Tigers US Game

First topic message reminder :

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

lol, couldn't make this up. Wondered how long until the Sine came on here mentioning the PRL. Pretty standard

nathan wrote:lol, couldn't make this up. Wondered how long until the Sine came on here mentioning the PRL. Pretty standard

Yep, quite a staggering presumption. No doubt Nigel Melville is acting as a PRL agent and will be changing his name to Sepp Ecclestone shortly. If only the Irish were handling this then everything could be done over a couple of pints of the black stuff in the back of the bar with absolutely no brown envelopes passing hands at all, ever.

As for the Irish angle, well LI are looking to head out there for a couple of games.

It wouldn't be Melville. It would be the likes of Robertson and Clements.....

Anyway, who are Leinster Tigers?

nathan wrote:lol, couldn't make this up. Wondered how long until the Sine came on here mentioning the PRL. Pretty standard

Its Sin É, not Sine.

Lets see now - Premiership Club accept invite to Non-union game, said club attacks USA Rugby for not 'sanctioning' game and you are trying to claim that the PRL has nothing to do with it!

Just read some of the stuff that Robertson has come out with - its sound like his script was written by Nigel Wray.

Munchkin wrote: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.

The insurance for the US players was provided (if you're going to flat out accuse someone of lying then there's not much point discussing anything because anyone could be lying). The Tigers' insurance would only count if it was sanctioned. USAR couldn't sanction it as the US players aren't registered (not because of insurance but because it doesn't make any sense).

I wonder if Melville has any ties to the IRFU (as sine has pointed out, they have ties out there). Perhaps the IRFU are moving west due to their illuminati scheme to maintain control over European rugby has begun to crumble.

Sin - more a case of a "home grown" Wray than anyone under his influence, probably an "entrepreneur" trying to jump on the rugby bandwagon in the run up to the Sevens games in the Brazil Olympics 2016 - there is huge interest in the Oylmpics in the US and if their sevens team does well it will raise the profile of the game considerably there, and in the US where there's interest there's money.
Regarding the involvement of Tigers more man sausage up than consipiracy IMHO - if they were trying to support some form of breakaway league they'd have pressed on regardless and played an unsanctioned game - I doubt if the lack of US Rugby insurance would have made a lot of difference as someone would have covered them.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote: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.

The insurance for the US players was provided (if you're going to flat out accuse someone of lying then there's not much point discussing anything because anyone could be lying). The Tigers' insurance would only count if it was sanctioned. USAR couldn't sanction it as the US players aren't registered (not because of insurance but because it doesn't make any sense).

I wonder if Melville has any ties to the IRFU (as sine has pointed out, they have ties out there). Perhaps the IRFU are moving west due to their illuminati scheme to maintain control over European rugby has begun to crumble.

For goodness sake calm down, Hammer. I haven't accused anyone of lying  I do question his claim about the quality of insurance being higher than would be offered by USA Rugby.

I know the insurance for the US players was arranged by NRFL! That's not the point. The point is that USA Rugby will not sanction a team they cannot insure and do not have control over player welfare, as that team is not registered with them.

Perfectly calm (perhaps I need to use and more often). But if you're questioning whether what he's saying is true then you're suggesting he's lying...aren't you? From my quick read yesterday he said the standard required by the stadium was a higher standard than that provided by USAR (note the Quins game sanctioned by USAR in the same city is in a different stadium).

USAR rugby won't sanction a game involving players who refuse to be controlled by the union. The idea they would is farcical. They can say their reasons are player welfare (and they are, including reffing quality, discipline [although as we see with the Barbarians, foul play because less important in exhibition matches ], etc) but the players/teams are not associated with the USAR because they want commercial control over the competitions, therefore the USAR can't sanction it.

Hammer, you didn't read my comment correctly:

"It doesn't matter that Robertson is claiming to have had a better insurance..."

And so you thought I was saying that he is lying about NRFL providing insurance. I wasn't. I was obviously questioning his claim that NRFL provide a better insurance. Questioning it, not claiming it was a lie. The reason why I question it is that I have doubts about an insurance company offering a better insurance to a micky mouse organisation like NRFL than they would USA Rugby. I could be wrong. NRFL might be paying through the nose for this insurance, but then if they were confident of USA Rugby giving sanction to the game, why not cut their costs by asking USA to insure? I don't buy that it would be because NRFL can provide a better insurance, or only NRFL can provide the insurance for that particular stadium. An argument would be that NRFL didn't ask because they know USA Rugby can't insure a team not registered, but then if they know that, then they also know that USA Rugby won't sanction a non USA Rugby registered team.

USA Rugby can't sanction the game because they can't personally offer player welfare, and the insurance that comes with it. Full stop. Yes, they want control, but that is beside the point of them being not able to sanction a team not registered to them anyway.

Irish Londoner wrote:Sin - more a case of a "home grown" Wray than anyone under his influence, probably an "entrepreneur" trying to jump on the rugby bandwagon in the run up to the Sevens games in the Brazil Olympics 2016 - there is huge interest in the Oylmpics in the US and if their sevens team does well it will raise the profile of the game considerably there, and in the US where there's interest there's money.
Regarding the involvement of Tigers more man sausage up than consipiracy IMHO - if they were trying to support some form of breakaway league they'd have pressed on regardless and played an unsanctioned game - I doubt if the lack of US Rugby insurance would have made a lot of difference as someone would have covered them.

From what i've heard and read this is exactly it, bored of waiting for USA rugby to develop a league in a professional and long term orientated manner a few people have decided to rush the product to market as soon as possible to capitolize short term!

I said he claimed that the level of insurance required by the stadium in Philadelphia has 'better' than that provided by USAR.  I see no reason why that couldn't be the case.

Whether or not USAR insure the players has nothing to do with player welfare. If it was about player welfare they would just stipulate that the insurance would cover x, y and z.  Player insurance has nothing to do with why it's not being sanctioned. It's not being sanctioned because they're not affiliated with USAR. It's as simple as that. They could be insured to their eyeballs and have safety and player welfare standards that blow IRB requirements out of the water. USAR would still not sanction it because they're not affiliated with USAR.

EDIT:

What is stopping NFRL from registering?

Hammer, it was me that said that Robertson claimed to have the better insurance, and you made the mistake of jumping on it to berate me for something I didn't say....

You might not see reason to doubt that it might in fact be a better insurance. I questioned it, as explained, and questioned it as a throw away. Not expecting someone to misread what I actually said and then make an issue out of it.

I would think player safety and welfare has much to do with the insurance USA Rugby provide. Why do you think Melville talks about insurance when giving his reasons not to sanction the game? :

[USA Rugby chief executive Nigel Melville said in reposonse, however,

that the union "provides insurance for all of our member clubs, players and coaches … it is not our role to sanction games for teams who are not members of our organisation".
"Club, player and coach registration is an important player welfare issue here in the USA," Melville said, with USA Rugby noting in its statement that "all coaches and officials, who are registered members of USA Rugby, are required to pass specific courses concerning player safety and welfare".
"The requirement to have a registered, Level 200 certified coach on a club roster in order to be in registration compliance is to ensure that the participating athletes can play without fear of unnecessary injury. It is under these guidelines that USA Rugby can confidently sanction matches."
USA Rugby said the Hemisphere Cup match between Saracens and the Crusaders at Mercedes-Benz Super Dome in New Orleans was not in doubt because "both teams are in good standing with their respective unions and the game has therefore been sanctioned by USA Rugby, provided that the playing surface complies with World Rugby Regulation 22".
"It is USA Rugby's understanding that these tests are being undertaken and the match should be played without issue."

Hammer - " Player insurance has nothing to do with why it's not being sanctioned. It's not being sanctioned because they're not affiliated with USAR. It's as simple as that"

And I said that USA Rugby won't sanction games in which they do not provide insurance and welfare for, and they won't provide insurance for game's that feature teams not registered with USA Rugby. Simple as that.

Look, it was Melville that brought up the insurance, player welfare and player safety when giving his reasons not to sanction the game. If you think that USA Rugby will sanction a game without being in control of player welfare, safety and with providing insurance, so long as they're registered, then fine, but that doesn't seem to be what Melville is saying. Otherwise why bring it up?

I get the registration issue. That's the easy bit.

broadlandboy wrote:What is stopping NFRL from registering?

I get the impression that USA Rugby want nothing to do with NRFL.

Where have NRFL stated that they want to operate outside WR? IMSVHO NRFL want to be free to operate their own pro league under WR rules without control from USAR. Leaving USAR to run the International side.

Munchkin wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:What is stopping NFRL from registering?

I get the impression that USA Rugby want nothing to do with NRFL.

Simply put, why would they? The league is attempting to be set up without USA rugby involvement.

To improve rugby in the country keep the best players to develop players and coaches increase popularity with a knock on to the national team?

No 7&1/2 wrote:To improve rugby in the country keep the best players to develop players and coaches increase popularity with a knock on to the national team?

Is that how it's gone in France? the better quality the team the more French internationals it's produced?

Whats that got to do with a league in the USA?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Whats that got to do with a league in the USA?

Well look at France and Wales as examples of what can happen if the governing body doesn't set up the structure correctly, USA rugby are definately going to try to impliment a super rugby style franchise system with a USA NFL style system.

Allowing businessmen to swoop in and set things up will not prove succesfull long term, and could set USA rugby back years

Seems more a power struggle surely. They could be working together to get this up and running instead this. Wouldnt it benefit usa to develop their own? How could it set USA back? They re currently risking rich european clubs exerting influence on their players as discussed on the other thread.

But is USAR going to get the money to set up those Union controled franchises? It will not be a NFL style system as that is what NRFL want to do. You do realise that NFL teams are not owned by the NFL.

I would ask if NRFL can get the money to set up the league they envisage? It isn't as though the USA have the players to fill it from their stock. They would have to buy in a huge numbers of players of proven quality, and that would be rather expensive. I think the figure they quote was around $200m.  Who would want to invest in an organisation like NRFL who have made a mess of organising games and are openly at war with USA Rugby?

This team that they wanted to pit against Leicester, even if it was against Leicester's seconds, would likely have been destroyed, and possibly even dangerous.

broadlandboy wrote:But is USAR going to get the money to set up those Union controled franchises? It will not be a NFL style system as that is what NRFL want to do. You do realise that NFL teams are not owned by the NFL.

Of course the NFL franchises are privately owned, but the system they use is to ensure one franchise doesn't dominate via spending power solely, which is what USA rugby want to do.

As I said previously the NRFL from what i know is a bunch of businessmen looking to race rugby union to market in the USA for a quick payout, they did nothing in conjunction with USA rugby, and bypassed them alltogether, why would USA rugby want to collaberate with the NRFL after that?

I know USA rugby have a plan for a pro league in place, which is similar, or possibly too similar to what the NRFL want to do, except USA rugby want to do it the correct way to ensure they have ownership, and responsibility over the franchises. .

NRFL's plan seems to be to involve NFL teams, playing outside the NFL season making use of the NFL teams resourses out of season, giving NFL supporters another contact sport to follow. $200m is peanuts to the NFL.
Fanster so Union owned is the correct way. Can't see many People investing in that.
NFL teams collaborate for maximum financial return, much like the PRL.

broadlandboy wrote:NRFL's plan seems to be to involve NFL teams, playing outside the NFL season making use of the NFL teams resourses out of season, giving NFL supporters another contact sport to follow. $200m is peanuts to the NFL.
Fanster so Union owned is the correct way. Can't see many People investing in that.
NFL teams collaborate for maximum financial return, much like the PRL.

NFL teams won't invest in a league not run by USA rugby though, what you just described is what USA rugby want, but can't afford to fund and impliment with the catalyst to stimulate a fanbase etc.

Look at the NZRU model, it works and they produce world class talent relentlessly, USA would definately want to run that model, in a USA adapted market surely?

More than 1 way to skin a cat.

NFL teams will not invest in teams owned by USARugby( who seem to want to own the teams). IMHO NFL teams want a similar set up to what they have now in that NFL control the rules on the pitch but the owners control off the pitch,media rights salary cap etc. The NFL teams realise that a competitive league is better financially than having a dominant team or two( as do PRL)

First off Munchkin, I apologise for jumping down your throat. Although Melville does give insurance as a reason for not sanctioning the game. He says they provide insurance for registered players, but that's not in the part about why they couldn't sanction it (which would make sense because the important thing is the players are insured correctly). Perhaps we leave there after I apologise again? Sorry

Broadlandboy, we'll see how much the PRL think that when the salary cap stuff gets sorted out. I'm still hopeful.

Why do you think the salary cap was instigated? Even Tigers in their dominant best knew you had to have someone to play against competitivly or the interest is lost & the support/money goes.

HammerofThunor wrote:First off Munchkin, I apologise for jumping down your throat. Although Melville does give insurance as a reason for not sanctioning the game. He says they provide insurance for registered players, but that's not in the part about why they couldn't sanction it (which would make sense because the important thing is the players are insured correctly). Perhaps we leave there after I apologise again? Sorry

Broadlandboy, we'll see how much the PRL think that when the salary cap stuff gets sorted out. I'm still hopeful.

Aye, we can leave it at that. No need to apologise, Hammer. It's easy to miss things, and I should know.

broadlandboy wrote:NFL teams will not invest in teams owned by USARugby( who seem to want to own the teams). IMHO NFL teams want a similar set up to what they have now in that NFL control the rules on the pitch but the owners control off the pitch,media rights salary cap etc. The NFL teams realise that a competitive league is better financially than having a dominant team or two( as do PRL)

Why won't NFL teams invest in USA rugby? Why would they prefer to get in bed with some johnny come lately businessmen looking to profit from the growing popularity leading towrd the olympics?

Thats if NFL teams are willing to invest at all.

My point is USA rugby have a development plan for the sport, and want the game to beome massively succesfull in the US, anyone with a shred of common sense and passion for the sport wouldn't go ahead and try to hijack it for thir own gain surely? You can't blame USA rugby for looking at the club v country rows in Wales, England and France over the years and not thinking ' want me some of that!' Alternatively they must be looking at NZ, and Ireland as the succesfull models to emulate.

broadlandboy wrote:Why do you think the salary cap was instigated? Even Tigers in their dominant best knew you had to have someone to play against competitivly or the interest is lost & the support/money goes.

I always felt that they wanted a level playing field to maintain the competitiveness of the league, growing the cap in line with increases in central funds. But we'll see what happens with the delayed investigations.