Here’s a mad idea - what say we settle this Heineken Cup argument on the pitch?
And so after four meetings, not only do the Heineken Cup format talks remain in stalemate, the English clubs (PRL) are throwing more toys out of the pram with talk of an alternative competition.
Has anyone recommended a Preliminary Round as a compromise? It could work something like this…
- The same 24 qualify for the Heineken Cup as they have always done.
- However, the pool stages switch from 24 clubs to 20 as the PRL are suggesting.
- This means we need a preliminary round, to be held in early September, involving the lowest-ranked team from each Pro12 nation (in turn ranked 1-4 based on league finish), plus the two lowest-ranked clubs from England & France (let’s call them Eng-1, Eng-2, Fra-1, Fra-2)
- The matches could line up something like this -
Eng-1 v Pro12-4
Fra-1 v Pro12-3
Pro12-2 v Eng-2
Pro12-1 v Fra-2
Naturally the four winners would slot into Heineken Cup pools while the losers go to the Amlin. If that were done this season, we’d have Exeter v Zebre, Biarritz v Edinburgh, Connacht v Sale, Cardiff Blues v Racing Metro.
- The preliminary round teams’ domestic fixtures that weekend could be put off to later in the season, and the respective leagues could ensure that they were all due to play each other that weekend anyway so no other clubs would be affected.
Since cutting the HCup pools down to 5 deprives the tournament of 12 matches for Heineken to promote their product, this method at least gains four of them back, plus an extra weekend. Can’t see the domestic league sponsors being put out too much by HCup games happening on one of their weekends since it already happens for Test matches anyway.
One possible drawback is that travel companies would have less time to prepare for the pool matches, since destinations in many cases would not be known until September instead of July as it stands now. Though IMO it’s a worthwhile sacrifice, since it’s what they must do for the semifinals anyway, ie prepare themselves for two possible outcomes from the previous round.
Biggest advantage of this system for me is that it settles the current argument on the pitch. The English & French clubs are saying they deserve to be in the competition more than some Pro12 ones, I say prove it.
By the way…if anyone thinks I’m happy to suggest this because it wouldn’t hurt my team Leinster, we’re currently 12 pts behind Ulster and only 2 ahead of Munster on the Pro12 table, so unless an Irish team wins the HCup again, we’d be in danger of taking part in the preliminary round were it brought in for next season.
Ideally, I’d like these discussions to be seen as an opportunity to re-structure the entire world senior rugby calendar, which is still built on the framework of the amateur era and with a bit of tweaking can make a lot more sense (and money). But that is not likely to happen, so maybe something like the above can help stop the impasse?
There could of course be something incredibly wrong with my proposal, it’s really just a means to open a discussion about it, feel free to offer your suggestions. JLP
Your suggestion has a lot of merit. I can't see the English clubs going for it though because it doesn't guarantee them extra money. I don't think that the competition structure is really their issue. Even they would recognise (although not admit) that the idiosyncratic nature of the qualification method from pools although unfair has greatly added to the drama of the competition.
ReplyDeleteIf the Sky TV money excluded the preliminary round, then the 4 direct English qualifiers would be guaranteed more money, a 20th of a share as opposed to a 24th of a share. The preliminary round teams could negotiate their own TV deals for their matches and then playoff for the right to take from the big trough. Plus, five pools of four still has an idiosyncratic nature of qualification, with only the best three runnersup making it into the quarterfinals.
ReplyDeleteMy overall point is that the English clubs can't simply have it their own way. To allow them that now would set a precedent for them to do it again in the future. I thought they were mad to go so public with their proposals, but nevertheless they did, and if they're not prepared to compromise then I say let them manufacture a new competition out of thin air and see how they get on.
I don't think that I disagree with anything that you say although the money thing seems a little convoluted and not nearly as much more as they want. The English clubs are playing bully boy tactics (remarkably like the rugby style in their domestic league actually) which is why no progress has been made. I imagine their hope is to change the ground rules before the real negotiations and they feel that the best place to do that is in the public domain. Their basic thought process will go along the lines of we live in England which has c. 50m people. Ireland has a population of 5m. We should get 10 times as much as them, ditto Scotland, Wales etc.. Now I can explore the flaws in that thinking in a lot of depth and I'm sure that you can too but that's their starting point and their aim is to get everyone else to agree to it. Remember they and the French are the only ones who have clubs calling the shots. Clubs have very different aims to unions. They think short term and small. If they get their way they'll kill the future of the sport but they can't/won't see it. Instead they're responding to the short term pressures of breaking even at the moment. Like the soccer clubs they don't understand that they're causing they're own financial difficulties and that more money means that they'll have the same problems just on a different scale. I really don't know what the solution is or how I would attempt to negotiate if I were the unions. I suppose I'd probably stonewall them until they agreed to plan for the long term future of the sport.
ReplyDelete