Losing to Wales describe as "Embarrassment".

First topic message reminder :

For world's second best team Wallabies, they describing potential lost to Wales would be embarrassment according to Australian newspaper (I putting the link beneath).

What do colleague posters think about it? My mind is a bit unfair although Australia #2 87.99 and Wales #5 83.32 so because home games Australia by ranking should win by more than 1 try each game. But also compare both teams make the semi-final RWC so maybe can be a bit more closer even though "Aussies" one the last 4 matchings including important world cup playoff and not lost for five years.

"CONCERNS that the Wallabies may suffer an embarrassment similar to losing to Samoa last season and Scotland in 2009 have convinced Test selectors to force key players to back up three times in one week when the international series starts next month.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/call-of-duty-for-ambushed-wallabies-20120521-1z192.html#ixzz1vflO7DZv
"

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Questioning ABs world dominance is sheer arrogance. How very dare you. Even turns out the Rev. William Webb Ellis was a New Zealander (or at least his grannie was).

Haha, that sums up disneychilly perfectly!

HammerofThunor wrote:Awash with foreigners? Well, we were able to get to the final in 2007 and there are fewer foreigners now than then. And dominated with foreigners? All the clubs average less than 35% foreign players so not sure what you mean. Not too many club v country rows either. The England camp has more access to players than ever before, there are limits to the number of games EPS players can play in a season, and the clubs get a big payout. So all in all things are looking pretty rosey for the international side even though the system isn't set up to prioritise it. Not bad really. And loosening the salary cap for acadmey products will help the clubs retain the talent they've developed which will help them out. Again we've managed a couple of finalists in the last 4 years in a system that isn't set up to prioritise Europe.

Also given one of the requirements for a premiership licence is a system built to develop English players, if London Welsh have indicated they want to develop Welsh players they'll never get promoted and should join the Welsh system. Of course there are only 10 out of 38 players who are Welsh in the London Welsh squad. And 21 out of 38 players are English. Seriously, are you just making this up?

That would be a fair point if the EU courts hadnt decided that to restrict business' like this was illegal. On top of that when LW wanted to affiliate completly with the WRU and become a fifth region with entry into the magners the RFU threatened legal action as LW were in their words an English club. The RFU cant have it both ways. If they are an English club they get promoted if the are not then they are free to leave the RFU nad affiliate fully with the WRU.

and 15 welsh qualified players in the match last night between ythe two sides hammer.

The Pirates have 7 welsh qualified players in their squad so there may well have been close to 15 last night including BOTH Head coaches

How many English qualifed? If you say predominately welsh Qualified that must mean there are more than English qualified. Otherwise it's a pointless point.

The closest I can find on Welsh joining the celtic league is here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/english/6199419.stm

And that's only if the Premiership is ringfenced. You'll have to reference the stuff about the RFU threatening legal action as I can't find it. And also the EU hasn't ruled you can't do that. It's ruled you can't disqualify someone from employment based on place of birth. You can for other criteria (such as English qualification, like the Irish are doing).

Its illegal to discriminate against a business and to restrict its ability to trade based on the nationality of its employees espescially if the employees are EU citizens

Alex Davies (EQ)
Nick Scott (EQ)
James Lewis (WQ)
Hudson Tonga’uiha,
Joe Ajuwa (moved to England at 11, not sure if EQ due to breif Scarlets stint),
Gordon Ross
Robert Lewis (WQ)
Billy Moss (EQ)
Dan George (WQ)
Viliami Ma’asi
James Tideswell (EQ)
Adam Brown (WQ)
Matt Corker (EQ)
Jonathan Mills (WQ)
Mike Denbee (EQ)
Ed Jackson (EQ)

So that's 5 WQ players and 7 EQ players (+Ajuwa who moved to England at 11). If you can provide evidence for another 3 WQ players that would make them predominately WQ (unless of course some of those WQ players are EQ now, from residency if not parents/grand parents)

Eligibility for an international rugby team isn't based on nationality. It's based on the clear IRB regulations. You can be a citizen/national of a country and not be eligible for it. Likewise, you could not be a citizen or national from that country and qualify. They're not the same thing

How about Lee Beach, Michael Powell and Ed Siggery

Saul Nelson, Sonny Parker, Ed Siggery, Alex Davies has dual qualification, tahts four welsh qualified players you havent mentioned or have misrepresented.

plus the two ruby added that I hadnt mentioned

damngoodOvalball wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Questioning ABs world dominance is sheer arrogance. How very dare you. Even turns out the Rev. William Webb Ellis was a New Zealander (or at least his grannie was).

Haha, that sums up disneychilly perfectly!

Sorry champ I missed that boat. Come again?

How are they qualified and where's the reference. I just went off the London Welsh website at where they were born and where they played representative rugby.

I also thought you were talking about the team from last night. Were those guys in it? If you talking generally more than half the team are English qualified so you'd have to find a lot more than 4 (another 15 would do it)

the match last night also had the pirates wq players in it Hammer the 15 players included people like Ceiron Thomas, Gavin Cattle, Darren Daniel. Sorry wasnt trying to cause you brain ache should have explained myself clearer? It was a rough estimate but your right only a third of the players in the English play off match last night were actually welsh.

London Welsh to step up promotion fight
(UKPA) – 7 hours ago
London Welsh are set to step up their fight for Aviva Premiership status after taking charge of the Championship final against Cornish Pirates.

The Exiles' sparkling 37-21 first leg victory in Penzance on Wednesday night has put them within touching distance of silverware. But the far bigger prize of a Premiership place will elude them, subject to any successful appeal or even possible court action.

Rugby Football Union directors have ratified findings of a report carried out by independent auditors that identified various London Welsh failures of Premiership minimum standards criteria.

These included not having primacy of tenure at their nominated Premiership ground - Oxford United's 12,500-capacity Kassam Stadium - where the second leg against Pirates takes place next Wednesday. The Pirates did not choose to have an independent audit of their Mennaye Field ground, so were therefore ineligible for promotion.

Welsh, whose chairman Bleddyn Phillips is a partner with the law firm Clifford Chance, have 14 days in which to lodge an appeal, and that process could soon get under way.

The club's board of directors responded to the RFU announcement by saying they will be "exploring all possible avenues off the pitch to ensure that if successful in winning the Championship, London Welsh will take its rightful place in the top flight of English rugby".

As things stand, though, Premiership bottom club Newcastle will remain among the elite next term with no promotion taking place from the second tier.

The London Welsh statement continued: "The club firmly believes that it has met the minimum standards criteria for promotion to the 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 May 21 highlighting its case for having satisfied the MSC.

"The club has already sought clarification on this point. The detailed reasoning behind why primacy of tenure was not satisfied (among other things) having not yet been given by the RFU.

"The club is especially disappointed in this regard as a firm binding agreement, subject only to promotion to the Premiership, has already been concluded with Kassam Stadium - a ground with facilities the club believes to be at least the equal of many other grounds already hosting Premiership rugby."

Copyright © 2012 The Press Association. All rights reserved.

TycroesOsprey wrote:the match last night also had the pirates wq players in it Hammer the 15 players included people like Ceiron Thomas, Gavin Cattle, Darren Daniel. Sorry wasnt trying to cause you brain ache should have explained myself clearer? It was a rough estimate but your right only a third of the players in the English play off match last night were actually welsh.

So you're point about London Welsh developing WQ players was based on Pirates playing Welsh players? You've changed a bit from LW being mainly WQ.

Look Hammer you can disagree with me but the facts are there, London welsh is a welsh club with a history of players playing for wales and the lions. It has a welsh coach, a welsh board, It has a strong relationship with the WRU and has welsh qualified players. They themselves have said that they are proud to be developing welsh players. Of the EQ's you mentioned a number are dual qualified and LW have a policy of hiring exiles and a charter on their foundation that reflects the clubs desire to produce welsh players and a home for the numerous exiles in London. The desire to move to the magners is indicative of that.

They are a welsh club playing in the English leagues and always has been. It is the stated desire of the board that they remain as such. However mark my words if they are denied promotion and get the pay off the RFU are likely to be liable for there is going to be serious discussion about leaving the RFU again.

I personally having gone to old deer many times over the years like the fact they play in the English leagues and see it as a positive that players identified by the Ospreys as in need of devo are farmed out to welsh for that purpose but I wouldnt mind seeing them in the Rabo as a fifth welsh region if the Northern thing doesnt get off the ground.

Theres an article that gives some of the background, the reason why there are so many EQ players in the side and the RFU's reaction to LW's hopes for deeper links with the WRU. This sorry saga around LW and promotion and whether its an English club or not is a long running thing. Last nights decisoin was just another piece of petty mindedness for the RFU. They have done everything they can to stop LW achieving promotion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/8662547.stm

interesting stuff - i really didnt know about all the issues surronding the london welsh side.

Its obviously a huge mess and i have no idea how it will end. But at the end of the day it needs to define it self one way of the other and play by the leagues rules- surely?

The problem is now for the RFU. If LW win the legal challenge and there is good reason to think they will given the double standards of the RFU over primacy of tenancy and ground qualification then they will have a right to be included in the premiership. However the RFU by announcing that Newcastle will be staying up open themselves to another law suit from Newcastle who are now signing players based upon that premierships status. Either way the RFU by tring to change the qualification rules for one team but not applying them to the rest of the premiership have left themselves open to two legal cases. Since Rotherham got nearly a million ten years ago when the RFU refused them promotion then the liability is giong to run into seven figures. When you consider the timing of the news release to coincide with the promotion final then you arer looking at serious mulaah.

So the RFU have rules on the stadium and london wales cant fullfill that- Why will the RFU be liable if there are rules laid down

Oxford Welsh should be ok though, as they have a better 'ground' for appeal

1. The rules on primacy of tenure are not applied to all clubs in the premiership, Wasps, London Irish, Saracens and Sale do not have primacy of tenure and also share their grounds with football teams, There is no difference between their arrangements and the one LW have with Oxford.

2. The rules on stadium facilities which Kassam stadium made are not applied to all teams, Bath for instance do not make the minimum requirements at the rec ground in any of the criteria areas. So LW at the Kassam would have better facilities than morst of the other premierships sides. Again somthing the RFU does not want to see happn.

3. You cannot enforce the rules for one team which you do not want promoted because of its welsh links whilst not applying the same rules to teams currently in the premiership. Hence liability over their decision yesterday.

4. Releasing the news just before the game is clearly malicious and can be used to ramp up the settlement payment.

5. Newcastle are now hiring players on their assured premiership status so if they are then relegated after LW appeal they can sue the RFU to compensate for money spent planning on being in the premiership based on RFU statements.

So they are going to have to compensate LW for a seriously flawed decision based on vested interests not their own rules.

Then they are going to have to compensate Newcastle for the clusterf__k of a decision.

got ya. what a mess ..

mystiroakey wrote:got ya. what a mess ..

The whole mess that is the RFU has been careering headlong towards this for ages. Breathtaking arrogance and incompetence all wrapped up together. They are actually making the WRU look proffesional and that is a stunning indictment of their performance.

Tycroes id take you more seriously if you hadbnt turned this into and england hates wales conspiracy theory.
The RFU have denied other clubs ( and wouldve denied Pirates) promotion not because they are welsh but because they dont meet the criteria for promotion. The fact that other clubs already up there dont meet those is irrelevant to that.
London welsh and an English RFU club. To claim they have been unfairly targeted is an embarrassment.

You understand that it was independent auditors that decided Welsh diodnt meet the criteria dont you? and that primacy of tenure wasnt the only area they were found to be lacking in with the stadium?

And that the funding for London Welsh would come from the TV contracts that mandate this as a requirement for all promoted clubs?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Tycroes id take you more seriously if you hadbnt turned this into and england hates wales conspiracy theory.
The RFU have denied other clubs ( and wouldve denied Pirates) promotion not because they are welsh but because they dont meet the criteria for promotion. The fact that other clubs already up there dont meet those is irrelevant to that.
London welsh and an English RFU club. To claim they have been unfairly targeted is an embarrassment.

You understand that it was independent auditors that decided Welsh diodnt meet the criteria dont you? and that primacy of tenure wasnt the only area they were found to be lacking in with the stadium?

And that the funding for London Welsh would come from the TV contracts that mandate this as a requirement for all promoted clubs?

Peter for the rules to be valid they have to be applied equally. Rotherham were paid off and Pirates declined to apply. The decision was actually taken by squeaky(hmm who was he director of rugby at again?) based on the report and primacy of tenure is the key reason given by the RFU. The other issue was the secondary ground being 30 miles away from Kassam however since a second ground has never been used in the history of the premiership it is a no brainer. Fundementally the rules have to be applied to everyone if they are to have any validity in law. By not applying the rules to other premierships teams who do not meet the minimum requirements they make the minimum requirements irrelevant. I think they have been unfairly treated and targetted and its no secret that the RFU do not want a dual registered club in the premiership. The RFU threw the toys out of the pram when LW wanted closer links with the WRU but they dont want them to progress within the English system.

The ground criteria rules are going to be torn apart by the legal challenge and its going to end badly for everyone.

Well at the end of the day- what ever the reason- an english club should be part of an english system. If that isnt the problem and it really is down to tv then should we be surprised. TV rules union.

Its what it is - a mess. The RFU need to take control of its clubs really and not allow this sort of thing to happen

I can see 13 teams in the Aviva next season and I'm not kidding

Isn't all this 'London xxxx exiles' stuff a bit of a throwback to amateur days?
London Irish are a pretty decent professional AP side, but are no longer in London, and not exactly Irish. Deer Park is a classic, iconic, venue from the days gone by, but anyone can see not suitable for AP rugby. Not many London grounds are. Richmond, Rosslyn ?
Southern AP clubs in London area: Wasps, Sarries, LI all ground share outside of London for reason of real estate economics. (Quins seem to be the one London exception). If LW have a properly flanged up ground share deal with a decent facility (Oxford ?) they should get promoted. I have not seen the audit report, but was the deal with Oxford solidly grounded ? Is thsi the issue ?
A PS: Could LW sidestep the RFU / AP rules and enter the Rabo league instead ? stay at The Deer Park and so remain both London and Welsh ?

Well last time they talked about joining the Magners the RFU got really unhappy. LW are in a unique situation which LI and LS are not. LW are a dual registered club. In effect they are a welsh club playing in the English leagues rather than the welsh domestic competition. That is somthing the RFU have been unhappy about for years. The Oxford ground is as good if not better than any of the current teams stadia in the AP and the deal is the same as the one sarries, Irish, Wasps and Sale have with their landlords.

The problem is for the RFU is the failure to apply the rules equally to all teams. This has been done under pressure from Premier Rugby to make it difficult for any of the big clubs to be relegated and is a shabby attempt to ring fence the premiership without saying so. The RFU are cowtowing to the vested interests of the AP clubs who do not want to be relegated but are aware if they change the relegation rules they face civil war in the English game. The minimum reqs have been their way of ensuring nobody breaks into the elite.

The rank hypocrisy has been exposed and if it goes to court then all the inconsistencies in the RFU's treatment of the clubs will be brought out. Im stunned at the weakness of the RFU in takjing the decision in the first place and to then release it just before the match shows is not merely incompetent it is malicious. If LW prove that they have been discriminated against which wont actually be that difficult then the timing of the release is going help empoty their cofferes a bit more. LW win promotion court costs and compensation then Newcastle sue for being given the wrong information they now also have a valid case so will get costs and compensation.

The bill for this one bit of stupidity is going to run into millions.

Isn't this thread supposed to be about Australia and Wales rather than bickering about London Welsh, a side that nobody could give a fig about until a couple of weeks ago?

wide ranging discussion too intellectually demanding for you?

TycroesOsprey wrote:wide ranging discussion too intellectually demanding for you?

It's hardly wide-ranging. It's just you having a pop at England, the English system and the English as per usual.

Please carry on

If you had bothered to read the thread you would see I am highly complimentary of the English teams success' defending them against Saffer and Kiwi fans. Clearly reading the discussion is beyond you.

TycroesOsprey wrote:If you had bothered to read the thread you would see I am highly complimentary of the English teams success' defending them against Saffer and Kiwi fans. Clearly reading the discussion is beyond you.

That’s a cracker

sugarNspikes wrote:

TycroesOsprey wrote:wide ranging discussion too intellectually demanding for you?

It's hardly wide-ranging. It's just you having a pop at England, the English system and the English as per usual.

Please carry on

Not quite but thanks for the permission.

Tycroes, they're not a Welsh club in the English system. They're Welsh AND English club in the English system. They have much stronger ties to the WRU than LS or LI have to SRU and IRFU. They have a deal with Ospreys, don't they? But they also have a deal which Wasps with a lot of their younger players dual registered (even with Young's influence they're still an English club...for now). I seemed to remember a few years ago London Scottish approached the SRU so they could have funding as an Exile team but the SRU declined. Also the talk about LW joining the Magners was when there was talk about ring-fencing. Not because they just wanted to play in the Welsh system.

so the probelm is that its a welsh and english club. how can that work- the club has to just choose one of the other end of.

Wasps also have a deal with the Ospreys Hammer, in fairness thats a three way deal where all of the clubs are farming players out for development.

The situation with LW is similar to the Swans or Bluebirds, both are registered with the FAW but have affiliation to the FA for the purposes of the Premier league. LW are registered with both to reflect their unique situation and recieve funding from the WRU. How much they get from the RFU as an English club I dont know but I would assume that they do recieve funding in the English system as well. There is no denying that its a best of both worlds for LW if they are treated fairly by both unions. The RFU are not treating them fairly.

Moving to the Magners was blocked because the RFU said they would not ringfence the premiership. However that is exactly what they are trying to do. Neither Rotherham or Pirates had a ground that met Minimum Reqs nor did they have access to a football ground on a share deal. The minimum reqs are a joke legally hence three exile QC's offering their services to LW ffor free in the upcoming court case.

This is not England vs Wales this is about a stupid decision taken to protect vested interests taken by the man who was director of Rugby for the club he saved. It is a decision that will cost the RFU a considerable amount of money.

Have you got any details on the move to the Magners? All I could find was an article saying that they had spoken to the WRU about joining the Magners IF the premiership was ringfenced. It certainly didn't suggested they asked to move and the RFU blocked it because they weren't ring-fencing.

The minimum criteria are not a joke. They're vital to encourage lower clubs to develop their off field game. From what I read the London Welsh appeal was based on the fact they believed they met the criteria not that they were unfair. I might be wrong on that as I don't have a reference. Also from what I had read was that all of the clubs from next year will meet the criteria other than possibly Wasps. Sharing with a football club isn't the issue. What sort of agreement you have is important.

ohhhh, its about Rob Andrew

HammerofThunor wrote:Have you got any details on the move to the Magners? All I could find was an article saying that they had spoken to the WRU about joining the Magners IF the premiership was ringfenced. It certainly didn't suggested they asked to move and the RFU blocked it because they weren't ring-fencing.

The minimum criteria are not a joke. They're vital to encourage lower clubs to develop their off field game. From what I read the London Welsh appeal was based on the fact they believed they met the criteria not that they were unfair. I might be wrong on that as I don't have a reference. Also from what I had read was that all of the clubs from next year will meet the criteria other than possibly Wasps. Sharing with a football club isn't the issue. What sort of agreement you have is important.

what is the pint of the lower clubs addressing the development of their grounds if the top clubs do not have the facilities themselves? Bath, Wasps, Sale, Irish, Saracens are all in breach of the minimum requirements for stadium. If access to the top flight is dependant upon facilities then those clubs should be excluded from the AP. You cannot have one rule for the poor clubs and another for the rich clubs that disadvantages the poor relations. It is legally ridiculous and morally repugnant. If the RFU want to end promotion and relegation from the Geoff then they should do it LW would then be free to move to the Rabo or Welsh Prem.

zzzzz zzzzz

Just as an addendum the deal LW have with Oxford is the same deal Sarries, Wasps, Sale and Irish have with their respective landlords.

The recreation ground does not meet the minimum criteria in any area required by the RFU. It cannot be developed due to the size of the ground and its situation in Bath. Unless Bath move to a football ground they will not meet the min requirements for next year.

HERSH wrote:zzzzz zzzzz

Is that your new username?

Bath doesn’t meet the regs?

What regs are those?

the ground must be made of concrete and have no atmos!

Not really a problem unless we get relegated, which lets be honest is never going to happen.

Bath doesnt meet the reqs on parking, toilets, disabled access, Press facilities, the Wreck is just that. Ill be honest I love the recreation ground I loved going there as a kid when we lived in Box and my first rugby experience as a kid was at a rec open day. However I wouldnt worry about promotion if you get relegated the RFU will change the rules so you dont get relegated or will change the rules to allow you back up.

So the RFU need to relegate Bath, Sarries, Wasps, LI, Sale, and of course Newcastle, next season to join LW, then order will be restored to the rugby world ?

Why is parking on the Regs?

We could sell ourselves as having a low carbon footprint, who needs toilets!
Disabled access depends on what direction you come from, plus I think you'll find we do anyway.

Why worry about the press?

No the RFU simply needed to apply the rules fairly to all of the teams. They havvent done that and have caused this situation. Its going to end up in a court case which is a ridiculous situation.

I agree.

But it is the RFU.

HERSH wrote:Why is parking on the Regs?

We could sell ourselves as having a low carbon footprint, who needs toilets!
Disabled access depends on what direction you come from, plus I think you'll find we do anyway.

Why worry about the press?

HERSH I agree with you (first time for everything). The rec is an atmospheric ground great to go to and is a great rugby venue.

Whilst I dont often like Brendans viewpoint this article sums up the duplicity of the RFU http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9286952/How-dare-Premiership-Rugby-criticise-London-Welsh-and-deny-them-right-to-play-in-top-flight.-It-is-gross-hypocrisy.html