A Super Rugby style tournament would significantly improve European nations...

[MunsterMan]

This is an issue I've focused on for quite a while as being for the betterment of European rugby. While I don't think a European Super League limited to perhaps 18 teams is a great idea (too limiting), I do think a pan-European league based on the structure of the NFL could work. It's also quite easy to implement in theory, existing TV and commercial contracts notwithstanding.

1. Split the league into conferences. The British teams go into one conference (20 teams; the existing Pro 12, Premiership sides and two others strategicially placed eg Yorkshire), the French, Irish and Italian teams go into the other €urozone conference (20 teams; the Top 14, and Irish/Italian Pro 12 teams).

2. Split the conferences into mini divisions eg an Irish division, a Welsh division, a greater London division, a West Country division to preserve traditional local rivalries. Play each team in your division twice, home and away.

3. Play seven other teams in your own conference and seven other teams in the opposite conference home or away. That preserves the elements of the existing EPCR and gives a 20 game regular season.

4. Playoffs between the top 6 teams in each conference - a wildcard round, conference semi finals and conference finals. The European final takes place between the top team in each conference.

5. This gives a maximum of 24 games for each team, down from a maximum of 33 for English/Pro 12 sides or a whopping 38 for French teams as is currently the case. Fewer games should lead to less player fatigue, stronger teams week in week out and brings Europe closer to Super Rugby/Rugby Championship in terms of player workload. More rest means more time to work on upskilling. It's a better commercial product without radically altering the current structure. There also exists the opportunity to expand the league into other European and north American markets which the present structure doesn't permit.

I'd actually love to see it happen. Move the 6 nations to after the club season too, like in the SH?

 

[Tony Manx]

This is an issue I've focused on for quite a while as being for the betterment of European rugby. While I don't think a European Super League limited to perhaps 18 teams is a great idea (too limiting), I do think a pan-European league based on the structure of the NFL could work. It's also quite easy to implement in theory, existing TV and commercial contracts notwithstanding.

1. Split the league into conferences. The British teams go into one conference (20 teams; the existing Pro 12, Premiership sides and two others strategicially placed eg Yorkshire), the French, Irish and Italian teams go into the other â'¬urozone conference (20 teams; the Top 14, and Irish/Italian Pro 12 teams).

2. Split the conferences into mini divisions eg an Irish division, a Welsh division, a greater London division, a West Country division to preserve traditional local rivalries. Play each team in your division twice, home and away.

3. Play seven other teams in your own conference and seven other teams in the opposite conference home or away. That preserves the elements of the existing EPCR and gives a 20 game regular season.

4. Playoffs between the top 6 teams in each conference - a wildcard round, conference semi finals and conference finals. The European final takes place between the top team in each conference.

5. This gives a maximum of 24 games for each team, down from a maximum of 33 for English/Pro 12 sides or a whopping 38 for French teams as is currently the case. Fewer games should lead to less player fatigue, stronger teams week in week out and brings Europe closer to Super Rugby/Rugby Championship in terms of player workload. More rest means more time to work on upskilling. It's a better commercial product without radically altering the current structure. There also exists the opportunity to expand the league into other European and north American markets which the present structure doesn't permit.

Well thought out and very rational suggestion.

I would add that the reduction of games from 30/40 (depending on country) to 20 would so benefit the players and assist with fitness and injury recovery.

However, the loss of income from such a substantial cut in games would bankrupt many of the clubs. This maybe a good thing and allow the Unions to step in but, as the proposals would need club approval, it would be turkeys voting for Xmas!

 

[ratsapprentice]

Why would reducing the number of teams be expanding?

Franchises do not replace clubs!

The club system just runs as a level below SR.

 

[j'nuh]

Franchises do not replace clubs!

The club system just runs as a level below SR.

Sorry, I wrote that to be shorthand for "reducing the number of top tier teams", probably should have just wrote it fully out. I recognised the distinction between the new teams (top tier) and the old clubs (lower tier) later in my post.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

However, the loss of income from such a substantial cut in games would bankrupt many of the clubs. This maybe a good thing and allow the Unions to step in but, as the proposals would need club approval, it would be turkeys voting for Xmas!

Without being an expert in these matters, I'm not so sure there would be a substantial loss of revenue. I'd hazard a guess that it'd be more appealing for media companies and commercial sponsors. Squad sizes would also reduce, lowering costs.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Cardiff Blues chairman Peter Thomas discussing his idea for a Euro Super Rugby tournament at this link:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/need-european-super-15-peter-10301901

 

[HowieLO6]

Would a European Super 10/12/14/whatever allow our top players to play fewer games? If so, count me in. My impression is that the likes of Ford, Robshaw et al play more games in the space of a year than their antipode counterparts. Can anyone either support or ridicule me on that front? I can't imagine that being worn down in such a way is particularly conducive to "healthy" rugby.

From an entertainment point of view, I'd dig it. I'm a Bath fan, but I'd at least get behind a London team that brought together the best that the so-called London clubs have to offer.

And as much as freezing myself at the Rec in December appeals, I can see the logic of moving to a summer season.

 

[Stumpy]

Cardiff Blues chairman Peter Thomas discussing his idea for a Euro Super Rugby tournament at this link:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/need-european-super-15-peter-10301901

From the sounds of it this would be like an All Star league, I for one have been against the idea of regional teams in England but the way this is put with the leagues still being played normally I have to say I'm intrigued. I doubt the clubs in France and England would agree to it though unless they had a big pay out or something because this tournament would devalue the Top 14 and Premiership. What would happen to the Euro cup as well? People travel far and wide to watch their clubs play in Europe sampling the traditions and atmospheres of foreign clubs, I travelled for 12 hours in a mini van to watch Sarries play against Clermont in the Semi Final of the Euro Cup and it was the best rugby experience I have ever had with new franchise there would be no traditions etc. the draw for away fans would be less and therefore euro club rugby would lose one of its best features the fans, from what I have seen on tv super rugby seems to be a bit sterile and the atmosphere is lacking. The product will probably be easy to sell to the casual fans but for me that's not what rugby is about when you go to Twikenham or Wembley for rugby there is always the constant noise of people chatting and most of the time it's not about Rugby and then there is the bloody Mexican wave. In summary (I didn't mean to say so much most of it is probably rubbish) I think while it might sound like a good idea in principle you have to think about what you lose by devaluing the club system as it is.

 

[valley commando]

A European Super League would in my opinion be attractive and would potentially improve the NH game, my idea would be -:

2 Welsh sides East Wales and West Wales,
2 Scottish sides Glasgow based and Edinburgh based
4 Existing Irish provinces
4 English regions, London, West Country, Midlands and North
4 French regions, Paris, Central, South west and South East.

16 teams playing home and away no play off just a straight forward 30 game league, with the addition of a cup comp that is straight knockout no group games,

- - - Updated - - -

Fair point....honestly I have no idea where to start short of kicking Scotland and Italy out of the 6 nations to try and breed better competition at international level. But thats massively unfair to both those teams. I'd probably drop the rest weeks from that competition however. We rarely get them in the autumn or whilst on tour and they are non existent at RWC.

I think a more powerful thing which will never happen is to play in the summer try to breed a different attacking and in turn defensive policy.

I agree with dropping the rest weeks, but surely we should be looking at promotion and relegation as well, the 2nd tier comp would have allowed Georgia to get promoted and Scotland relegated last year, both deserved in my opinion.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

A European Super League would in my opinion be attractive and would potentially improve the NH game, my idea would be -:

2 Welsh sides East Wales and West Wales,
2 Scottish sides Glasgow based and Edinburgh based
4 Existing Irish provinces
4 English regions, London, West Country, Midlands and North
4 French regions, Paris, Central, South west and South East.

16 teams playing home and away no play off just a straight forward 30 game league, with the addition of a cup comp that is straight knockout no group games,

I'd drop it to 15 by combining Munster and Connacht, don't think a cup competition would be required either, I think that 30 games should be the absolute maximum amount of club games for a team in a season. I do think switching the season to a summer calendar, keeping the leagues and ECC bt dropping league play offs will be equally beneficial.

Rugby in the NH, much like the South would be split into a continental club season followed by a domestic and international season by playing a B&I cup type competition during the summer internationals, summer 6nations and EOYT's.

The gap is being overstated after the world cup, of all the SH teams the only one that you could say with certainty would win next years 6nations if they replaced Italy or France is New Zealand with Australia probably being favourites at the start of the tournament. I'm also of the view that the differing calendars flatter the SH somewhat, the RWC is a perfect example, these guys have been playing rugby for months with club and country and are at the business end of their season whereas it is the very start of the NH season and we've been thrown into rugby at the highest level and the result has either been the side was undercooked (England and maybe France who knows?) or, due to not being exposed to this kind of intensity for the best part of four months, an injury list thatwould desroy any team's hopes of winning a RWC (Wales and Ireland). Consider how different it would have been had we just finished a 6nations, or some lighter variant (Two groups of three and a final maybe?), three weeks before the cup! The players would be at peak match fitness and raring to go in a world cup.

It's the same with the Summer Tours, and you see it in how weak Argentina whose players had been playing in Europe are at this time, the club season has just ended and the NH sides players are expected to be able to fly across the world having just finished a 36-44 game season, fatigue is guaranteed and why we and Argentina struggle at this time of the year, the SH guys meanwhile are on the back of their club season ready to go and claim their place with the national side. For they EOYT the SH guys have played nowhere near this amount of rugby which is why this is the most competitive International period of the year and why the form NH sides can win all of their games at this time due to home advantage.

The calendar is the biggest weakness in the highest echelons of NH rugby right now and is a **** up that really needs to be changed.

 

[valley commando]

I'd drop it to 15 by combining Munster and Connacht, don't think a cup competition would be required either, I think that 30 games should be the absolute maximum amount of club games for a team in a season. I do think switching the season to a summer calendar, keeping the leagues and ECC bt dropping league play offs will be equally beneficial.

Rugby in the NH, much like the South would be split into a continental club season followed by a domestic and international season by playing a B&I cup type competition during the summer internationals, summer 6nations and EOYT's.

The gap is being overstated after the world cup, of all the SH teams the only one that you could say with certainty would win next years 6nations if they replaced Italy or France is New Zealand with Australia probably being favourites at the start of the tournament. I'm also of the view that the differing calendars flatter the SH somewhat, the RWC is a perfect example, these guys have been playing rugby for months with club and country and are at the business end of their season whereas it is the very start of the NH season and we've been thrown into rugby at the highest level and the result has either been the side was undercooked (England and maybe France who knows?) or, due to not being exposed to this kind of intensity for the best part of four months, an injury list thatwould desroy any team's hopes of winning a RWC (Wales and Ireland). Consider how different it would have been had we just finished a 6nations, or some lighter variant (Two groups of three and a final maybe?), three weeks before the cup! The players would be at peak match fitness and raring to go in a world cup.

It's the same with the Summer Tours, and you see it in how weak Argentina whose players had been playing in Europe are at this time, the club season has just ended and the NH sides players are expected to be able to fly across the world having just finished a 36-44 game season, fatigue is guaranteed and why we and Argentina struggle at this time of the year, the SH guys meanwhile are on the back of their club season ready to go and claim their place with the national side. For they EOYT the SH guys have played nowhere near this amount of rugby which is why this is the most competitive International period of the year and why the form NH sides can win all of their games at this time due to home advantage.

The calendar is the biggest weakness in the highest echelons of NH rugby right now and is a **** up that really needs to be changed.

I agree the calendar has a major bearing on the WC, how do you feel about playing all NH comps in sync with the SH, maybe we'd find skill levels would increase and we would be playing a better brand of rugby. There are those who many would agree with saying the weather is a great leveller, would it not be more sensible to take the weather out of the equation as much as possible, currently the Millennium with the roof on has proved a better spectacle than Murayfield in a gale.

 

[Peat]

Why would reducing the number of teams be expanding?

Expanding in Europe. I was quite clearly talking about expanding Europe. You could add a Romanian franchise to this more or less easy as pie and it would be the single best and easiest step towards bringing them into Tier 1 rugby you could ever conceive - providing such a competition existed. This isn't just all about us.

To address the rest of your points

- Youth production - the clubs still exist, the academies are still there. Euro Super Rugby franchises top up any shortfall coming from diminished funds.

- If depth was an asset worth huge amounts, then we and France would rule the earth. We don't. Time to trade it for something more useful, such as an incredibly high level of competition to reach the top forcing players to work even harder on upskilling themselves.

- Our regions could move home games around to ensure all regional members feel part of the family.

- We can easily work out a behind the doors deal in which we understand there will only be five NEQPs per franchise. No dramas.

- The Champions Cup doesn't provide enough exposure to such a level of competition (not to mention some players won't be involved any given Saturday).


However, this is all wasted breath, as if you haven't noticed the failure of the club system to date, you're not about to change your mind now.

 

[valley commando]

Expanding in Europe. I was quite clearly talking about expanding Europe. You could add a Romanian franchise to this more or less easy as pie and it would be the single best and easiest step towards bringing them into Tier 1 rugby you could ever conceive - providing such a competition existed. This isn't just all about us.

To address the rest of your points

- Youth production - the clubs still exist, the academies are still there. Euro Super Rugby franchises top up any shortfall coming from diminished funds.

- If depth was an asset worth huge amounts, then we and France would rule the earth. We don't. Time to trade it for something more useful, such as an incredibly high level of competition to reach the top forcing players to work even harder on upskilling themselves.

- Our regions could move home games around to ensure all regional members feel part of the family.

- We can easily work out a behind the doors deal in which we understand there will only be five NEQPs per franchise. No dramas.

- The Champions Cup doesn't provide enough exposure to such a level of competition (not to mention some players won't be involved any given Saturday).


However, this is all wasted breath, as if you haven't noticed the failure of the club system to date, you're not about to change your mind now.

Good post.
Having seen how divisive the regions are in Wales because they aren't really regions, is why I suggested in an earlier reply to this topic an East and West Wales side, and in England a London, West Country, Midlands and North of England region, whilst in France regions from, Paris, Central France, the South West and South East, in Scotland 2 sides as is Glasgow and Edinburgh based, with the Irish provinces also remaining giving a 16 team super league with 30 matches per season.
There could even be a 2nd tier comp incorporating teams from the other European Nations, Italy, Romania, Georgia, Germany, Russia Spain etc, with a 2 leg play off between div 1 and 2 each year to determine if there is any promotion or relegation.
I would also like to see a maximum number of imports in match day squads of 6 non qualified for that regions country.
You could also have an under 21 league structure for the regions run on the same basis and to cut travel costs the under 21's play the same day in the same same stadium with an earlier kick off, more entertainment for fans, the under 21's could have 6 over age players in each match day squad.

 

[tsof]

I think it's great in theory, but in reality the French and English clubs are never going to vote for this are they. Particular the French club's who wield all the power that side of the channel. How do they stand to benefit? I don't know enough about the SH season - how has the Super 15 impacted on the ITC Cup attendances?

 

[valley commando]

I think it's great in theory, but in reality the French and English clubs are never going to vote for this are they. Particular the French club's who wield all the power that side of the channel. How do they stand to benefit? I don't know enough about the SH season - how has the Super 15 impacted on the ITC Cup attendances?

You are right, there are to many owners who's self interest comes first and ultimately like Soccer is detrimental to the game as a whole.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I agree the calendar has a major bearing on the WC, how do you feel about playing all NH comps in sync with the SH, maybe we'd find skill levels would increase and we would be playing a better brand of rugby. There are those who many would agree with saying the weather is a great leveller, would it not be more sensible to take the weather out of the equation as much as possible, currently the Millennium with the roof on has proved a better spectacle than Murayfield in a gale.

Agree completely. If we play the same game as them (the game we play in most world cups) and play the same amount of rugby as them it'd only be a matter of time before our good and well prepared teams start to be as good if not better than they are.

 

[FrenchFan]

I'm not sure this is the answer. We have the European cups already.

There's no provincial team or franchises in this country. They tried it during the 80s and 90s and it fizzled out. Nobody wanted them. No interest. You can't get past the club culture.

Let's not overreact to SH dominance. It's not new. Their season and club structure are more suited to test rugby than ours, esp. over here.

We know the 6N doesn't make us competitive versus the SH. We've known that for a long time. It doesn't take anything away from the fun of it.

I would be more in favour of a competition directly involving our clubs v S15 provinces.

- - - Updated - - -

A European Super League would in my opinion be attractive and would potentially improve the NH game, my idea would be -:

4 French regions, Paris, Central, South west and South East.

- - - Updated - - -

Completely bogus. These regions don't exist in rugby terms. Ok with your super league that would involve our top clubs.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

I think it's great in theory, but in reality the French and English clubs are never going to vote for this are they.

Since the game has gone pro, the top tier of French rugby has changed multiple times.

In 1995/96 it was contested by 20 teams split into 2 pools.

In 1998/99 it was expanded to 24 teams across 3 pools contesting the Bouclier.

1999/2000 saw it changed to 24 teams across 2 pools. 2000/01 saw it contested between 21 teams before changing to a complicated formula for 16 teams in 2001/02.

2004/05 was the first time the competition was played on a home and away basis among 16 teams followed by a 4 team playoff.

In 2005/06 it became a 14 team tournament.

The playoffs were expanded to include 6 teams in 2009/10.

This season the final is being played in Barcelona. The Top 14 uses a different bonus point system to most other competitions. There has been some talk about reducing the top tier to 12 teams.

What I'm trying to show is that French aren't against change. If it makes sense financially they'll do it as will the English clubs.

 

[j'nuh]

However, this is all wasted breath, as if you haven't noticed the failure of the club system to date, you're not about to change your mind now.

Just because I don't support franchising, doesn't mean I approve of the current club set-up. As much as our club system has failed us, I just think franchising would simply make things worse. And I think that just because the franchise system works for the South, it doesn't mean it will work in the North, simply because we will be unable to replicate the conditions of the South, and the South does not have some of the limitations that the North has. In particular, we cannot effectively limit the number of overseas players. The Kolpak ruling means that we cannot restrict the number of players from other EU countries, or from any country with an association agreement with the EU (which, as far as I am aware, includes South Africa, Fiji, Tonga and Samoa, but others will join in time). (Which is why the Premiership has a restriction of only two overseas players and yet Gloucester can get away with starting McAllister, Hibbard, Afoa, Kalamafoni, Heinz, Hook and Halaifonua tomorrow.) Also, unlike the SH, our older players have nowhere to go where they would earn more money and leave a spot open to a younger player.

I think that the club system has flaws, but these flaws are incidental rather than inherent and can be fixed without overhauling our system. But I also think that these flaws are not terminal for the international team; we seemed to produce enough decent players for 2002-2003.

Take football as an example. Clearly the club system is more beneficial to the German and Spanish national teams than it is to the English. It proves that there is a right and wrong way to do a club system, not that the club system is inherently bad.

 

[Peat]

Just because I don't support franchising, doesn't mean I approve of the current club set-up.

Indeed... but...

[*]I think you'll need to make a case for why it should happen. I'm not convinced our club set-up is failing us, and I'm not convinced that if it were, it cannot be made better by making improvements to the league as it is.

I am convinced that other nations would copy England and France's format if they could; they simply needed to regionalise in order to centralise resources to stay competitive. But I would go in the opposite direction: we need to expand outside of traditional areas and cover more of the country.

These quotes suggest pretty heavily you do.

p.s. An arrangement limiting the number of non-EQPs for these teams would be easy as pie. It happens already. Already said this.