AP Clubs Vote to Block Salary Cap Investigation!

First topic message reminder :

It's from The Times so only a snap shot:

Exclusive: Clubs block salary-cap investigation

Saracens and one other club had reportedly been under investigation for alleged breaches

John Westerby, Owen Slot Chief Rugby Correspondent

Leading clubs in England have voted in favour of suspending investigations into potential salary-cap breaches to protect the image of the Aviva Premiership.
At a time when Saracens and one other club had reportedly been under investigation for alleged breaches, The Times understands that a majority of clubs have voted for inquiries to be suspended, in part for fear of alienating sponsors and fans, and jeopardising their position in negotiations with the RFU over a new relationship governing the release of England players.

I can not see how this can mean anything other then Saracens were found to be in breach of the cap, and the clubs have decided to act amongst themselves and cover it up rather then it go further.

Is this good for the game in England?

MichaelT wrote:I think corruption is a bit harsh. If its proven they have made payments to a 3rd party to achieve/ win something e.g. a referee, then thats corruption. As far as I am aware, if it is Saracens and Bath, its not like they have won more than Harlequins or Gloucester over the last few years as far as trophies are concerned. Hardly a great advantage gained. I would say it is more an embarrassment to everyone involved than corruption.

For all we know, the levels the offending teams are making payments at could be under next years new cap anyway.

I would not use the word corruption until we know a lot more of the facts. However, any deliberate disregard for the salary cap - a fundamental tenant of the premiership league - is cheating. It undermines the entire competition, results and possible European qualification. It also insults the paying fans who follow the league and have a right to expect teams to follow the rules they signed up to.

sin e you said it seems as if Saracens have threatened legal action - that's speculation. Where's the proof of that?

Disagree doctor grey I don't think the timing is irrelevant. Also what has changed? Saracens have been accused of breaking the cap for a long time. Still no facts, just speculation.


Till some facts come into the public domain we cannot be sure of anything.

I personally don't believe everything in the newspapers.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Doesn't matter a jot Michael.

What doesn't matter - the fact that any payments that have been made hasn't lead to on the pitch success? No, it doesn't. But my point was to the word corruption. Poor behaviour, not following the rules, should be dealt with immediately - yes. But not corruption. Pretty sure if you were to look at cases of corruption they would lead to an advantage gained. I don't see that here and therefore don't believe the word should be used.

MichaelT wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Doesn't matter a jot Michael.

What doesn't matter - the fact that any payments that have been made hasn't lead to on the pitch success? No, it doesn't. But my point was to the word corruption. Poor behaviour, not following the rules, should be dealt with immediately - yes. But not corruption. Pretty sure if you were to look at cases of corruption they would lead to an advantage gained. I don't see that here and therefore don't believe the word should be used.

IMO deliberately ignoring a salary cap that PRL have agreed is fundamental to the league, would be a clear attempt to gain advantage by cheating. It makes no difference if an advantage can be "seen" or not.

Corruption is just dishonesty or deceipt, not necessarily leading to any advantage though clearly breaking the cap would be gaining an advantage rather than playing to the rules. At the moment it's just possible corruption though as they not have done anything wrong or may just be incompetant.

Agree with the word cheat. The salary cap rule has been cheated. Not corrupt. But I do believe the distinction needs to be made - they have made payments they shouldn't have (if thats the case), but no advantage has been gained. This is not a Lance Armstrong scenario.

If they have broken the cap they have achieved an advantage full stop. The final outcome does not dictate whether an advantage was gained.

My issue was with the word corruption. There is no denying on my part that a wrong has occurred and shouldn't be punished. Again, if allegations are proven to be true. But it is still not corruption.

We don't know whether a wrong has even occured yet which is one of my dislikes for this, In regards to corruption it could be classed as that: '[mass noun]
1Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery:'

Probably no bribery involved so there's better words but certainly could fit.

No 7&1/2 wrote:We don't know whether a wrong has even occured yet which is one of my dislikes for this

I also believe its not a coincidence this has come out this year with a home RWC. Its taken 20 years of professionalism, but the clubs are realising the public will spend a lot of money on watching matches every week, and not just on the international tournaments. Whether that's a good or bad thing we will have to wait and see.

corruption
/kəˈrʌpʃ(ə)n/

noun
noun: corruption; plural noun: corruptions

1.
dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.
"the journalist who wants to expose corruption in high places"

synonyms: dishonesty, dishonest dealings, unscrupulousness, deceit, deception, duplicity, double-dealing, fraud, fraudulence, misconduct, lawbreaking, crime, criminality, delinquency, wrongdoing, villainy;





Now if a person was being pedantic and if what people have been saying about reasons for alleged cover-up are true (as they pertain to TV deal vetos etc), then a person might be inclined to highlight all the other currently un-highlighted synonyms too ....  and use the word 'Bribery'.

No, we're certainly NOT home and dry and free from suspicions of 'corruption' just yet.  Let's wait for The Delay to end and the truth to be told.

beshocked wrote:sin e you said it seems as if Saracens have threatened legal action - that's speculation. Where's the proof of that?

Disagree doctor grey I don't think the timing is irrelevant. Also what has changed? Saracens have been accused of breaking the cap for a long time. Still no facts, just speculation.


Till some facts come into the public domain we cannot be sure of anything.

I personally don't believe everything in the newspapers.

All speculation will continue until this investigation occurs and punishments are doled out (if necessary). By refusing to have the investigation now suggests that there is something wrong - the old 'you protest too much' kicks in ...."

Sin é wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think most people believe its postponed you really shouldnt try to paint something thats not there.

I might believe them if they gave an indication as to why its not being conducted now or even if they actually said when it is postponed to.

But then it seems that Saracens have threatened legal action if they do go ahead which would suggest to me that they are guilty anyway. Do you think the guilty clubs are going to put their hands up and admit guilt? If so, when?

There is a very good chance that they can't say much at all about why it's been postponed (though I think they did say that the next meeting is in June).

Wray has said, in as many words, that they've tried to push the boundary of the cap and their lawyers think it's OK.

Look at the start of the wording that Bathman_in_London posted:

Salary Cap Regs (extract) wrote:Any payments or benefits in kind in connection with an individual sponsorship,
endorsement, merchandising, employment or other individual arrangement between
a Player (or any Connected Party of a Player) and any Connected Party of the Club or
Third Party which the Salary Cap Manager reasonably concludes on the balance of
probabilities should not be considered Salary, having taken into account the
following factors:
(i) if the arrangement is with a Connected Party, it will be more likely to be
considered Salary;
(ii) if the arrangement was negotiated and/or intended to be entered into at
arm’s length from the Player’s Club, it will be less likely to be considered
Salary;....

The regs are very, very open to interpretation - it's all "more likely" or "less likely". I think it was designed to be catch-all, but it's very easy to see how Saracens could have dropped a legal argument into the discussion justifying their position and arguing that the balance of probabilities had not been satisfied.

To be clear, I am not saying that Saracens are right or wrong at this point. It is pretty clear that they've taken a position on the cap that is at odds with most of their fellow PRL members, but it's equally clear that they feel it's justifiable within the letter if not the spirit of the regs. They feel they've got a case, and it's within their rights to defend it.

So the other PRL members faced a choice of penalising and going straight into a court case which they might not win, or taking more time to work out whether the case is strong and where the cap rules need to be tightened up. Neither option is appetising, but if the legal case that they haven't broken the cap is sound, discretion is the better part of valour.

MichaelT wrote:I think corruption is a bit harsh. If its proven they have made payments to a 3rd party to achieve/ win something e.g. a referee, then thats corruption. As far as I am aware, if it is Saracens and Bath, its not like they have won more than Harlequins or Gloucester over the last few years as far as trophies are concerned. Hardly a great advantage gained. I would say it is more an embarrassment to everyone involved than corruption.

For all we know, the levels the offending teams are making payments at could be under next years new cap anyway.

I don't think it's harsh at all, Michael.

The very fact that two clubs have cheated the salary cap for advantage over their opponents, including a financial advantage, demonstrates a level of corruption. And that's without having to consider the alleged behaviour of these club owners in trying to bury the facts, and the threatening manner in which they did. it is also alleged that Wray encouraged Griffiths to resign in an effort to help ease the pressure of the investigation.

Along with the Oxford dictionary's definition of corruption, this is their definition of corrupt:

Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain


Cheating the salary cap would come under that definition I believe.

Not facts yet.

Facts are two a penny, and there are quite a few facts out there already. The truth though? Will the truth be exposed? We will have to wait and see.

So just to confirm its not fact that 2 clubs have cheated the cap just yet.

True it's not an established fact, but I would say that it's a stretch to say it's not fact at this point. It's fact that there was an investigation - it's fact that unnamed sources are claiming that two clubs have been under investigation - it's fact that the investigation has been suspended - it's fact that Brian Moore has claimed that inside sources have revealed to him this cheating and the attempt to bury it. - it's fact that Ryan Walkinshaw on being questioned about issue stated: '‘We fought very hard to push for any salary punishments. I’d love to speak more but I can’t.’ - it's fact that Wray stated that he would be willing to enter a legal battle against the cap - it's fact that Griffiths has been removed from the saracens even though he didn't want to go, and even though Wray still speaks highly of him...

Loads of facts..

Plenty of people sticking their head in the sand.

I'm not talking about you by the way

Surely a fact is when something is confirmed as true....

Obviously.

I'm not sure what it is you're pointing at, but will have a go anyway.

The allegations of facts, or alleged facts, have yet to be officially recognised as fact, however the facts that surround those alleged facts all point to those alleged facts being true. The facts being those in the know claiming the alleged facts are true, but even if they are true, they will not be recognised as true until either the guilty parties admit guilt, or an investigation finds that they are true.

You don't have alleged facts. You have allegations that become facts (or not).

".......A party to a civil suit generally must clearly state all relevant allegations of fact upon which a claim is based. The requisite level of precision and particularity of these allegations varies depending on the rules of civil procedure as well as the jurisdiction. Parties who face uncertainties regarding the facts and circumstances attendant to their side in a dispute may sometimes invoke alternative pleading.[38] In this situation, a party may plead separate sets of facts that (when considered together) may be contradictory or mutually exclusive. This (seemingly) logically-inconsistent presentation of facts may be necessary as a safeguard against contingencies (such as res judicata) that would otherwise preclude presenting a claim or defense that depends on a particular interpretation of the underlying facts.[39]"

Wonderful. Beaten by legal jargon.

Love it

I'm not interested in whether the word corruption might be appropriate. It can have connotations of criminality, and so its use will always be contentious in cases where no criminal charges are at stake.

I am interested in understanding what is going on, and would like to know that those charged with understanding matters share my interest.

Brian Moore made clear that a confidentiality agreement - which he said he had seen - means that no-one is speaking on the record, and even off the record briefings are thin on detail.

Either we have a clear basis on which the English domestic game is founded, or we don't. A salary cap is meaningless if it cannot be monitored and enforced. If that's the situation we are in, then the sooner everyone knows that - not just a few insiders - the better.

If the Premiership wants to argue that it has a functioning salary cap, then they need to do a lot more to demonstrate publicly that this is indeed the case.

The idea that resolving this matter now will somehow derail a World Cup is absurd. Most rugby people around the world care very little about how the English domestic league arranges its affairs. The World Cup is also the biggest competition for our sport, and so one of the most bulletproof against any parochial disputes.

If clubs aren't in agreement about something as fundamental as a salary cap, then it calls into question whether they are the right parties to be making other key decisions which will shape the future of the English domestic game over the next few years.

Rugby Fan wrote:I'm not interested in whether the word corruption might be appropriate. It can have connotations of criminality, and so its use will always be contentious in cases where no criminal charges are at stake.

I am interested in understanding what is going on, and would like to know that those charged with understanding matters share my interest.

Brian Moore made clear that a confidentiality agreement - which he said he had seen - means that no-one is speaking on the record, and even off the record briefings are thin on detail.

Either we have a clear basis on which the English domestic game is founded, or we don't. A salary cap is meaningless if it cannot be monitored and enforced. If that's the situation we are in, then the sooner everyone knows that - not just a few insiders - the better.

If the Premiership wants to argue that it has a functioning salary cap, then they need to do a lot more to demonstrate publicly that this is indeed the case.

The idea that resolving this matter now will somehow derail a World Cup is absurd. Most rugby people around the world care very little about how the English domestic league arranges its affairs. The World Cup is also the biggest competition for our sport, and so one of the most bulletproof against any parochial disputes.

If clubs aren't in agreement about something as fundamental as a salary cap, then it calls into question whether they are the right parties to be making other key decisions which will shape the future of the English domestic game over the next few years.

A very good observation. I've deliberately emboldened only part of your statement because I believe those key decisions for the future extend beyond the interests of the English domestic game.

Fact - a thing that is known or proved to be true. Don t think we can say that yet.

Munchkin wrote:".......A party to a civil suit generally must clearly state all relevant allegations of fact upon which a claim is based. The requisite level of precision and particularity of these allegations varies depending on the rules of civil procedure as well as the jurisdiction. Parties who face uncertainties regarding the facts and circumstances attendant to their side in a dispute may sometimes invoke alternative pleading.[38] In this situation, a party may plead separate sets of facts that (when considered together) may be contradictory or mutually exclusive. This (seemingly) logically-inconsistent presentation of facts may be necessary as a safeguard against contingencies (such as res judicata) that would otherwise preclude presenting a claim or defense that depends on a particular interpretation of the underlying facts.[39]"

So this quote is a description of how 'facts' are open to interpretation, which is how I imagine the offending clubs are presenting their side of the story. 'We believe it means this' 'No it doesn't, we can still do that'.

You have stated there is corruption, but also an acceptance that you can have separate sets of facts depending on interpretation of those facts.

Well done, you've confirmed a way out for offending teams.

All sorted here lads. Move on.

I despair at some people. Mainly those who vote Tory today, but not exclusively.

Boys, boys, boys

FACTS are not something that suddenly materialise when a jury finds Guilt or Innocence.  The Facts are always there.

Something that is known or proved to be true.

What we're doing here is simply speculating on what those facts are.  The Facts of the case are already there, an investigation either will or already has uncovered them.  All we're doing is trying to second guess what they may be.  But they already exist, whatever they are.

So it's wrong to say we have to wait until 'confirmation' before a fact is created or that something becomes a fact only when proven.  From the moment a side wilfully breaks a capping rule, that's a fact that they're breaking it - they know they're doing it.  If a side have never broken a capping rule, that's already a fact too.

All we do is contemplate on what the facts are.

I am just popping in to point out a few things. Firstly it is no surprise who won the CC this year, and who was in the final with them, the biggest spenders are the French. Now, to compete with the French you need to be spending if not as much as them, then more than most just to be closer to them. What other two teams were in the semi finals ? Saracens and Leinster. Now we all know that Leinster have a bigger budget than most teams outside of France, thus there was no surprise to see them in the SF, so for Saracens to be in the SF then for me it must go to show that they have at least the same budget as Leinster, which is above the English salary cap. So for me it is of no surprise that Saracens are being accused of breaking the English rules.

That's frankly stupid logic.

LordDowlais wrote:for Saracens to be in the SF then for me it must go to show that they have at least the same budget as Leinster,

That's a leap of logic though isn't it. Sale and Exeter have beaten Sarries this season, so have they got even bigger budgets?

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's frankly stupid logic.

Still logic all the same, and I am not quoting FACTS that are not FACTS.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:for Saracens to be in the SF then for me it must go to show that they have at least the same budget as Leinster,

That's a leap of logic though isn't it. Sale and Exeter have beaten Sarries this season, so have they got even bigger budgets?

One off games though. Leinster and Saracens competed with the big spending French over the course of a tournament. Even beating big spenders like Racing Metro on their own patch.

So Northampton are the biggest cheats then? Cool no need for an investigation.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So Northampton are the biggest cheats then? Cool no need for an investigation.

How far did Northampon get ?

SecretFly wrote:Boys, boys, boys

FACTS are not something that suddenly materialise when a jury finds Guilt or Innocence.  The Facts are always there.

Something that is known or proved to be true.

What we're doing here is simply speculating on what those facts are.  The Facts of the case are already there, an investigation either will or already has uncovered them.  All we're doing is trying to second guess what they may be.  But they already exist, whatever they are.

So it's wrong to say we have to wait until 'confirmation' before a fact is created or that something becomes a fact only when proven.  From the moment a side wilfully breaks a capping rule, that's a fact that they're breaking it - they know they're doing it.  If a side have never broken a capping rule, that's already a fact too.

All we do is contemplate on what the facts are.

That is exactly the point though Secretfly, facts are something that are known or proven to be true, and we don't know what the facts are yet, but we have others saying 'this is a fact of the issue'. We don't know the facts, and that should be stated with just as much enthusiasm as the finger pointing seems to be.

Everyone is quick to accept different referees have different interpretation of rugby laws, but its the same wording for the law - why is it open to interpretation? Because it is a law, and for anyone who knows about laws, I'm sure the phrases literal meaning, mischief rule or golden rule would be familiar to them. Any law can be open to interpretation and need further clarification.

The same thing looks like it applies here - interpretation of what can/ cannot be included in the salary cap. Until the 'offending' teams have their point of view explained with the figures and reasoning behind it, I am going to wait and see before making up my mind.

Leinster pay their 'Big' money to keep their own ... and stop other teams profiting from them by buying them up

Toulon and Saracens pay their 'Big' money to buy in talent and somehow pretend its all about the locality of the team they're based in, and philosophy, and tradition, and great fan bases etc etc.  No it's about hovering up talent from competitors and using it to rub them out.

I much prefer a team to be populated mostly by players from the actual place they're based in.  I love it that Leinster tried and failed against Toulon using mostly Irish players.  I was proud of them.  I want that to stay.  Even to lose is better than becoming a Team that buys in all the talent it needs.  
I laugh at the logic here sometimes though - not talking about this thread or any recent comments by anyone - but I laugh when this New even more feverish Professional Rugby world that is creeping up on us suggests that a Club or Region or Province almost shouldn't be allowed hold onto their own players when those players would be better served (and paid) hopping over to the GREAT TOULON or the FANTASTIC CLERMONT to let their damn fans cheer for them instead.  Help perpetuate the Reputation of these and other teams by selling off all your best players to them.  Let the market decide that your future is oblivion and be happy about it.  "Why should you be allowed afford your own players???"

To hell with that Bullschit!

For now, Leinster can hold onto a lot of its players.  How long that lasts nobody knows - I hope a long, long time. Resist, resist, resist.

Nobody is going to argue with what you have said there SF. But we are STILL talking about budgets, and Leinster have a very big one, thus being able to keep a big squad of IRISH players whilst still paying big amounts to quality non Irish players to add the little extra needed to try and fail against the Toulons of this world.

MichaelT wrote:

That is exactly the point though Secretfly, facts are something that are known or proven to be true, and we don't know what the facts are yet, but we have others saying 'this is a fact of the issue'. We don't know the facts, and that should be stated with just as much enthusiasm as the finger pointing seems to be.

Well, I've personally never said "These are the facts".  All I say is that the Chairman or Chairmen of investigated clubs Do know facts.  Facts exist.  Some people here say there are no facts because nobody has come out officially to give any yet.  I say there are Facts and we are allowed speculate on them.  The only Facts I speculatively believe to be True is that there was an investigation and it was stopped/stalled/delayed.  I firmly believe those are facts.  Others here at one time have said that even speculation on that is a step too far because even that's not a fact - yet.  I say denying that it's a fact is a step too far in reasoned debate

At least the French / English clubs with big budgets win things (Toulon, Clermont, Toulouse, Saints, Sarries). If you look at Ulster's budget compared to trophies won in the last 10 years they have to be the current biggest failure in professional rugby.

Pot Hale wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:If clubs aren't in agreement about something as fundamental as a salary cap, then it calls into question whether they are the right parties to be making other key decisions which will shape the future of the English domestic game over the next few years.

A very good observation.  I've deliberately emboldened only part of your statement because I believe those key decisions for the future extend beyond the interests of the English domestic game.  

Whether you think they're the right parties or not is a bit irrelevant, though. At the moment, the clubs ARE the domestic game, and their owners have generally spent or lent millions of pounds each to get to this point.

And let's be clear: the salary cap is their own self-imposed measure to protect their own commercial interests; it's their right to administer it in the way that best suits those commercial interests. An important element of protecting those interests is not hacking off the fans and media - but it's not the only factor and it could conceivably be trumped by the need to prevent something even more disruptive.

As fans, we may not like that, but it's a reality that we have to accept along with the money that they have spent on the clubs we support. But suppose you wanted to get rid of the current crop of clubs... what could you do?

Let's say you wanted to kick them out altogether. Probably the only practical way to do that would be for the RFU to withdraw permission for the PRL to run the English league. Even assuming you could do that without a hugely damaging lawsuit, you're then in a position where:

a) all of England's players are contracted for the next 2-3 years to clubs who no longer have any interest in releasing them to the RFU
b) the disenfranchised clubs have a very strong incentive to set up a breakaway sport that's like rugby, only... not. Also, they have the tv deal with BT, and the RFU doesn't. Would Sky pay for a competing English rugby competition? Maybe, but not as much
c) the RFU have to find 12 more clubs big enough to run the professional game. Currently outside the PRL you only have Bristol and Worcester who are remotely near the AP clubs in development terms (stadia, transport infrastructure, marketing etc)
d) the RFU have disenfranchised the fanbase that the clubs have just spent 15 years building up.

Taken together, those impacts would set the English game back decades. (Cue gleeful schadenfreude from Sin e, Secretfly, Gwlad etc)

The alternative would be to own the clubs. But they are legally owned by, well, mostly the CEOs who attend the PRL meetings, so you'd have to buy them out - but they'd be aware that they have considerable scarcity power, and in any case I don't think the RFU could afford to buy out the collective debt. And a couple of the teams - Leicester and Exeter, from memory - are listed and owned by hundreds of small shareholders.

In short, even if you didn't want them, there's no practical way to replace PRL and the clubs we have today. What we might see is a better and more independent cap, and the replacement of some of the management of any clubs who are - eventually - found to have broken the cap.

LordDowlais wrote:Nobody is going to argue with what you have said there SF. But we are STILL talking about budgets, and Leinster have a very big one, thus being able to keep a big squad of IRISH players whilst still paying big amounts to quality non Irish players to add the little extra needed to try and fail against the Toulons of this world.

My only hope is that Welsh Regions join us in being able to resist the Mega Rich sides into the future - using whatever systems and financing methods they can - to hold onto the special players they can produce, holding them for themselves and Benefitting from the joy they bring to Regions in success on the field.  Welsh Fans enjoying the success of Welsh players playing for Welsh Regions.

I only wish for that into the immediate future.  That would only bolster our own commitment and resolve to hold onto our own too.  New Professionalism can be talked up by the marketers as much as they like but there is no way Toulon fans are so special that they have a right to be always the winners simply because they have a sugar-daddy buying up the world's best players for them.  I know that's the way it's going and it's not stopping but I'm not going to be caving into the Propaganda and buying my Toulon shirt  

SecretFly wrote:t there is no way Toulon fans are so special that they have a right to be always the winners simply because they have a sugar-daddy buying up the world's best players for them.

As has been explained countless times, that does not happen.

Chunky Norwich wrote:At least the French / English clubs with big budgets win things (Toulon, Clermont, Toulouse, Saints, Sarries). If you look at Ulster's budget compared to trophies won in the last 10 years they have to be the current biggest failure in professional rugby.

What a weird comment. You missed six or seven years of European rugby? French? English?
Allegedly Over-the-Cap-for-a-good-few-years Saracens? What have they won?

God, I thought it was an Irish distaste you had going on there Chunky. But lately it seems to have resolved into something clearer - your fixation is Ulster?

Chunky Norwich wrote:At least the French / English clubs with big budgets win things (Toulon, Clermont, Toulouse, Saints, Sarries). If you look at Ulster's budget compared to trophies won in the last 10 years they have to be the current biggest failure in professional rugby.

Hmmm...we haven't got ourselves into £40m debt. Anyway, what is Ulster's budget? How much of that massive budget did we splash out on new signings last year? You must know, unless you're just spouting nonsense as usual

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:t there is no way Toulon fans are so special that they have a right to be always the winners simply because they have a sugar-daddy buying up the world's best players for them.

As has been explained countless times, that does not happen.

That IS increasingly Happening! What bloody planet are you on, Chunky? Three European wins in three goes??!!! With Harlem Globetrotting players slotted in scientifically? And more to come after the WC?

What part of 'Buying Success' can't you see there? You can't 'see' it because you're all for it. You want it. You've bought into the idea of rugby following football. Get the exotics in to help bring back the punters Now what threads have I heard that on before.

MichaelT wrote:

Munchkin wrote:".......A party to a civil suit generally must clearly state all relevant allegations of fact upon which a claim is based. The requisite level of precision and particularity of these allegations varies depending on the rules of civil procedure as well as the jurisdiction. Parties who face uncertainties regarding the facts and circumstances attendant to their side in a dispute may sometimes invoke alternative pleading.[38] In this situation, a party may plead separate sets of facts that (when considered together) may be contradictory or mutually exclusive. This (seemingly) logically-inconsistent presentation of facts may be necessary as a safeguard against contingencies (such as res judicata) that would otherwise preclude presenting a claim or defense that depends on a particular interpretation of the underlying facts.[39]"

So this quote is a description of how 'facts' are open to interpretation, which is how I imagine the offending clubs are presenting their side of the story. 'We believe it means this' 'No it doesn't, we can still do that'.

You have stated there is corruption, but also an acceptance that you can have separate sets of facts depending on interpretation of those facts.

Well done, you've confirmed a way out for offending teams.

All sorted here lads. Move on.

You haven't interpreted it correctly, and that's a fact.

Well done

Munchkin wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:At least the French / English clubs with big budgets win things (Toulon, Clermont, Toulouse, Saints, Sarries). If you look at Ulster's budget compared to trophies won in the last 10 years they have to be the current biggest failure in professional rugby.

Hmmm...we haven't got ourselves into £40m debt. Anyway, what is Ulster's budget? How much of that massive budget did we splash out on new signings last year? You must know, unless you're just spouting nonsense as usual

I usually spout nonsense? Any evidence?

The new signing Piatau??. Piennar, plus the centrally contracted players. Tot all those up and it will give you a clue to what Ulster's budget is. It's huge compared to most uk pro teams and you god damn know it.

They are a failure.