The New European Cup Thread Part 2- Competition Format

[Scrumpy]

First topic message reminder :

I know there is already a thread running but it lacks the details and anyway it has nearly run its course (a bit like the HC!   )

European Rugby Champions Cup
 
The new structure of European rugby is here at last. Here is the breakdown of exactly what is replacing the Heineken Cup.
 
 
The European Rugby Champions Cup
 
Twenty clubs qualifying through the finishing positions in their leagues from the preceding season:
 
Top six from Top 14
Top six from Aviva Premiership
Top seven from PRO 12, with at least one club from each country participating in the league.
 
For the 2014-15 campaign, the 20th place will be taken by the winner of a play-off between the seventh highest finishing club in the Top 14 and in the Premiership. The play-off will be played in May 2014, either as one match (in which case, there will be a draw for home advantage) or as home/away.
 
For subsequent seasons: The seventh highest finishing club from Top 14, the seventh highest finishing club from the Premiership and the eighth and ninth highest finishing clubs from PRO 12 will play-off.
 
From 2015 season, if the previous season's European Rugby Challenge Cup winner has not already qualified through its finishing position in its league, it will participate in the play-off by taking a place given to its league.
 
 
 
European Rugby Challenge Cup
 
It will consist of 20 clubs comprising 18 clubs from Top 14, Premiership Rugby and PRO 12. The other two spots will go to two clubs from the qualifying competition organised with FIRA-AER (Fédération Internationale de Rugby Amateur - Association Européenne de Rugby).
 
 
The format of both competitions
 
The competitions will take place over nine weekends. The Pool phase will be through five Pools of four teams which will play each other home and away. The five Pool winners and the 3 best runners-up will qualify for the quarter-finals. The last eight will be played at the home venues of the four best Pool winners.
 
The Pool phase will be played in three blocks of two weekends and will be completed by the end of January. The final will take place latest the first weekend of May.
 
 
The governing body
 
The competition will be run by a board of directors and an executive committee in charge of commercial matters all under the auspices of European Professional Club Rugby, the body replacing European Rugby Cup Ltd. The EPCR Board shall have an independent Chairman and will be chaired in Switzerland.
 
There will be an equal distribution of funds with the nine constituent parties agreeing to the above format. They are: Federation Francaise de Rugby (FFR), Federazione Italiana Rugby (FIR), Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU), Ligue Nationale De Rugby (LNR), Premiership Rugby Ltd (PRL), Regional Rugby Wales Ltd (RRW), Rugby Football Union
 
 
 
IRB chairman Bernard Lapasset added: "European rugby fans and the top players can now look forward to a strong accord and competition structure that promotes and celebrates the best of the European game."
 
Can't wait, but I hope they get a sponsor as the names are too similar imo. 

[Scrumpy]

Just seems silly to start another one fella!

[Notch]

I'll merge the two threads   

[Scrumpy]

cracking

[Portnoy's Complaint]

The simplest way would be not to have seeding just use league places an allocate pool places accordingly.

So in Year 1 it might be AP-T14-P12 order meaning:
Pool 1     Pool 2     Pool 3    Pool 4    Pool 5
AP 1.      T14 1.     P12 1.    AP 2.    T14 2
P12 2.     AP 3.      T14  3.   P12 3.   AP.  4
T14 4.     P12 4.    AP.  5.    T14 5.   P12  5
AP  6.      T14. 6.   P12 6.    P12 7.   Play off

In Year 2 P12-AP-T14. In year 3 T14-P12-AP

This makes league places worth fighting for even once qualification is assured.

That looks simple!

Too simple.
The main problem being that there would be the likelihood of having pools consisting of duplicates or triplicates from individual nations.

There would have to be a mechanism by which these are avoided.

Also it represents only league performance with no reference to EC achievement.
That's why I always preferred the adoption of a version of the Euro Table spread over the preceding season and extracting the qualified sides from the end of season rankings - and then applying a mechanism to minimise intra-national pools.

http://www.eurorugby.com/index.php

[Exiledinborders]

The simplest way would be not to have seeding just use league places an allocate pool places accordingly.

So in Year 1 it might be AP-T14-P12 order meaning:
Pool 1     Pool 2     Pool 3    Pool 4    Pool 5
AP 1.      T14 1.     P12 1.    AP 2.    T14 2
P12 2.     AP 3.      T14  3.   P12 3.   AP.  4
T14 4.     P12 4.    AP.  5.    T14 5.   P12  5
AP  6.      T14. 6.   P12 6.    P12 7.   Play off

In Year 2 P12-AP-T14. In year 3 T14-P12-AP

This makes league places worth fighting for even once qualification is assured.

That looks simple!

Too simple.
The main problem being that there would be the likelihood of having pools consisting of duplicates or triplicates from individual nations.

There would have to be a mechanism by which these are avoided.

Also it represents only league performance with no reference to EC achievement.
That's why I always preferred the adoption of a version of the Euro Table spread over the preceding season and extracting the qualified sides from the end of season rankings - and then applying a mechanism to minimise intra-national pools.

http://www.eurorugby.com/index.php

Three teams from a country is impossible in this system. Two teams from one league is inevitable in each group of four. In the case of French and English they will obviously be from same nation. There is no way of avoiding this. However they will be from opposite ends of the qualifying e.g. AP top qualifier and AP bottom qualifier will be in same pool in year 1. In the case of the Rabo teams it is even less likely they will be in same group.

As for rankings I think it has been agreed that league places will be used rather than rankings. Yet another reason why league competition will be enhanced by changes.

[Portnoy's Complaint]

There'd likely be some jockeying to get into pool 5 for instance.

Plus has it been formally agreed how the rankings are to be determined? I've been looking out for it, but I've not researched it.

Chinese whispers being passed off as fact have been re rigeur in these threads over the past 22 months.

[Exiledinborders]

There'd likely be some jockeying to get into pool 5 for instance.

Plus has it been formally agreed how the rankings are to be determined? I've been looking out for it, but I've not researched it.

Chinese whispers being passed off as fact have been re rigeur in these threads over the past 22 months.

This is from the Guardian.

The agreement was finally signed at a meeting of the stakeholders at Heathrow on Thursday, more than two weeks after it was drawn up. The pools for the Champions Cup and the Challenge Cup will be announced in June and the seeding system adopted by ERC, which reflected clubs' records in Europe over four years, will be jettisoned, with groups based on league form. The English, French and Pro 12 champions will be kept apart, and the same will apply to the runners-up and third-placed teams.

[demosthenes]

Ranking by league position sounds reasonable, but would you use the pre or post- playoff positions?

And would you then need to introduce 3rd / 4th position matches?

[LondonTiger]

All talk of potential seeding methods is all fun but rather pointless.

They have stated that the only "seeds" will be the 3 League winners. After that each group will have at least 1 French team and one English team to satisfy sponsors/SKY/BTSport

[Sin é]

IIRC the minimum is €5.1 for IRE/WAL/SCO & €4.7 for Italy, hence Italians unwilling to sign. They thought that that all Unions get the same or Wal/Ire get €5.1 & Sco/Ita get €4.9

I think it was the Scots that the Italians have a problem with as they also have only 2 teams. I don't think they had a problem with Wales & Ireland with their 4 teams getting a bit more.

The Scots are really doing exceptionally well out of this.

Wales & Ireland are getting 1.2m per team.
The Scots are getting 2.55 per team.

I did read somewhere that anything over 20m for the league will go to Wales & Ireland.

[Sin é]

All talk of potential seeding methods is all fun but rather pointless.

They have stated that the only "seeds" will be the 3 League winners. After that each group will have at least 1 French team and one English team to satisfy sponsors/SKY/BTSport

Surely that is to satisfy fans. No one will want to watch Saracens play Leicester 5/6 times a year. I much preferred it when Munster got a non-Pro12 team in the Heineken Cup (and Munster only had to play Edinburgh 4 times last year).

[Notch]

So long as they keep all the Irish sides apart I'm happy enough.

[Sin é]

I blame ERC, they abused their power by not listening or meeting the English and French clubs. Once they did that the HC and Amlin was dead in the water but its all history now, lets look forward to a exciting new fair for all Euro Cup.   

Yea, so abusive that the NewCo is retaining the ERC CEO until next October to set up the new competition, several ERC staff are being offered their old jobs back (but they have to move to Switzerland) and the new 3 man executive have to get the approval of the main board (same 9 directors as ERC).

The only thing that has changed is that the base is moved to Switzerland, a couple of people have to move country if they want to retain their jobs, admin costs are going up by 35% and the onus is on the clubs now to produce the cash.

[TJ]

It sa real mess that gives a huge unfair advantage to the english and the french, It is not meritocratic at all and it will be the ruin of european rugby. Its the beggining of the end.

the Rabo unions conceded far too much and should be castigated for it. At least they managed to retain some semblance of union control.

[Sin é]

This didn't take long!

Clubs demand £14 million World Cup compensation

England's Premiership clubs, emboldened by the "historic" agreement that has given them a central role in running next season's new European competitions, are set for three more battles with rugby's governing bodies.

The clubs are demanding £14 million from the Rugby Football Union as compensation for the disruption caused by next year's World Cup in England and Wales.

And the clubs, having paid tribute to the RFU's chief executive Ian Ritchie for smoothing the new European Professional Club Rugby (EPCR) accord, are set to test the resolve of the world governing body, the International Rugby Board (IRB), with plans to create a World Club Cup in June 2018.

The month-long tournament, which has been discussed with broadcasters Sky in the UK and Supersport in South Africa, would see the eight quarter-finalists from the European Champions Cup meeting eight crack southern-hemisphere teams from what by then will be the Super 16.

A key aspect of the European accord that will see a 20-team Champions Cup replace the Heineken Cup next season is that the national unions have nine seats on the 18-strong EPCR board. It preserves the IRB's treasured Regulation 13 that says unions must sanction cross-border competitions and is a compromise from the clubs' threat at one time to go it alone, but hugely preferable in the clubs' eyes to the union-dominated, Dublin-based European Rugby Cup Ltd (ERC).

But the IRB, whose World Cup for national teams provides the bulk of their operating revenue, may view a World Club Cup dimly as a rival interest.

Unlike many other leading countries, England's players are contracted to the clubs and released for international matches under a Heads of Agreement between the RFU and Premiership Rugby that expires in 2016 and is currently being renegotiated.

With next year's World Cup being played in September and October, the 2015-2016 club season will start two months later than normal in November. The Premiership clubs insist there is no danger of them withholding England players from taking part but the RFU has so far refused to meet the £14m demand, which a club source said is "a figure that's been scientifically worked out" as commensurate with them not playing competitions between May and November.

Another effect of the need to squeeze 33 rounds of the Aviva Premiership and European Champions Cup into a shortened 2015-16 season is a threat to England's tour to Australia in June 2016 – "a massive problem", according to one club source, and an echo of this year's shambles of England facing the world champions New Zealand in Auckland on 7 June without the players from the previous week's Aviva Premiership final.

"We want all outstanding matters including the World Cup compensation and the new Heads of Agreement for post-2016 to be done by the end of this year," said Bruce Craig, the Bath chairman and passionate driving force behind the new Europe.

"We don't want to be going into a World Cup year with any distractions. Ian Ritchie has shown himself to be a businessman and a savvy guy at the head of the RFU who is not embroiled in rugby politics. It has been a pleasure working with him."

It was Craig who came up with the "Champions Cup" title for the slimmed-down 20-team European tournament to replace the Heineken Cup which England's clubs hope will more than double the £10m annual revenue they were being promised by ERC.

Further details can be revealed here. The 2014-15 Champions Cup draw will be seeded purely on finishing positions in this season's leagues, abandoning the previous weighting given to past performance. The three champion clubs of the Premiership, Pro 12 and French Top 14 will be joined from a blind draw by two of the three beaten finalists, as top seed in each of the five pools.

The third remaining beaten finalist will be in a pot of second seeds along with the next best-placed teams from the three leagues, and so on throughout the draw. Teams from the same country will be kept apart although it is inevitable two pools will feature two clubs from one country – either England or France, depending who wins this May's play-off between their seventh-placed clubs.

ERC had promised the 2015 Heineken Cup final to Milan, and Craig said EPCR may stick to that plan, adjusted for a new early-May date that clears the three league finals to be the season's concluding showpieces. "The San Siro Stadium looks a great venue," Craig said. "An 80,000 capacity and I'm sure supporters would love a three or four-day trip to Italy in May. We will take club and regional rugby to a new level, with much greater interest in the clubs, the players and the cities."

Craig conceded the World Club Cup may not take place until 2022, with international teams' June tours having been agreed up to 2019, and British & Irish Lions tours scheduled for 2017 and 2021.

The three-man EPCR commercial executive will include Craig, Rene Fontes from France and Paul McNaughton from Ireland. If the trio are split over a "reserved matter", it will need a 66 per cent vote from the board, which includes four representatives each from the English and French leagues, but just one from the Welsh regions, plus an independent chairman.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/club-rugby/clubs-demand-14-million-world-cup-compensation-9256728.html

[Portnoy's Complaint]

There'd likely be some jockeying to get into pool 5 for instance.

Plus has it been formally agreed how the rankings are to be determined? I've been looking out for it, but I've not researched it.

Chinese whispers being passed off as fact have been re rigeur in these threads over the past 22 months.

This is from the Guardian.

The agreement was finally signed at a meeting of the stakeholders at Heathrow on Thursday, more than two weeks after it was drawn up. The pools for the Champions Cup and the Challenge Cup will be announced in June and the seeding system adopted by ERC, which reflected clubs' records in Europe over four years, will be jettisoned, with groups based on league form. The English, French and Pro 12 champions will be kept apart, and the same will apply to the runners-up and third-placed teams.

Reportedly.
I'm sick of 'reportedly'.

Where are the tablets of stone?
And what's written on them?

And where's the new official website for that matter?

[Notch]

This didn't take long!

Clubs demand £14 million World Cup compensation

England's Premiership clubs, emboldened by the "historic" agreement that has given them a central role in running next season's new European competitions, are set for three more battles with rugby's governing bodies.

The clubs are demanding £14 million from the Rugby Football Union as compensation for the disruption caused by next year's World Cup in England and Wales.

And the clubs, having paid tribute to the RFU's chief executive Ian Ritchie for smoothing the new European Professional Club Rugby (EPCR) accord, are set to test the resolve of the world governing body, the International Rugby Board (IRB), with plans to create a World Club Cup in June 2018.

The month-long tournament, which has been discussed with broadcasters Sky in the UK and Supersport in South Africa, would see the eight quarter-finalists from the European Champions Cup meeting eight crack southern-hemisphere teams from what by then will be the Super 16.

A key aspect of the European accord that will see a 20-team Champions Cup replace the Heineken Cup next season is that the national unions have nine seats on the 18-strong EPCR board. It preserves the IRB's treasured Regulation 13 that says unions must sanction cross-border competitions and is a compromise from the clubs' threat at one time to go it alone, but hugely preferable in the clubs' eyes to the union-dominated, Dublin-based European Rugby Cup Ltd (ERC).

But the IRB, whose World Cup for national teams provides the bulk of their operating revenue, may view a World Club Cup dimly as a rival interest.

FFS. Talk about the tail wagging the dog- a new, massive threat to the game. I don't want this nonsense tournament, we have too many games on the calendar already and I want to see rugby played at the elite level not more club games. The World Cup is of great benefit to the wider rugby world- not just the top 10 nations, but up and coming rugby nations- whereas some world club cup will only really benefit five or six already rich countries.

Men like Bruce Craig really annoy me. I don't see how it can be healthy or sustainable for clubs like Saracens and Bath to be run as huge loss making endeavours and their efforts to cram more and more games into the calendar have worrying implications for player welfare in the long-term.

[Portnoy's Complaint]

It might be more productive if (that million-letter word) posters in general were able to look at the problems and shortcomings within their own system as well as those of others'.

Over the past nearly two years so much bile and misplaced approbation has been hurled and ejaculated (not only on this MB) when the real problem goes so far back as the acceptance of the inevitability of professionalism.

Any route taken from then to the place we are now was more or less inevitable.

[Sin é]

It might be more productive if (that million-letter word) posters in general were able to look at the problems and shortcomings within their own system as well as those of others'.

Over the past nearly two years so much bile and misplaced approbation has been hurled and ejaculated (not only on this MB) when the real problem goes so far back as the acceptance of the inevitability of professionalism.

Any route taken from then to the place we are now was more or less inevitable.

Yep, everyone else is paying for the mistakes of England and France.

The most successful rugby nations are those whose Unions control their clubs. France and England have gone backwards since then.

[Guest]

Yep, money talks, eh, or greed, but not all professionals share the same view, or go about their business in the same way, do they. You don't have to be an amatuer to strongly disagree with some of the AP club owners. In fact, other clubs in the AP do not like how Bath, and Saracens, run their business, running up huge debt, and see it as damaging to club rugby.

[IanBru]

I was initially sad to see the end of the ERC ranking system, because it gave me an annual opportunity to indulge in some MS Excel madness by predicting the various permutations of pools as the final league rankings were established.

All that being said, mere geekery is no reason to continue with a system which was patently unfair.

Consider what would happen if Glasgow won the Pro12 this year, which we all clearly hope will happen (I know this isn't really true, but I flatter myself that you'd all be quietly pleased for us if we did!).

Regardless of being, by definition, the best team in the Pro12, under the old ranking system Glasgow simply could not be seeded any higher than third in any group.

By contrast, under the proposed system it gives genuine incentive and long-term benefit to teams in the final weeks of a season, above and beyond the desire for domestic league silverware.

[Portnoy's Complaint]

And the route that Ireland took is - was - an entirely defensive one.

But they have arrived if not in the same postcode area, but an adjacent one.

You've obviously not been reading my diatribes over the past ten years over the progression of the English game.

Sport is these days a distant recollection in rugby and you'd have to older than I am to recall the days before shamateurism took root. You'd have to be a centenarian at least.

The love of money and all that.

[Notch]

And the route that Ireland took is - was - an entirely defensive one.

Hmm, not sure. Maybe it was but I think the route Ireland took was the only route realistically open to us. It's the only way we could ever have a hope of having control over our own players training and playing schedules or having sides that could even hope of holding their own against the big beasts of French and English club rugby, on and off the field.

It's very far from perfect, don't get me wrong, but compared to other rugby nations of similar size it's been wildly successful and encouraged a growth in interest in the game. I suppose the sad part is that professional rugby has damaged the supporter base of our many traditional, small clubs. But then the popularity of the sport in general has really soared.

[Portnoy's Complaint]

Correct.

Ireland was blessed by its four (five?) ancient Provinces.

The Irish had no choice but to go by that hand hold.

The Welsh were in such disarray in having no players/team of significance so couldn't continue with their league. The Scots took a Celtic lead and abandoned its roots.

One of those is drowning without trace and not even the Italians can provide the driftwood to cling on to.

It was all a matter of a moment in time. It came like a Tsunami even when the warning shocks were present.

Leicester was saved by the happenstance of time whilst Coventry and many others were engulfed.

[Sin é]

Portnoy, Ireland had a vibrant amateur league with some very powerful clubs. Pretty much the Munster pack were all with Shannon (Hayes, Foley, Quinlan, Galwey, Halvey). Ronan O'Gara said recently that he remembers playing Interpros when there would only be about 200 or 300 at the games while clubs like Shannon and Cork Con were getting 5 or 6,000 at their games. Ireland were lucky to have a few men with vision who were prepared to lead (Tom Kiernan & Syd Miller).

Munster in particular had some huge obstacles to overcome being based in two cities with two training centres (100km apart). It was a miracle that they even got the Cork & Limerick players into the one dressing room, let alone play together such would have been the rivarly between the Limerick & Cork clubs.

[quinsforever]

World Clubs Cup sounds like an interesting idea. Calendar is clearly too crowded currently though. I would like to see a simple 2-leg affaire tween the HC winner and S15 winner. Would be great.

There is nothing wrong with new ideas. I know they seem to largely anathema to union fanatics, but the professionalism boat has sailed and it is now, most definitely, all about the money in the pro game

[Exiledinborders]

Correct.

Ireland was blessed by its four (five?) ancient Provinces.

The Irish had no choice but to go by that hand hold.

The Welsh were in such disarray in having no players/team of significance so couldn't continue with their league. The Scots took a Celtic lead and abandoned its roots.

One of those is drowning without trace and not even the Italians can provide the driftwood to cling on to.

It was all a matter of a moment in time. It came like a Tsunami even when the warning shocks were present.

Leicester was saved by the happenstance of time whilst Coventry and many others were engulfed.

The truth is that each country took the most sensible options open to them. The club route for all its faults was probably the only option for England and France. Yes some famous clubs declined but leaving it to competition rather than imposing solutions was probably the best thing.

It is sad that Scotland's traditional club structure based as it was principally in Edinburgh and the Borders could not be sustained and what has replaced it has not really gathered public support. The same is true in Wales but there the national team has had some success. I do wonder how that can be sustained in the long term with regions which struggle. I do not think the French way of having lots of foreigners in their league is good but neither is the Welsh way having many of your players playing abroad. The FFR seem to want to address their issues, if belatedly, via their agreement with the LNR but the WRU do not seem to see the long term danger.

[Notch]

There is nothing wrong with new ideas. I know they seem to largely anathema to union fanatics, but the professionalism boat has sailed and it is now, most definitely, all about the money in the pro game

Yeah, about that... and this doesn't really have anything to do with the concept of a World Club Cup or the current European rugby situation, it's more about the dangers of commercialisation and player movement...

My problem is when commercialism comes ahead of sporting concerns. Commercialism is an engine that can drive sport on to a higher level, but putting the cart before the horse will just end in tears sooner or later. I want to see the highest level sport and the more the balance between club level and test level becomes unbalanced, the more top-level international competition will be undermined.

People don't fear new ideas, they fear a future where many top international players are concentrated in a few wealthy countries hence making them unavailable for international selection or burned out from playing too many games in an overly crowded club calendar. Which will have the effect of weakening test sides in the nations these players are moving from and also limiting opportunities for homegrown players in the countries they are moving to. It will also have the effect of making the competitions in other countries lower in quality and encouraging the player base in countries which haven't reached the level where they can put out professional sides more likely to leave.

I don't make this argument because I love supporting my country more than my province, if anything it's the converse. I make this argument because the test arena is the highest level of the game and I want to how good the elite level can get. If the next Dan Carter or Bryan Habana spends his career playing for easy money in France in a league known for it's turgid rugby instead of pushing towards performing at the very highest level internationally and winning World Cups then I think that that is a loss for the entire rugby world, and a win for the fans of a handful of rich clubs and their egotistical chairmen.

All of this is already happening to a certain extent, and the likes of the FFR are trying to put the genie back into the bottle. It doesn't need to descend to the level of soccer. We can still have a professional sport where sport comes first if the Unions are able to impose much stricter caps on foreign players on their professional club sides and the IRB act to correct the shamefully lax residency qualifications. There is room for clubs to be run like businesses but required to develop most of their players from within.

But ultimately, if its men like Ted Griffiths and Bruce Craig calling the shots, most rugby fans aren't gonna like the direction the game is taken in. The unions may be flawed and conservative but they are certainly the least worst option for anyone who doesn't want to see the sport they love taken away from them.

[broadlandboy]

Notch 2 things IMHO it seems that under EU law restricting player movement is nigh on impossible.
You say you want to see the highest level sport but Internationals are restricted in that you can only pick from one nation for each team. The best 46 players could come from 46 different countries which should give you the highest level sport.

[Sin é]

World Clubs Cup sounds like an interesting idea. Calendar is clearly too crowded currently though. I would like to see a simple 2-leg affaire tween the HC winner and S15 winner. Would be great.

There is nothing wrong with new ideas. I know they seem to largely anathema to union fanatics, but the professionalism boat has sailed and it is now, most definitely, all about the money in the pro game

Ah sure, all they have to do is drop those non-competitive Autumn Internationals and there would be plenty of time for a super club competition.

And then they can forget the World Cup because it will get in the way of the Club's Cup - of course they could drop the 6Ns and have the world cup then  

edit: there is nothing wrong with looking at new ideas, but in this case I think 'history repeats itself' is a better less to look at as I don't think anyone would like Rugby to go down the soccer route.

[Guest]

Notch 2 things IMHO it seems that under EU law restricting player movement is nigh on impossible.
You say you want to see the highest level sport but Internationals are restricted in that you can only pick from one nation for each team. The best 46 players could come from 46 different countries which should give you the highest level sport.

Highest level in that the best players represent their country at the top level. I want my club/province to field as much home grown talent as possible, and I want the best of them to be chosen to play for Ireland. Super teams that simply buy in the best from around the world doesn't float my boat, but I can appreciate that it does appeal to others. It isn't what I believe rugby union is about though.

[Sin é]

Club bosses cry foul on financial fair play
ESPN Staff
April 13, 2014

A war of words has broken out among Premiership club bosses, with some unhappy at rivals "living beyond their means".

Saracens and Bath have reported huge losses for last season, leaving chief executives of profit-making clubs to question the state of financial fair play in the game.

As the Rugby Paper reports, Saracens posted an operating loss of £5.9 million for 2012-13, taking their overall deficit for the last seven completed seasons to a staggering £32.7 million. Bath, meanwhile, lost £3.8 million last season.

Wage bills at both clubs have also reached new heights. Saracens spent £8.1 million on staff last season, up from £7.5 million in 2011-12. Bath spent even more, splashing £8.8 million on wages for 2012-13 - £800,000 more than they did the previous year.

The losses are not just confined to the Premiership's leading clubs. Wasps and Worcester recently posted losses of £3.1 million and £3 million respectively.

None of the clubs has broken any rules and all receive backing from wealthy investors, but now bosses at other Premiership teams have voiced concern that they are being disadvantaged.

Northampton Saints chief executive Allan Robson has seen his club turn a profit for 13 consecutive seasons. He told the Rugby Paper: "Sport is about aspirations and everyone is chasing the golden egg of finals and silverware. But I'm not comfortable to hear of clubs losing £3 million or £6 million because it's not sustainable.

"It's a dangerous situation whereby clubs can live beyond their means for a period where they've got a group of wealthy backers. It's not against the rules and I have no problem with sugar daddies, but does it do clubs any good?

"Long-term I don't think it does because when that particular individual eventually disappears, the club is at the behest of finding someone to take their place. And if there's no one to do that, you're stuffed."

Exeter Chiefs chief executive Tony Rowe said: "We run Sandy Park as a business, which means we run at a profit. If we can't run at a profit then we shouldn't be in business. It does feel a bit unfair that other people can buy players and run sporting businesses as a tax loss. But things come home and bite you on the bum at some stage."

However, Saracens chairman Nigel Wray defended his club. He said: "This is a long game and we are playing it. I have no doubt we will create tremendous value here, both in the financial sense and in doing a lot for our community."

Read more at http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership-2013-14/rugby/story/221695.html#6hsWK6tphVttXtrA.99

[Notch]

Notch 2 things IMHO it seems that under EU law restricting player movement is nigh on impossible.
You say you want to see the highest level sport but Internationals are restricted in that you can only pick from one nation for each team. The best 46 players could come from 46 different countries which should give you the highest level sport.

In theory maybe, but in practice I think not. A great team is built on many more things than simply importing the best players. I think the attitude and motivation of SH players when they come north can vary greatly, there is sometimes a language barrier, there is maybe not the same quality of coaching and then there are a larger number of games of lower intensity. Teams like Racing Metro are realising its not as simple as buying up a large number of talented foreigners and waiting for success to come.

Also, if the 46 best players in the world are spread across 2 or 3 teams then their quality will be surrounded by mediocrity. If a small number of teams dominate then the competition is rather less than compelling. Okay, a team like New Zealand may naturally dominate in terms of talent but at least it's because they have the best coaching, underage structures, player development pathways. Instead of buying up their talent, investing in creating a quality environment and raising coaching standards - perhaps even trying to emulate some of things the nations that are net exporters of talent are doing- will lead to a wider pool of talent more evenly distributed and a better level of competition.

I've heard people say this about EU law before, but it doesn't stop the IRFU, WRU, SRU and FIR having the power of veto over foreign signings and imposing limits on professional sides in these countries. I appreciate someone like Boudjellal is more likely to legally challenge this and I suspect we will indeed see some kind of legal battle between clubs and unions over this in the future.

I think player movement is a good thing in moderation in that like the movement of coaches around the world it allows the movement of new ideas and allows players to learn from each other. But an unregulated market is asking for trouble; some people win win big, but the losers are much more numerous than the winners.

[Sin é]

Row no. 1 has started over retention of Heineken Cup as trophy according to M Goze of LNR. PRL want a new cup, most other don't.

[Notch]

Whats the point in having a new Cup?

[rodders]

It's a new competition, how can the same cup be used?

[justified sinner]

May I refer you to soccer where they still use the old European Cup for their Champions League.

[Notch]

rodders you just put it in a cabinet all year, then give it to the winners at the end of then season. But of course the trophy has 'HEINEKEN CUP' written on it in big letters, which is more of a problem.

[rodders]

That is a problem. Especially with the new regime based in Switzerland. They hate Heineken there.

[LondonTiger]

But of course the trophy has 'HEINEKEN CUP' written on it in big letters, which is more of a problem.

That causes a problem as they are not looking for a Naming Sponsor. I guess just tippexing the name out is a bit cheap.

[Notch]

They already did change the trophy when Heineken came on board as title sponsors. It was just called the 'European Rugby Cup' when Ulster won it in 1999 and it looked like this.



Now it looks like this;

[asoreleftshoulder]

I was initially sad to see the end of the ERC ranking system, because it gave me an annual opportunity to indulge in some MS Excel madness by predicting the various permutations of pools as the final league rankings were established.

All that being said, mere geekery is no reason to continue with a system which was patently unfair.

Consider what would happen if Glasgow won the Pro12 this year, which we all clearly hope will happen (I know this isn't really true, but I flatter myself that you'd all be quietly pleased for us if we did!).

Regardless of being, by definition, the best team in the Pro12, under the old ranking system Glasgow simply could not be seeded any higher than third in any group.

By contrast, under the proposed system it gives genuine incentive and long-term benefit to teams in the final  weeks of a season, above and beyond the desire for domestic league silverware.

I think the proposed new seeding system is pretty poor,it could be worse but it could be a lot better.If you go back through the records you will see that no side since Leicester in the early 2000's has won both the HC and their own league,that means that over the last 10 or so no winner of the HC would be guaranteed to be top seed the next year.

[Notch]

I think it's crazy that if you win the competition you're not automatically the top seed.

[Feckless Rogue]

I good seeding system is not bloody rocket science. Portnoy is always banging on about that website one, which would be fine. Also the international points exchange one could be adopted. The European Champions should be top seeds logically.

I'd say the Franglo's want it league based so no Rabo team will ever "do an Edinburgh". But really that is the only occasion I can think of that it ever happened. A rabo side getting to the semi's would have been in the top 6 of the league every other time.

[Sin é]

As far as I can see, you are better off getting the top seeds in the group stages as you have a home and away which gives you a chance. You also have a better chance of qualifying because the top 2 in each pool makes the QFs.

[Notch]

I'd say the Franglo's want  it league based so no Rabo team will ever "do an Edinburgh". But really that is the only occasion I can think of that it ever happened. A rabo side getting to the semi's would have been in the top 6 of the league every other time.

With the way the Pro12 is going, I think it's going to be the mostly the same sides in the new Cup every year. It seems that there is a breakaway of 5 teams and the gap is only getting wider.

[geoff998rugby]

I good seeding system is not bloody rocket science. Portnoy is always banging on about that website one, which would be fine. Also the international points exchange one could be adopted. The European Champions should be top seeds logically.

I'd say the Franglo's want  it league based so no Rabo team will ever "do an Edinburgh". But really that is the only occasion I can think of that it ever happened. A rabo side getting to the semi's would have been in the top 6 of the league every other time.

The new system will not prevent 'an Edinburgh' because it will not prevent a 'potentially' weak group.

Done a quick rule of thumb based on existing places and got a group of Montpelier, Bath, Glasgow, Treviso which would fit the proposed rules

[Feckless Rogue]

Yeah Montpellier seem to be really good in the top 14 looking at their position, but either they're not up to European level or they just don't try because they don't have the squad. Either way they could be top seeds despite having a pretty poor record in Europe.

Glasgow and Bath have been doing well in their leagues too but have yet to get any big results in Europe.

[HammerofThunor]

I good seeding system is not bloody rocket science. Portnoy is always banging on about that website one, which would be fine. Also the international points exchange one could be adopted. The European Champions should be top seeds logically.

I'd say the Franglo's want  it league based so no Rabo team will ever "do an Edinburgh". But really that is the only occasion I can think of that it ever happened. A rabo side getting to the semi's would have been in the top 6 of the league every other time.

The new system will not prevent 'an Edinburgh' because it will not prevent a 'potentially' weak group.

Done a quick rule of thumb based on existing places and got a group of Montpelier, Bath, Glasgow, Treviso which would fit the proposed rules

Glasgow are top 4 in the Pro12 aren't they? Bath are top 4 for AP. Montpellier are top of the T14. That's a 'weak' pool?

[Guest]

I like the new proposed seeding system as it doesnt reinforce the status quo and if you are good enough,  seedings are irrelevant. There should be some big games in the pools, the whole thing should be a knockout competition and it is only the grasping for additional money by all sides that keeps this five pool nonsense.

Having watched for a while now on recent proceedings it strikes me that for all the supposed indignation I note that everyone is financially no worse off despite the new reallocation to equal funding,  as was stated 18 months ago. If or when there is additional funds it appears that in the R12 the welsh and irish get a greater share on the basis they provide more teams to the competition - I like the irony.

I do share the concern about creating powerful super clubs but for R12 fans to complain when that is exactly what their own Unions have done and barred access to the top tier to only their own chosen few sides in perpetuity, is a little rich.

Ultimately if you make your league the most attractive then fans, sponsors and tv will invest and you have a virtuous circle which the french have achieved, albeit having had the short cut of municipally owned stadia.

I am not a Sarries fan but those that criticise their innovations or like to cast as the pantomine villans in the euro saga should reflect on their being a relatively small club who have had no handouts by council or taxpayer in order to obtain their own ground and have created a ferocious team ethic much like Wasps and Bath did in previous eras.

[Sponsored content]