Jeremy Anderson wrote:For a more level playing field how about putting a cap on the salaries of the match day squad. Although this would allow certain clubs to still have bigger squads to cover injury as least the two playing squads would be constrained equally.
Whilst I agree with your sentiments and wholeheartedly agree that a European competition with teams from competing countries having unequal salary caps (if any caps at all) does not go towards a level playing field.
I think this is a differnt topic to that being talked about here.
I'm not usually in favour of the guys with the biggest wallet dictating terms but neither am I entirely comfortable being held hostage by a league that contributes little by way of commercial interest yet hauls in a huge chunk of the financial rewards from a competition effectively paid for by English and French television subscribers. Rather than argue with increasingly belligerent opponents the RFU and FFR should simply offer Celtic Rugby Limited 6 spots in the new competition and if they refuse we could fill the vacancies in about 20 minutes with selected clubs from around Europe.
The clearest definition of why the English clubs are frustrated became clear to me in 20 days of May 2009.
On the 3rd May we played Cardiff in the HC SF (the one where we won by the penalty kicks!), Leinster had played the previous days beating Munster. The HC Final was in Edinburgh, 20 days later on 23rd May.
During the two intervening weekends before the HC final, we played two full-intensity games - a Premiership SF against Bath and a Premiership final against Irish - fielding a full strength team and losing some key players along the way eg Flood.
Leinster played two Rabo matches, beating Scarlets and losing to Dragons away fielding a largely 2nd string squad the week before the final. As a result, they slipped from second to third in the league finishing behing Munster and Edinburgh. But clearly, that was far from their priority. Against Scarlets, they even gave debuts to two players who hadn't featured all season!
Clearly they went into that final considerably fresher than our guys, we lost key players and the ones we had were playing their fourth consecutive full-intensity game in as many weeks. And we lost by 3 points? Would it have been different if Leinster had played two full-intensity matches in the 20 days between the SF and final? Perhaps they too may have lost key players?
When people refer to a level playing field, it is not about money, it is about a league where every game matters and a league where that is simply not the case. Leinster lost the game against the Dragons by fielding a fully second team, it cost them second place in their league. If that had been us, we would have fielded a full squad to ensure a home play-off spot.
The introduction of top six qualifier for the rabo pro 12 would make sense as teams like treviso who are getting better and better with each year would fight tooth and nail to try and qualify putting pressure on teams like munster and lenster to field good quality sides as to make sure they get in the top six every year. teams like cardiff and edinburgh have had good seasons in the HC but also have disastrous seasons in the league simular to london irish and saracens a few years back but never got the chance to play in the HC again the next year. then with all elements being equal and maybe all the french teams taking it serious this could and should be best league in the world
bluntiger wrote:The clearest definition of why the English clubs are frustrated became clear to me in 20 days of May 2009.
On the 3rd May we played Cardiff in the HC SF (the one where we won by the penalty kicks!), Leinster had played the previous days beating Munster. The HC Final was in Edinburgh, 20 days later on 23rd May.
During the two intervening weekends before the HC final, we played two full-intensity games - a Premiership SF against Bath and a Premiership final against Irish - fielding a full strength team and losing some key players along the way eg Flood.
Leinster played two Rabo matches, beating Scarlets and losing to Dragons away fielding a largely 2nd string squad the week before the final. As a result, they slipped from second to third in the league finishing behing Munster and Edinburgh. But clearly, that was far from their priority. Against Scarlets, they even gave debuts to two players who hadn't featured all season!
Clearly they went into that final considerably fresher than our guys, we lost key players and the ones we had were playing their fourth consecutive full-intensity game in as many weeks. And we lost by 3 points? Would it have been different if Leinster had played two full-intensity matches in the 20 days between the SF and final? Perhaps they too may have lost key players?
When people refer to a level playing field, it is not about money, it is about a league where every game matters and a league where that is simply not the case. Leinster lost the game against the Dragons by fielding a fully second team, it cost them second place in their league. If that had been us, we would have fielded a full squad to ensure a home play-off spot.
The Rabo/Celtic league did not have a top 4 play-off back then (2009) a bit of a mute point there.
the HC does need to be overhauled, but not by force. i hope you all enjoy an Anglo-French cup, hope you enjoy playing the same teams over and over again, and when the French keep on winning said cup... what then ?
they have bigger squads and no real salary cap, what then for the English....?
... and possible end to the Six Nations as well !!!
surely playing the same teams will be more of an issue for the celtic league teams? who else would they play in a post-HC competition but each other - the same 11 opponents in cup & league competitions.
the exception might be the welsh, via the lv cup which offers english opposition. so as an english club fan, i would have the domestic league, the anglo-welsh cup and a 26 team cross channel cup.
the reason the matter is being forced is that the anglo-french are exercising their option to give notice, as is their perogative, because when they tried to raise the matter the celtic clubs refused to discuss it, as was their perogative.
if you are happy and you know it, you are unusual.
As a member of the most consistent club in England which is the country which invented the game and which has more players than any other I am very fed up with the game being controlled by a non-representative chummy cartel of committees and sponsors based in Dublin.
Its location is of no relevance if it were to be transparent and fairly administered but the IRB and ERC have demonstrated anything but.
boon wrote:surely playing the same teams will be more of an issue for the celtic league teams? who else would they play in a post-HC competition but each other - the same 11 opponents in cup & league competitions.
the exception might be the welsh, via the lv cup which offers english opposition. so as an english club fan, i would have the domestic league, the anglo-welsh cup and a 26 team cross channel cup.
the reason the matter is being forced is that the anglo-french are exercising their option to give notice, as is their perogative, because when they tried to raise the matter the celtic clubs refused to discuss it, as was their perogative.
and if London Welsh had not won their appeal.... you would have the same 11 in the AP.
turning up to the table and demanding "six from each league + the cup winners or else" i find it sad.
i'm all for change in Europe maybe,
a European league/s and Cup
a European salary cap (enforced)
ozwaldcopperpot wrote:i get your point... but 4 nations play in the Rabo. it's a European Cup, hence each country plays in it.
would the Bristol's of this world have anymore of a chance than an Italian against the French ?
The European Cup is a two tier competition in which the Rabo wish to only participate in the top tier. Along with the top (and only the top) teams from France and England.
The Anglo/French tournament envisaged to replace the European Cup will also be a two tier competition. Bristol (for example) would likely be in the second tier whereas Toulouse (for example) would the top tier.
ozwaldcopperpot wrote:i get your point... but 4 nations play in the Rabo. it's a European Cup, hence each country plays in it.
would the Bristol's of this world have anymore of a chance than an Italian against the French ?
The Anglo/French tournament envisaged to replace the European Cup will also be a two tier competition. Bristol (for example) would likely be in the second tier whereas Toulouse (for example) would the top tier.
let' face it, each league has the same contenders year after year, (with the odd exception) at the business end.
the same goes for Europe, the rest are also ran's.
the Bristols of this world may cause an upset here and there in "the new Europe" but i doubt they could scale the heights...
would they be any better than the Dragons ? there always in the Amlin
bluntiger wrote:The clearest definition of why the English clubs are frustrated became clear to me in 20 days of May 2009.
During the two intervening weekends before the HC final, we played two full-intensity games - a Premiership SF against Bath and a Premiership final against Irish - fielding a full strength team and losing some key players along the way eg Flood.
we lost key players and the ones we had were playing their fourth consecutive full-intensity game in as many weeks. And we lost by 3 points? Would it have been different if Leinster had played two full-intensity matches in the 20 days between the SF and final? Perhaps they too may have lost key players?
And what would have happened if Tigers had been able to rest for two weeks ? They had already finished the league programme, but were faced with two additional matches to become champions....
Why does this inequality mean that the Celts/Italians change - how about the Prem changing their schedules to suit english clubs in Europe rather than making the clubs play extra matches in playoffs & at Twickenham ?
a bit of a mute point there.
