European rugby talks end with no solution to impasse

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19878759

Talks over the future direction of European rugby have broken up with no solution to the impasse.

The meeting in Rome ended after six hours with rugby executives agreeing to continue negotiations in Dublin on 30 October.

The existing European Rugby Cup deal expires in 2013.

English Premiership and French clubs want changes to the Heineken Cup format from 2014 and have threatened to quit the competition.

The row was further complicated when Premiership Rugby and European Rugby Cup Ltd struck separate television deals for the rights to show their games.

Speaking after Monday's meeting, Rugby Football Union chief executive Ian Ritchie told BBC Sport: "I think it's not going to be resolved in one meeting. It's got to be seen as a priority but it's not going to be sorted this week or next."

In a statement the European Rugby Cup, the body which runs European club rugby tournaments, said: "The meeting featured six hours of comprehensive discussion on a broad range of issues raised by stakeholders including the structure and format of the European club rugby tournaments.

"All parties reaffirmed their desire to see European club rugby's tournaments continue to grow and develop further and to involve all of the current participant stakeholders."

Looks like no one is willing to blink yet, this could go on and on for some time.

Thought they would have settled who owned the TV rights, at this stage with everyone one present, PLC, RFU and ERC and contacts available to be examined.

Round 3 on 30 October, lets hope some headway can be made then.

I would just like to know where are this growth going to be accommodated. The season is already full, there is no space to grow.

How?

Biltong wrote:I would just like to know where are this growth going to be accommodated. The season is already full, there is no space to grow.

How?

I don't think they necessarily mean more matches when they say grow. I assumed they were talking about increasing support and revenue, as well as possibly getting more countries invovled in the Amlin and/or a 3rd tier.

Part of me thinks that there isn't going to be a solution this time, and this may be the end of Europe as we know it. May not be a bad thing either, but there we go.

Biltong wrote:I would just like to know where are this growth going to be accommodated. The season is already full, there is no space to grow.

How?

It'll be accommodated in their wallets Biltong. I don't think you'll see any increase in the number of weekends given over to European games, you are right that there is simply no space in the calendar. Rather the commercial value of the Heiniken cup has been perceived to have been undersold in the past. Thats the view of the English clubs and thats where the growth can occur.

Reading an older story
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/sep/17/european-rugby-heineken-cup-tv-deal

Just the last bit;

"This is different," he said, "not least because there is a huge television deal on the table. We do not want to pull out of Europe or go to court to challenge the anti-competitive IRB regulation that says clubs, which are small businesses, cannot negotiate their own television deals and there should be no need to because of what is there for everyone. Contrary to some reports, we are united and back Mark McCafferty 100 per cent. There is no reason why this should drag on and on because rugby will be the winner."


If it turns out that the RFU hadn't granted PLC permission to sell the rights, it looks like PLC could go to court about anti-competitive laws? and they should automatically have the right.

The competation itself, could be sorted soon enough, TV deals on th eother hand look like they will be settled in court.

That anti competitive stuff is a load of rubbish. If you ae part of a group eg. accountants you have to follow their rules. Rules include how you can advertise. If the Clubs want to be part of the IRB club they have to abide by the thier rules. It is only unfair (as in LW) if all members do not have to live by those rules.

So the PRL are free to their rights but not if they want to be part of the IRB unbrella. It is like McDonals and other multi nationals. You can set up a Mcdonals if you change your name to Mcdonal but you can't have anything such as logos, brands and symbols etc that imply you are the same.

I think it will be a long discussion but I think that the French Union and not the French Clubs hold the power. I would love to see the HC played over two blocks
Block 1 = Groups
Block 2 = Knockout

This also would allow us to bring in a plate so more teams could be involved in the knockouts and so give the sponsers more coverage.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/oct/01/heineken-cup-launch

another intresting wee read

Brendan wrote:That anti competitive stuff is a load of rubbish. If you ae part of a group eg. accountants you have to follow their rules. Rules include how you can advertise. If the Clubs want to be part of the IRB club they have to abide by the thier rules. It is only unfair (as in LW) if all members do not have to live by those rules.

So the PRL are free to their rights but not if they want to be part of the IRB unbrella. It is like McDonals and other multi nationals. You can set up a Mcdonals if you change your name to Mcdonal but you can't have anything such as logos, brands and symbols etc that imply you are the same.

There have been plenty of succesful legal challenges where the law of the land has come out on top over sport's governing bodies, Bosman and Kolpak elsewhere and Perpignan challenging the validity of Tincu's ERC ban with regards to the TOP14. Essentially (as I understand it) the governing bodies are free to set up their rules, provided that those rules are themselves legal - and if they aren't then they can be challenged. I really don't know whether or not that applies in this case, but I suspect there are a few lawyers willing to get rich trying to find out.

Edit - it would be a bit of a dangerous game for PRL to play though. What happens if further down the line the likes of say Leicster, Quins or Saints were to turnaround and say that on exactly the same grounds it is unfair that they are forced to sell their TV rights through PRL? Especially as PRL are then using 'payment smoothing' to give more of that money to other clubs typically lower down the table not providing players to England (and therefore missing out on EPS payments)... for those clubs it could backfire spectacularly.

This is going to rumble on and on for many years.

I assume they'll need to meet again, even after the next Dublin meeting - Rio perhaps? I hear they do a lovely line in conference rooms in Rio.

Brendan wrote:That anti competitive stuff is a load of rubbish. If you ae part of a group eg. accountants you have to follow their rules. Rules include how you can advertise. If the Clubs want to be part of the IRB club they have to abide by the thier rules. It is only unfair (as in LW) if all members do not have to live by those rules.

So the PRL are free to their rights but not if they want to be part of the IRB unbrella. It is like McDonals and other multi nationals. You can set up a Mcdonals if you change your name to Mcdonal but you can't have anything such as logos, brands and symbols etc that imply you are the same.

You mean like how a championship club that wants to be in the premiership has to abide by their rules? Oh wait, anti-competition laws kicked that to touch.

So still nothing being sorted and no real new information. It'll be interesting to see in the French deadline of Christmas arrives without a deal and what they do then.

HammerofThunor wrote: It'll be interesting to see in the French deadline of Christmas arrives without a deal and what they do then.

Open their presents and have their turkey dinner?

Do they have turkeys for Christmas in France?

We only seem to talk on these sort of threads don't we Fly?

The silver lining here is that Ian Ritchie is becoming directly involved. He is one of the few, if not only, person involved who is not one of the Rugby Olds Boys, or one of the old suits, if you prefer. He is pro sports adminiistrator with a good track record getting things done. So, I feel his direct involvement is a good thing.

I agree with Hersh to a point, that this will rumble along for a while. Can't see this being resolved until the spring at the earliest. There are simply too many evocative issues.

The BT deal, whether it is worth the paper it is written on or whether legal or not, still shows that Rugby may indeed have been undervalued. This is significant. The other apparent big issue about criteria for entering the European Cup, whether complete merit based or as current or whatever, is difficult and emotional. but most of all financial. How to ensure representation for all partner nations while making it merit based. Not easy to satisfy everyone. But, I think this is the merit to having a pro, an outsider, like Ian Ritchie involved.

HammerofThunor wrote:Do they have turkeys for Christmas in France?

We only seem to talk on these sort of threads don't we Fly?

Ha! Ha! I seriously...and I mean seriously...didn't realise it was you, Hammer! Got a bit of a shock actually when you came back. I was only quickly commenting on the comment you made...never really took a look at the name of the guy posting it.

So yeah...............we do happen to collide a lot on this issue. But rest assured...I'm keeping to my word. I was tempted to join in the debate yet again (in a serious way rather than in my little asides way!) But I held firm. This topic is off the agenda with me until a decision is made. But good seeing you all the same

I think I'll agree with you two, and not comment on it more untill a solution is reached, we've said all there is to say so far, and its the same old same old over and over again.

I do like the informed posters views but, there aare so many WUMS or ill formed opinions sprouted as fact that it takes it away.

If you find any intresting arcicles regarding this, from informed sources, please post links here

HERSH wrote:This is going to rumble on and on for many years.

Well, it can't really can it, the current agreements end next year. So a solution what ever it may be needs to be found ASAP.

Question to you guys, as someone said on top, the growth would be monetary.

Do you all not think that the more games you play the less value per match you are actually creating?

In other words most unions and I include SANZAR in this as well are all trying for the maximum number of games thinking that would generate more money.

I am of the opinion if you reduce the number of games (which all unions can do with) the quality of the teams that compete will actually improve and because the spectators arent reaching their "saturation" with too much rugby will enjoy rugby more?

I literally look at the number of games available to me on a weekend and there are so many that eventually by Sunday I put on the TV to watch a premiership game, but I am saturated and lose interest.

I seriously beleive quality over quantity will be beneficial for so many reasons, financial and otherwise.

+1 Biltong..................

can't comment on why though.

HammerofThunor wrote:Do they have turkeys for Christmas in France?

We only seem to talk on these sort of threads don't we Fly?

yes we do and we stuff them real hard!


ok I believe this was not a very relevant comment

apologies to all the turkeys!

Seems to me that the person to listen to here is Ian Ritchie. "I think it's not going to be resolved in one meeting", in combination with the ERC statement and the fact that (unlike last time) there doesn't appear to have been any grumbling about what wasn't said, suggests to me that progress was made.

I would expect it to play out like any negotiation where parties have differing views and really care about the outcome. Both sides will take it to the apparent deadline and probably beyond and will push their positions to the brink. Peace is unlikely to suddenly break out at any point.

But ultimately it is in no-one's interests to be left without a pan-European competition, and I suspect that the PRL deal will turn out to be a big bargaining chip. Whatever noises various parties make about legality, if PRL are right and the amounts on the table are that much bigger than the current deal that everyone takes home a bigger absolute amount, it is going to be very hard for the Celtic nations to resist as long as the English clubs don't cave in. Even a Rabo/Pro 14 competition would be unlikely to be able to replace the current revenues, let alone match an improved deal.

Biltong wrote:Question to you guys, as someone said on top, the growth would be monetary.

Do you all not think that the more games you play the less value per match you are actually creating?

In other words most unions and I include SANZAR in this as well are all trying for the maximum number of games thinking that would generate more money.

I am of the opinion if you reduce the number of games (which all unions can do with) the quality of the teams that compete will actually improve and because the spectators arent reaching their "saturation" with too much rugby will enjoy rugby more?

I literally look at the number of games available to me on a weekend and there are so many that eventually by Sunday I put on the TV to watch a premiership game, but I am saturated and lose interest.

I seriously beleive quality over quantity will be beneficial for so many reasons, financial and otherwise.

I reached that saturation point with cricket just after the one day world cup in India. There'd been non-stop England/international cricket pretty much every week for months and by about half way through the cup i just thought 'i'm bored with cricket', switched off and haven't watched a game since. I think i may get drawn back soon but i just can't be a@sed at the moment. I hope that day never comes with Rugby though!

Effervescing Elephant wrote:

I reached that saturation point with cricket just after the one day world cup in India. There'd been non-stop England/international cricket pretty much every week for months and by about half way through the cup i just thought 'i'm bored with cricket', switched off and haven't watched a game since. I think i may get drawn back soon but i just can't be a@sed at the moment. I hope that day never comes with Rugby though!

Very good post. It can get just...grindingly repetitive (the debates) that you can certainly feel like jumping off the rugby ship for a while.

Pity it had to be a bloody effervesing Elephant that typed the best point of the thread so far though. Humanity is obviously damned.

Actually the French don't have Turkeys - the French for Turkey (as in the bird) is Dinde which translates as "of India" so they have Indians not Turkeys - not sure what they say at closing time when they go for "an Indian" though

easy we go for a turkish

Right - so the French eat Indians at Christmas? Well somethings never change. They just never want to play ball like the rest of us and just eat what the majority do.

Biltong, I think with International rugby if the stadiums are still selling out, then they will look to increase them.

Club rugby is different, as we're still growing average attendances, its a bit of a difficult one.

With the monetary growth, it should benifit all, however if as the Clubs want that the English and French share increases, and the other clubs get a smaller share with a higher value. Then that is a bad thing, ok the smaller clubs may recieve more money, but the gap between rich and poor will increase year on year, making it harder to hold onto thier star players, when the big clubs start circleing.

People hate it but a comparsion to football is handy. It already is furthur down the road of professionalism, an dof generating max revenue and promotion.

In Germany they have set restrictions that clubs are allowed to only spend a % of there income, to keep them viable and prevent the boom and bust of other clubs, Tv and sponsorship rights and deals are done on a league basis and shared between all the clubs, dependent on finishing position. In return you have a league that is competative from top to bottom, with the gap between the big clubs and smaller ones, not being to great so as its a walkover for the bigger clubs.

In Spain the model is more like what the PLC are gearing toward, there are no restrictions finically placed on the clubs, clubs do boom and bust, the TV rights are sold by the individuel club, so th elikes of Barca and Real, get small fortunes, whereas a bottom of the table club, has only 2 home games (against Real and Barca) that they can sell for any real value, the rest of the games arn't worth that much, as such the Spanish League has become very uncompetative, with Real and Barca rarely suffering an upset, last season they finished 30 points above 3rd place, in comparision in the Bundesliga the biggest gap between 2 positions was 9 points.

Personally I hope the ERC are strong enough to make sure that the H-cup is run more in the Bundesliga model than the la Liga model

The whole impasse is just another step towards an European Super League. The ESL could initially comprise five English teams, five French teams and five from the PRO12. Bottom three get relegated (irrespective of country), and are replaced by the top team from each of the T14, AP and P12.

Thats what the TV companies want - more high quality games that appeal to wide audiences. It's also what the top clubs want - more money, higher competition and more pulling power.

The thing with more games is they might not get more per game but they would get more. And in most instances the costs aren't massive. Lets be honest what real fans wouldn't go to one more game a season and then the season one more again.

On the TV rights if clubs could sell their own rights the big 4 in england would have done in already in soccer.

Brendan wrote:The thing with more games is they might not get more per game but they would get more. And in most instances the costs aren't massive. Lets be honest what real fans wouldn't go to one more game a season and then the season one more again.

On the TV rights if clubs could sell their own rights the big 4 in england would have done in already in soccer.

Think you mean that the big four football teams would have sold thier own rights if they could, currently they are held in check as the Premier League is operated as a corporation and is owned by the 20 member clubs. is operated as a corporation and is owned by the 20 member clubs. If the top 4 wanted to sell their rights on their own they would not be allowed to by the 16 remaining clubs, its sold as a package and shared as payments and prize money. In Spain the other clubs didn't hold Barca and Real in check same happened in Italy.

There is still argument in Englad with Liverpool recently wanting to keep the money for its games shown in Asia, instead of having to add this to the central pot, they weren't happy that teams like Southampton got a share of that revenue, when none of thier games were shown. Guess the top teams in Italy and Spain threaten either we sell TV rights on our own or we leave te Leave and form a new League with the G-14 (now European Club Association (ECA)). You can see the similarities with that and where Rugby is now.

Kingshu I did meant the football clubs.

The ERC is owned by the 6 unions and as such like you said own the rights.

The PRL can say they own the rights to the ERc just like the EPL does not own the rights exclusivly to the Champions League.

I just want to see this done and it run by the ERC as a constant competion and not up for review every so many years. Everyone would be happy with the HC as it is if it wasn't constantly up for review.

Everytime there is a review there are things that everyone would like to see change.

Brendan wrote:I just want to see this done and it run by the ERC as a constant competion and not up for review every so many years. Everyone would be happy with the HC as it is if it wasn't constantly up for review.

Everytime there is a review there are things that everyone would like to see change.

Those statements are contradictory. If everyone were happy with the ERC, they wouldn't be going to such extremes to change it. I (and I suspect many English and French supporters and administrators) am deeply suspicious of the competence, transparency and integrity of the ERC and would prefer to see it replaced by a more professional and balanced body.

Professional rugby is a very young sport and is still evolving quite rapidly. The format of the HEC - for instance - wasn't drawn up with the Magners/Rabo multi-national league format in mind. Which has led to the situation where the two largest participating countries feel that the remaining league has disproportionate access to the tournament while contributing quite a bit less financially.

Kingshu wrote:Biltong, I think with International rugby if the stadiums are still selling out, then they will look to increase them.

Club rugby is different, as we're still growing average attendances, its a bit of a difficult one.

Kinshu, it would be a good thing if there are more tests, that is where the real money is. Unions will be able to fund theirstructures professional or amateur easier with revenue from test match rugby then club competitions.

What professional structure? Increasing the international game more will make the domestic structure even more pointless. There are more than enough international games. The only change I would consider would be a European competition during the Lions.

The French don't want more European games...therefore it won't happen. By growth they mean new countries don't they?

From what I have read the French be happy if the date of the final was moved it seems the English are the ones pushing for a more fairer qualification system.

Which I agree it should be.

the english are looking for a LESS fair qualification system with them to have 6 guaranteed places but the iris, Welsh, Scots and Italians would have no guaranteed places. Infact the Italians would be to all intents and purposes excluded

Why would sale be more worthy of a place than Edinburgh or Treviso?

TJ wrote:the english are looking for a LESS fair qualification system with them to have 6 guaranteed places but the iris, Welsh, Scots and Italians would have no guaranteed places. Infact the Italians would be to all intents and purposes excluded

Why would sale be more worthy of a place than Edinburgh or Treviso?

Even on their current form, Sale would be worthy opponents for the Scottish or Italian teams and the weaker Irish or Welsh ones. They have actually played far better than their dire results suggest but lacked concentration and killer instinct.

But that's beside the point. How is it fair that 10 teams (3 Irish, 3 Welsh, 2 Scots and 2 Italian) are effectively guaranteed a place in the next year's most lucrative tournament before a ball has been kicked in anger in the current season, when teams in the other two leagues will almost certainly still be scrapping for qualification with the last kick of the regular season? If that's not a tilted playing field, I would be interested to know what is.

The issue is one of leagues vs nationality. Everyone wants the ERC tournaments to have a broad mix of nationalities represented. But the Rabo has inherited places from its predecessor leagues that effectively mean there is no qualification. I think it's pretty clear that the English and French would be very happy with a qualification system that gave guaranteed places for each country - as long as there was still competition for the remaining ones.

To put it another way, fairness needs to be in place at multiple levels. I don't think you could credibly argue that it's unfair that each league should have the same number of places - say 6 each plus 1 for the HEC winner and 1 for the Amlin winner. How the Rabo teams then allocate those 6 places - and how fair that is - is up to them. A guaranteed place for each nation plus the two best performing teams not otherwise qualified would seem pretty fair to me.

Question to you guys, as someone said on top, the growth would be monetary

Growth in terms of third tier and a stronger second tier? That's what the Anglo French alliance want (as well as the monetary changes). Bringing in more nations and making a more competitive second tier would be positive growth for European rugby.

bedfordwelsh wrote:From what I have read the French be happy if the date of the final was moved it seems the English are the ones pushing for a more fairer qualification system.

Which I agree it should be.

Out of curiosity where have you read this? I've seen it written in places but nothing with actual quotes.

poorfour - the point being that the English and French have six guaranteed places - the English proposals would mean the irish, the welsh, scots and Italians have none. that not fair. Just because the aviva premiership is a badly designed competition does not mean that they have to disadvantage others to make up for tehir disdvatages. the aviva coulds do away with relegation, the ey could reduce the size of their league. they could copy the rabo set up.

But no - not satisfies with having far more guarenteed plces they want even more - and to disadvantage all the other countries.

it stinks to high heaven and the only result will be England being thrown out or capitulating.

Why should the English take take take and the others give give give?

If a smaller HC is needed then let the English clubs reduce the numbers of teams they enter. If English teams find qualification too hard then let them rearrange thier league .

the Scottish set up and the rabo as a whole wsas set up to integrate witht eh HC. So the Englasih clubs want to disadvantage the teams that paly in a league with a sensible set up

TJ, just a small challenge to your assumptions; the HC was originally a club competition and when the R12 unions consolidated into fewer elite franchises the HC actually needed the teams to make a viable commercial competition, which would only come from France & England. The RFU looked at putting forward just four teams but the clubs owned the player contracts. Your question why Fra/Eng should get 6 sides is disingenuous because of the above.

I think it is a fair challenge to say why should the R12 be made to change but the changes in the last decade have already come from Celtic/Magners/R12 and the other two leagues have had to accept it for the sake of the euro competition. Trouble is they no longer need the euro money unlike the R12 sides but do want to realise the commercial opportunity.

The alternative is to remove all pretence that the HC is a CLUB competition and replace with international trials type sides like the S15. I wonder what BT or Sky would pay for that?

recwatcher. - sorry n one of that will wash.

We have a perfectly good euro cup competition. A small group of english club owners want to change it to bais it in their favour. they are demanding that they give up nothing - infact receive more money while the other countries have to give up a lot. do yo wish to see the end of professional rugby in Scotland and Italy? cos that is where the English proposals will take us.
the question I pose is - why if the English clubs want a smaller competition is it the countries with the least representation who will miss out?

If the English clubs had amalgamated then they might be able to do a bit better. personally I would have prefered it as a club comp - I saw some of the scots teams play in the original HC - the one with no English teams at all in it.

Biltong wrote:Question to you guys, as someone said on top, the growth would be monetary.

Do you all not think that the more games you play the less value per match you are actually creating?

In other words most unions and I include SANZAR in this as well are all trying for the maximum number of games thinking that would generate more money.

I am of the opinion if you reduce the number of games (which all unions can do with) the quality of the teams that compete will actually improve and because the spectators arent reaching their "saturation" with too much rugby will enjoy rugby more?

I literally look at the number of games available to me on a weekend and there are so many that eventually by Sunday I put on the TV to watch a premiership game, but I am saturated and lose interest.

I seriously beleive quality over quantity will be beneficial for so many reasons, financial and otherwise.

Biltong - the premise of the re-structuring being requested - largely by the French - is to have the comp moved, and with the PRL, have the number of games at Heineken level stay the same or reduce. The intent by Premier Rugby is that more money is paid for the same amount of games - certainly in the case of the Premiership. Although until the split of the €152m is known, it's difficult to tell how much the value of the Premiership rights has increased by, as well as the money for European games.

bedfordwelsh wrote:From what I have read the French be happy if the date of the final was moved it seems the English are the ones pushing for a more fairer qualification system.

Which I agree it should be.

That's not what I've seen reported or quoted at all, the French have been talking about changing the qualification system since they raised all the other issues, you just don't get as many quotes from them in the British Isles' press because the English speaking journalists don't go interviewing for them in France (particularly if the interviewee doesn't speak English) or bother translating most of the French statements to find them. Here are a couple of the more easily found English quotes from French sources on the matter of qualification:

Jean-Marc Lhermet, AS Clermont general manager has said, "Is it really appropriate always to have two Italians clubs in the group stage? Is it normal that some teams automatically qualify while others have to fight for their place? I am not sure"

Patrick Wolff, vice-president of the Ligue Nationale de Rugby has said in listing what they were putting forward to the ERC, "We also believe it would be interesting - even for the Celts - if the RaboDirect teams have to qualify like the English and French clubs do."

Poorfour wrote:

How is it fair that 10 teams (3 Irish, 3 Welsh, 2 Scots and 2 Italian) are effectively guaranteed a place in the next year's most lucrative tournament before a ball has been kicked in anger in the current season, when teams in the other two leagues will almost certainly still be scrapping for qualification with the last kick of the regular season? If that's not a tilted playing field, I would be interested to know what is.

Well the first response is a question. Who decided in the Premiership to have the 6 guaranteed English teams qualify by placings in the league? It got changed to top 5, with one place going to the winner of the AW Cup - a decision entirely for the RFU and PRL to make which would entitle - in theory - the 12th placed team in the AP to qualify. The French made the Top 14 playoffs into the top 6 clubs in the regular season; they also decided that whoever gets these playoff places, also gets Euro qualification. The French clubs fight for playoff places - that's their primary aim.
I think you'll also find that over the last 10-12 years, quite often the English teams in the H Cup have not been the top 6. In one season, Harlequins, qualified as winners of the Challenge Cup, but finished 11th in the league. Other teams qualified finishing 8th or 9th I think.

The issue is one of leagues vs nationality. Everyone wants the ERC tournaments to have a broad mix of nationalities represented. But the Rabo has inherited places from its predecessor leagues that effectively mean there is no qualification. I think it's pretty clear that the English and French would be very happy with a qualification system that gave guaranteed places for each country - as long as there was still competition for the remaining ones.

What do you mean that the Rabo has inherited places from its predecessor leagues? No it hasn't - you're mixing things up. It's the number of places per country that was decided first e.g England 6, Ireland 3, etc. Then the method of how those teams are picked was decided. AP and T14 decided as above, although initially only four teams each from England and France participated. The Celtic unions decided on how teams ranked in the Celtic league - Ireland - top 3 out of 4, Scotland 2 out of 3 at the time, Wales had four or five clubs initially before moving to best 3 out of 4 regions. This founding principle of agreeing number of places per union (not per league) has existed since day one. The union then decides how its allocation of teams can be selected.

To put it another way, fairness needs to be in place at multiple levels. I don't think you could credibly argue that it's unfair that each league should have the same number of places - say 6 each plus 1 for the HEC winner and 1 for the Amlin winner. How the Rabo teams then allocate those 6 places - and how fair that is - is up to them. A guaranteed place for each nation plus the two best performing teams not otherwise qualified would seem pretty fair to me.

Well you could credibly argue that it's unfair that each league should have the same number of teams/places. What have leagues got to do with determining the number of places? Nothing - they don't determine number of places across any league at the moment. Leagues have only been used as a method of selecting the teams for the country's allocation of guaranteed team places and in one instance, a cup competition - as long as it's won by an English team from the AP.

In my view, getting agreement has to start with the principle of deciding on the number of guaranteed team places that each country should have. It would appear that the IRFU particularly are open to these guaranteed allocations being changed - probably at the expense of Scotland and Italy losing one place each initially. The question then is, should Ireland and Wales lose one guaranteed team place each? It's likely they will have to. The Celtic and Italian unions could also argue that England and France should lose one guaranteed place each too. That would be 16 guaranteed places across the 6 unions. If you include the previous season winners of both cups, then that leaves 2 places to be decided across three leagues.

Once the number of teams per union is decided, that then leaves how the guaranteed team places (16) will be allocated. Highest ranked in respective leagues could be the simplest solution for all six unions. Or the AP might just use its 4 playoff teams plus the winner of the AW Cup.

For the remaining two spots up for grabs - perhaps playoff matches between highest ranked teams that are not selected already? 2 from Top 14, 1 each from AP12 and Pro 12. Draw teams, play one match on neutral ground, and the winner gets a spot.

That makes a kot of sense Pothale.

The problem remains that Scotland (and Italy) cannot afford to lose places in the Heino from the perspective of their national teams - we have few enough players competing at the highest club level as it is, to effectively halve that will in the long-term ensure that Scotland never compete for the 6Ns again - we simply won't have enough players that are playing at the right standard