Tigers US Game

by broadlandboy Sun 07 Jun 2015, 5:29 pm

Canceled http://www.leicestertigers.com/news/23061.php
US Rugby would not sanction game.

by Pot Hale Sun 07 Jun 2015, 7:05 pm

A bit odd. Surely they would have cleared everything in advance before putting match tickets out to sale?

Is the Crusaders v Saracens match still going ahead or does it need sanctioning still too?

by Fanster Sun 07 Jun 2015, 7:28 pm

So let me get this straight, a governing body who had no official input into a fixture, set up without their knowledge, and having no representation or influence at said fixture, using a non USA rugby affiliated venue, and playing against a non USA rugby affiliated team, doesnt sanction the game and they are the bad guy?

From what I heard this was like a stranger walking into your house, opening your fridge and taking a sandwaich then not being happy when you slap the sandwich from their hands!

The NRFL is at loggerheads with USA rugby aren't they, over the way they are trying to lead the game in the USA?

by Fanster Sun 07 Jun 2015, 7:28 pm

BTW the above statement sounded so sarcastic and strongheaded, it wasn't meant to, I may have some details incorrect, I am working off rumour and what I've read online.

by Guest Sun 07 Jun 2015, 7:37 pm

Fanster wrote:

From what I heard this was like a stranger walking into your house, opening your fridge and taking a sandwaich then not being happy when you slap the sandwich from their hands!

Doesn't seem that way to me.

How about an abusive husband comes home and discovers his wife has made some lovely sandwiches for her and a friend to enjoy, which he promptly slaps out out of her hand because he believes he should decide for her exactly which sandwiches she is allowed to eat and when.

Also, if we were to take it further the husband planned on making some very similar sandwiches 22 days later and maybe wanted to stop his wife from making her sandwiches in case their friends didn't want to enjoy sandwiches twice in such a short space of time.

Christ what the Frak am I even writing this is getting ridiculous Doh

by Guest Sun 07 Jun 2015, 7:46 pm

Are they really married though?

I would like to hear more on what USA Rugby has to say before passing judgement. Is there a power struggle between USA Rugby and NRFL?

At the very least I would have expected the two club sides to have ensured all boxes were ticked before selling tickets.

by nathan Sun 07 Jun 2015, 8:29 pm

It's silly really, both sides are trying to achieve the same thing. To grow the game in the USA. I'm not sure why they couldn't come to an agreement

by doctor_grey Sun 07 Jun 2015, 9:10 pm

nathan wrote:It's silly really, both sides are trying to achieve the same thing. To grow the game in the USA. I'm not sure why they couldn't come to an agreement

From my experience, USA Rugby is very much of an old boys club. There is no question recent initiatives have changed that somewhat. Perhaps this cuts a little too close to the bone? Not sure, but there was a lot of unease about this match. A concern about power is the only answer I can see. But I am guessing.

by beshocked Mon 08 Jun 2015, 9:04 am

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jun/07/leicester-philadelphia-nrfl-rough-riders-cancelled

Guardian article explains everything.

In a statement to the Guardian, USA Rugby chief executive Nigel Melville said: “In order to sanction the proposed game USA Rugby require the teams to be in good standing with their respective unions. The Rough Riders are not a USA Rugby registered team and their players are not registered USA Rugby players. If they were we would sanction the game.”

In his statement, Melville said: “In the case of Saracens v Crusaders we have agreed to sanction the game provided that the Superdome in New Orleans meets the World Rugby Regulation 22 for artificial surfaces and we understand that the appropriate testing is underway.”

by Sin é Mon 08 Jun 2015, 11:20 am

doctor_grey wrote:
nathan wrote:It's silly really, both sides are trying to achieve the same thing. To grow the game in the USA. I'm not sure why they couldn't come to an agreement
From my experience, USA Rugby is very much of an old boys club. There is no question recent initiatives have changed that somewhat. Perhaps this cuts a little too close to the bone? Not sure, but there was a lot of unease about this match. A concern about power is the only answer I can see. But I am guessing.

Aside from the power struggle, the basic health and safety is another one. Putting a crowd of newbies and old codgers up against a professional team would have been suicide in litigious USA. It would certainly make you question what the promotors of this game were thinking.

A couple of years ago, Munster did a couple of preseason friendlies in the USA versus the Eagles in '08 & '09. Boys against men (which was a very depleted Munster team as Munster sent Doug Howlett off with a crowd of kids).

by **Rugby Fan** Mon 08 Jun 2015, 11:52 am

I wonder whether anyone at Leicester was ever in touch with USA Rugby. If their approval was required, then one of the following must have happened:

a) USA Rugby did a U-turn at the last minute.
b) Leicester were told by their business partner that USA Rugby was onside with the proposal, but this was untrue.
c) No-one realized USA Rugby needed to be consulted.

by Sin é Mon 08 Jun 2015, 12:16 pm

This will explain a fair bit:

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/01/nrfl-rugby-usa

quote from last January:

(USA Rugby, however, says it has no relationship with the NRFL and declined to comment on the league’s prospects.)

All sounds very dodgy to me.

by Guest Mon 08 Jun 2015, 12:39 pm

It doesn't appear as though USA Rugby and NRFL are married after all.

A professional league would be great in the USA, but for that to happen USA Rugby would need to be in control, I would think. From what Clements is saying, I don't think he has envisaged USA Rugby taking a leading role in NRFL.

Maybe USA Rugby need to get off their backsides and take the initiative from NRFL with regards to forming a professional league?

by **Rugby Fan** Mon 08 Jun 2015, 1:04 pm

USA Rugby may have no relationship with the NRFL but they did have dealings with RugbyLaw, who run the NRFL, since they are the ones putting on the Crusaders v Saracens event.

by Guest Mon 08 Jun 2015, 1:08 pm

But was that not because Crusaders and Saracens are both registered with their respective unions? Meaning that USA Rugby is in control of the game.

by Sin é Mon 08 Jun 2015, 1:20 pm

Munchkin wrote:It doesn't appear as though USA Rugby and NRFL are married after all.

A professional league would be great in the USA, but for that to happen USA Rugby would need to be in control, I would think. From what Clements is saying, I don't think he has envisaged USA Rugby taking a leading role in NRFL.

Maybe USA Rugby need to get off their backsides and take the initiative from NRFL with regards to forming a professional league?

If you read the full article in the link above, you would realise why USA Rugby are not getting involved with them. Seem very dodgy altogether (if not a little clueless and completely driven by money).

They actually don't need USA Rugby anyway. They could set up their own US league (and rules) - it just won't be called Rugby Union.

by HammerofThunor Mon 08 Jun 2015, 1:22 pm

It should have been obvious from the get go that it was a no go. Would have been more interesting if the game was in England and it was the RFU's choice.

From memory the NRFL came about from frustrations that the union was moving too slowly/not doing anything. It is, in effect, the oft discussed breakaway competition, that would isolated from the international rugby world.

by madmaccas Mon 08 Jun 2015, 1:25 pm

Whilst it's obviously deeply frustrating for Leicester fans who have bought tickets etc., I think it's essential that if and when the States creates a pro league, it should be done the right way. They'd be wise to look at other countries for inspiration/cautionary tales.

It sounds like they want to nip it in the bud before a club vs country situation arises. I can't say I disagree. To protect the integrity of rugby in the most commercialized market in the world (they stop play for ad breaks in the NFL!) it needs to be run by USA Rugby for the good of the game and not the good of profit driven groups of individuals.

Why this new league hasn't been set up in association with USA rugby seems a bit suspect. Nigel Melville is no fool and has decades of experience with this sort of thing. If he thinks it smells fishy then I'd say it probably is.

Finally it sounds like the Tigers have some explaining to do to the fans who have paid to travel to the game. They should never have offered tickets for sale until the match was sanctioned.

by Guest Mon 08 Jun 2015, 1:28 pm

I read it, Sin é, and agree that it does all sound a little dodgy and money driven. It does seem that there is a power struggle between the two, but money talks. Can USA Rugby prevent NRFL from forming a league outside of rugby union? By that I mean taking the initiative and forming a professional league themselves. Very expensive. Clements mentioned around $200m to get a professional league started. That's money USA Rugby won't have, or hope to have.

by Guest Mon 08 Jun 2015, 1:33 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:It should have been obvious from the get go that it was a no go. Would have been more interesting if the game was in England and it was the RFU's choice.

From memory the NRFL came about from frustrations that the union was moving too slowly/not doing anything. It is, in effect, the oft discussed breakaway competition, that would isolated from the international rugby world.

I think USA Rugby can only move as fast as money allows. Clements talked about $200m to start a league. USA Rugby won't be able to raise that sort on money.
I agree. NRFL would be a breakaway from rugby union and, if it takes off, bad for World Rugby.

by HammerofThunor Mon 08 Jun 2015, 1:34 pm

I'm talking about the movement in the last 20 years. Personally I have no idea about rugby in the US. I just remember the comments when it was first announced a few years ago.

EDIT: here's the link to a few months ago

https://www.606v2.com/t58571-nrfl-rough-riders?highlight=NRFL

by Guest Mon 08 Jun 2015, 1:41 pm

Being Blazers, they could probably move much faster than they have, Hammer. I don't know much about rugby in the USA either, but my perception was that it's only getting noticed now, and setting up a league a much more attractive prospect than it would have been a decade ago.

Maybe USA Rugby could raise the money needed to start a league from the broadcasters? I suppose that would depend on whether broadcasters would be prepared to take that sort of risk.

by HammerofThunor Mon 08 Jun 2015, 1:42 pm

And here's the thread from a couple of years ago

https://www.606v2.com/t44814-us-setting-up-a-pro-league-this-summer

by SecretFly Mon 08 Jun 2015, 4:10 pm

Munchkin wrote:

Maybe USA Rugby could raise the money needed to start a league from the broadcasters? I suppose that would depend on whether broadcasters would be prepared to take that sort of risk.

A Goddamned Non-Helmeted, Small-Numbered, One-Commerical-Break segmented, Non-Fetishistic-Dirty-Old-Man-Dancing-Gal fest???
Televise that schit????
You gotta be kidding me, guy!

by Guest Mon 08 Jun 2015, 4:45 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Munchkin wrote:

Maybe USA Rugby could raise the money needed to start a league from the broadcasters? I suppose that would depend on whether broadcasters would be prepared to take that sort of risk.

A Goddamned Non-Helmeted, Small-Numbered, One-Commerical-Break segmented, Non-Fetishistic-Dirty-Old-Man-Dancing-Gal fest???
Televise that schit????
You gotta be kidding me, guy!

I was just saying Crying or Very sad

You might be right though. Players playing without helmets isn't shiny enough. Maybe they could wear sparkly scrum caps? If Clements is right, and there are really investors out there willing to pump billions into the sport, as well as the media interest, then broadcasters might see it as a risk worth taking. Maybe. And maybe Rugby World should be throwing everything is has into starting a league in the USA, ahead of, and in place of NRFL?

by HammerofThunor Mon 08 Jun 2015, 4:53 pm

Rugby World the magazine? I thought commercially owned teams were considered the devil's own?

by Guest Mon 08 Jun 2015, 5:12 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:Rugby World the magazine? I thought commercially owned teams were considered the devil's own?

ahem...Worldrugby.

by formerly known as Sam Mon 08 Jun 2015, 8:09 pm

Sounds like Tigers walked into the middle of an ongoing was between rugby fractions on the USA. I'd imagine that Tigers were given some level of assurance the game would take place before agreeing but it looks dodgy that they've had their game called off just as USA Rugby announce a game a few weeks later at the same ground against AP opposition.

Cohen has already asked fans to contact the club of they've made travel plans and he's going to seek reimbursement though he didn't stipulate from whom. He did slate USA rugby though.

by nathan Mon 08 Jun 2015, 10:01 pm

"USA Rugby should hang their heads in shame," he said. "In so far as I can see, and judging by this episode, they are much more interested in protecting their own commercial interests than developing the game in the United States.

"I am sure that the Leicester Tigers playing a game in the United States would have been good for the development of the game and it is a shame that the very people charged with protecting the game should have taken this very short-sighted decision.

"I feel very sorry for our fans who have booked to go and we will try and offer some form of recompense if they contact us.

"We are still very determined to set up a number of community projects and coaching camps in the Philadelphia area. Those plans we had will be unaffected by USA Rugby's decision about the game because they do not have jurisdiction over what we can do, thank goodness."

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Fury-Leicester-Tigers-trip-Philadelphia-play/story-26643420-detail/story.html#ixzz3cVTbMG6h
Follow us: @Leicester_Merc on Twitter | leicestermercury on Facebook

by Guest Mon 08 Jun 2015, 10:51 pm

He might be furious, but I'm not convinced it's justified. It might be, but then the Rough Riders are not registered with USA Rugby and Cohen should have known this. Given that the fan's have been let down so badly, Cohen has to at least appear upset about the game being blocked, I guess, although that's not to say he doesn't have genuine reason either. Could USA Rugby not have acted sooner? I don't know, but if they could, then it's poor form.

"....they are much more interested in protecting their own commercial interests than developing the game in the United States."

Are they not right to protect their own commercial interests, and should they allow NRFL to plough ahead in developing the game? Is it the right sort of development?

All genuine questions from me. I don't trust NRFL from the little I have read, but at the same time if there's more that USA Rugby could be doing to develop rugby in the USA, then they are accountable for not moving quickly enough.
"

by broadlandboy Mon 08 Jun 2015, 11:37 pm

A Union against non Union controlled clubs.
Just had a thought could NRFL ditch Union & go League?

by Guest Mon 08 Jun 2015, 11:42 pm

Split from union maybe, but rugby league probably doesn't hold the same interest in the USA.

by doctor_grey Tue 09 Jun 2015, 2:15 am

Clearly a power play between the olde guard and the upstarts who want to move quickly. This new league has been discussed long enough where each side knows the people on the other side. USA Rugby do indeed want Rugby to grow - on their terms. But are also afraid of change, especially a change in which they lose control. And that is inevitable if any league forms. It is a comfy environment.

I don't know the new group, but have heard they really do want to move quickly. Not sure if they are fed up with USA Rugby or if they are 'full speed ahead' types who don't care who gets run over in the process. Money is needed to finance a league, as with any new investment. It seems to me something is lacking on both sides.

btw - there is almost no Rugby league played on this side of the Atlantic. Just a few spots.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 09 Jun 2015, 2:22 am

Anyone know why it was legally necessary for USA Rugby to sanction the match?

I can only assume its a formerly-known-as-the-IRB regulation. There's probably nothing to stop the NRFL fielding a breakaway team but perhaps the fkat-IRB mandates that teams recognized by one national union can only play against a team recognized by another. That would put Leicester offside (and players uninsured) if they attempted to play.

by HammerofThunor Tue 09 Jun 2015, 7:43 am

Yes, it's an IRB reg. (possibly a legal thing as well, but no idea). The union has to sanction any cross-border game (not sure if they have to sanction EVERY game, even the internal ones).

by **LondonTiger** Tue 09 Jun 2015, 8:23 am

Munchkin wrote:He might be furious, but I'm not convinced it's justified. It might be, but then the Rough Riders are not registered with USA Rugby and Cohen should have known this.
"

I certainly feel Cohen/Tigers should have done more to ensure the fixture would be valid before announcing it.

However I feel he can be furious that US Rugby waited months to make this decision, eventually making it at the most embarrassing point possible for the clubs involved.

Leicester have been far too gung-ho about this, however American rugby are not the good guys in this either.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 09 Jun 2015, 9:22 am

LondonTiger wrote:...However I feel he can be furious that US Rugby waited months to make this decision, eventually making it at the most embarrassing point possible for the clubs involved...

It would be interesting to know whether USA Rugby did wait until the last minute, or if they indicated they wouldn't sanction it some time ago, but RugbyLaw/NRFL thought they'd be able to change their mind by making it a fait accompli. It's also possible RugbyLaw/NRFL didn't ask USA Rugby for approval before announcing the fixture back in April.

by Guest Tue 09 Jun 2015, 11:52 am

LondonTiger wrote:
Munchkin wrote:He might be furious, but I'm not convinced it's justified. It might be, but then the Rough Riders are not registered with USA Rugby and Cohen should have known this.
"

I certainly feel Cohen/Tigers should have done more to ensure the fixture would be valid before announcing it.

However I feel he can be furious that US Rugby waited months to make this decision, eventually making it at the most embarrassing point possible for the clubs involved.

Leicester have been far too gung-ho about this, however American rugby are not the good guys in this either.

That's my thinking also, LT. I just don't know if USA Rugby could have blocked it sooner, or did they wait until they were sure they were legally entitled to do so? It could also be that USA Rugby waited until blocking the game would cause the maximum damage to the image, and negotiating power, of NRFL.

Rugby Fan makes some interesting points above. Although USA Rugby might be guilty of waiting until the last minute to block the game, the two clubs have only themselves to blame if they went over the head of USA Rugby to organise the event. Mistakes happen though, and no doubt Leicester will have learned from this experience.

by Sin é Tue 09 Jun 2015, 11:58 am

Tigers were willingly ($$$$ signs in their eyes) taken for a ride by a couple of guys selling snake skin oil.

by Sin é Tue 09 Jun 2015, 12:01 pm

Munchkin wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
Munchkin wrote:He might be furious, but I'm not convinced it's justified. It might be, but then the Rough Riders are not registered with USA Rugby and Cohen should have known this.
"

I certainly feel Cohen/Tigers should have done more to ensure the fixture would be valid before announcing it.

However I feel he can be furious that US Rugby waited months to make this decision, eventually making it at the most embarrassing point possible for the clubs involved.

Leicester have been far too gung-ho about this, however American rugby are not the good guys in this either.

That's my thinking also, LT. I just don't know if USA Rugby could have blocked it sooner, or did they wait until they were sure they were legally entitled to do so? It could also be that USA Rugby waited until blocking the game would cause the maximum damage to the image, and negotiating power, of NRFL.

Rugby Fan makes some interesting points above. Although USA Rugby might be guilty of waiting until the last minute to block the game, the two clubs have only themselves to blame if they went over the head of USA Rugby to organise the event. Mistakes happen though, and no doubt Leicester will have learned from this experience.

They didn't block it, they refused to sanction it because this team they are putting together are not Rugby Union members. They seem to have no problem sanctioning a game which these guys are promoting between two teams who are Rugby Union members.

by Guest Tue 09 Jun 2015, 12:19 pm

Well I would say that's a question of semantics, but I wouldn't argue.

USA Rugby want to be in control of these games, and they have no control over clubs not registered with them. If NRFL went over their heads to organise this game, which it seems obvious they did, then they have a right to react by not sanctioning it. It's just a pity that it was left so late in the day in doing so.

EDIT: Thinking about it a bit more. 'Blocking' appears to put the burden of responsibility on USA Rugby, while 'sanctioning' appears to put the burden of responsibility on NRFL. It is semantics, but semantics are important when it comes to perception.

by broadlandboy Tue 09 Jun 2015, 1:33 pm

How long would it take US Rugby to register Rough Riders as a team & it's players? So who is to blame for not registering?
The reason I thought about League is Are the people behind RugbyLaw out to promote Union or see a potential gap for a contact sport in US? League being a simpler game without the skills needed to scrum & lineout so more transferable skills from American Football.

by Golden Tue 09 Jun 2015, 10:56 pm

For anyone interested here is an informal discussion with NRFL founder George Roberston on a Facebook group regarding the Tigers game.

https://imgur.com/a/6g1eX

Didnt read the whole thing but he doesnt come across as the most professional of people

by Guest Tue 09 Jun 2015, 11:46 pm

Is that for real, or a parody account?

Here's a taster from the man who would rule rugby union (in his own mind):

"But nothing is stopping anyone from hitching a ride to France. And we have been diligent showing our best to the world." - George Robertson.

This was in relation to ex football players turning to NRFL to advance their careers in rugby union. Sure, these guys could just 'hitch a ride to France', to get on the rugby union gravy train, but opted to keep their faith in NRFL Very Happy

And following on:

"Now - what is NE Olympic doing for their players Brett, telling them they will make Walmart wages for that goofy sevens stuff. Heck even the USAR Olympics risible 7s contract is what? 22,000? Yikes." - George Robertson

What?!? those poor rugby players aren't being paid a fortune to represent their countries in the Olympics? Scandalous I say!

The whole discussion is ludicrous. It can't be genuine, can it?

George Robertson is the USA's very own David Moffett.

by **Rugby Fan** Wed 10 Jun 2015, 12:13 am

http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/story/266109.html

Nigel Melville gives more details on USA Rugby stance.

by Guest Wed 10 Jun 2015, 12:22 am

Interesting piece, Rugby Fan.

"Leicester Tigers are in good standing with their governing body, the Rugby Football Union … Rough Riders, however, are not a registered USA Rugby club and, as far as we are aware, their players and coaches are not registered members of USA Rugby. Thus, the match cannot be sanctioned at this time."

Melville elaborates on that by explaining that it is USA Rugby that provides the insurance, and as the Rough Riders players or coaches are not registered then no insurance can be provided.

Cohen's rage seems much less reasonable now.

by HammerofThunor Wed 10 Jun 2015, 8:12 am

You clearly didn't read the whole thing then Munchkin. Robertson clearly said the insurance was all sorted out, to a higher standard than USAR had. Tiger's insurance depended USAR approval. And the reason they didn't register with USAR is because they wouldn't give them the control of TV rights (and yes, Facebook people, the union DOES control the TV rights).

One thing is for sure is, it's a complete cluster...something.

Edit: just to make it clear, there is no way USAR could sanction the game. It makes no sense when they're not registered with them.

by Fanster Wed 10 Jun 2015, 9:45 am

I've spoken to someone at USA rugby, hence my probably first ever pro governing body stance, and they claim request for sanction wasn't submitted until a few weeks ago, which came as a shock to USA rugby, and when lines of communication were opened to investigate what was going on, it became clear this was designed as a power play by NRFL to press USA rugby into a corner.

Apparently USA rugby are very cautious of a scenario where private owners were to design, impliment and totally control a professional league (Any form of rugby contact is considered, as an alternative to NFL and named rugby in whatever shape necesary).

The plans in place to design and impliment a league structure that has cost tons in research and strategy that USA rugby doesn't have, but have been under pressure to do, are ongoing and more than likely a decade away from fruition.

This as been described to me as a typical race to the market ploy, by people who care not a jot about the sport, but about profiting as much as possible as quickly as possible.

Jees I sound like I work for them don't i?

You can't really blame USA rugby for wanting to avoid a huge issue later down the line ala WRU, FFR etc... or for wanting to hand the intellectual rights to their only product over to someone else, but whatever the case it hasn't been handled well by any party, including Tigers who I think have made some pretty immature comments about them caring about USA rugby blah blah blah

by Guest Wed 10 Jun 2015, 9:46 am

I did read the whole thing, Hammer. USA Rugby stated that player welfare is their responsibility, as is the insurance. USA Rugby can't sanction a game that they do not take responsibility for player welfare and insurance, and they can't provide player welfare and insurance to teams whose player and coaches are not registered with them. It doesn't matter that Robertson is claiming to have had a better insurance in place if the team he is wanting to enter isn't registered with USA Rugby.

NRFL are bad news, methinks.

by Sin é Wed 10 Jun 2015, 9:54 am

The guy George Robertson comes across as a pure nutter (and very dangerous). He is taking advantage of players who have failed at American football and promised to make them a fortune. He scoffs at 7s players only getting 22K a year, yet some of those poor guys who went for trials say they haven't heard back as to whether they have made it or not, but they are all going to hang in there.

I just wonder if the PRL are behind this in another attempt to get more control of Rugby Union in the only place that the Unions are not fully in charge/powerful. It smells a lot like the 'help' the PRL were giving the Welsh Regions.

If Robertson wanted to put on games in the US that might attract attention, his best options would have been Irish teams because of the large Irish American population who identify with their 'homeland' (not to mention the 1000s of Irish emigrants to the US).

by Sponsored content