Six Nations statement: Committee, date named for Billy Vunipola hearing

They maxed out the credit cards to keep their golden generation of players at home. It's now destroyed the game at every level in Wales.

Italy's nadir was around ten years ago and even they were better equipped with their regions, U20s and senior squad and management. Wales have further to fall.

He has played 24/11 [club/Tests], 24/5, 23/10 and 28/0 over the past four years.

That's an awful lot of footy.

Now, of course picking a two team league like Scotland is the extreme case of your argument, but I'm happy for you to make it. First, Edinbourgh are a good mid table team, so they are deserving, as my concept would have predicted, of the opportunity to show can step up. Second, you can't be making a serious case that Gloucester are better based on beating them, surely. You need to read Nicks latest article on SA for a current perspective on road teams in the EPCR. Christ, you can even follow Gloucester and look at the team they put out the following week to know that those games are meaningless.

More importantly, third. Glasgow are in a league/pool with Italy, So the next team to be given a spot in my technically imperfect concept would be Benneton. To be fair to my idea that's still in it's infancy, I haven't given any thought to those 'two team' leagues/countries yet, and I'm not about to 😋

They would be arguably worse if they didn't win the Challenge Cup.

Incorrect. You aren't obviously familiar with knockout football Finn, it's a 'one off' game. But in any case, that's not your argument. You're trying to suggest they're not better than the fourth ranked team in the Challenge Cup that hasn't already qualified in their own league, so that could be including quarter finalists. I have already given you an example of a team that is the first to get knocked out by the champions not getting a fair ranking to a team that loses to one of the worst of the semi final teams (for example).

Sharks are better

There is just so much wrong with your view here. First, the team that you are knocking out for this, are the Stormers, who weren't even in the Challenge Cup. They were the 7th ranked team in the Champions Cup. I've also already said there is good precedent to allow someone outside the league table who was heavily impacted early in the season by injury to get through by winning Challenge Cup. You've also lost the argument that Sharks qualify as the third (their two best are in my league qualification system) South African team (because a SAn team won the CC, it just happened to be them) in my system. I'm doubt that's the last of reasons to be found either.

Your system doesn't account for performance or changes in their domestic leagues models, and rely's heavily on an imperfect and less effective 'winner takes all' model.

Giving more incentives to do well in the Challenge Cup will make people take it more seriously. My system does that and yours doesn't.

No your systems doesn't. Not all the time/circumstances. You literally just quoted me describing how they aren't going to care about Challenge Cup if they are already qualifying through league performance. They are also not going to hinder their chance at high seed in the league and knockout matches, for the pointless prestige of the Challenge Cup.

My idea fixes this by the suggesting that say a South African or Irish side would actually still have some desire to win one of their own sides a qualification spot if they win the Challenge Cup though. I'll admit, its not the strongest incentive, but it is better than your nothing. I repeat though, if your not balance entries, or just my assignment, then obviously winning the Challenge Cup should get you through, but your idea of 4th place getting in a 20 team EPCR? Cant you see the difference lol

Not even going to bother finishing that last paragraph. 8 of 10 is not an equal share.