European cup competitions - a suggested practical solution

Forgive me for making an additional thread on this, but it took some time and I don't want have wasted some hours doing the sums.

In https://www.606v2.com/t34003-french-english-clubs-position-themselves-for-hec-debate the one point which stood out for me was once again, through the bickering, was the realisation that a compromise will have to be reached - or both the Rabo and the Anglo-French leagues will both face a lose-lose end-game.

So

Would this help?

What about a root and branch compromise? Currently the European senior leagues comprise 38 sides (12, 12 and 14) and assuming that there is the retention that the current desire to automatically qualify both current cup winners to the current HEC, there remains 36 teams to contest the two cups.

At some point early in the season, the leagues, nominally split into two by club/side position Rabo A and B, T14 A and B play a straightforward knock-out contested between the best of one league's 'A' side vs the bottom of another Leagues 'B' where the home side is always from the 'A' league

Something like this:

Although some adjustment may have to be introduced to cater for playoff outcomes, I'll just nominally base it on final regular season league position.
Anomalies can be catered (to be decided by individual leagues?).

Rabo 2012 (HEC cup holders, Leinster)
'A' teams
2 Ospreys
3 Munster
4 Glasgow Caledonians
5 Llanelli
6 Ulster
7 Cardiff Blues

'B' teams
8 Connacht
9 Gwent Dragons
10 Benetton Treviso
11 Edinburgh Reivers
12 Zebre (new)

T14 2012 Amlin cup holders, Biarritz)
'A' teams
2 Stade Français
3 Clermont
4 Toulon
5 Racing Métro 92
6 Grenoble Rugby
7 Stade Toulousain
8 Bordeaux-Bègles

'B' teams
9 Castres Olympique
10 SU Agen
11 Bayonne
12 Perpignan
13 Montpellier
14 Grenoble (promoted)

Jeff
'A' teams
1 Harlequins
2 Leicester Tigers
3 Saracens
4 Northampton Saints
5 Exeter
6 Sale Sharks

'B' teams
7 London Irish
8 Bath
9 Gloucester
10 Worcester
11 London Wasps
12 London Welsh (promoted)


So sample draw may look something like this (home 'A' teams first):
Ospreys (rabo 2) v Grenoble (T14 14)
Stade Français (T14 2) v London Welsh (Jeff 12)
Harlequins (Jeff 1) v Zebre (Rabo 12)
Clermont (T14 3) v Wasps (Jeff 11)
Munster (Rabo 3) v Montpellier (T14 13)
.
.
.
.
Sale (Jeff 6) v Connacht (Rabo 8)
Cardiff (Rabo 7) v Castres (T14 9)
Bordeaux-Bègles (T14 8) v
Ulster (Rabo 6) v London Irish (Jeff 7)
and so on..,


All match winners (18) plus Leinster and Biarriz progress to the HEC.
Remainung 18 contest Amiln.


On reviewing there may be a couple of hiccups to iron out in the logic - like there are more A sides than B ones - so maybe the French (Amiln winners) might have to have six 'A' sides rather than 7.

So the bottom end of the draw (on paper the tastiest ones) where the mid-team contest take place would have to be re-jigged a tad.

But the principle remains the same. And just, to my mind a bit fairer.

Also it presumes that Celtic nations ([ed] well ALL nations if you think about it) would be prepared to forego representation in the top Cup - which sort of leaves us at square one a bit.

But it would intensify mid-table qualification games in the leagues in the race to secure 'A' spots.

Personally I think the answer is to cut the number of teams entering the HEC.

HEC

2 Irish
2 Welsh
1 Scottish
1 Italian
4 French
4 English
HEC Winners Nation Gets 1 extra slot
Amlin Cup Winner Nation Gets 1 Extra slot.

4 goups of 4, playing home and away, with the Pool toppers and runners up going into the knockouts. The third place sides parachute into the Amlin QFs.

Amlin

1 Irish
1 Welsh
1 Scottish
1 Italian
4 French
4 English
2 Spanish
2 Romanian

Four pools of four, home and away. Only the top team progresses and they play a parachuted HEC team (home) in the QF.


Theoretically that would raise the level of the Amlin as teams like Ulster/Munster/Blues/Scarlets will be involved as opposed be being expected to feature in the HEC. This should also allow the JEff sides to feel like it is a more level playing feild with everyone needing to prove themselves.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Personally I think the answer is to cut the number of teams entering the HEC.

HEC

2 Irish
2 Welsh
1 Scottish
1 Italian
4 French
4 English
HEC Winners Nation Gets 1 extra slot
Amlin Cup Winner Nation Gets 1 Extra slot.

4 goups of 4, playing home and away, with the Pool toppers and runners up going into the knockouts. The third place sides parachute into the Amlin QFs.

Amlin

1 Irish
1 Welsh
1 Scottish
1 Italian
4 French
4 English
2 Spanish
2 Romanian

Four pools of four, home and away. Only the top team progresses and they play a parachuted HEC team (home) in the QF.


Theoretically that would raise the level of the Amlin as teams like Ulster/Munster/Blues/Scarlets will be involved as opposed be being expected to feature in the HEC. This should also allow the JEff sides to feel like it is a more level playing feild with everyone needing to prove themselves.

+1 (with the exception of the parachuting bit)

Ozzy - I was between minds on the parachuting, although if you did parachute down the QFs could well resemble the quality of the current third-seed HEC teams, and I am sure that the viewing figures and sponsorship etc would increase as a result.

I disagree with the whole principle of parachuting down to be honest. You could finish 3rd in your pool winning just 1 match, and still be in with a shout of winning a pot, whereas a team finishing 2nd in an Amlin pool having won 5 out of 6 go out in order to accommodate you.

Doesn't sit right with me.

I didn't think of it like that, i guess the parachuting is unfair.

HEC Winners Nation Gets 1 extra slot
Amlin Cup Winner Nation Gets 1 Extra slot.

How does the success if team A from league X justify an an extra slot for team B from league X?

I know it happens, but never really fully understood the rationale.

Port - I would have thought a Jeff team fan would have known the answer, it is because you can't win both the HEC/Amlin and do well in your own league Being serious I have always just accepted it as an added perk.

I like your idea in principle, however it would never be given the nod, as in theory whoever does the broadcasting in France could end up broadcasting an entire HEC that does not have a single Franch side in it (very unlikely but possible), and I doubt the TV complanies or the unions would agree to it with that sort of risk.

I perfer Portnoy's model, with adjustments like promoted teams are auto Almin cup

I'd hate for H-cup to have less teams, as they will be the ones that get more money and a gap will appear in quality of teams that regularly in the h-cup and those that do not.

It has the advantage of (say) a compromise entitling at least one side from each league entering the HEC, then the top appropriate teams would just be removed from the quali knock-outs.

And the more I think about it, the more on reflection, I can't rationalise the winner's nation extra side cup slot either. But retained or not, it fits the model.

The only other thing I'd personally add is that the natural number of teams in a cup is 2ˆ n - i.e 4/8/16/32 etc.
The current system has 20 means that the 'best' two losers bit comes into play and that throws the skewed nature of the pools - 'easy' vs 'death' ones into focus.

So if given a preference, I might propose either whittling the quali-knockouts to reduce initial Amilin/HEC rounds to 32 (top 2 of each to HEC bottom two to Amlin)

Or - reduce the HEC to 16 sides in four pools and top 2 qualifiers go through to the KO stages.

But that is maybe a bit picky.

Also posted this on the other thread, but it's as relevant on this thread

At the risk of being mugged by my fellow Celts I have a bit of sympathy for the Eng/Fra objections to the HEC qualifying format - although McCafferty has a tendency to get rid of what sympathy I have.

The HEC is a huge success and for what it's worth I don't see a Rabo team winning it next year (I know that's treason from a Leinster fan but that's the way I see it - Leicester or Clermont for me). The qualification system is the problem - so why not get around the problem by expanding it to 32 teams in eight groups of four. Simple qualification for the knockout phase - top two in each group go into the knockout on a seeded basis - top qualifier plays no 16 qualifier, no 2 plays no 15 etc etc.

So question then is how to divvy up the 32 among the six countries - 9 Eng, 9 Fra, 3 Irish, 3 Wal, 1 Sco, 1 Ita - plus six more places to be filled by a prequalifcation tourney involving the best of the non-qualifiers - 4th place Irish, 4th place Welsh, 2nd best Scot, 2nd best Ita, two best non-qual from both Eng and Fra.

Too simple maybe? But it would satisfy the French and English while still ensuring that most of the Rabo teams still qualify with the added bonus of an early-season pre-qualification tourney where nationality of teams is irrelevant. If four Rabo teams come out of that pre-qual then so be it, if four Prem and Top 14 teams come out so be it

No problem with that Portnoy

brennomac wrote:No problem with that Portnoy

Sorry I deleted my post by accident (the one you replied to) I think.
It was something along the lines that maybe each country should have only one guaranteed slot and the rest should be worked for.

Some salient points about net profits(surplus) of the B&I Unions (2010-11).

Sources :
England http://rfu.com/abouttherfu/~/mpedia/Files/2011/AboutRFU/annual_report_11-12.ashx (page 28)
Ireland http://www.irishrugby.ie/downloads/IRFU_Annual_Report_201011.pdf (page 35)
Scotland http://www.scottishrugby.org/aboutus/component/option,com_jdownloads/Itemid,65/task,view.download/cid,9 70/ (page 48)
Wales http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/WRU_ARA_2011_Final.pdf (page 56)

€ - GBP conversion rate applied : 0.8 ( http://uk.reuters.com/business/currencies/quote?srcAmt=1.00&srcCurr=EUR&destAmt=&destCurr=GBP&historicalDate= )

Turnover (Income)
England £136.3m
Ireland €69.3m (£55.4m)
Scotland £35.1m
Wales £54.3m

Net profit/surplus
England £8.7m
Ireland €6.75m (£5.4m)
Scotland £1.3m
Wales £1.9m

Ticket revenue
England £30m
Ireland - not specified*
Scotland £8.5m
Wales - not specified*

Broadcasting income
England £31.8m
Ireland - not specified*
Scotland £11.5m
Wales - not specified*

*not that I could find

Notes

England:
Financial review (p19)

Ticket income increased by £8.7m from
£21.3m to £30.0m, due to the staging
of a fourth autumn international and the
impact of the ‘extra’ Six Nations match
in 2010/11. In 2010/11 we staged
four test matches against New Zealand,
Australia, Samoa and South Africa,
compared with three autumn games
in 2009/10; this produced an increase
in ticket income of £4.3m. In 2010/11
we also staged three Six Nations home
matches, as against two in 2009/10,
and this resulted in a £4.6m increase
in ticket income.

Ireland :

See p 5 (won't c&p)

para 2 Provinces contribution
Treasurer report and find 'turnover' in penultimate paragraph. (€22.8m of €28.4m expenditure on pro game went to the Provinces, €9.3m paid in from Provincial competition winnings)

Scotland:
Board report (p 42)

Business Review
The Union has achieved a surplus after interest for the year of £1.3m. Turnover
increased by £1.5m over the previous year for a number of reasons. An increase
in 6 Nations ticket revenues through having three home fixtures in 2010/11,
higher Autumn Test ticket revenues and increased pro rugby income was
partially offset by reduced non-rugby event income, and the absence of income
from the British and Irish Lions Tour in 2009.

Turnover
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT (p 46)

Turnover represents ticket sales, broadcasting revenue and all other
income and is stated net of VAT. Revenue is recognised based on the
relevant contractual terms or in accordance with the occurrence of the
relevant event. Where consideration is received in kind, income and
expenditure are grossed up on the basis of arms length commercial
rates.

PARLIAMENTARY MOTIONS AND THE SCOTTISH RUGBY MANIFESTO (p 40)

Tavish Scott: Contribution of Sport to Scotland
As an amendment to motion S4M-00681 in the name of Shona Robison (Contribution
of Sport to Scotland), after "standing" insert "recognises the immense contribution of
rugby to the Scottish economy but that there are gaps in broadcast coverage of rugby
in Scotland and that the level of coverage and investment in the broadcasting of rugby
is disproportionately less in Scotland than in other parts of the UK; believes that the
Scottish Government should encourage broadcasters to increase the level of rugby on
both terrestrial and satellite television;".

Wales :

See p 61 (won't c&p)
Business analysis (see turnover)


From which I draw these inferences:
The B&I bits of the Rabo appear to have pretty much all their financial and competitive bargaining chips held by Ireland.

England is hugely successful in marketing it broadcasting rights.