Leinster eye up South African heavyweights after victory over Zebre

One is talking 'matter of factly' in a constructive argument based way, the other is talking from the perspective of someone who believes they might be in the same situation again and need to focus on the controllables.

The thing with Foster is, unluck Rassie in this game, he still doesn't seem to realise the ref is someone you can exert control of or manipulate. Barnes is a shocker for that (not that most of the effective/decisive decisions were made by him).

However, I have a problem with rewarding the 6 Nations winner because of the URC. It works perfectly fine for England and France, but how would it be fair for an extra South African club to be there because Ireland won the 6 nations?

Then I guess you can say that the extra club should come from the country who won the 6 nations but then it's unfair for the South African teams. Plus, if we imagine Scotland won the 6 Nations and both Glasgow & Edinburgh finished in the top 4 of URC, what do we do with extra spot?

But again, you may have already thought of that, and I need to do some comments digging 😉

It is clear that the problems in both Australia and Wales are structural and go way beyond who is the Head Coach and his place of birth.

What ever imminent decision is made in Wales about the Head Coach, Gatland has still got enough credit in the bank to be seen as an adopted Welshman.

And a far as leaving the team in a better place than he found it. .....Eddie set the bar so low that Joe cannot fail and whatever happens with the Lions Tour any sane Wallabies fan can see that he is taking the team forward.

He started well on the back of John Connollys nauseatingly boring coaching but it was downhill soon after. Deans came close to destroying Australian rugby. Kiwis wanted him to keep coaching the Wallabies forever and were outraged at his sacking. Just absurd.

And the reason say another URC (for example) member would get the spot over the other team that won the Challenge Cup, would be because they were arguable better if they finished higher in the League. It won't diminish desire to win the Challenge Cup, because that team may still be competing for that seed, and if theyre automatic qual anyway, it still might make them treat it more seriously (major problem with the comp/concept atm as teams use it as a trial match for the squad, especially if they think theyre going to qualify normally that year).

what does base mean in this context? how would it be quantified?

A theoretical evaluation of the leagues. By all sorts of means, performance, representation, financials etc. All to be discussed and decide of course (my numbers could turn out completely wrong), so enjoying your critique of such ideas.

If England is able to have 10 elite sides, why should only a small fraction of them be permitted to perform at the top level?

This is what I'm saying, "if". I'm saying "if", but you're saying "this", as in English team are doing well so that's how things should remain. That's not going to happen. I'm promoting the idea of a scheme that never needs to be changed again. Yours will promote outcry as soon as England (or any other participant) fluctates. Were as it's hard to argue about a the basis of an equal share. Think of european rugby as it's own ecosphere, and that were trying to promote parity amongst it. That is the big picture angle you don't want to seem to see.

This is highlighted by this question;

"What happened last year is irrelevant, any model or distribution needs to be taken with the future in mind"

So which is it? Should teams get rewardd based on how they have performed or not? And should the English be rewarded for their performances last year, which outpassed those of the URC and Top 14 clubs.

We are talking about the forming of a future system that is better for European rugby. This new system should not be based on the assumption of last years results/performances continuing. You've talked about footballs 5 year system, I was think of something less flexible (I'm assuming every single spot is rewarded by uefa's model) but with a bigger perspective than just "5 years of results" basically.

i) on merit, a team that makes the champions cup semi final has done at least as much as a team that finishes 6th or 7th in their league;

Perfectly reasonable view/opinion.

teams will prioritise their domestic competition over the champions cup are actually more likely to qualify than teams who prioritise the cup.

First of all, I'll say that this was my determination reviewing results, and specifically, that English side seemed to take them more seriously.

I'm specifically promoting my idea because I think it will do exactly what you want, increase european rugyb's importance. I won't say I've done anything compressive to ensure that, but as yet I've not seen any criticism or found any negatives myself.

Currently, if your side is good, good enough to win the Challenge Cup, to me that means you're on the up. If you are on the up, then you are inside that Champions Cup qualification range in your league, and therefor you are disincentivized to win it. IE; the Sharks might have won last year only because another team knew they were assured automatic qualification anyway, so did as you suggest by resting players against them (or any of the other opponents they faced along the way).

The Sharks situation, and that of the Crusaders in Super Rugby more so, are one of the few reasons I like your model more. It's perhaps more/only pertinent to SR case as it's a much shorter league, but injury can ruin any chance your team might have of reaching any sort of Finals etc, and perhaps everyone coming together again by the end of the season, if you're still in the knockout hunt, might be the sole way you can prove you're good enough to compete at the top level.