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

[valley commando]

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 - - -



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

Of course those regions don't exist, neither did the Welsh regions exist before they existed, that's the whole point. Regions are obviously based on amalgamating clubs in those areas. Have you a better way to formulate 4 regions in France or are you just against the idea as it means your club would only be a part of a region at top leval.

 

[tsof]

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.

How would the franchise financially benefit the English and French clubs? Surely the Aviva and Top14 becoming the second tier in standard would have an adverse affect in attendances and wider interest?! How would you go about compensating Bath for example for the losses of the likes of Burgess, Ford, Watson etc for part of the season - if not all of it?!

No Sky at home, so apologies if I'm missing a very basic point here.

 

[valley commando]

How would the franchise financially benefit the English and French clubs? Surely the Aviva and Top14 becoming the second tier in standard would have an adverse affect in attendances and wider interest?! How would you go about compensating Bath for example for the losses of the likes of Burgess, Ford, Watson etc for part of the season - if not all of it?!

No Sky at home, so apologies if I'm missing a very basic point here.

Bath would be part of the West Country to include Bristol, Gloucester, Exeter and Worcester, each club would get regional games on a rotational basis, which would sell out, the clubs would continue in a premiership guise without there regional players whose wage would be paid by the regional franchise, if they weren't needed by the region for either lack of form or coming back from injury then the club would have the player back free, ie each region would have a squad of 30 players who would be contracted for a season.

 

[Stumpy]

Bath would be part of the West Country to include Bristol, Gloucester, Exeter and Worcester, each club would get regional games on a rotational basis, which would sell out,

Just like the welsh regions always sell out their games?

 

[valley commando]

Just like the welsh regions always sell out their games?

In most Welsh club supporters views they aren't regions as such they still certainly in respect of the Blues and the Scarlets hold to much of a Cardiff and Llanelli identity to gain new support, but in a European super league with an East and West Wales region, they would bring back the disenfranchised fans of all clubs not fairly represented at the top level currently and to be fair the league the regions play in now doesn't encourage support among the vast majority of Welsh club fans.

 

[Stumpy]

In most Welsh club supporters views they aren't regions as such they still certainly in respect of the Blues and the Scarlets hold to much of a Cardiff and Llanelli identity to gain new support, but in a European super league with an East and West Wales region, they would bring back the disenfranchised fans of all clubs not fairly represented at the top level currently and to be fair the league the regions play in now doesn't encourage support among the vast majority of Welsh club fans.

Don't you think this would also happen in England with fans becoming disinterested as they feel that there clubs aren't fairly represented?

 

[barthelemy]

Nope has pro 12 made a difference to those countries involved prospects at the RWC? I don't think the inclusion of French and English teams will make a jot of difference and franchising rarely works. Champions cup is good enough.

Let's looks at it this way Wales were severely beaten up and had to play 4 hard games. England's management was terrible. France the same. Ireland are the real questions marks but it's mainly down to letting the game get away from too quickly and they are a better team than that

I think you are wrong about Wales and Ireland, they have defo improved these last 6-7 years, they became RWC contenders and regular winners of the 6th nations. I defo think that this is due to their structural changes and a Franchise/Province system that is working well with the national federation.

The issue is that it would be impossible to integrate some English and French clubs in a super rugby european like competition, there is too much clubs in the 2 countries that would refuse this system.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

This is a good plan that would enable to keep most of the french and english clubs onboard.

 

[valley commando]

Don't you think this would also happen in England with fans becoming disinterested as they feel that there clubs aren't fairly represented?

The point is they would be fairly represented by having a completely new identity as a region, not like (Cardiff) Blues or (Llanelli)Scarlets, you would upset fans if the perception was that which is in Wales the Scarlets play all games in Llanelli, an West Wales side would alternate between Neath, Swansea, llanelli, Carmarthen etc. The East between Bridgend, cardiff, Newport, Pontypridd etc.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

How would the franchise financially benefit the English and French clubs? Surely the Aviva and Top14 becoming the second tier in standard would have an adverse affect in attendances and wider interest?! How would you go about compensating Bath for example for the losses of the likes of Burgess, Ford, Watson etc for part of the season - if not all of it?!

No Sky at home, so apologies if I'm missing a very basic point here.

I propose a different formula whereby there's no amalgamation of teams (Bath remain as a stand alone unit in a new top tier) but a joining of leagues as seen on a previous post of mine earlier in the thread. It's a 40 team league where the Pro 12, Top 14 and Premiership come together under the one umbrella organization. The existing clubs become stand alone franchises in the new Euroleague. No clubs from the current top tier leagues are excluded and a couple of new franchises are created.

It means fewer games, more full strength teams and an opportunity to expand into new countries throughout Europe and North America through the creation of new teams or existing teams moving eg if Connacht aren't making money, the IRFU could potentially sell the franchise to a new location like Spain, Germany, Romania, Switzerland or Georgia or start taking games to Boston and grow a market there.

There is a solution to the mess European rugby is in if all stakeholders work together. Everyone needs to think about the bigger picture - clubs/Unions aren't competiting with each other rather rugby as a whole is competing with other forms of entertainment in getting people to part with their money. Clubs and Unions need to work together as equal partners in growing the sport. A Euroleague can do this and make everyone a whole lot of money.

 

[barthelemy]

Snoopy president of the European Rugby Union !

 

[FrenchFan]

Of course those regions don't exist, neither did the Welsh regions exist before they existed, that's the whole point. Regions are obviously based on amalgamating clubs in those areas. Have you a better way to formulate 4 regions in France or are you just against the idea as it means your club would only be a part of a region at top leval.

Regions in this country are a non-starter. There is no room for them. Nobody wants them. We have to be realistic and come up with a solution that fits our rugby culture. I'm all for a European Super League that involves our top clubs.

 

[William18]

The problem with a Super Rugby system is that you would have to significantly reduce the amount of imports. If you reduce your talent down to 5 teams then that is only fine if every team has an English first-five. If 2 have a foreign first-five then you only have 3 first five's to pick from. It makes it hard for young players to get a go. Super Rugby works in New Zealand because mediocre Super Rugby players like Tyler Bleyendaal leave. Bleyendaal could probably start at first-five for the Crusaders next season but he isn't a long term option. If he stayed in New Zealand rugby he would just be taking up a sport which should go to a young, up and coming player. Losing those sorts of average players who will never be All Blacks can be a good thing, provided the competition isn't reduced to just All Blacks and young guys. Also, we have hardly any players from other countries who want to come and play in New Zealand because the money is less. Therefore we always have 5 first-fives we can pick from.

There are also benefits to how things are in England. Did anyone watch our domestic rugby final? Two old rivals, Auckland and Canterbury went head to head. The two greatest provinces in New Zealand rugby history. We got a crowd of probably less than 10,000. If you go to a franchise system do not expect fans to still turn up to Harlequins or whatever. I can't see how your clubs will survive. We do not have clubs at all in New Zealand rugby; we have provinces and that is the only reason they survive. The whole point of the Auckland province is that it is a representative team of the best players in the Auckland region just as the All Blacks are best players throughout the whole country. Therefore he point of the provinces is to promote rugby in the local area and not to turn a profit.

I think Super Rugby does give us a big leg up but there is a lot more to it than that. As it is i don't think the NH teams have actually been very bad at this World Cup. Wales and England were in a tough pool; Ireland had a lot of injuries. The end of year tour in 2014 went really well for you guys. I have never been convinced that a one off tournament every four years is the best indication of the strength of rugby in a country. We could play the World Cup again and England could have won the thing.

 

[Peat]

I think Super Rugby does give us a big leg up but there is a lot more to it than that. As it is i don't think the NH teams have actually been very bad at this World Cup. Wales and England were in a tough pool; Ireland had a lot of injuries. The end of year tour in 2014 went really well for you guys. I have never been convinced that a one off tournament every four years is the best indication of the strength of rugby in a country. We could play the World Cup again and England could have won the thing.

You are right here (apart from the last sentence...) but this should not be considered a reaction to the World Cup alone. This should be considered a reaction to the SH domination of the sport in terms of international success since, well, longer than I can remember. Either the NH ups its game somehow or this state of affairs continues ad infinitum.

 

[William18]

I think the current English team is leaps and bounds better than the 2007 team which almost won the competition.

 

[j'nuh]

I'm gonna do a u-turn on this issue. I'm still not sure if it would be great for the development of English players, but if it means we can kick out the rich self-obsessed arseholes ruining club rugby, then I'm all for it.

 

[barthelemy]

The problem with a Super Rugby system is that you would have to significantly reduce the amount of imports. If you reduce your talent down to 5 teams then that is only fine if every team has an English first-five. If 2 have a foreign first-five then you only have 3 first five's to pick from. It makes it hard for young players to get a go. Super Rugby works in New Zealand because mediocre Super Rugby players like Tyler Bleyendaal leave. Bleyendaal could probably start at first-five for the Crusaders next season but he isn't a long term option. If he stayed in New Zealand rugby he would just be taking up a sport which should go to a young, up and coming player. Losing those sorts of average players who will never be All Blacks can be a good thing, provided the competition isn't reduced to just All Blacks and young guys. Also, we have hardly any players from other countries who want to come and play in New Zealand because the money is less. Therefore we always have 5 first-fives we can pick from.

There are also benefits to how things are in England. Did anyone watch our domestic rugby final? Two old rivals, Auckland and Canterbury went head to head. The two greatest provinces in New Zealand rugby history. We got a crowd of probably less than 10,000. If you go to a franchise system do not expect fans to still turn up to Harlequins or whatever. I can't see how your clubs will survive. We do not have clubs at all in New Zealand rugby; we have provinces and that is the only reason they survive. The whole point of the Auckland province is that it is a representative team of the best players in the Auckland region just as the All Blacks are best players throughout the whole country. Therefore he point of the provinces is to promote rugby in the local area and not to turn a profit.

I think Super Rugby does give us a big leg up but there is a lot more to it than that. As it is i don't think the NH teams have actually been very bad at this World Cup. Wales and England were in a tough pool; Ireland had a lot of injuries. The end of year tour in 2014 went really well for you guys. I have never been convinced that a one off tournament every four years is the best indication of the strength of rugby in a country. We could play the World Cup again and England could have won the thing.

We can't turn our rugby clubs and organization in franchise systems (in England and France at least), it is not possible, as simple as that.

The idea here would be to develop more a super rugby style tournament over Europe instead of having domestic championships, but keeping the domestic teams/club as they are.

The big issue I see is that clubs will need incentive to change from their championship competitions to a European super rugby tournament. Increase the focus on national teams or decrease the number of matches through the season are not really argument for them as it will mean less matches and less advertisement revenues (for example). Money is the main incentive here for French clubs (and certainly English clubs) and if this new competition is not able to provide as much as the current top14, they won't care about it. The French national team is the least of the issues and interests for French Top14 clubs.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The idea here would be to develop more a super rugby style tournament over Europe instead of having domestic championships, but keeping the domestic teams/club as they are.

It wouldn't be a SR style tournament then.

 

[barthelemy]

It wouldn't be a SR style tournament then.

No, not entirely, not on the franchise perspective. Still we could copy the tournament style itself, not having anymore proper championship with home and away matches with each team playing the championship. This is the point.

So for example, French clubs would play a Super Rugby tournament style with the Irish provinces and Italian provinces (group of 20) and English clubs would do the same with Wales and Scottish provinces (group of 20), then there would be some play-offs with the best teams of the 2 groups.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The point of SR, and the main differential between it and Europe, is that it's a more elite tier of rugby than club rugby possibly can be.

Unless there is a condensation of talent from club level, any Euro "Super League" isn't going to be a SR equivalent.

 

[barthelemy]

The point of SR, and the main differential between it and Europe, is that it's a more elite tier of rugby than club rugby possibly can be.

Unless there is a condensation of talent from club level, any Euro "Super League" isn't going to be a SR equivalent.

In theory, there is nothing to stop Clubs to become this condensation of talent that Franchises are to Super Rugby (by definition a club should also be a concentration of talent associated to a region or a city). This is structural organization more than Clubs or Franchise thing.


The SR competition format would help to reduce the number of matches and maybe have more teams visible on the European scene to create more revenues for everybody. Looks to me that the smaller number of matches is related to elitism hence why I think this is an important first step.

Then we will need slowly to re-organize our domestics sub levels and championships in order to feed this super euro League and our national teams as well.

Or we create Franchises in France without the clubs having a say and let them continue their championship, will be difficult in my perspective as France is a club country. Could work if you fund these franchises with a huge amount for them to attract the best players.