Oh Dear! More Legal issues for RFU/PRL?

I have just read stories from two different journalists (probably same source though) that Bath and Saracens, encouraged by London Welsh's success, are willing to go to court to try and overtun the salary cap on grounds of restraint of trade. I can only assume that the lawyers are overjoyed.



Apologies some of what I typed was lost

try what?

To try what?

The story is that the Rich Jeff clubs are going to court to overturn the salary cap.

As an LI fan, I sincerely wish they fail.

Score?
Play rugby?
Not import South Africans?
Move to somewhere nice?

Nope, just overturn the salary cap.

Makes a change form just ignoring it.

Poor of them though, this is the start of then end for PRL as the "one for all" cabal its been.

I agree it needs reforming, but to go to court over it is bad for everyone. Theres very good reasons for some for of wage control to exist.

The danger is that it will end up driving the smaller clubs to the wall, as they struggle to remain competitive.

Exactly Mawhis, and creating a two tier premiership akin to the football one. What i love about the current league is how competitive the games are ...even LW didnt disgrace themselves today.

one more step to a reduced and ring fenced divsion. Maybe good for Tigers HEC ambitions but sad in many other ways. Im also hugely wary of the way Bath are spending money on a house of cards

Tigers have been mentioned as one of the clubs interested in the cap being scrapped - mainly as Cockers and Wheeler in the past have had a little whinge. However they are probably just as worried about a removal of the cap as any team without a sugar daddy.

While Tigers can afford to exceed the current cap - at most they could spend an extra £1m - enough for 3 or 4 extra top quality players, or two superstars.

If the cap was removed completely wage inflation would be rampant and the clubs with sugar daddies would spend more and more - going ever further into debt.

This would be bad for all.

Quite. Tigers are probably the only club who could match revenue to the increased expenditure of a cap increase, but others may well choose to spend even more on the arms race and put the financially secure clubs in a position where they have to choose between soccer style debt or mid table obscurity,.
Good bye well managed clubs.
Unlike the Rabonations the Union wont be underwriting and subsidising them

Why is this encouraged by London Welsh...?

They felt the lack of promotion and relaxation was unjust because the PRLs rules applied to some and not to others.

This wage cap applies to all...!!!

The London Welsh decision was made on the grounds that preventing them joining the premiership constituted restraint of trade. Presumably, m'learned friends think that this sets a precedent for legal challenges on other issues.

No-one is saying that LW want this to happen, as far as I'm aware, they're only at about half the existing salary cap as it is, so would be hit harder than anyone else.

Too true regarding the disparity in the AP.

But LWs example of restraint of trade was that some existing premiership clubs do not adhere to the rules instigated to prevent promotion. That is also why they won their case.

Back to the point at hand, the wage cap is designed to unify the league so that there is no boom or bust as in the past with teams like Richmond.

It's intention was superb but I feel all parties are trying to to take advantage for short term gains not long term prosperity and success.

It falls to the basic frailty in english top class rugby which is the clubs have too much power and no respect for their governing body. The fault of which lies with all parties, PRL, RFU and the clubs owners and board members.

any links to any of these articles?

I hope this is just conjecture on behalf of some bored journos, LW won their appeal on the basis that the MSC's did NOT represent a level playing field by virtue of the fact that the mysterious "4th club" failed at some stage to present bona fide credentials of Primacy of Tenure.

Taking the case to court was not in the best interests of the AP, nor, in my opinion, was it necessarily in the best interests of the long term future of LW; only time will tell.

Surely the salary cap is a different matter? As all clubs in the AP are bound by the same ruling, and as all clubs in the AP are ostensibly sticking to it, without an obvious precedent being set to the contrary, there's no reason for the Law to get involved.

I hope this doesn't go any further than hot air and bluster, as nothing good will come of it if it does.

This won't end well if the cap is scraped.

Leicester can sustainably support an increase, but other clubs (Quins, Sarries and Northampton in particular) will just end up in debt trying to catch up. It will end with Leicester as the only decent club left with the others either a few millions a season behind or bust.

I have mentioned this on another thread, the clubs in England have to much power, the RFU are scared to death of them, sometimes you have to wonder who is running the show there, this is why the RFU are trying to change everybody else's league instead of their own, it is the same in France, the clubs owners have so much money and power their unions do not want to go and fall out with them.

wales606 wrote:This won't end well if the cap is scraped.

Leicester can sustainably support an increase, but other clubs (Quins, Sarries and Northampton in particular) will just end up in debt trying to catch up. It will end with Leicester as the only decent club left with the others either a few millions a season behind or bust.

Leicester can sustain a modest increase. Clubs with sugar daddys could potentially blow the the cap out of the water.

I am happy with a salary cap, just dislike the fact that it can penalise teams who provide players to the England Squad. Quins and Bath have to operate to the same cap - yet quins are now providing more players to England - a lot more. Players they will not have available for matches this season. Thus on the same money they need to have a bigger squad because they are helping the national cause.

Surely the answer to that issue is central contracts that are excluded from the salary total then LT?

LondonTiger where is this source of yours? I'd personally like to see some proof that Bath and Saracens are doing this.

I hope the salary cap isn't scrapped. Could potentially be raised to match those of the French though.

beshocked wrote:LondonTiger where is this source of yours? I'd personally like to see some proof that Bath and Saracens are doing this.

I hope the salary cap isn't scrapped. Could potentially be raised to match those of the French though.

Rugby Paper (front page story) and Sunday Times - neither of which I have an online subscription for. The journos say rich clubs are interested in going to court and then names Bath, Leicester and Saracens as clubs who would benefit.


PJHB,

I am a fan of a lower cap but with the players in EPS excluded (and Saxons partly excluded) from the calculations.

LondonTiger wrote:

wales606 wrote:This won't end well if the cap is scraped.

Leicester can sustainably support an increase, but other clubs (Quins, Sarries and Northampton in particular) will just end up in debt trying to catch up. It will end with Leicester as the only decent club left with the others either a few millions a season behind or bust.

Leicester can sustain a modest increase. Clubs with sugar daddys could potentially blow the the cap out of the water.

I am happy with a salary cap, just dislike the fact that it can penalise teams who provide players to the England Squad. Quins and Bath have to operate to the same cap - yet quins are now providing more players to England - a lot more. Players they will not have available for matches this season. Thus on the same money they need to have a bigger squad because they are helping the national cause.

But is that not the clubs and the PRL's fault?? The money from the RFU was intended to do just that i.e. allocate money to team based upon how many players they supply to the England squad so that they are not penalised by them being away for half the year. It was the PRL and the clubs who decided to pool the money and split it evenly 12 ways. Seems crazy that a club that supplies no one gets the same money as a club that may supply 10 and as such are penalised by having to go out and get back ups and hence a larger wage bill.

Agreed Dr Nick - but as the majority of players who toured SA were from 4 clubs it is like asking turkeys to vote for christmas.

At the original vote 11 clubs wanted the even split. A pretty large majority.

Hedging their bets weren't they?
No one wants to gamble on definitely having a lot of players selected (especially with the state of English international coaches) so nearly everyone opted for the guaranteed lower income. I think it was Wasps if memory serves who vetoed.

Now though a lot of clubs will be wishing they'd grown some balls at that meeting.

LordDowlais wrote:I have mentioned this on another thread, the clubs in England have to much power, the RFU are scared to death of them, sometimes you have to wonder who is running the show there, this is why the RFU are trying to change everybody else's league instead of their own, it is the same in France, the clubs owners have so much money and power their unions do not want to go and fall out with them.

Where to start? First off the RFU aren't trying to change anybody else's league. That is PRL (i.e. the clubs) so you comment that they're doing it because they can't control their clubs is completely Love sacks (suggesting you don't know what's going on and just like to rant about it). What evidence is that the RFU are scared of the clubs? They seem to be getting on well at the moment and I certainly haven't heard of any real friction since the first year of the EPS when a few wrinkles were ironed out. England get the most time with the squad than ever before and the number of EQ players is increasing year on year. The clubs get a decent payout. There are some 'unfair' restrictions on some of the clubs but's that's the PRL collective's doing not the RFU. The last disagreement between the RFU and clubs was a few years ago when the clubs were wanting an expanded premiership. The RFU said no.

doctornickolas wrote:But is that not the clubs and the PRL's fault?? The money from the RFU was intended to do just that i.e. allocate money to team based upon how many players they supply to the England squad so that they are not penalised by them being away for half the year. It was the PRL and the clubs who decided to pool the money and split it evenly 12 ways. Seems crazy that a club that supplies no one gets the same money as a club that may supply 10 and as such are penalised by having to go out and get back ups and hence a larger wage bill.

Partially, but the clubs still have to fund the replacements for these players from inside the cap. The players missed around 6 extra game weekends for their clubs. So a club with 5 EPS players will lose 30 effective gameday BUT they still have the same cap. Long term injured players can be replaced outside of the cap (within limits) but not internationals. Generally the better players are at better clubs and they're the ones trying to compete on several fronts. The whole thing is deliberately designed to limit the best teams.

Regarding the original, I'll wait to see the story rather than going on hear'say (no offence OP).

HammerofThunor wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I have mentioned this on another thread, the clubs in England have to much power, the RFU are scared to death of them, sometimes you have to wonder who is running the show there, this is why the RFU are trying to change everybody else's league instead of their own, it is the same in France, the clubs owners have so much money and power their unions do not want to go and fall out with them.

Where to start? First off the RFU aren't trying to change anybody else's league. That is PRL (i.e. the clubs) so you comment that they're doing it because they can't control their clubs is completely Love sacks (suggesting you don't know what's going on and just like to rant about it). What evidence is that the RFU are scared of the clubs? They seem to be getting on well at the moment and I certainly haven't heard of any real friction since the first year of the EPS when a few wrinkles were ironed out. England get the most time with the squad than ever before and the number of EQ players is increasing year on year. The clubs get a decent payout. There are some 'unfair' restrictions on some of the clubs but's that's the PRL collective's doing not the RFU. The last disagreement between the RFU and clubs was a few years ago when the clubs were wanting an expanded premiership. The RFU said no.

doctornickolas wrote:But is that not the clubs and the PRL's fault?? The money from the RFU was intended to do just that i.e. allocate money to team based upon how many players they supply to the England squad so that they are not penalised by them being away for half the year. It was the PRL and the clubs who decided to pool the money and split it evenly 12 ways. Seems crazy that a club that supplies no one gets the same money as a club that may supply 10 and as such are penalised by having to go out and get back ups and hence a larger wage bill.

Partially, but the clubs still have to fund the replacements for these players from inside the cap. The players missed around 6 extra game weekends for their clubs. So a club with 5 EPS players will lose 30 effective gameday BUT they still have the same cap. Long term injured players can be replaced outside of the cap (within limits) but not internationals. Generally the better players are at better clubs and they're the ones trying to compete on several fronts. The whole thing is deliberately designed to limit the best teams.

Regarding the original, I'll wait to see the story rather than going on hear'say (no offence OP).

O.k so I got it wrong about the RFU meddling with other unions leagues, I apologise for that But I still stand firm on the fact that the RFU are scared to death of the clubs in England and would do anything to avoid going to court against them as they have to much power and money and if they went toe to toe then the clubs would most likely win, just look at the farce with London Welsh a few weeks ago, and they are a club with even less influence, if the RFU had their way then relegation would be a thing of the past for a start, and I bet there would be a few more changes as well, so this salary cap issue will probably be sorted out in time and it will favour the clubs.

Fair play for admitting you're mistake

The PRL WANT to scrap promotion. The majority are in risk of relegation and majority will pass votes. The RFU are the ones who've said they want to keep relegation. So in recent times we've had the clubs wanting to expand the premiership and ring fence it. The RFU have refused both.

What exactly are you basing the idea that the RFU are scared of the clubs? I've seen no evidence of that since Rob Andrew took over his post (one of the reasons for employing him was that he was a club's boss). That's certainly been the way things were but are they still?

The London Welsh thing was just about a contentious issue that the clubs are the ones that want it enforced. I'm still not sure who sets the criteria, the pro clubs or the RFU. I know the RFU have to enforce them.

If this does actually go to court (has it actually hit any papers yet?) then I can see the other clubs screwing over Bath and Saracens. They're probably the only two who could significantly increase spending. The 'clubs' are not all singing from the same hymn sheet so favouring 'the clubs' does not mean it's not the best for RFU as well.

HammerofThunor wrote: I'm still not sure who sets the criteria, the pro clubs or the RFU. I know the RFU have to enforce them.

The Professional Game Board (PGB) are responsible for setting, monitoring and enforcing minimum standards. This body is made up of a mix of PRL and RFU people. I believe the executive committe is a 5 man panel, 2 PRL, 2 RFU plus the chairman (RFU as well).

The original story was in last weekends "The Rugby Paper" - and as it has not been picked up elsewhere, I suggest thyat despite them putting it on the Front page, it was no more than speculative space filler.

LondonTiger wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote: I'm still not sure who sets the criteria, the pro clubs or the RFU. I know the RFU have to enforce them.

The Professional Game Board (PGB) are responsible for setting, monitoring and enforcing minimum standards. This body is made up of a mix of PRL and RFU people. I believe the executive committe is a 5 man panel, 2 PRL, 2 RFU plus the chairman (RFU as well).

The original story was in last weekends "The Rugby Paper" - and as it has not been picked up elsewhere, I suggest thyat despite them putting it on the Front page, it was no more than speculative space filler.