London Welsh - Ground Decision by RFU

First topic message reminder :

I thought a decision reagrding LW's ground criteria was to be made by the RFU today. Has anyone heard anything? I can't find anything on the Web.

Jeezy Chreezie, how many grounds have LW got lined up?

I know a lot of clubs second or third teams are often called the Nomads or the Gypsies, but this is ridiculous.

The more I hear from this dude, the more uneasy I get.

If we go down, we go down, but I hope it's not because they have a smooth operator as a chairman.

C'mon ye Pirates!

I think having to meet a set of criteria to gain entry into the league is fine, but at least make the teams in that league meet the criteria before you impose it on others.

and although its only the 2nd time its happened, you have gotta laugh that the "relegation card" has been taken away.

so whats the excuse for this seasons HC/Amlin failure lads?

Sounds like (unattributable R5 report) that LW want to take the ugly route and challenge the decision.

Comfort wrote:I think having to meet a set of criteria to gain entry into the league is fine, but at least make the teams in that league meet the criteria before you impose it on others.

and although its only the 2nd time its happened, you have gotta laugh that the "relegation card" has been taken away.

so whats the excuse for this seasons HC/Amlin failure lads?

Having to qualify for the HEC (and that other teams in the cup have to try and qualify for the cup). The relegation bull is banded about by the media because they're a bit simple. The reason relegation is important is so that it given clubs a chance to develop their off and on field game to get in the premiership (i.e. do an Exeter).

so whats the excuse for this seasons HC/Amlin failure lads

The big lads don't have to worry about relegation - but they have to worry about playing teams (like newcastle) who ARE worrying about relegation and are going to throw everything including the kitchen sink at them in their desperate fight to stay up.


So no easy games where they can rest loads of players and trot out a 2nd/3rd XV

TrailApe wrote:

so whats the excuse for this seasons HC/Amlin failure lads

The big lads don't have to worry about relegation - but they have to worry about playing teams (like newcastle) who ARE worrying about relegation and are going to throw everything including the kitchen sink at them in their desperate fight to stay up.


So no easy games where they can rest loads of players and trot out a 2nd/3rd XV

what relegation battle?

Pretty much all the Newcastle and Wasps games at the end of the season. It's no surprise both did better in the lat few games than they did earlier in the season. Same happened with Leeds last year.

"not having primacy of tenure at their chosen ground was one of "various failures"

Surly they can't in force this one, London Irish don't have primacy of ground, Reading wouldn't be allowed in the Premier League if they did.

I don't think any of the following have primacy of ground.

London Irish, London Wasps, Sale Sharks, Saracens

Would this mean that if any of the following got relegated they couldn't be promoted untill then have moved ground???

Kingshu wrote:"not having primacy of tenure at their chosen ground was one of "various failures"

Surly they can't in force this one, London Irish don't have primacy of ground, Reading wouldn't be allowed in the Premier League if they did.

I don't think any of the following have primacy of ground.

London Irish, London Wasps, Sale Sharks, Saracens

Would this mean that if any of the following got relegated they couldn't be promoted untill then have moved ground???

That's correct. If you're in before the rule came in you're OK, but if you go down, you need to be qualified to come back up.

I am working in the UK on a Highly Skilled Migrant Visa. When I applied I met the reuirements (obviously). Later the eligibility was toughened, meaning you needed a masters degree. I was able to renew last time around on a "grandfather" provision - but if I moved home, and tried to return a year or 2 from now I would need to go back and do the final year of my Masters degree (I got offered a job after my 1st year) first.

for wasps or Irish then relagation could be a major set back, as then wouldn't be able to go straight back up (who could find a new home in a summer?) lose lots of players (who know they wouldn't go straight back up) it could be 5 or more years before they could return

it a very harsh rule, think London Irish, London Wasps, Sale Sharks, Saracens, and Ospreys, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Leinster and maybe Connacht all wouldn't be able to go into the top flight.

Primacy of tenure is a joke of an issue. As I have said before, in all the time that we have been at Reading, there has only been one game that I can recall that was affected by it and we played at Twickenham.

The real answer is to do away with promotion and relegation altogether. The RFU and PRL can't go on defending the rules forever and to be honest there's a finite number of clubs that realistically can support themselves in the Premiership either on their own two feet or with a backer.
A ringfenced Jeff with the existing clubs plus a few others - Leeds, Bristol, L Welsh, Cornwall, Bedford plus anyone else who felt that they could sustain it without going bust in six months and shut the door for a period of five or more years - then reconsider.
At the end of five years ask for applications from the Championship clubs - they've had five years to get ready after all - if an applicant club has finished top four in the Championship consitently and has a reasonable ground then they play off with the bottom Jeff club.
The Championship becomes the "peak" of amateur/semi pro rugby and the Jeff the professional game.
Just a thought - are there ground criteria for a National One side if they go into the Championship ?

Primacy of tenure wasnt the only issue raised. It may be a joke but its part of the contract they have with tv companies. The TV companies that would fund any club coming up.

It's an issue that is easy to work around especially with a club like Oxford who would most likely be able to move their own game if necessary as they are never on the TV.

So they shouldve waived the rules despite having enforced them on others and the audit highlighting other issues?

yes that would be fair to everyone and wouldnt have caused newcastle to take legal action

I am not talking about this as an isolated case PSW, the rule is farcical full stop.

There are certain things within the Minimum Standards Criteria which are right to have in place, in particular around health and safety issues at grounds.

There are other things like having a minimum capacity of 10,000 and primacy of tenure which are a complete joke and effectively make the AP a closed shop of 14 teams, two of whom play in the tier below each season.

An interesting quote "London Welsh chairman Bleddyn Phillips, a partner with the law firm Clifford Chance, expressed his dismay at the decision ahead of tonight's game and hinted that the club will, as expected, launch an appeal within the two-week window afforded them.

"I was surprised and disappointed by the decision because as you are aware we have signed, legally-binding agreement with the Kassam Stadium and Oxford to play our games in the Premiership next season should we win on the pitch," said Phillips. "

http://www.espnscrum.com/england/rugby/story/164493.html

If this legal-beagle signed a binding contract with Oxford instead of a binding conditional letter of understanding consequent on winning the p-o final, you have to get suspicious as to what he's up to.

This whole affair is ridiculous. But as a barrister friend of mine pointed out to me on Friday night, the RFU might have picked a fight with the wrong man here. This guy Bleddyn Phillips is global head of O&G at Clifford Chance - generally regarded as one of the world's best litigation law firms. I doubt he'll be short of friends to help out in this regard - though why the hell this needs to go this far is utterly beyond me, the winner of this league should go up - especially now they have a ground

Well, they couldnt have chosen a more worthy opponent to have a legal gunslinging fight with, put it that way Marcus!

Ozzy3213 wrote:
There are other things like having a minimum capacity of 10,000 and primacy of tenure which are a complete joke and effectively make the AP a closed shop of 14 teams, two of whom play in the tier below each season.

Exeter?

Seems that - rather understandably - LW are going to fight tooth and nail for this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18206067

Not sure I really understand the opinions that LW should just let it slide - The whole thing reminds me a lot of the situation surrounding the Florida voting miscount in the 2000 US presidential elections, when the Republicans accused the Democrats of being sore losers for not just accepting the miscounted vote as the correct result. Why on earth should anyone give up on a fight when they know they're in the right?

Marcus, they may be morally in the right, but according to the RFU/PRL rule book (for a copy, check out the link in a recent Brian Moore article in the Torygraph - sorry, can't be arsed to find it) they are not in compliance with the requirements, no matter how ridiculous they are (very!) or how many others don't meet them thru plainly unfair exemptions

Right ASBO, its quite a dangerous road to go down for everyone if we start challenging agreed rules because we dont like them, wheres that going to leave Newcastle? Will Bristol sure claiming the playoffs are an unfair condition? None of the current Premiership clubs had to go through them.
Fair enough challenge the rules for the future and get the RFU to change them, but trying to force it after the fact because your club is the one moving out is selfish and wont help anyone in the long run. If anything this is whole issue is only going to push ring fencing forward.

When it comes down to it we have a small club that hasnt made proper investment for its own viability trying to make a smash and grab raid to take TV money competing in a league thats struggling to stay solvent as it is. They are trying to get there via a backdoor playoff system (which itself has been described as ridiculous, and what has actually stopped a team being promoted this year) and the law courts.
Thats sub-optimal.

If the challenge was that the agreed rules havent been applied correctly then fair enough. If its challenging the existing rules, couldnt they have done this at the start of the season rather than when its going to create an almighty sh1t storm which will negatively affect both themselves and newcastle for next season regardless of which way the decision goes.
All for the right to get relegated next year and try to save face from their own incompetence?

The best case scenario here is that they get hammered tomorrow and then all parties review the rules for future seasons, keeping safeguards in place to avoid short termism at the expense of clubs who make investments in grounds and growing a fan base ahead of their team wages.

The Part i love is he's complaining about the AP being a ring fenced league whilst being a director of Scarlets in the Rabo Direct.

I personaly dont care if London Welsh go up or not but looking at this as an outsider the decision clearly states that the Amlin is not an open league with promotion and relegation but more an exclusive club with to many members and if the extra member fails to win the qualifying contest for entry then the elite panel will purely create a reason to veto anyone else that tries to join as there's already to many members.
As for why would anyone wanting to launch a legal challenge not have done it before the league started? Simple answer........Money. it costs a fortune to do anything in the courts.

Driver - RIP 606 wrote:The Part i love is he's complaining about the AP being a ring fenced league whilst being a director of Scarlets in the Rabo Direct.

What a stupid comment. 2 completely different things. How is the Rabo ring fenced? And don't say there is no promotion or relegation because it is not a club tournament it included all of Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy's regional teams so there is no one to promote or no tier below it to promote from, like the Super 15.

doctornickolas wrote:

Driver - RIP 606 wrote:The Part i love is he's complaining about the AP being a ring fenced league whilst being a director of Scarlets in the Rabo Direct.

What a stupid comment. 2 completely different things. How is the Rabo ring fenced? And don't say there is no promotion or relegation because it is not a club tournament it included all of Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy's regional teams so there is no one to promote or no tier below it to promote from, like the Super 15.

So how does that make it not ring fenced?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

doctornickolas wrote:

Driver - RIP 606 wrote:The Part i love is he's complaining about the AP being a ring fenced league whilst being a director of Scarlets in the Rabo Direct.

What a stupid comment. 2 completely different things. How is the Rabo ring fenced? And don't say there is no promotion or relegation because it is not a club tournament it included all of Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy's regional teams so there is no one to promote or no tier below it to promote from, like the Super 15.

So how does that make it not ring fenced?

Well doesn't ring fenced suggest you are pulling up the drawbridge and stopping others getting in?

If any of the countries involved in the Rabo wanted to add teams then I am sure that would be fine. ie its not ring fenced. There just isn't a ready made tier below it from which to promote anyone because it is not a club tournament. We are not denying anyone entry like in the AP, there just isn't anyone to deny entry to. In the next 5 years I can see Wales, Scotland and Italy maybe wanting to add teams and that will be allowed.

doctornickolas wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

doctornickolas wrote:

Driver - RIP 606 wrote:The Part i love is he's complaining about the AP being a ring fenced league whilst being a director of Scarlets in the Rabo Direct.

What a stupid comment. 2 completely different things. How is the Rabo ring fenced? And don't say there is no promotion or relegation because it is not a club tournament it included all of Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy's regional teams so there is no one to promote or no tier below it to promote from, like the Super 15.

So how does that make it not ring fenced?

Well doesn't ring fenced suggest you are pulling up the drawbridge and stopping others getting in?

If any of the countries involved in the Rabo wanted to add teams then I am sure that would be fine. ie its not ring fenced. There just isn't a ready made tier below it from which to promote anyone because it is not a club tournament. We are not denying anyone entry like in the AP, there just isn't anyone to deny entry to. In the next 5 years I can see Wales, Scotland and Italy maybe wanting to add teams and that will be allowed.

They cant just add clubs willy nilly, and the point is they have to prove a case to the union rather than earn their right through playing....exactly what LW are moaning about. And at least there are set published criteria for admission to the Jeff unlike the Rabo clubs are at least told in advance what they have to do to get there. Its much more open than a system that is Union run franchises, which can only be added to with the assent of the other Unions. No matter how well supported Cardiff becomes they wont get admitted to the Rabbo unless the Blues fold. What about the Valleys team?
It will only be allowed if those clubs/regions/provinces can prove they will be viable and show good value for the WRUs investment in them, clubs wont get added to the Rabo by playing in a fight to the death tournament. Thats much more ring fencing than the current Jeff criteria are.

2ndtimeround wrote:I personaly dont care if London Welsh go up or not but looking at this as an outsider the decision clearly states that the Amlin is not an open league with promotion and relegation but more an exclusive club with to many members and if the extra member fails to win the qualifying contest for entry then the elite panel will purely create a reason to veto anyone else that tries to join as there's already to many members.
As for why would anyone wanting to launch a legal challenge not have done it before the league started? Simple answer........Money. it costs a fortune to do anything in the courts.

Absolutely right - why on earth would anyone launch lengthy expensive legal proceedings that they may not win on the slim possibility that they "might" win the league at the start of the season? LW are in the position NOW, so legal action makes sense NOW.

As for the comments regarding the Pro 12/Premiership - comparing them is just ridiculous, the Pro 12 has always been clear about its lack of relegation/promotion whereas the premiership prides itself on the relegation/promotion element - indeed the attritional nature of the league is basically attributed to this! Not promoting the winner of the league below is like the Pro 12 suddenly deciding to kick out the Dragons or Connacht for finishing below the other Welsh/Irish regions!

doctornickolas wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

doctornickolas wrote:

Driver - RIP 606 wrote:The Part i love is he's complaining about the AP being a ring fenced league whilst being a director of Scarlets in the Rabo Direct.

What a stupid comment. 2 completely different things. How is the Rabo ring fenced? And don't say there is no promotion or relegation because it is not a club tournament it included all of Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy's regional teams so there is no one to promote or no tier below it to promote from, like the Super 15.

So how does that make it not ring fenced?

Well doesn't ring fenced suggest you are pulling up the drawbridge and stopping others getting in?

If any of the countries involved in the Rabo wanted to add teams then I am sure that would be fine. ie its not ring fenced. There just isn't a ready made tier below it from which to promote anyone because it is not a club tournament. We are not denying anyone entry like in the AP, there just isn't anyone to deny entry to. In the next 5 years I can see Wales, Scotland and Italy maybe wanting to add teams and that will be allowed.

]

There is a clear and obvious distinction between open and franchised leagues:

Open leagues (e.g. The Jeff), don't (in fact welcome) promotion to the elite level. But in order to maintain reasonable ground and broadcasting standards
they require certain minimum infrastructure parameters. The PRL/RFU have mucked up by demanding too high initial ground capacities which is why I'd support ring-fencing newly-promoted sides. The fact that after all these years, incumbent Jeff teams can't fulfil their own promotion standards is somewhere between embarrassing and scandalous.

Franchised leagues (e.g. Rabo) is an invitation-only participative construct - carved up in a predetermined and self-preseving manner.

Look- Newcastle were bottom - we deserve to get relegated.

However the rules that LW (or Oxford Welsh) are complaining about have been in place for several years now.

On a superficial inspection they might not seem fair, however there are a few clubs out there running on a knife edge and the last thing the RFU/PRL etc etc want is a club folding and going to the wall because they have put all of their resources into the playing side of things and have not brought the infrastucture up to scratch.

The Jeff is not ringfenced, however there are certain criteria that must be met before you are allowed to enter it. The Pirates knew that at the start of the season they didn't meet these criteria, and stated so. LW didn't meet the criteria at the start of the season, their new venue dosn't meet the criteria and their fall back stadium doesn't meet the criteria.

They can keep on pulling different colour guinea pigs out of their magicians hat until the cows come home, but if the end result requires a rabbit its all a bit pointless.


And for those that are pointing at the existing Jeff sides who don't meet the criteria - how many of you passed your driving test ages ago - and how many of us have would pass the new test if we were asked to take it?

The world is full of rules that don't have to be applied retrospectvly. Although I do agree that certain clubs should pull their finger out.

MarcusHalberstram wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:I personaly dont care if London Welsh go up or not but looking at this as an outsider the decision clearly states that the Amlin is not an open league with promotion and relegation but more an exclusive club with to many members and if the extra member fails to win the qualifying contest for entry then the elite panel will purely create a reason to veto anyone else that tries to join as there's already to many members.
As for why would anyone wanting to launch a legal challenge not have done it before the league started? Simple answer........Money. it costs a fortune to do anything in the courts.

Absolutely right - why on earth would anyone launch lengthy expensive legal proceedings that they may not win on the slim possibility that they "might" win the league at the start of the season? LW are in the position NOW, so legal action makes sense NOW.

As for the comments regarding the Pro 12/Premiership - comparing them is just ridiculous, the Pro 12 has always been clear about its lack of relegation/promotion whereas the premiership prides itself on the relegation/promotion element - indeed the attritional nature of the league is basically attributed to this! Not promoting the winner of the league below is like the Pro 12 suddenly deciding to kick out the Dragons or Connacht for finishing below the other Welsh/Irish regions!

And the Jeff has always had clear eligibility rules on gaining promotion. Theres been no shifting of the goal posts or sudden decision, indeed its only recent changes that have made it at all possible for LW to get in through a play off system at all.
The example you cite would be more like the RFU to suddenly change them at the expense of Newcastle.

Nice to read the complete horse Poopie is still being written regarding this. London Welsh's appeal is based on the fact they believe they meet the criteria NOT that the criteria are unfair. ALL of the championship clubs have indicated eariler in the season that they are considering challenging the minimum criteria as unfair. Two seperate issues. Again London Welsh believe they meet the criteria.

London Welsh's appeal is based on the fact they believe they meet the criteria NOT that the criteria are unfair

But the audit said they did not - and its quite obvious that their alternative venue is NOT within the criteria, so how can they say they think they do?

Have they a different set of criteria to everyone else?

Perhaps they have an arrangement with god to move Brentford closer to Oxford?

HammerofThunor wrote:Nice to read the complete horse Poopie is still being written regarding this. London Welsh's appeal is based on the fact they believe they meet the criteria NOT that the criteria are unfair. ALL of the championship clubs have indicated eariler in the season that they are considering challenging the minimum criteria as unfair. Two seperate issues. Again London Welsh believe they meet the criteria.

Really? Everything Ive read has suggested they didn't meet them. The independent audit suggested that too. The RFU review of the independent audit agreed with it.
I know theyve got some sh1t hot legal bods on this but it sounds like they are going to be using some pretty spurious arguments to show they have met the minimum criteria. If they have met them then its only because the RFUs legal team screwed up when authorising the document, its quite clear they dont meet the intended meaning of the rules.
I was under the impression the challenge was that some of those criteria were unfair as they are not applied to teams already in the Jeff.

Im all for the rules to be reviewed, its just not great to be doing it retrospectively and through legal challenge (if thats whats happening)
if they are genuinely challenging the findings then fair enough of course they have a right to have the rules properly applied, you could just colour me amazed if they have a serious case based on anything other than legal tomfoolery. It does come across though that this is being done out of a mixture of desperation and desire for people to cover their backs and shift blame for coming up short rather than any genuine case that they feel they have been unfairly treated by the application of the rules (the fairness of said rules aside)

http://www.london-welsh.co.uk/rugby_newsroom_article.asp?id=1202

Key quote

The Club firmly believes that it has met the Minimum Standards Criteria (MSC) for promotion to the Aviva Premiership, particularly as regards the issue of Primacy of Tenure and reaffirmed its belief in this respect in a detailed communication to the RFU as recently as Monday 21st May highlighting its case for having satisfied the MSC.

Not saying they have met it but that's what they're saying.

"There is an unofficial, informal meeting today but 'appeal proceedings' cannot begin until we have actually won the Championship so we have to get this evening done and dusted first,"

from http://www.espnscrum.com/england/rugby/story/164828.html

LW are are digging for gold nuggets but only if they pan some gold dust downstream from Oxford in the Thames.

Really he should have staked a legal claim before he went prospecting.

from his wiki page for Chancers, Grabbit and Runn
http://www.cliffordchance.com/about_us/find_people_and_offices/partners/gb/bleddyn_phillips.html

Bleddyn Phillips
Title
Partner
Office
Clifford Chance, London | View map
Practice
Banking & finance
Sector
Oil & gas, Mining & metals, Power & energy networks

Just watching the second leg of the final now and only just clocked Max Lahiff is playing for Welsh. Clearly he's dual registered, but seems a bit off that he's in the starting lineup when he's played 17 of London Irish's 22 premiership games this season and only 2 games for London Welsh prior to the final. Are London Welsh carrying injuries in the front row?

well london welshes appeal will mean zip if the cornish can keep up this play

-10 the deficit for the Pirates to save the RFU's bacon! Or should I say to avoid the payment of loads of lawyers' fees!

the cornish have nothing really to play for- but at the same time this game means so much

Congrats London Welsh - two fine wins and an aggregate victory - let the lawyers loose

They're dancing in the streets of Grabbe, Robb and Steele (Counsellors at Law) tonight!

So the point in question appears to be whether they meet the criteria, not whether the criteria are fair. This is quite a narrow question, and the independant auditors will have to have messed this up badly for LW to win.

well guys waht ever happens in court LW are n ot gonna be in the AP

Some comments re: "primacy of tenure":

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/rugbynation/rugby-news/2012/05/30/london-welsh-set-to-appeal-against-exclusion-after-winning-championship-final-91466-31082054/#sitelife-commentsWidget-bottom