouldn't have to rely on their provinces to produce the top flyhalf they could draw from all 40 some teams within the league. The existing national club structure could sdtay in place and it would act as a feeder into this system... almost like the minor leagues in north american sport...

 

[An Tarbh]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Canadian_Rugger @ Jan 20 2009, 10:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Jan 21 2009, 10:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snoopy snoopy dog dog @ Jan 20 2009, 09:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Jan 20 2009, 09:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well the clubs wouldn't agree to it in the current circumstances, especially the French I'd imagine[/b]

Hard to say. In my opinion if a proposal was put to any club which could potentially increase their revenue exponentially, they'd agree to it.

It's not as though the clubs are averse to change. In France a pool based Top 16 was realigned as the league based Top 14 only 5 or so years ago. The Premiership is only 20 odd years old and they've explored tinkering with it this year (expansion, ring fencing and contraction have been discussed recently). The Welsh, Scottish and soon the Italian Unions have changed their structure to create "Superclubs" over the last few years. The Magners League is in a constant state of flux and the EDF Cup was trialled between the Welsh regions and English clubs.

Leinster have drawn 48,000 fans for games against Ulster, Munster, Biarritz and Perpignan. Wasps have drawn 30,000+ for their game against Leinster. Munster can draw 26,500 for Heineken Cup games and select Magners League games. Leicester are redeveloping Welford Road into a 30,000 capacity stadium they need to fill. Harlequins and Stade Francais have booked their national headquarters for marquee games. Cardiff have booked the Millenium Stadium for some marquee games. Toulouse use the Municipal Stadium on a semi regular basis for bigger games. Biarritz have moved games to San Sebastian. Perpignan have explored playing in Barcelona's Nou Camp. Bourgoin have played some games in Switzerland. A European League would dramatically increase the amount of marquee games each team would play and thus crowds would increase. That, in my opinion, would be a very attractive proposition for all clubs.
[/b][/quote]

if you're gonna turn club rugby in the NH into a pan European league then you'd have to have 4 pools of 10 teams, playing on a home and away basis with the top 2 going through to the playoffs. The problem is though you wouldn't be guaranteed the derby matches each season which bring in plenty of revenue for the sides, the simple example is that the Irish and Welsh provinces would all be in separate pools. I can't see how it's financially viable to be honest.
[/b][/quote]

This is why you bring in the American model of divisions based on geography... as it stands now in North American sport as the geography presents a logical nightmare for games the major leagues NHL, MLB, NFL, NBA all have divisions based on geography with the object being that they play the teams within their division (geographic area) more then other teams in other areas...

Take the Montreal Canadiens for example they are grouped in a division with Boston, and Toronto... their two big original six rivals so they play a fair amount of games against them. The NHL is a 30 team league with 82 game seasons last season they played Boston 7 times during the regular season... Thats almost 10% of the regular season games against an original six rival... It works well for North American teams

The NFL plays 16 games a season but I believe 12 of those games have to be against teams in their respective conferences... this guarantees the big matchups of division rivals.


What snoopy is advocating for is something that I had also proposed in the magners league thread about the Italian teams. I believe that rugby has to look outside its national boundaries if it wants to expand the sport. Everything is geared towards producing players for the national teams and their are limits on how many players a team can have from other nations. Having a unified league would let the clubs sign whoever they wanted and not base it off nationality. This would improve the product on field in my opinion as the best players would all be playing in the top league.

This would also transcend into the international game and strengthen it... a unified season would put all the European nations on the same page unifying the season structures. If the teams were to play 22 games a season that would leave 30 weeks free for internationals.

This sort of competition would attract more money and more sponsors then ever before... now you may ask what about national development... well the best players could be spread out all over the league... aka Wales wouldn't have to rely on their provinces to produce the top flyhalf they could draw from all 40 some teams within the league. The existing national club structure could sdtay in place and it would act as a feeder into this system... almost like the minor leagues in north american sport...
[/b][/quote]

well there's no need to base it on geography given that's what we've got with the domestic leagues already. If you allow all sides to sign whoever they want then that will kill the international game, not strengthen it simply cause the best players would be playing in it, it doesn't necessarily equate that all the international teams will be equally represented on that front. I don't think that the domestic club setup in the Celtic nations would be strong enough to ensure that players are fed through the system. You talk about money and to be honest there's no need for the changes that are being suggested as crowds are up certainly across the Magners League and the Heineken Cup, I don't know about the GP or the Top 14 but I doubt they're struggling. TV contracts continue to be extended and there's no problem with the sponsors either.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Canadian_Rugger sums up my thoughts almost perfectly.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Jan 20 2009, 11:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

well there's no need to base it on geography given that's what we've got with the domestic leagues already. If you allow all sides to sign whoever they want then that will kill the international game, not strengthen it simply cause the best players would be playing in it, it doesn't necessarily equate that all the international teams will be equally represented on that front. I don't think that the domestic club setup in the Celtic nations would be strong enough to ensure that players are fed through the system. You talk about money and to be honest there's no need for the changes that are being suggested as crowds are up certainly across the Magners League and the Heineken Cup, I don't know about the GP or the Top 14 but I doubt they're struggling. TV contracts continue to be extended and there's no problem with the sponsors either.[/b]

You make a great point about how all the domestic leagues are growing. While I wouldn't say there's much wrong with the present system, it is worth exploring to see if there are better options. Money is an issue though. Montpellier and Montauban are examples of teams struggling financially in France. The Scottish teams are cash strapped. Last season only three Premiership teams made a profit (I'll try dig up a link). That's not sustainable. If an option is available where more money can be generated by playing less games (potentialy) it should be looked at.

Basing it on geography, traditional rivalries and possible new rivalries is essential. For example, a group (which is set in stone every year) could look like this:

Munster
Ulster
Connacht
Leinster
London Irish
Edinburgh
Glasgow

The Irish teams would keep their rivalries with one another while the Scottish derbies would remain in place. Added to that would be the capital of Scotland playing the capital of England and London Irish versus the Irish provinces would clean up in terms of paying spectators. Similarly the old rivalries of Welsh teams and teams from the west country could be revived annually in a group while you could see the Basques of Bayonne and Biarritz play the Catalans of Perpignan and Barcelona every year.

A flaw of the current Heineken Cup is that often teams will end up playing each other twice in the competition on top of twice in their domestic tournament. For example, Edinburgh will meet Leinster four times this season whereas Scarlets and Ulster will also clash four times. Where is the excitement in that? A ramped up pan-European league/Heineken Cup wouldn't have such an anomaly. You'd play your regular rivals twice each per season (giving you 12 games) along with, say, 12 or 13 teams from other groups each year (6 at home, 6 away and perhaps 1 neutral venue to bring the game into new territories like Germany, Spain, Russia, Dubai etc). That would give each team 19 different opponents per season, not including playoffs which could potentially add 4 more opponents. Increased variety of opponents along with annual rivalries would be a recipe for success in my opinion. It's the best elements of domestic competition combined with the best elements of the Heineken Cup.

It would solidify the European club season in that all clubs would play the same weekends in fixtures of equal importance. That would automatically put to an end the need for Unions to have players playing in their home country (for example the IRFU prefer to have all Irish international players play in Ireland). With so many top level teams I believe that it would increase the depth of smaller nations rather than decrease it (I'm basing this assumption on the fact that there aren't enough English and French players to fill their quota of about 25 teams).

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snoopy snoopy dog dog @ Jan 21 2009, 01:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Canadian_Rugger sums up my thoughts almost perfectly.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Jan 20 2009, 11:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well there's no need to base it on geography given that's what we've got with the domestic leagues already. If you allow all sides to sign whoever they want then that will kill the international game, not strengthen it simply cause the best players would be playing in it, it doesn't necessarily equate that all the international teams will be equally represented on that front. I don't think that the domestic club setup in the Celtic nations would be strong enough to ensure that players are fed through the system. You talk about money and to be honest there's no need for the changes that are being suggested as crowds are up certainly across the Magners League and the Heineken Cup, I don't know about the GP or the Top 14 but I doubt they're struggling. TV contracts continue to be extended and there's no problem with the sponsors either.[/b]

You make a great point about how all the domestic leagues are growing. While I wouldn't say there's much wrong with the present system, it is worth exploring to see if there are better options. Money is an issue though. Montpellier and Montauban are examples of teams struggling financially in France. The Scottish teams are cash strapped. Last season only three Premiership teams made a profit (I'll try dig up a link). That's not sustainable. If an option is available where more money can be generated by playing less games (potentialy) it should be looked at.

Basing it on geography, traditional rivalries and possible new rivalries is essential. For example, a group (which is set in stone every year) could look like this:

Munster
Ulster
Connacht
Leinster
London Irish
Edinburgh
Glasgow

The Irish teams would keep their rivalries with one another while the Scottish derbies would remain in place. Added to that would be the capital of Scotland playing the capital of England and London Irish versus the Irish provinces would clean up in terms of paying spectators. Similarly the old rivalries of Welsh teams and teams from the west country could be revived annually in a group while you could see the Basques of Bayonne and Biarritz play the Catalans of Perpignan and Barcelona every year.

A flaw of the current Heineken Cup is that often teams will end up playing each other twice in the competition on top of twice in their domestic tournament. For example, Edinburgh will meet Leinster four times this season whereas Scarlets and Ulster will also clash four times. Where is the excitement in that? A ramped up pan-European league/Heineken Cup wouldn't have such an anomaly. You'd play your regular rivals twice each per season (giving you 12 games) along with, say, 12 or 13 teams from other groups each year (6 at home, 6 away and perhaps 1 neutral venue to bring the game into new territories like Germany, Spain, Russia, Dubai etc). That would give each team 19 different opponents per season, not including playoffs which could potentially add 4 more opponents. Increased variety of opponents along with annual rivalries would be a recipe for success in my opinion. It's the best elements of domestic competition combined with the best elements of the Heineken Cup.

It would solidify the European club season in that all clubs would play the same weekends in fixtures of equal importance. That would automatically put to an end the need for Unions to have players playing in their home country (for example the IRFU prefer to have all Irish international players play in Ireland). With so many top level teams I believe that it would increase the depth of smaller nations rather than decrease it (I'm basing this assumption on the fact that there aren't enough English and French players to fill their quota of about 25 teams).
[/b][/quote]


exactly... I can guarantee you that the top level of each country would be good enough to play in this league... More players would probably end up getting professional contracts with clubs in the league... I think nations like Wales and Scotland would be strengthened because there players who weren't included in the Welsh regional setup could hope to be picked up by other teams...

 

[Prestwick]

I'm looking at that group and London Irish looks to have just been thrown in there because it had the word "Irish" in it which makes it sound vaguely celtic whereas the reality is that today's London Irish tend have been spurrned by the IRFU and have more or less settled into an English league playing against English teams fielding and developing English talent.

This whole idea of casting away the existing systems and creating an artificial super-league just smacks of trying to fit square shaped through circular holes on a toddler's toy-box.

The problem isn't with the existing league set-ups. It is with the monetisation and infrastructure of these set ups that is causing the problem.

For example, moving the likes of Bath or Worcester around to different leagues in an NFL style set up wouldn't solve their problems of expansion and a large 40,000 + stadium for those special events. Bath have neither right now and the last thing they want to think about is an idea to pair them up with some random other teams as part of a West-Country Conference. It is safe to say that if Bath ever did manage to construct a 15,000 - 20,000 seater stadium that they would fill that week in and week out and sell every one of their executive boxes easily. It would be safe to say that Bath would become the 4th club to make a profit in the GP. Worcester too are on their way once their stadium expansion is complete. That would make five.

Another major obstacle facing all of this begins with U and ends in s. This isn't the NFL. There are no franchises here, just privately owned clubs or Union run autonomous provincial organisations such as Munster or Edinburgh. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "territories" here on Planet Rugby, only nations where the Union rules and guards its interests jealously. The clubs will not do anything that will risk their already meagre income and no matter how much sense it makes on paper, if it is a risk and if there are too many unpredictable variables in the plan (such as assuming that nations outside the traditional top six teams will suddenly have well supported club franchises) then they will not commit.

By the same token, Unions, anxious to keep their best players in their country and loathe to let them go overseas if they are wanted for international duty, will not agree to wiping the slate clean and moving onto a new system.

There are too many vested interests to allow for a plan like this.

There is only one plan and you're looking at it right now every Friday, Saturday and Sunday from September until late May with breaks in November, February and March. And that is the bottom line.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Jan 21 2009, 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I'm looking at that group and London Irish looks to have just been thrown in there because it had the word "Irish" in it which makes it sound vaguely celtic whereas the reality is that today's London Irish tend have been spurrned by the IRFU and have more or less settled into an English league playing against English teams fielding and developing English talent.

This whole idea of casting away the existing systems and creating an artificial super-league just smacks of trying to fit square shaped through circular holes on a toddler's toy-box.

The problem isn't with the existing league set-ups. It is with the monetisation and infrastructure of these set ups that is causing the problem.

For example, moving the likes of Bath or Worcester around to different leagues in an NFL style set up wouldn't solve their problems of expansion and a large 40,000 + stadium for those special events. Bath have neither right now and the last thing they want to think about is an idea to pair them up with some random other teams as part of a West-Country Conference. It is safe to say that if Bath ever did manage to construct a 15,000 - 20,000 seater stadium that they would fill that week in and week out and sell every one of their executive boxes easily. It would be safe to say that Bath would become the 4th club to make a profit in the GP. Worcester too are on their way once their stadium expansion is complete. That would make five.

Another major obstacle facing all of this begins with U and ends in s. This isn't the NFL. There are no franchises here, just privately owned clubs or Union run autonomous provincial organisations such as Munster or Edinburgh. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "territories" here on Planet Rugby, only nations where the Union rules and guards its interests jealously. The clubs will not do anything that will risk their already meagre income and no matter how much sense it makes on paper, if it is a risk and if there are too many unpredictable variables in the plan (such as assuming that nations outside the traditional top six teams will suddenly have well supported club franchises) then they will not commit.

By the same token, Unions, anxious to keep their best players in their country and loathe to let them go overseas if they are wanted for international duty, will not agree to wiping the slate clean and moving onto a new system.

There are too many vested interests to allow for a plan like this.

There is only one plan and you're looking at it right now every Friday, Saturday and Sunday from September until late May with breaks in November, February and March. And that is the bottom line.[/b]

I completely agree with what you just said Prestwick....every single line of it. Your right the unions and clubs both have far too much to lose with a plan like this... but the fact is I feel that the conservative nature of rugby has hurt its development quite a bit in terms of being able to market itself as a sport for the masses. Rugby has all the makings of a sport with the potential to capture the imagination of the average viewer... but its organizations execute their operations very poorly.

The fact remains that professional rugby is still rather second rate in the way the game is organized and played... player burnout is a major issue, the continuous struggles between national bodies and clubs is also really hurting rugby... I know a unified league won't happen anytime soon but I feel that if rugby is to continue to grow it will eventually have to come to that.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

I thought I'd leave this response to this thread until after the last round of Heineken Cup group fixtures.

I don't disagree with what you say Prestwick. The existing leagues are fine. My example of a possible group was just a hastily thrown together example for illustrative without much thought put into it. It wasn't a definitive view on how a tournament absolutely must be structured! Bath would unquestionably fill a new venue if it had a capacity of 20,000 as you say. We also see Leicester prospering under the current system, so much so that they're in the throes of increasing Welford Road into a 30,000 capacity stadium which they too can fill. Toulouse, Munster, Stade Francais, Northampton, Leinster....there are plenty of clubs doing well. If we retain the status quo, I won't complain one bit.

I'm an argumentative sort so I will take some issue with one of your posts . If you want to take issue with my use of the word "territories", that's fine. I don't want to see clubs outstrip the international game as has happened in football. I could just have easily have said that a pan-European League, run by the ERC and iRB could potentially bring more existing Unions on board. Saying territories seemed easier! The Federación Española de Rugby could apply to have one of their members involved. Deutscher Rugby-Verband could equally apply to have a team. Is that such a bad thing? The present Heineken Cup is the preserve of teams from only 6 countries. The likelihood of strong, fully professional, well funded competitions emerging in countries like Spain, Russia, Germany and Romania (and I realise there is some level of professionalism in these nations) is slim. As such, the Heineken Cup will remain essentially a competition amongst 6 European countries for a long time to come if the existing structures remain.

Take Germany as an example. Their national team has recently been promoted to Division 1 of the European Nations Cup. The national team has risen to 26th in the iRB world rankings. Their stated aim is to qualify for the 2015 World Cup. Over 2 days, 40,000 people attended the Hannover 7s tournament last summer. Rugby is the fastest growing team sport in Germany. How can the iRB help grow the game further in this country? Regular internationals are one obvious way to improve the standard of German rugby. Another is a fully fledged club team in top class European rugby.

What I want to see is rugby expand in Europe beyond 6 strong nations with a sprinkling of other nations below. I want to see a vibrant international game spread throughout Europe where Spain, Russia, Georgia, Romania, Germany, Portugal and many others can compete on a level playing field with the established 6 Nations. I firmly believe that a club based European League would be the catalyst to make this possible. Bath would still fill their ground. Leicester would continue to thrive in their redeveloped Welford Road. Munster and Toulouse would still be powerhouses commanding massive support. The bonus is that other nations/territories (call it what you will) would get to join in the party. The potential TV audience which could be nurtured would help with finances too!

................................................................................
.....................

Back to actual news rather that my hypothesizing!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

English rugby's response to the credit crunch will be thrashed out tomorrow at a meeting of the Rugby Football Union's management board................Mark McCafferty, PRL's chief executive, will spent today in talks with Rob Andrew, the union's director of elite rugby, and Martyn Thomas, the board chairman..................
Expansion of the European tournaments, McCafferty said, would occupy the same time frame and would require the agreement of the eight countries involved, nor does the European Challenge Cup as it is now draw big crowds. An Anglo-Welsh league would leave Scotland and Ireland in the cold which would "skewer" the structure of the northern-hemisphere game while the development tournament proposed by the RFU as the successor to the EDF Cup - which also involves the leading teams from National Division One - would be hard to sell to a sponsor in the present climate and would raise relatively low revenue.

"We can't build a sport on the indulgence of benefactors," McCafferty said. "If we do nothing, our shareholders have to put their hands in their pockets for more money and that's not a train that will travel.[/b]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rug...icle5598882.ece

McCafferty casually mentions the expansion of European tournaments a few days after meeting David Moffett, a long time proponent of such a move. My guess is that the proposal is for the best teams from the Heineken Cup who fail to make the last 8 being dumped into the Challenge Cup knockout stages to try spice up that competition, as Robert Kitson suggests in the link provided at the top of this thread. If the Challenge Cup continues to lose money after a revamp it will be cast aside, probably in favour of expanding the Heineken Cup to some degree.

 

[Prestwick]

I understand where both of you are coming from and I totally agree, my post was more an agonized admission that the status quo both sucks and will be very hard to change. Today, the Daily Telegraph Sports section ran with a headline saying that after reviewing documents shown to them by both insiders at the RFU and Premier Rugby, there is a very real danger of the Union and the Clubs bankrupting each other. By signing these agreements, they have tied each other together so tightly that one now simply cannot live without the other. The English set up is the Steptoe & Son of World Rugby.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snoopy snoopy dog dog @ Jan 28 2009, 11:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

What I want to see is rugby expand in Europe beyond 6 strong nations with a sprinkling of other nations below. I want to see a vibrant international game spread throughout Europe where Spain, Russia, Georgia, Romania, Germany, Portugal and many others can compete on a level playing field with the established 6 Nations. I firmly believe that a club based European League would be the catalyst to make this possible. Bath would still fill their ground. Leicester would continue to thrive in their redeveloped Welford Road. Munster and Toulouse would still be powerhouses commanding massive support. The bonus is that other nations/territories (call it what you will) would get to join in the party. The potential TV audience which could be nurtured would help with finances too![/b]

That is the comforting idea of such a plan. Rugby would have to have been banned at the point of a gun and the Bath Brigades would still turn up to the REC. We know it can be done, we've seen the level of enthusiasm at Cetransa El Salvador and at Bucharest and it is so ripe for even just a developmental league. Imagine a sub-elite European Competition with ND1 vs Welsh & Scottish Premiership and the best Spain, Germany and Romania has to offer!

In the end it'll happen, as we see with SANZAR, one cannot have their cake and eat it.

 

[DonBilly]

I am not in favour of the expansion of the H-cup, I would rather go to a real cup format like the champions league used to be. No more pools, direct elimination, home and away games until the semi-finals stage.