Lux said the RFU had promised him it would not support a new tournament

mystiroakey wrote:

Casartelli wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Casartelli wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:what are you talking about casterill! seriously you need to calm down because you dont want to be making xenophobic accusations.. But on the pother hand you are coming across very xenophobic yourself

Are you really only 36?  Your posts are starting to make you sound like some mad old general in his dusty leather chair, ranting about the good old days when you could conquer lesser nations that only had guava halves and sharpened mangoes for weapons.

I take offence to that mate- so please just drop it! You clearly can't understand context

I haven't done anything to offend anyone.  I've just pointed out that your posts are starting to give the impression that you are a ranting lunatic, which I'm sure you are not.  In real life.

You can't understand my posts context and are clearly only posting on this thread to insult me. As i asked nicely before- Could you drop it!

LordDowlais wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Toohey wrote:I have to say this is one of the most bizarre threads I have ever read, which is saying something.  I may be half an outsider and don’t usually get involved in the chat so someone needs to explain what is wrong with a pretty basic situation to me.  Ignoring potential law suits/IRB rulings/technicalities/TV deals and just stripping things back to the very basics what’s wrong with the following situation:

- French and English teams not happy in current tournament so serve plenty of notice that they will be leaving tournament
- French and English teams set up a new tournament
- French and English invite everyone to participate in the new tournament if they want

Where is the fricken problem???????

the problem is celt pride lad!

Seriously, do you honestly feel it that cut and dried ? The LNR have said to everybody else, come and play if you want to, but you can only do so on OUR terms, and it is not just about money, yes there will be more per club, but they will lose a hell of a lot more in the long term, the unions have been here for over a century, ok, perhaps they could do with a shake up, but why is it that a bunch of clubs with very powerfull owners want to ditch the unions that has served our game for more than 100 years ? It has nothing to do with Celt pride, it has everything to do with how our systems are run, just because certain posters on here cannot see past their own clubs, does not mean that every other nationality is wrong.

Toohey wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Toohey wrote:I have to say this is one of the most bizarre threads I have ever read, which is saying something.  I may be half an outsider and don’t usually get involved in the chat so someone needs to explain what is wrong with a pretty basic situation to me.  Ignoring potential law suits/IRB rulings/technicalities/TV deals and just stripping things back to the very basics what’s wrong with the following situation:

- French and English teams not happy in current tournament so serve plenty of notice that they will be leaving tournament
- French and English teams set up a new tournament
- French and English invite everyone to participate in the new tournament if they want

Where is the fricken problem???????

the problem is celt pride lad!

Seriously, do you honestly feel it that cut and dried ? The LNR have said to everybody else, come and play if you want to, but you can only do so on OUR terms, and it is not just about money, yes there will be more per club, but they will lose a hell of a lot more in the long term, the unions have been here for over a century, ok, perhaps they could do with a shake up, but why is it that a bunch of clubs with very powerfull owners want to ditch the unions that has served our game for more than 100 years ? It has nothing to do with Celt pride, it has everything to do with how our systems are run, just because certain posters on here cannot see past their own clubs, does not mean that every other nationality is wrong.

The difference is you have a choice!  No one is forcing you to do anything?  You could set up another competition, continue in the current one, involve other countires, dispand it altogether and play more internationals etc etc etc OR join the new comp?

Casartelli wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Casartelli wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Casartelli wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:what are you talking about casterill! seriously you need to calm down because you dont want to be making xenophobic accusations.. But on the pother hand you are coming across very xenophobic yourself

Are you really only 36?  Your posts are starting to make you sound like some mad old general in his dusty leather chair, ranting about the good old days when you could conquer lesser nations that only had guava halves and sharpened mangoes for weapons.

I take offence to that mate- so please just drop it! You clearly can't understand context

I haven't done anything to offend anyone.  I've just pointed out that your posts are starting to give the impression that you are a ranting lunatic, which I'm sure you are not.  In real life.

You can't understand my posts context and are clearly only posting on this thread to insult me. As i asked nicely before- Could you drop it!

Happy to.  If you drop the 'celtic pride is the problem', 'only the Irish could do something like this', 'nobody would care if Scotland wasn't in the RWC' imperialistic attitude posting.

I'm not being mean to you, I'm disagreeing with your posts.  Take a break and read the site rules.  

People are allowed to disagree with the English way of doing things, you know.  It's happened quite a lot over the last century.

LordDowlais wrote:

Toohey wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Toohey wrote:I have to say this is one of the most bizarre threads I have ever read, which is saying something.  I may be half an outsider and don’t usually get involved in the chat so someone needs to explain what is wrong with a pretty basic situation to me.  Ignoring potential law suits/IRB rulings/technicalities/TV deals and just stripping things back to the very basics what’s wrong with the following situation:

- French and English teams not happy in current tournament so serve plenty of notice that they will be leaving tournament
- French and English teams set up a new tournament
- French and English invite everyone to participate in the new tournament if they want

Where is the fricken problem???????

the problem is celt pride lad!

Seriously, do you honestly feel it that cut and dried ? The LNR have said to everybody else, come and play if you want to, but you can only do so on OUR terms, and it is not just about money, yes there will be more per club, but they will lose a hell of a lot more in the long term, the unions have been here for over a century, ok, perhaps they could do with a shake up, but why is it that a bunch of clubs with very powerfull owners want to ditch the unions that has served our game for more than 100 years ? It has nothing to do with Celt pride, it has everything to do with how our systems are run, just because certain posters on here cannot see past their own clubs, does not mean that every other nationality is wrong.

The difference is you have a choice!  No one is forcing you to do anything?  You could set up another competition, continue in the current one, involve other countires, dispand it altogether and play more internationals etc etc etc OR join the new comp?

Exactly, this is why I think the English clubs under the guise of the PRL could find themselves a little isolated in this, even the PRL itself could find themselves isolated if the clubs get cold feet, it's a shame becuase a HC without the English sides would not be the same, but if that is the way we have to go then so be it.

quinsforever wrote:wow, this is why this thread is so funny. i respond to your post about the IRB forcing argentina into the tri-nations tourny with a very specific question which i will repeat for you, again

"what does an international tournament have to do with a club tournament? it (IRB) is extremely reluctant to test the waters in the club game."

and your answer is they both have players in?  

Sin é wrote:It looks like the PRL are throwing in the towel. According to their new efforts at transparency with regard to the Salary Cap (points reduction, fines etc) just published,

'In extreme cases, if it [fine] is not paid after 30 days, clubs will also be automatically deemed ineligible for the following year's Heineken Cup, LV= Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup competitions and the amount outstanding will be increased by 100% of the original penalty, fine and/or costs. ''

Irish Londoner wrote:Something thats just dawned on me is that the RABO sides and unions have everything to lose (or nothing to lose) either way, they are in a win/win, so can take this to the brink.

Option 1 - (best option) - Some form of negotiatied deal is set up with PRL and the HEC or whatever else it might be called goes ahead and all's well for at least another five years.
Option 2 - (reasonable option) - The French stay in whatever version of HEC without the English and whilst there's some loss of income the RABO carries on pretty much as present.
Option 3 - (liveable with option) - The Franglos go ahead with their own competition, the RABO sides carry on with the league and what effectively becomes a league cup competition and whilst income is affected there's enough interest to keep a viable competition going even if the marquee players are lost to the Franglos (on the plus side they are getting well paid and trained for international duty)
Option 4 - (nuclear option) - The Franglos make a huge sucess of their championship and professional rugby goes TU in four of the major European nations but we all get to blame the English, (we've had centuries of practice)  hopefully in the year of the Scottish indepedence vote - Ireland goes back to club and interpro games, the Welsh get thier club league back as the pinnacle of competition, the borders reassert themselves as the true guardians of Scottish rugby and Italy go back to playing in a national league. Of course the 6 nations isn't worth a lick but we get to feel morally superior and can really enjoy the odd time we sneak something against the English.

Of course (from the RABO point of view) the other good thing is that they get to be spectators as English rugby implodes on itself in the battle for control between the RFU and PRL.

I've not mentioned the French much in this as I think as stated previously that they will rush to the aid of the victors when the dust settles.

LordDowlais wrote:What is all this about Sin ?

PRL Releases Salary Cap Small Print



10 October 2013 by Tim Groves
As revealed in Running Rugby back in August, Premier Rugby Limited has introduced a “new, more transparent, salary cap monitoring and investigation system” but how far exactly do the new regulations go?

Sale winger Mark Cueto became the latest person to criticise the current state of affairs last week when he insisted there was no way some clubs were adhering to the salary cap and said that was “blatantly obvious” to everyone in rugby.

Premiership Rugby’s response is to issue new powers to its salary cap manager and, perhaps crucially, it has outlined a specific scale of points penalties that will be applicable to any club contravening the cap.

Level of Breach Points Sanction

£0 to £75,000 – 4 points

£75,000.01 to £125,000 – 10 points

£125,000.01 to £175,000 – 20 points

£175,000.01 to £250,000 – 30 points

Over £250,000 – 40 points

Such a penalty will be imposed along with a fine that is equivalent to £3 for every £1 by which the cap is exceeded if the salary cap has not been breached in the two previous seasons, £5 for every £1 if it has been breached once in the past two years and £10 for every £1 if it was breached in both of the previous seasons.

The points penalty will be applied with immediate effect if the decision is made prior to round 22 or next season if it is made after that and Premiership Rugby hopes that the new rules will act as a deterrent and “promote the effective administration, management and governance of the salary cap”.

Interestingly though, there is a significant caveat in the regulations dictating that the disciplinary panel has the power to impose different penalties that are more severe or, as stated below, less harsh than the ones previously detailed:

“The disciplinary panel shall be entitled to exercise its discretion to impose a penalty which is less than set out in Regulation 13.3 - 13.6 where, in the view of the disciplinary panel, such penalty would lead to the club being unfairly punished or treated under the regulations or would lead to a result not within the spirit and underlying purpose of the regulations.”

Any guilty club will also have to fork out for all reasonable costs incurred by PRL in connection with the breach and all fines and costs must be paid within 21 days or interest, which accrues daily at 2% above the base rate from time to time of National Westminster Bank plc, will be payable to PRL as well.

In extreme cases, if it is not paid after 30 days, clubs will also be automatically deemed ineligible for the following year's Heineken Cup, LV= Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup competitions and the amount outstanding will be increased by 100% of the original penalty, fine and/or costs. That amount is then increased by 100% of the original penalty for every additional 30 days.

If the worst were to happen, it is unclear what the effect on the Heineken Cup, LV= Cup or Amlin Challenge Cup would be and whether there would be a team to replace the offending club or whether a void would be created.

Premiership Rugby also appears to have responded to some of the allegations made in the London Welsh saga by implementing a specific clause relating to “individual responsibility for a false certification or false declaration”.

The clause allows any chairman, CEO or finance director to be removed from office if the disciplinary panel deems that, on the balance of probabilities, there has been any wrongdoing and also that “no club shall thereafter appoint that person as a director”.

A detailed definition of what constitutes a salary, including match fees, royalties, loyalty payments, child support, accommodation/holiday costs, pension contributions, expenses, payments for promotional, media, endorsement or any other off-field activities, signing-on fees, relocation allowances and more, is also outlined.

And all this has been done, as was the case when the salary cap was introduced for the first time back in July 1999, in order to ensure the financial viability of all clubs, control inflationary pressures, provide a level playing field and ensure a competitive Aviva Premiership competition, something which chief executive Mark McCafferty thinks has been achieved.

“These objectives are borne out in the financial success the league is now seeing, with a healthy turnover of teams at the top of the league. We have also had three different winners of the Aviva Premiership Rugby competition in as many years, in the most competitive league in world rugby (highest number of games finishing in less than one score compared to any other rugby competition in the world),” he said.

The salary cap regulations fall under the remit of Premiership Rugby’s rugby director Phil Winstanley and he insists that the salary cap is working and has an important role to play in the sport.

“It was inevitable that as the game develops we would conduct a review of the salary cap,” he said.

“Salary caps exist in many commercially successful sports around the world.  The most obvious examples are the NFL and NHL in the USA, and the NRL and AFL in Australia.

“The introduction in football of UEFA's Financial Fair Play and the Premier League clubs' new financial regulations, together with salary caps in rugby league, county cricket, and in rugby union with France's Top 14 and the Welsh regions, all demonstrating how European sport has recently grasped the importance of controlling costs and long-term financial sustainability.”

The cap remains at the 2012/13 level of £4.26m, plus eight portions of £30,000 academy credits (producing a maximum of £4.5m) and the retention of the excluded player, whereby one individual lies outside the cap – the so-called ‘marquee signing’.

A formal whistle blowing policy has also been brought in where people can speak to the salary cap manager on a confidential basis by calling 07583 826343 or emailing salarycap@premiershiprugby.com.

It remains to be seen how the changes to the administration, monitoring and investigation of the cap will be implemented and enforced in practice but Premiership Rugby will be hoping that the points penalties in particular act as a major deterrent to any club contemplating crossing the line.

Please click on the link below for the original Running Rugby article on the new salary cap regulations:

AP Clubs Agree To More Transparency On Salary Cap Investigations

Casartelli wrote:"Think Gore Vidal said it best, "It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail".

A fine quote, also variously attributed to David Merrick, François de La Rochefoucauld and, more recently, mystiroakey.

(That last bit was a fib).

mystiroakey wrote:

Casartelli wrote:"Think Gore Vidal said it best, "It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail".

A fine quote, also variously attributed to David Merrick, François de La Rochefoucauld and, more recently, mystiroakey.

(That last bit was a fib).

i was about to say the same about you and many others. The only thing i want is to open the game up and bring other nations into the game.. You on the other hand!!!! not sure

LordDowlais wrote:Where have I said that I wanted anybody to fail ?

LordDowlais wrote:Looks as though muscles are starting to be flexed the Sin.

quinsforever wrote:
if as you say, and i agree with, Option 1 is the best option, how does that improve Celtic rugby's negotiating position? if anything, it improves PRL/LNR's position.

Casartelli wrote:"Think Gore Vidal said it best, "It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail".

A fine quote, also variously attributed to David Merrick, François de La Rochefoucauld and, more recently, mystiroakey.

(That last bit was a fib).

quinsforever wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Looks as though muscles are starting to be flexed the Sin.

maybe the junior person who wrote the salary cap press release forgot to tell mccafferty et al that he has taken over the RCC/HC issue and has decided to go back to the ERC trough.

am sure prl will shortly come out with a release firing mccafferty and apologising for all the confusion and can they have their pants deal with ERC back again.

 

SecretFly wrote:Option 1 - (best option) - Some form of negotiatied deal is set up with PRL and the HEC or whatever else it might be called goes ahead and all's well for at least another five years.

quinsforever wrote:
if as you say, and i agree with, Option 1 is the best option, how does that improve Celtic rugby's negotiating position? if anything, it improves PRL/LNR's position.

Operative word being 'negotiated'.  

Negotiation means everyone is reasonably happy at the conclusion...if there is a conclusion that means a new competition, that is.  

Why do you see 'negotiation' itself as somehow being just everyone saying "Yes" to the PRL/LNR proposal?  I don't see how continuing a negotiation until a satisfactory conclusion is reached for everyone can be viewed by you as evidence that it would mean an improvement of the PRL/LNR position and indeed an adoption of their plans in their entirity.  No, it just means a continuation of the present negotiations until a settlement is reached that everyone can live with.

mystiroakey wrote:exactly- and that is all they ever want. Its the same with the actual teams(you know the ones that PLAY SPORT!)


Your typical celt that posts on this site would rather there own team lose as long as england do as well. The victim mentality is sickening.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Looks as though muscles are starting to be flexed the Sin.

maybe the junior person who wrote the salary cap press release forgot to tell mccafferty et al that he has taken over the RCC/HC issue and has decided to go back to the ERC trough.

am sure prl will shortly come out with a release firing mccafferty and apologising for all the confusion and can they have their pants deal with ERC back again.

 

or they may just point to the preambles of their 2013/14 Salary Cap Regulations:

"The terms "Aviva Premiership", "JP Morgan Asset Management Premiership Rugby 7s",
"LV= Cup", "Heineken Cup" or "Amlin Challenge Cup" shall be taken to include any
competitions that rename or replace them."

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Looks as though muscles are starting to be flexed the Sin.

maybe the junior person who wrote the salary cap press release forgot to tell mccafferty et al that he has taken over the RCC/HC issue and has decided to go back to the ERC trough.

am sure prl will shortly come out with a release firing mccafferty and apologising for all the confusion and can they have their pants deal with ERC back again.

 

or they may just point to the preambles of their 2013/14 Salary Cap Regulations:

"The terms "Aviva Premiership", "JP Morgan Asset Management Premiership Rugby 7s",
"LV= Cup", "Heineken Cup" or "Amlin Challenge Cup" shall be taken to include any
competitions that rename or replace them."

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Looks as though muscles are starting to be flexed the Sin.

maybe the junior person who wrote the salary cap press release forgot to tell mccafferty et al that he has taken over the RCC/HC issue and has decided to go back to the ERC trough.

am sure prl will shortly come out with a release firing mccafferty and apologising for all the confusion and can they have their pants deal with ERC back again.

 

or they may just point to the preambles of their 2013/14 Salary Cap Regulations:

"The terms "Aviva Premiership", "JP Morgan Asset Management Premiership Rugby 7s",
"LV= Cup", "Heineken Cup" or "Amlin Challenge Cup" shall be taken to include any
competitions that rename or replace them."

But the PRL have quit the ERC/Heineken Cup a long time ago and they know what competition is replacing it.

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Option 1 - (best option) - Some form of negotiatied deal is set up with PRL and the HEC or whatever else it might be called goes ahead and all's well for at least another five years.

quinsforever wrote:
if as you say, and i agree with, Option 1 is the best option, how does that improve Celtic rugby's negotiating position? if anything, it improves PRL/LNR's position.

Operative word being 'negotiated'.  

Negotiation means everyone is reasonably happy at the conclusion...if there is a conclusion that means a new competition, that is.  

Why do you see 'negotiation' itself as somehow being just everyone saying "Yes" to the PRL/LNR proposal?  I don't see how continuing a negotiation until a satisfactory conclusion is reached for everyone can be viewed by you as evidence that it would mean an improvement of the PRL/LNR position and indeed an adoption of their plans in their entirity.  No, it just means a continuation of the present negotiations until a settlement is reached that everyone can live with.

if you're going to be picky about specific meaning of words, then at least get it right. 

"Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties, intended to reach an understanding, resolve point of difference, or gain advantage in outcome of dialogue". from wiki.

why does everyone have to be reasonably happy at the conclusion? thats only likely if everyone's positions are similarly strong.

if one party to any negotiation has all the cards then he's hardly likely to compromise much now is he. maybe in some kind of utopian world he would, but not in this prl/lnr/erc spat thats for sure.

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:exactly- and that is all they ever want. Its the same with the actual teams(you know the ones that PLAY SPORT!)


Your typical celt that posts on this site would rather there own team lose as long as england do as well. The victim mentality is sickening.

Wot oakey????   Do you mean it should it be something like: "If'n yis can't win coz you is all Celtic twerps, then you should be right 'appy to let us English win... on your behalf, like!!"  

Nah.  I'd simply say it was more a case of England are going to have to do their own winning, oakey  No 'for' nor 'against' - just do your own winning and don't expect any leg-ups from the rest of us.

Biltong wrote:Gentlemen, we have received numerous reports on this thread.

It is really simple.

You either calm down, debate in a positive manner, or we close the thread.

Let's leave the accusations, name calling and other unsavoury comments out of the debate.

SecretFly wrote:

Biltong wrote:Gentlemen, we have received numerous reports on this thread.

It is really simple.

You either calm down, debate in a positive manner, or we close the thread.

Let's leave the accusations, name calling and other unsavoury comments out of the debate.

Reports from whom?  People offended by comments made here or people offended by those claiming to be offended?

I've seen more robust debates on staid and very prim and proper BBC Newsnight.  It gets tiresome as language is increasingly set-upon by a select few in society who increasingly and willfully confuse 'offensive material' with plain, simple (and democratically essential) opposing views.

Recwatcher wrote:http://m.espnscrum.com/s/47127/97?countryId=&country=&opinionDetails=true&storyNo=201877&writerName=John%20Taylor

The WRU link to the ERC  or the RRW with a potential 25% deficit - who is going to blink first....

Recwatcher wrote:The WRU link to the ERC  or the RRW with a potential 25% deficit - who is going to blink first....

SecretFly wrote:

Biltong wrote:Gentlemen, we have received numerous reports on this thread.

It is really simple.

You either calm down, debate in a positive manner, or we close the thread.

Let's leave the accusations, name calling and other unsavoury comments out of the debate.

Reports from whom?  People offended by comments made here or people offended by those claiming to be offended?

I've seen more robust debates on staid and very prim and proper BBC Newsnight.  It gets tiresome as language is increasingly set-upon by a select few in society who increasingly and willfully confuse 'offensive material' with plain, simple (and democratically essential) opposing views.

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Biltong wrote:Gentlemen, we have received numerous reports on this thread.

It is really simple.

You either calm down, debate in a positive manner, or we close the thread.

Let's leave the accusations, name calling and other unsavoury comments out of the debate.

Reports from whom?  People offended by comments made here or people offended by those claiming to be offended?

I've seen more robust debates on staid and very prim and proper BBC Newsnight.  It gets tiresome as language is increasingly set-upon by a select few in society who increasingly and willfully confuse 'offensive material' with plain, simple (and democratically essential) opposing views.

have to say i agree with you there fly.

quinsforever wrote: 

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Biltong wrote:Gentlemen, we have received numerous reports on this thread.

It is really simple.

You either calm down, debate in a positive manner, or we close the thread.

Let's leave the accusations, name calling and other unsavoury comments out of the debate.

Reports from whom?  People offended by comments made here or people offended by those claiming to be offended?

I've seen more robust debates on staid and very prim and proper BBC Newsnight.  It gets tiresome as language is increasingly set-upon by a select few in society who increasingly and willfully confuse 'offensive material' with plain, simple (and democratically essential) opposing views.

have to say i agree with you there fly.

as in, we are in agreement. not that we have reached an agreement. mass noun vs singular... 

Recwatcher wrote:Who approves first WRU or IRB?  as they both have stated they will not authorise unless the other body does so. Typical Rugby administrator double speak.