London Welsh D Day ‎: and the mounting calls for litigation

London Welsh Rugby club will find out later today if they have been successful in their appeal to be accepted for promotion to Rugby's top flight.
Read more: http://www.oxford.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=285712#ixzz1zAMb2srh

ed additional source http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/story/166295.html

If they lose - legal action is threatened


Meanwhile at the Falcons:
Newcastle threaten legal action if London Welsh win promotion appeal (sic)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jun/27/newcastle-london-welsh-premiership-rugby?newsfeed=true

If they (LW) win - legal action is threatened

Meanwhile the rest of the spectre of legal action looms over RFU payments
http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/story/166295.html

Happy days.

So.... long story short:

RFU: Damned if they promote LW and are damned if they dont.

LW: Demand to go up since they won their promotion spot.

Falcons: Demand to stay up, even though they finished bottom of the Jeff.

Mornin.
Not remotely a legal eagle, but I can't see how there are any grounds for legal action by London Welsh. They knew the rules when the season started. Only now that they have exceeded their own expectations do they want to change the rules.

I can't see how it matters whether there are Premiership clubs which do not meet the same standards. The rules are the rules, and from what has been reported, they are quite clear enough.

It seems one of the sticking points is about the existing Premiership clubs which are grandfathered and don't meet the new promotion criteria. To me, as long as any of them are relegated and then have to meet the same new promotion criteria, then from my simplistic pov I think London Welsh don't have a leg to stand on. Does that make sense, or am I off my rocker (again)?

Looking at this from a pure business perspective, I think it is important to have higher standards for clubs moving up. This drives improvements to the financial health of Rugby and is a good thing. To allow clubs with only 5,000 capacity or having matches being shunted around by second or third tier football teams doesn't do anything to grow Rugby. To be fair, however, I do believe the olds boys club must also be held to specific growth plans which eventually get them to the same place. The owner of my club, Saints, has spoken about that in the past.

I think the RFU are likely to be paying out even more as the Championship clubs are now chasing them for promised funding that never materialised. Some £2.3m is reported as being owed by the Telegraph. With LW and the Falcons wanting compensation if they are removed from the AP that could cost the RFU dearly.

I just read that. Another sticky situation for the RFU. Maybe this was something lost in legal language, but how do the RFU get into situations like this?

doctor_grey wrote:Mornin.
Not remotely a legal eagle, but I can't see how there are any grounds for legal action by London Welsh. They knew the rules when the season started. Only now that they have exceeded their own expectations do they want to change the rules.

I can't see how it matters whether there are Premiership clubs which do not meet the same standards. The rules are the rules, and from what has been reported, they are quite clear enough.

It seems one of the sticking points is about the existing Premiership clubs which are grandfathered and don't meet the new promotion criteria. To me, as long as any of them are relegated and then have to meet the same new promotion criteria, then from my simplistic pov I think London Welsh don't have a leg to stand on. Does that make sense, or am I off my rocker (again)?

Looking at this from a pure business perspective, I think it is important to have higher standards for clubs moving up. This drives improvements to the financial health of Rugby and is a good thing. To allow clubs with only 5,000 capacity or having matches being shunted around by second or third tier football teams doesn't do anything to grow Rugby. To be fair, however, I do believe the olds boys club must also be held to specific growth plans which eventually get them to the same place. The owner of my club, Saints, has spoken about that in the past.

Eminently sensible, Dr_G

The RFU say the quoted figures were just an illustration of proposed income whilst the Championship clubs say the figures are set in stone. The revenue uplift planned for the 2015 season seems to be under 'review' by the RFU as well, now I was under the impression that the RFU was a profit making organisation so what is with the low balling attempts with the Championship Clubs?

The RFU wanted an all pro second division with only 12 teams and they got it so why now try and rob they of much needed cash?

Regarding the money owed by the RFU, if I read it right the the RFU owe a little more money this year. If they continue to underpay the same for each year of the deal then overall they will be owing £2.3M. I don't know if the deal is 'pay X each year' or 'pay X over X years'. If it's the latter then I'm not surprised they cut back in the World Cup year without the AI to fund it (and it was probably planned that way). If it was the former then they're being naughty.

I suspect it will all come out in the wash Hammer. I expect the RFU will do their level best to settle out of court with the minimum of media attention as they have quite enough bad PR as it is.

Thanks, As.

Sam, doesn't this once again illustrate something is amiss at HQ? I would think whether numbers are estimates or fixed should have been easily highlighted in the agreements. And understood by all sides. I don't know which side is right in this case, but it seems the RFU has a particular skill at getting into these kinds of 'misunderstandings', don;t you think?

doctor_grey wrote:Thanks, As.

Sam, doesn't this once again illustrate something is amiss at HQ? I would think whether numbers are estimates or fixed should have been easily highlighted in the agreements. And understood by all sides. I don't know which side is right in this case, but it seems the RFU has a particular skill at getting into these kinds of 'misunderstandings', don;t you think?

I can't think that there any major problems at HQ regarding the Championship. Not whilst Captain Squeaky is at the helm of HMS Elite Rugby.

Please Port,
That's Lord Squeaky to us plebes.

As a falcon fan I cant see what we could go to court over. We were bottom and should.be relegated fair and square. Yes we've been left a little in limbo...but not grounds for court.

GeordieFalcon wrote:As a falcon fan I cant see what we could go to court over. We were bottom and should.be relegated fair and square. Yes we've been left a little in limbo...but not grounds for court.

I have to agree, GF.
As I have being saying for weeks, the Falcons are the innocent victims of the charade of the ludicrous playoff system in the Championship. All this could have been avoided by promoting the PRL's frankly excessive and biased entry requirements.

I'd also repeat my charge that the PRL is organised to entirely favour the ordinary over the capable - like a bog-standard comprehensive school.

It could have been avoided by promoting the team that came first....

Portnoy wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:As a falcon fan I cant see what we could go to court over. We were bottom and should.be relegated fair and square. Yes we've been left a little in limbo...but not grounds for court.

I have to agree, GF.
As I have being saying for weeks, the Falcons are the innocent victims of the charade of the ludicrous playoff system in the Championship. All this could have been avoided by promoting the PRL's frankly excessive and biased entry requirements.

I'd also repeat my charge that the PRL is organised to entirely favour the ordinary over the capable - like a bog-standard comprehensive school.

Do you think the capable should be favoured over the ordinary and there should be no salary cap then? Given that the salary cap is supposed to stop the top teams pulling away from the rest.

Promoting LW would be unfair on the other championship Clubs. The clubs who are spending what money they have on facilities to eventually be ready rather than a Club who were in administration 2 years ago and have basically spent soley on the playing team.

GeordieFalcon wrote:It could have been avoided by promoting the team that came first....

That really depends on what you mean by 'first' GF. The 'first' club may be one which won the league or one which won a playoff or whatever. I agree that the PRL should have certain H&S and media facilities. But the Ground capacity should be cut dramatically. I can't see LW getting a chance of a 10000 audience next year should that come to pass.

The simple rule should be the best PRL qualifiable side gets promoted.

I agree that Newcastle should be relegated but not be subjected to their uncertain future at this late stage.

And let's not forget the Wasps deafening silence on their financial future with the 2012-3 fixtures to be announced next week.

Going to answer my question Portnoy?

All this could have been avoided by promoting the RFU's frankly excessive and biased entry requirements.

Fixed that for you Portnoy.

Do you think the capable should be favoured over the ordinary and there should be no salary cap then? Given that the salary cap is supposed to stop the top teams pulling away from the rest.

Is it Artful? Or is it there to force a modicum of financial constraint on a business that could easily escalate into a spending spree leaving vast amounts of debt stacking up left, right and centre?

The reason I asked Portnoy is because in the past he has said that getting rid of the salary cap would turn the Premiership into the "wild wild west". Yet at the same time he's now criticising the PRL for valuing the ordinary over the capable - sounds like trying to have it both ways to me.

Portnoy wants a cap based on turnover. Therefore it would stop sugar-daddies buying success (and massive debt) but it would allow well run and successful clubs to develop.

EDIT: Feel free to correct me Portnoy if I got it wrong

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:As a falcon fan I cant see what we could go to court over. We were bottom and should.be relegated fair and square. Yes we've been left a little in limbo...but not grounds for court.

I have to agree, GF.
As I have being saying for weeks, the Falcons are the innocent victims of the charade of the ludicrous playoff system in the Championship. All this could have been avoided by promoting the PRL's frankly excessive and biased entry requirements.

I'd also repeat my charge that the PRL is organised to entirely favour the ordinary over the capable - like a bog-standard comprehensive school.

Do you think the capable should be favoured over the ordinary and there should be no salary cap then? Given that the salary cap is supposed to stop the top teams pulling away from the rest.

Sorry AD,

Posts crossed in transit.

I maintain that there should be caps to prevent from rich sides from stretching irredeemably far away. So have a reasonable maximum wage (say £4.5m) qualified by a turnover cap of 40% in order to maintain sustainability.

HammerofThunor wrote:Portnoy wants a cap based on turnover. Therefore it would stop sugar-daddies buying success (and massive debt) but it would allow well run and successful clubs to develop.

EDIT: Feel free to correct me Portnoy if I got it wrong

Spot on Thurnor.

Portnoy wrote:
Sorry AD,

Posts crossed in transit.

I maintain that there should be caps to prevent from rich sides from stretching irredeemably far away. So have a reasonable maximum wage (say £4.5m) qualified by a turnover cap of 40% in order to maintain sustainability.

+1 Entirely sensible

Welsh have called a press conference for 2.30.

Portnoy wrote:
And let's not forget the Wasps deafening silence on their financial future with the 2012-3 fixtures to be announced next week.

Ken Moss consortium takeover of Wasps has been agreed today.

Portnoy wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:It could have been avoided by promoting the team that came first....

That really depends on what you mean by 'first' GF. The 'first' club may be one which won the league or one which won a playoff or whatever. I agree that the PRL should have certain H&S and media facilities. But the Ground capacity should be cut dramatically. I can't see LW getting a chance of a 10000 audience next year should that come to pass.

The simple rule should be the best PRL qualifiable side gets promoted.

I agree that Newcastle should be relegated but not be subjected to their uncertain future at this late stage.

And let's not forget the Wasps deafening silence on their financial future with the 2012-3 fixtures to be announced next week.

The team that finished top of the league mate.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:It could have been avoided by promoting the team that came first....

That really depends on what you mean by 'first' GF. The 'first' club may be one which won the league or one which won a playoff or whatever. I agree that the PRL should have certain H&S and media facilities. But the Ground capacity should be cut dramatically. I can't see LW getting a chance of a 10000 audience next year should that come to pass.

The simple rule should be the best PRL qualifiable side gets promoted.

I agree that Newcastle should be relegated but not be subjected to their uncertain future at this late stage.

And let's not forget the Wasps deafening silence on their financial future with the 2012-3 fixtures to be announced next week.

The team that finished top of the league mate.

Whichever side GF? Irrespective of ground suitability and safety standards?

Portnoy wrote:I maintain that there should be caps to prevent from rich sides from stretching irredeemably far away. So have a reasonable maximum wage (say £4.5m) qualified by a turnover cap of 40% in order to maintain sustainability.

I would add to this point that each club should also spend a minimum percentage of the cap to ensure they remain competitive instead of hanging near the bottom with no chance to compete for top honours. Additionally, this would put more pressure on the top clubs to push even higher. Raises the bar for all.

doctor_grey wrote:

Portnoy wrote:I maintain that there should be caps to prevent from rich sides from stretching irredeemably far away. So have a reasonable maximum wage (say £4.5m) qualified by a turnover cap of 40% in order to maintain sustainability.

I would add to this point that each club should also spend a minimum percentage of the cap to ensure they remain competitive instead of hanging near the bottom with no chance to compete for top honours. Additionally, this would put more pressure on the top clubs to push even higher. Raises the bar for all.

I understand your argument DG, but let's face it, a t/o cap would inevitably imply a lag in terms of annual accounts and audits so your proposition may accelerate clubs into unsustainability.

If clubs maintain a lack of ambition, but maintain league status, then I doubt if they would either generate crowds and turnover but they'd force themselves closer to relegation.

Nothing official but just heard a rumour that Welsh have won their appeal.

Hmm, that's doing the rounds on Rolling Maul, Pete, but twitter is apparently split 50/50

I've not seen anything on twitter either way, must be following the wrong people!

Ozzy3213 wrote:Nothing official but just heard a rumour that Welsh have won their appeal.

I'm not surprised as the announcement is now at least three hours overdue, I'd guess that a lot of hostile horse trading has been going on.

I have every news feed that I know of open and nothing official coming from anywhere.

Did all parties agree to be bound by the decision in the end?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Did all parties agree to be bound by the decision in the end?

So far as I am aware As, LW were always going to go to litigation if their appeal was rejected.

Portnoy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Did all parties agree to be bound by the decision in the end?

So far as I am aware As, LW were always going to go to litigation if their appeal was rejected.

Yes, that's what I initially heard, but I believe that there may have been a change of heart at the last minute?

Portnoy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Did all parties agree to be bound by the decision in the end?

So far as I am aware As, LW were always going to go to litigation if their appeal was rejected.

I believe that Falcons have also said they will take it further if they are relegated.

Decision expected this morning. Massive delay re announcement.

Scenario 1: Decision goes for London Welsh, so the 3 parties are having to smash together a PR strategy to cover the 'unexpected' outcome

Scenario 2: Decision goes against London Welsh, so the 3 parties are now hashing together the financial package that will compensate them and avoid further legal wranglings

Your guess?

It's a mess whatever and nobody comes out of it looking good to be honest. sad to see the game dragged through the gutter like this to be honest.

If Welsh have been denied then everyone but them have come through it looking fine haven't they?

If they've been allowed to be promoted then whether people look good or not is dependant on their appeal being approved based on it's validity or the media storm Welsh have stirred up. If the latter none look good. If the former then the independant auditors look bad.

Website has the decision being announced at 5pm

HammerofThunor wrote:If Welsh have been denied then everyone but them have come through it looking fine haven't they?

If they've been allowed to be promoted then whether people look good or not is dependant on their appeal being approved based on it's validity or the media storm Welsh have stirred up. If the latter none look good. If the former then the independant auditors look bad.

Not really. The RFU look shambolic for having allowed this circus to have arisen. A well know phrase about breweries comes to mind.

Knackeredknees wrote:Website has the decision being announced at 5pm

what IT says is ...



I suspect it may be well into this evening before we hear anything official.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:If Welsh have been denied then everyone but them have come through it looking fine haven't they?

If they've been allowed to be promoted then whether people look good or not is dependant on their appeal being approved based on it's validity or the media storm Welsh have stirred up. If the latter none look good. If the former then the independant auditors look bad.

Not really. The RFU look shambolic for having allowed this circus to have arisen. A well know phrase about breweries comes to mind.

I don't understand. There is a set Minimum Criteria. They had an independant auditor group assess London Welsh's application. When turned down, based on this independant group's recommendation, London Welsh made an appeal. The appeal is happening. What should the RFU have done?

As an aside:

Has anyone else since LW got 'promoted' been following their website ( http://www.london-welsh.co.uk/rugby_newsroom_article.asp?id=1176 ) and wondered:

1. Why the front page has gone backwards in time
2. Would I buy a second-hand car from Jonny two-Jags Bleddyn Phillips?

Ozzy3213 wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:Website has the decision being announced at 5pm

what IT says is ...



I suspect it may be well into this evening before we hear anything official.

The way they have handled the media you can guarantee that if it goes against them it will be up with a legal challenge in seconds

HammerofThunor wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:If Welsh have been denied then everyone but them have come through it looking fine haven't they?

If they've been allowed to be promoted then whether people look good or not is dependant on their appeal being approved based on it's validity or the media storm Welsh have stirred up. If the latter none look good. If the former then the independant auditors look bad.

Not really. The RFU look shambolic for having allowed this circus to have arisen. A well know phrase about breweries comes to mind.

I don't understand. There is a set Minimum Criteria. They had an independant auditor group assess London Welsh's application. When turned down, based on this independant group's recommendation, London Welsh made an appeal. The appeal is happening. What should the RFU have done?

The whole process is flawed. The RFU should have steps in place to ensure that these things are dealt with prior to the season ending. The fact that Welsh have been able to apply after what I believe was the cut off date of 31st March is down to the RFU rules not being tight enough. It is also farcical that they have criteria for entry into the AP that 1/3rd of the sides currently in the competition would fail to meet. It is a poor show all round as far as I am concerned Thunor.