Heineken Cup talks "have now ended"

[coolbawn]

[So somethings got to get wrecked eh?] Not sure about the spirit or meaning of that, Tallshort, but it got me thinking.

If Ian Ritchie and Bill Beaumont at the RFU aren't threatening PRL in public because they are working away in private and if they came up with the following, do you think it might cause everyone to accept it instead of marching over the cliff:

7-7-8-2 teams to England, France, Raboland and the 2 winners so Raboland can guarantee each country one - but only one - place
The most antagonistic/complacent people in each camp are quietly eased out of the HEC board
The rest will work together to make the next TV deal a bigger pot
The Franglais will get even more % of it than the current 33-33-8-8-8-8 but even Raboland will get a bit more because the pot will be bigger
The Amlin drops the weakest teams and therefore becomes an acceptable competition for clubs not in the HEC
The Franglais will use their extra domestic (and HEC) TV money from BT and ?? to recruit even more overseas players and try to dominate the HEC for years

I suspect some will say "No" because:
It's not about money in England - it's about power
The French want more teams in their league

 

[McTallshort]

So if its about power...who has the power now?

 

[coolbawn]

Seems an OK balance between RFU and clubs to those of us who are in Raboland. English clubs almost won the HEC twice when Leinster won (Tigers and Saints). You win or almost win the 6 Nations most years. You get to finals and semis of the World Cup.

If your clubs really can't fight on 2 fronts, have HEC qualification from half the fixtures (one match against each team, obviously) played when it suits you all best; the play-offs and relegation would still use all fixtures as now.

 

[ratsapprentice]

There are numerous ways you could go about sorting the Prem/Champ clubs into regions.
There are 9 English regions officially, the trouble is that if you simply assigned each region the club players within it's geographical boundary the regions would be wildly unbalanced as it stands.
On that basis a South-East/London regional team could be made up of - Wasps, Irish, Saracens, Quins, Welsh, Scottish and Ealing.
Whereas a North-West team would be made up of - Sale.

If you based the regions makeup on the clubs within each regionand on where the players are "from" (born/raised/affiliated with) then it could be far more balanced.
For example a North-West team could look something like this, if it included players "from" the region, regardless of which club they play for:

1. Eifion Lewis-Roberts
2. Tommy Taylor
3. Henry Thomas
4. Vadim Cobilas
5. Jonathan Mills
6. Carl Fearns
7. Dan Braid
8. Sam Dickinson
9. Richard Wigglesworth
10. Owen Farrell
11. David Stretle
12. Kyle Eastmond
13. Joel Tomkins
14. Chris Ashton
15. Ben Foden

Based on the Sale team announced to play today and on players from around the country who hail from the North-West (as defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England)
This is just to demonstrate that the regions could be balanced in a logical way.
I believe that regions could be made to be as competitive as the top clubs are now, if not more so.

One of the big issues rugby-wise would be the schedule. The domestic club competition and the regional competition would need to run separately from start to end, without interrupting each other.
This would go hand in hand with creating a global season.

A regional system would hopefully encourage more balance within the domestic club competition too, over time the players would be encouraged to move to clubs within their region.
This could potentially help with the growth of the sport in the North as a whole.

I haven't put weeks of work into any regional planning, but I cannot think of any truly insurmountable obstacles to it.
It would be a major change, but one that could be extremely beneficial to the Health of the game in England and the England team itself.

 

[McTallshort]

There are numerous ways you could go about sorting the Prem/Champ clubs into regions.
There are 9 English regions officially, the trouble is that if you simply assigned each region the club players within it's geographical boundary the regions would be wildly unbalanced as it stands.
On that basis a South-East/London regional team could be made up of - Wasps, Irish, Saracens, Quins, Welsh, Scottish and Ealing.
Whereas a North-West team would be made up of - Sale.

If you based the regions makeup on the clubs within each regionand on where the players are "from" (born/raised/affiliated with) then it could be far more balanced.
For example a North-West team could look something like this, if it included players "from" the region, regardless of which club they play for:

1. Eifion Lewis-Roberts
2. Tommy Taylor
3. Henry Thomas
4. Vadim Cobilas
5. Jonathan Mills
6. Carl Fearns
7. Dan Braid
8. Sam Dickinson
9. Richard Wigglesworth
10. Owen Farrell
11. David Stretle
12. Kyle Eastmond
13. Joel Tomkins
14. Chris Ashton
15. Ben Foden

Based on the Sale team announced to play today and on players from around the country who hail from the North-West (as defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England)
This is just to demonstrate that the regions could be balanced in a logical way.
I believe that regions could be made to be as competitive as the top clubs are now, if not more so.

One of the big issues rugby-wise would be the schedule. The domestic club competition and the regional competition would need to run separately from start to end, without interrupting each other.
This would go hand in hand with creating a global season.

A regional system would hopefully encourage more balance within the domestic club competition too, over time the players would be encouraged to move to clubs within their region.
This could potentially help with the growth of the sport in the North as a whole.

I haven't put weeks of work into any regional planning, but I cannot think of any truly insurmountable obstacles to it.
It would be a major change, but one that could be extremely beneficial to the Health of the game in England and the England team itself.

OK so what about overseas players? would they just play for the region they play club rugby in?

 

[Packman]

Hold on...Italian rugby has done well out of the last 15 years included in the 6 nations when at the time Romania had just as good a shout, more funding per pro team than everyone apart from Scotland from the ERC if they have not managed to develop then sorry thats their fault.

I think we have very different attitudes concerning the improvement developing rugby nations. The idea of England playing a strong Azzuri and facing a real challange to measure England against is something to relish. If italy won then that would take our rivalry to a new level that would be a joy to sink my teeth into. I hate it when england loses but I can't wait for the rematch. Just wait til we get Wales to Twickenham next year... To have that sort of rivalry with Italy is the goal, surely? To keep that rivarly alive with Scotland is the goal.

The fact that 13 year's on from 2000 Italy still haven't beaten England is a reason to continue funding, helping, developing. Its not a stick to hit them with, its not a reason to penalise them by taking away elite domestic competition.

What is the point of Zebre and Tresviso? That question deserves a long term point of view in my opinion. Half of me would hate to lose to an Italian team, its was pretty uncomfortable playing treviso in italy last season, wasn't it. we were behind most the game, dispite Thomston's wonder try. If we lost then half of me would be galvanised to even the score next year. Half of me would be seriously gutted.

A strong Italy is something to relish and embrace. Same way as England V Australia gets the juices flowing. I'm quite enjoying watching the wallabies struggle at the moment and I can't wait to have a chance to smash them at twickenham next month. But I don't want it to become the norm. I always want playing Australia to be something exciting, with a little bit of a fear factor involved. England vs Italy just doesn't have that edge yet. I think we should be helping Italy so they get that edge. Ireland - italy have that edge after last season and I bet you that deep down all the irish fan can't wait to get the azzurri back to Landsdowne road to extract some revenge. And you know what? They'll be fired up for Rome in 2015 too. Same way I'm fired up for England trip to Edinburgh because I remember losing to scotland there recently and I'm in no mood to suffer another loss up there.

Don't cast Scotland and Italy adrift by religating their domestic game. the rugby world is a more colourful place with them out there threatening to beat us.

 

[profitius]

Hold on...Italian rugby has done well out of the last 15 years included in the 6 nations when at the time Romania had just as good a shout, more funding per pro team than everyone apart from Scotland from the ERC if they have not managed to develop then sorry thats their fault.

Italy has done well but having Italy there is worth more to each other country than no Italy. They're a competitive team and their inclusion in the 6 nations means 5 extra matches that TV companies want to pay for. Same with the world cup. Having more competitive teams in the world cup makes it a more exciting tournament.


Remember it took France decades to win the 5 nations. If France were cut off back then, could you imagine rugby without France.

 

[smartcooky]

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/feat...face-oblivion-if-rfu-take-on-prl-over-europe/

That is brilliant.

"The season is restructured so that the leagues feed into a county championship that acts as a number of trials for regional selection"

What he is proposing is essentially an exact copy of that we have in New Zealand. Club Rugby competitions within each Province feed into the National Provincial Championship (ITM Cup) which act as trials for Super Rugby selection.

The power of the clubs would be broken for good. It would causes some short term pain though; England might get thrashed a few times until PRL player contracts ended and or new players came through the system, but it wouldn't be any worse than the appallingly bad England team of mid-1998 (which five years later won the RWC).

 

[smartcooky]

Remember it took France decades to win the 5 nations. If France were cut off back then, could you imagine rugby without France.

They joined in 1910, and didn't beat England until 1927 and 28

They either finished last or second last until 1921 where they finished second. Then they finished last or second last until 1948 where they again finished second. It wasn't until 1959 that they won their first Five Nations ***le.

NOTE: There was no Five Nations 1915 - 1919 (WW1). and 1940-46 (WW2) and France were excluded from 1933 to 1939 professionalism min the French leagues.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

That is brilliant.

"The season is restructured so that the leagues feed into a county championship that acts as a number of trials for regional selection"

What he is proposing is essentially an exact copy of that we have in New Zealand. Club Rugby competitions within each Province feed into the National Provincial Championship (ITM Cup) which act as trials for Super Rugby selection.

The power of the clubs would be broken for good. It would causes some short term pain though; England might get thrashed a few times until PRL player contracts ended and or new players came through the system, but it wouldn't be any worse than the appallingly bad England team of mid-1998 (which five years later won the RWC).

What he is proposing is retarded and it wouldn't work. Nobody would go watch the six regional sides and they would be massive money losers. Rugby is still a gate driven sport as far as money is concerned and the RFU may as well take their nutsack, place it on a chair and begin viciously hitting it with a hammer if they do this. New Zealand`s system would not work in England as their is no historical reason for it to work. If the RFU choose to fight the PRL openly then they may achieve some sort of victory... but they will leave the game in financial oblivion. Too much money has been invested in the club game by different organizations and groups to allow this to happen.

What is going to happen is everyone is going to come to their senses and a compromise is going to be reached, it is the only way this thing is going to work itself out.

 

[McTallshort]

What he is proposing is retarded and it wouldn't work. Nobody would go watch the six regional sides and they would be massive money losers. Rugby is still a gate driven sport as far as money is concerned and the RFU may as well take their nutsack, place it on a chair and begin viciously hitting it with a hammer if they do this. New Zealand`s system would not work in England as their is no historical reason for it to work. If the RFU choose to fight the PRL openly then they may achieve some sort of victory... but they will leave the game in financial oblivion. Too much money has been invested in the club game by different organizations and groups to allow this to happen.

What is going to happen is everyone is going to come to their senses and a compromise is going to be reached, it is the only way this thing is going to work itself out.

Amen brother!

 

[ratsapprentice]

I would genuinely prefer to see the domestic game crippled than for the international game be marginalised.

 

[Peat]

I would genuinely prefer to see the domestic game crippled than for the international game be marginalised.

Plus one.

Personally, I'd prefer regions in some ways anyway. I'd have a loyalty to a SE side I don't have to any London side currently. I can't help but think adding regions now would be an unholy mess, but it would beat the alternative.

 

[SelimNiai]

My view on the regions;

I support Bristol and Bristol only, I dont/wont support B**h, Glos, Exeter etc. And thats not just me, ask Northampton/Tigers fans. The clubs have been around for far too long for identities and rivalries to be established and that has to be preserved.

 

[smartcooky]

What he is proposing is retarded and it wouldn't work. Nobody would go watch the six regional sides and they would be massive money losers. Rugby is still a gate driven sport as far as money is concerned and the RFU may as well take their nutsack, place it on a chair and begin viciously hitting it with a hammer if they do this. New Zealand`s system would not work in England as their is no historical reason for it to work. If the RFU choose to fight the PRL openly then they may achieve some sort of victory... but they will leave the game in financial oblivion. Too much money has been invested in the club game by different organizations and groups to allow this to happen.

What is going to happen is everyone is going to come to their senses and a compromise is going to be reached, it is the only way this thing is going to work itself out.

Yep, that is exactly what all the naysayers said when New Zealand regionalised in 1996.

► Nobody would go to the matches because the fans would not feel any affinity with the teams.
► Nobody would sponsor the players or the competition.
► None of the TV companies would want to broadcast it.
► All the "history" of NZ rugby would be lost.

Well, the naysayers were all wrong! Dead wrong!

The first few matches were poorly attended I'll grant you that, but with good, savvy marketing, people came to realise that it was a great product and they bought into it.. The 1996 semi's at Ballymore and Eden Park played to full houses (25,000 and 43,000) and the final at Eden Park was also a full house. That's more than you can say for the first ever Heineken Cup, where the final between Cardiff and Toulouse drew 22,000, and was the highest gate attendance for the whole competition! The average crowd size was less than 5500 prior to the final.

 

[McTallshort]

My view on the regions;

I support Bristol and Bristol only, I dont/wont support B**h, Glos, Exeter etc. And thats not just me, ask Northampton/Tigers fans. The clubs have been around for far too long for identities and rivalries to be established and that has to be preserved.

You could organize it so Tiger and saints were not in the same region but I completely agree looking at what happened to the Welsh clubs after regionalisation I would hate that here English rugby is its clubs whether its Northampton or South Kesteven, Tigers or Selston Nottingham or Paviors top to bottom its the clubs that are the glue of the game.

 

[ratsapprentice]

That's because they pretty much dissolved the clubs.

The NZ system dis not do that AFAIK.

 

[smartcooky]

You could organize it so Tiger and saints were not in the same region but I completely agree looking at what happened to the Welsh clubs after regionalisation I would hate that here English rugby is its clubs whether its Northampton or South Kesteven, Tigers or Selston Nottingham or Paviors top to bottom its the clubs that are the glue of the game.

Just keep mind that he is NOT suggesting the the clubs be dissolved, only that the regions be created to compete in Europe.

The NZ super Rugby franchises ONLY compete in Super Rugby, not in any kind of exclusively domestic competition. The NZ domestic competition is between the Provinces, and each province falls within a region, e.g. the Tasman, Canterbury, Buller, West Coast, Mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury Provincial Unions all fall on the Crusaders Region. I support both the Crusaders and the Tasman just as I support my local club team. Riwaka and my national team, the All Blacks. They are all different teams in different competitions.

 

[McTallshort]

and keep in mind how big rugby is in new zealand compared to here.

Look at what happened to the welsh clubs....not sure its worth it just keep the Irish happy

 

[ratsapprentice]

It would be to keep the England team strong (and potentially a bit stronger) - not to keep other unions happy.

I think London/SE and NW regional teams could potentially encourage a lot of new support within those areas.