Interview with Referee John Lacey

First topic message reminder :

Interview here which gives a bit of insight into life as a referee. Love the bit where he said in his first Pro12 match he says that Nigel Owens (his Assistant) tore into him at half time about the way he was reffing the breakdown. He is also the fastest ref!


'It's the closest buzz you can get to scoring a try for Munster'
An accidental referee, John Lacey has seen his stock rise all the way to the World Cup, says Brendan Fanning

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/its-the-closest-buzz-you-can-get-to-scoring-a-try-for-munster-31454340.html

You are the one who mentioned Munster paying Lacy Sin e. I just assumed you were talking as a matter of fact. I then took it as, he was getting paid as normal by the IRFU and then he was getting paid extra for training with Munster.

No 7&1/2 wrote:If the captain asks the ref a question and the ref confirms he's looking at it fair enough in my view.

The ref was prompted and made a mistake in thinking that the ball is dead so he couldn't even consider the pen. He was asked to look at foul play. Even though you appeared to suggest this doesn't include dangerous play and misconduct earlier it does. I'm cricising refs who clearly don't know the rules or forgot in the heat of the moment; shouldn't happen for me. Why do you keep mentioning Moore?

The ref forgot rule 10.4n; simple.

So, for clarification, your point is...

Yes but no?!

I've explained how 10. 4. n has no meaning here, you have rejected that because you are the font of all knowledge? How does 10.4.n apply here?

Again you use the word prompted, why?

Please explain which CPD events you were in where you were taught not to distinguish between foul and dangerous play?

I keep mentioning Moore becuase you are typing his words, virtually word for word, which makes me think your not thinking for yourself.

Why do you insist on repeating your biased view over and over and refuse to respond to the points I'm trying to tell you?

Sin é wrote:

The IRFU (Munster is a branch office) pays everyone involved in Irish rugby.

Eh? The IRFU pays for every professional player in Ireland? That's over 160 players.

10.4n does have a point here as Lacey doesn't want to review the trip as the ball was out of play beforehand. Prompted as Clancey asks if he wants to review the foul play, as does the 4th official as does Wood.

Foul play is all of section 10, dangerous play and misconduct is 10.4.

Have you got a link to Moores article as I've honestly not read it.

I don't have a bias here just following the rules. The ref was wrong as was Garces (?) the other week.. Just didn't seem to know the rules, thought it was apt to bring that up.

Just on the Irish referees, some can correct me but my understanding is that referees are in place the same way players are. So Lacey and Clancy started with a club as a referee. They then progress to refereeing within the Province. If they are good enough they then start getting involved in the higher competitions and ultimately Test. The Province is the entry level of professionalism. They get called up by the IRFU to officiate certain games but remember members of the Province.

So deep down and originally they are from the IRFU, from their Province and from their club.

Surely all clubs, provinces and regions should be supplying referees to their Unions. And all clubs provinces and regions should be incorporating correct officiating in their normal weekly training.

Scottrf wrote:

Marshes wrote:Whatever way you slice it losing twice as many as you win under Irish refs is no advantage

It is if you'd otherwise lose them all.

Possibly. But when an Irish Province was reffed by a non-Irish referee last year they were 42-12-17.

LordDowlais wrote:According to Sin e, Munster are paying John Lacey for reffing their training sessions each week, surely he should not be taking any sort of payment off one of the clubs in a league that he officiates in ?

Que the hordes of Irish jumping on this now and telling me I am talking bull. But I am being serious, referees should not be interacting with teams on a weekly basis and getting paid by teams in the same league they are supposed to be impartial in. Or am I missing something ?

Aside from bellyaching about the technical clarification that Munster get from referees who do not ref their games (which seems reasonable enough and 7.5 stated English refs also do by the way), it has been pointed out to you LD that their is no evidence of Irish refs being beneficial for Irish teams in their Pro 12 games last season, in fact the contrary was suggested by evidence presented earlier in this thread by bandwagonsociety. Maybe that is why people think you are talking bull.

Marshes wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Marshes wrote:Whatever way you slice it losing twice as many as you win under Irish refs is no advantage

It is if you'd otherwise lose them all.

OR the 8 losses were the western poor folk Connacht and the big three made sure the ref got his brown envelope for their games

So by province being reffed by an Irish referee;

Connacht 2-2-2
Leinster 0-2-2
Munster 0-0-2
Ulster 2-1-2
Total 4-5-8

So all four equal with 2 losses each but Leinster nor Munster got a victory last season in the pro-12 if the referee was Irish!

And just for comparative purposes;

Welsh regions being reffed by welsh referee;

Cardiff 0-1-4
Dragons 3-2-1
Osprey 3-1-1
Scarlets 0-0-2
Total 6-4-8

So Cardiff and Scarlets don't do well if they are stuck with a welsh referee.

No 7&1/2 wrote:10.4n does have a point here as Lacey doesn't want to review the trip as the ball was out of play beforehand. Prompted as Clancey asks if he wants to review the foul play, as does the 4th official as does Wood.

Foul play is all of section 10, dangerous play and misconduct is 10.4.

Have you got a link to Moores article as I've honestly not read it.

I don't have a bias here just following the rules. The ref was wrong as was Garces (?) the other week.. Just didn't seem to know the rules, thought it was apt to bring that up.

10. 4. n as pointed out to you numerous times deals with the ball out of play, which it isn't until grounding! For some reason you are assuming Lacey says or thinks that no foul play can be committed when the ball is out of play, which is either hilariously ignorant on your part, or you can't see beyond you'r bias? Which is it?

You understand that a ball is not out of play until the whistle sounds yes? Do you agree the whistle sounded on grounding? then the ball is in play until grounding yes? retrospectively looking for foul play doesn't change the fact that the ball was in play when Spedding and Care collided! This is a fact, you cannot dispute what is fact!

I'm not sure you understand the definition of the word prompted, as you keep using it despite there being absolutely no prompt from anyone whatsoever! A prompt would have been Clancy or the TMO directing the refs attention toward dangerous or foul play, they did not, they asked if he wanted to view an incident again, which he didn't.

If you were following the rules you would at least know some of them, or have any experience implimenting them, your wrong, you refuse to acknowledge your wrong, and argue totally irrationally because of a bias you can't seem to shake!

But despite all this, I am willing to concede the argument right here and right now if you just provide me any evidence of either Lacey not knowing the rules, or that there was any foul play by Spedding.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:10.4n does have a point here as Lacey doesn't want to review the trip as the ball was out of play beforehand. Prompted as Clancey asks if he wants to review the foul play, as does the 4th official as does Wood.

Foul play is all of section 10, dangerous play and misconduct is 10.4.

Have you got a link to Moores article as I've honestly not read it.

I don't have a bias here just following the rules. The ref was wrong as was Garces (?) the other week.. Just didn't seem to know the rules, thought it was apt to bring that up.

10. 4. n as pointed out to you numerous times deals with the ball out of play, which it isn't until grounding! For some reason you are assuming Lacey says or thinks that no foul play can be committed when the ball is out of play, which is either hilariously ignorant on your part, or you can't see beyond you'r bias? Which is it?

You understand that a ball is not out of play until the whistle sounds yes? Do you agree the whistle sounded on grounding? then the ball is in play until grounding yes? retrospectively looking for foul play doesn't change the fact that the ball was in play when Spedding and Care collided! This is a fact, you cannot dispute what is fact!

I'm not sure you understand the definition of the word prompted, as you keep using it despite there being absolutely no prompt from anyone whatsoever! A prompt would have been Clancy or the TMO directing the refs attention toward dangerous or foul play, they did not, they asked if he wanted to view an incident again, which he didn't.

If you were following the rules you would at least know some of them, or have any experience implimenting them, your wrong, you refuse to acknowledge your wrong, and argue totally irrationally because of a bias you can't seem to shake!

But despite all this, I am willing to concede the argument right here and right now if you just provide me any evidence of either Lacey not knowing the rules, or that there was any foul play by Spedding.

When prompted to look at the review he said no, no, no, in touch. He thought that that meant that he then couldn't go on to judge the trip as the ball was dead, he could have using 10.4 n but clearly he was forgetful at that moment. say you're right and he should have still reviewed it through 10.4d but he didn't because it was in touch. Mistake either way but clearly he felt it was because it was in touch so he couldn't.

Clancey and the 4th official and Wood all prompted Lacey by asking him if he would like to review foul play (which we all know includes dangerous play and misconduct which the trip would have been). He replied no, no, no, in touch. Mistake. Bad mistake not knowing the rules and the 2nd time an international ref has made a mistake of this nature in the recent past which is interesting.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

The IRFU (Munster is a branch office) pays everyone involved in Irish rugby.

Eh? The IRFU pays for every professional player in Ireland? That's over 160 players.

Yep. All the players & coaching staff are employees of the IRFU. Paul O'Connell is based with the Munster Branch of the IRFU.

invariably when a poster starts being offensive and personal, it becomes clear to everyone that he's lost the argument. fanster if you cant make the points without being so, then all you do is reduce your credibility with every post.

lacey made a clear mistake. TMO's can only "prompt" by "asking" if the ref wants to review the foul play. they cannot insist. Fanster you are tyrying to wriggle out of having made a horlix of this discussion by some obscure meaning you attach to the word "prompt".

I watched it live, and couldn't believe when Lacey said "no the ball was already in touch" when being asked "did you want to have another look at the foul play" by TJ, tmo and after prompting from Wood.

if he had said, "no the challenge looked fine" I might have disagreed but Lacey would not be making a laws mistake. Saying the ball was already dead as a reason not to look at it is however a straightforward error on his part.

Fanster, do you have the link to Moore's article on it. As I said I've really not read it but it sounds as if he also sees it as a straightforward mistake?

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

The IRFU (Munster is a branch office) pays everyone involved in Irish rugby.

Eh? The IRFU pays for every professional player in Ireland? That's over 160 players.

Yep. All the players & coaching staff are employees of the IRFU. Paul O'Connell is based with the Munster Branch of the IRFU.

This is not what is alluded to in the IRFU annual report. It says the professional game costs are Ireland national game costs and the Union's contribution only to running the 4 pro teams.

I mean we already know that Heaslip and Sexton are funded by third parties, so it's not true I'm afraid.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:10.4n does have a point here as Lacey doesn't want to review the trip as the ball was out of play beforehand. Prompted as Clancey asks if he wants to review the foul play, as does the 4th official as does Wood.

Foul play is all of section 10, dangerous play and misconduct is 10.4.

Have you got a link to Moores article as I've honestly not read it.

I don't have a bias here just following the rules. The ref was wrong as was Garces (?) the other week.. Just didn't seem to know the rules, thought it was apt to bring that up.

10. 4. n as pointed out to you numerous times deals with the ball out of play, which it isn't until grounding! For some reason you are assuming Lacey says or thinks that no foul play can be committed when the ball is out of play, which is either hilariously ignorant on your part, or you can't see beyond you'r bias? Which is it?

You understand that a ball is not out of play until the whistle sounds yes? Do you agree the whistle sounded on grounding? then the ball is in play until grounding yes? retrospectively looking for foul play doesn't change the fact that the ball was in play when Spedding and Care collided! This is a fact, you cannot dispute what is fact!

I'm not sure you understand the definition of the word prompted, as you keep using it despite there being absolutely no prompt from anyone whatsoever! A prompt would have been Clancy or the TMO directing the refs attention toward dangerous or foul play, they did not, they asked if he wanted to view an incident again, which he didn't.

If you were following the rules you would at least know some of them, or have any experience implimenting them, your wrong, you refuse to acknowledge your wrong, and argue totally irrationally because of a bias you can't seem to shake!

But despite all this, I am willing to concede the argument right here and right now if you just provide me any evidence of either Lacey not knowing the rules, or that there was any foul play by Spedding.

When prompted to look at the review he said no, no, no, in touch. He thought that that meant that he then couldn't go on to judge the trip as the ball was dead, he could have using 10.4 n but clearly he was forgetful at that moment. say you're right and he should have still reviewed it through 10.4d but he didn't because it was in touch. Mistake either way but clearly he felt it was because it was in touch so he couldn't.

Clancey and the 4th official and Wood all prompted Lacey by asking him if he would like to review foul play (which we all know includes dangerous play and misconduct which the trip would have been). He replied no, no, no, in touch. Mistake. Bad mistake not knowing the rules and the 2nd time an international ref has made a mistake of this nature in the recent past which is interesting.

Repeating the same nonsense isn't going to make it right!!!

Re read these highlighted comments, and if you don't see how ridiculous you sound then your beyond help!

Noone prompted him to review foul play, because there was no foul play, there was potential foul play. He thought whatever he thought, you nor I will ever know but his actions do exactly what I'm trying to explain to you, his thoughts are a mystery to you so why are you lying here?

Referee's also don't use laws, they are governed by them, and since 10.4.n is regarding ball out of play, and the ball was in play it doesn't apply here, for the millionth time!

So 'we all know' foul play means dangerous play and misconduct do we? Because as a ref you are taught to distinguish between them, unless your privvy to inside knowledge I am not, or Tappe Henning is not, who was the lead on the last peice of CDP I did a few weeks ago. Please explain to the refs of the world what 'we all know'!!

You've tried, i'll give you that, you've wriggled, twisted and turned but you are flat out wrong, there was no trip, you know how I know? because the history books say so! There was an incident, that was determined not foul play, which was the correct decision, there is no repeating your same paragraph over and over, it's done, gone, dismissed to the dark depths of rugbys 'what ifs' and 'gggrrr my team didn't get a decision', file it under 'Waaaahhh' and move on....

So you're now saying he wasn't asked by Wood, Clancey and the 4th official? I'm quite sure he was.

Lacey said (I'm paraphrasing) that as the ball was in touch he wasn't reviewing the trip though he had told Wood he would.

We all know as in I'm sure we all know the laws, section 10 is foul play and underneath that overarching law there are breakdowns:10.4 dangerous play and misconduct being one of them.

In that last paragraph you should be saying there was no penalty given rather than no trip 2 different things.

Do you have a link to Moore's article?

As I said yesterday, he's not going to accept your points but focus on semantics. The fact that he's arguing over what prompt means shows that.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

The IRFU (Munster is a branch office) pays everyone involved in Irish rugby.

Eh? The IRFU pays for every professional player in Ireland? That's over 160 players.

Yep. All the players & coaching staff are employees of the IRFU. Paul O'Connell is based with the Munster Branch of the IRFU.

This is not what is alluded to in the IRFU annual report. It says the professional game costs are Ireland national game costs and the Union's contribution only to running the 4 pro teams.

I mean we already know that Heaslip and Sexton are funded by third parties, so it's not true I'm afraid.

Heaslip and Sexton are employed by the IRFU - who funds their salary is neither here nor there.

All pro players are either centrally contracted by the IRFU and allocated to a specific province or contracted to one of the 4 provinces which are subsidiaries of the IRFU.

Well I've to the point that at the point of the trip the ball wasn't dead so I'm going to ask why the grounding wasn't looked at in the end. I mean I know that it wasn't because the ball was out and dead but surely because it wasn't dead until the whistle blew...hang on.

rodders wrote: contracted to one of the 4 provinces which are subsidiaries of the IRFU.  

With these types of players - would their salaries appear in the "professional game costs" section of the IRFU accounts?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

rodders wrote: contracted to one of the 4 provinces which are subsidiaries of the IRFU.  

With these types of players - would their salaries appear in the "professional game costs" section of the IRFU accounts?

Not sure, some may be cash in hand in a brown envelope  - sine would be the man to ask (although he sometimes often makes things up   ).

Chunky Norwich wrote:

rodders wrote: contracted to one of the 4 provinces which are subsidiaries of the IRFU.  

With these types of players - would their salaries appear in the "professional game costs" section of the IRFU accounts?

His salaries would be in:
''YDO & Provincial staff': €2.7m
''Referee Development'': €544,959
''Clubs & Schools Support'': €1.4m

page 53 - IRFU ANNUAL REPORT & ACCOUNTS 2014/15

http://www.irishrugby.ie/downloads/IRFU_Annual_Report_2014_15.pdf

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

The IRFU (Munster is a branch office) pays everyone involved in Irish rugby.

Eh? The IRFU pays for every professional player in Ireland? That's over 160 players.

Yep. All the players & coaching staff are employees of the IRFU. Paul O'Connell is based with the Munster Branch of the IRFU.

This is not what is alluded to in the IRFU annual report. It says the professional game costs are Ireland national game costs and the Union's contribution only to running the 4 pro teams.

I mean we already know that Heaslip and Sexton are funded by third parties, so it's not true I'm afraid.

Both are contracted to the IRFU - they have an arrangement with Denis O'Brien companies that tops up their salary. O'Brien has loads of companies from telephone to filling stations to hospitals. Sexton is a Brand Ambassador for Topaz (filling stations).

(Denis O'Brien also funds most the salary of Martin O'Neill & Roy Keane to coach Rep. of Ireland. Both are contracted to the FAI though and O'Brien doesn't interfere).

Sin é wrote:Both are contracted to the IRFU - they have an arrangement with Denis O'Brien companies that tops up their salary. O'Brien has loads of companies from telephone to filling stations to hospitals. Sexton is a Brand Ambassador for Topaz (filling stations).

(Denis O'Brien also funds most the salary of Martin O'Neill & Roy Keane to coach Rep. of Ireland. Both are contracted to the FAI though and O'Brien doesn't interfere).

That's very nice of him.

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:Both are contracted to the IRFU - they have an arrangement with Denis O'Brien companies that tops up their salary. O'Brien has loads of companies from telephone to filling stations to hospitals. Sexton is a Brand Ambassador for Topaz (filling stations).

(Denis O'Brien also funds most the salary of Martin O'Neill & Roy Keane to coach Rep. of Ireland. Both are contracted to the FAI though and O'Brien doesn't interfere).

That's very nice of him.

All self interest. Not particularly liked here - that probably why he does it. Can't say anything bad about him or his lawers will hunt me down and sue me for slander!

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:Both are contracted to the IRFU - they have an arrangement with Denis O'Brien companies that tops up their salary. O'Brien has loads of companies from telephone to filling stations to hospitals. Sexton is a Brand Ambassador for Topaz (filling stations).

(Denis O'Brien also funds most the salary of Martin O'Neill & Roy Keane to coach Rep. of Ireland. Both are contracted to the FAI though and O'Brien doesn't interfere).

That's very nice of him.

All self interest. Not particularly liked here - that probably why he does it. Can't say anything bad about him or his lawers will hunt me down and sue me for slander!

Amongst other things..

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you're now saying he wasn't asked by Wood, Clancey and the 4th official? I'm quite sure he was.

Lacey said (I'm paraphrasing) that as the ball was in touch he wasn't reviewing the trip though he had told Wood he would.

We all know as in I'm sure we all know the laws, section 10 is foul play and underneath that overarching law there are breakdowns:10.4 dangerous play and misconduct being one of them.

In that last paragraph you should be saying there was no penalty given rather than no trip 2 different things.

Do you have a link to Moore's article?

Clancy and the TMO asked him to look at a trip? Or did they ask him to look at foul play? Or did they ask if he wanted to look at potential foul play? Wood was the one who attempted to approach a ref when trying to communicate to the linesman and TMO, and he was rightly ushered away!

Lacey said he wouldn't review the trip? Please provide a link to where he said that? he never said he wouldn't review a trip because he didn't see it as a trip, and this is where your English shirt covers your eyes, it is an incident, potential foul play, it's not a trip because it was not found to be a trip!

There was no penalty given because there was found to be no offence, you are the only one calling it a trip! If you get away with murder in a court of law you'r not known as a murderer, if there was no penalty given there was no offence!!

I think it's got to the point where your willfully avoiding facts, in the attempt to annoy, you've insulted, questioned professionals abilities, as well as my own all in the name of because England wooo. I'm done with this subject, there is no debate to be had, as the saying goes...

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. I should know, I've been bringing people down to my level for years

Sin é wrote:
His salaries would be in:
''YDO & Provincial staff':  €2.7m

So you've said that all players are centrally contracted or allocated to one of the provinces under this 2.7m

Therefore, if we say there are max 30 centrally contracted players covered by IRFU, then are you seriously saying that circa 130 players are paid with this pot of 2.7m?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:
His salaries would be in:
''YDO & Provincial staff':  €2.7m

So you've said that all players are centrally contracted or allocated to one of the provinces under this 2.7m

Therefore, if we say there are max 30 centrally contracted players covered by IRFU, then are you seriously saying that circa 130 players are paid with this pot of 2.7m?

That refers to Community Rugby (see the Annual Report). YDO = Youth Development Officers.

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

rodders wrote: contracted to one of the 4 provinces which are subsidiaries of the IRFU.  

With these types of players - would their salaries appear in the "professional game costs" section of the IRFU accounts?

His salaries would be in:
''YDO & Provincial staff':  €2.7m
''Referee Development'': €544,959
''Clubs & Schools Support'': €1.4m

page 53 - IRFU ANNUAL REPORT & ACCOUNTS 2014/15

http://www.irishrugby.ie/downloads/IRFU_Annual_Report_2014_15.pdf

Why would a player be in this section then?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

rodders wrote: contracted to one of the 4 provinces which are subsidiaries of the IRFU.  

With these types of players - would their salaries appear in the "professional game costs" section of the IRFU accounts?

His salaries would be in:
''YDO & Provincial staff':  €2.7m
''Referee Development'': €544,959
''Clubs & Schools Support'': €1.4m

page 53 - IRFU ANNUAL REPORT & ACCOUNTS 2014/15

http://www.irishrugby.ie/downloads/IRFU_Annual_Report_2014_15.pdf

Why would a player be in this section then?

John Lacey isn't a player. I'm trying to explain to you how the IRFU works (as in all the provinces are branches of the IRFU) and John Lacey is an employee of the IRFU who is based in Munster.

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

rodders wrote: contracted to one of the 4 provinces which are subsidiaries of the IRFU.  

With these types of players - would their salaries appear in the "professional game costs" section of the IRFU accounts?

His salaries would be in:
''YDO & Provincial staff':  €2.7m
''Referee Development'': €544,959
''Clubs & Schools Support'': €1.4m

page 53 - IRFU ANNUAL REPORT & ACCOUNTS 2014/15

http://www.irishrugby.ie/downloads/IRFU_Annual_Report_2014_15.pdf

Why would a player be in this section then?

John Lacey isn't a player. I'm trying to explain to you how the IRFU works (as in all the provinces are branches of the IRFU) and John Lacey is an employee of the IRFU.

That's not what I asked. I asked where abouts in the accounts, a player "contracted to one of the 4 provinces which are subsidiaries of the IRFU." would appear.

Then you gave me some random stuff that appears on page 53 for some reason.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you're now saying he wasn't asked by Wood, Clancey and the 4th official? I'm quite sure he was.

Lacey said (I'm paraphrasing) that as the ball was in touch he wasn't reviewing the trip though he had told Wood he would.

We all know as in I'm sure we all know the laws, section 10 is foul play and underneath that overarching law there are breakdowns:10.4 dangerous play and misconduct being one of them.

In that last paragraph you should be saying there was no penalty given rather than no trip 2 different things.

Do you have a link to Moore's article?

Clancy and the TMO asked him to look at a trip? Or did they ask him to look at foul play? Or did they ask if he wanted to look at potential foul play? Wood was the one who attempted to approach a ref when trying to communicate to the linesman and TMO, and he was rightly ushered away!

Lacey said he wouldn't review the trip? Please provide a link to where he said that? he never said he wouldn't review a trip because he didn't see it as a trip, and this is where your English shirt covers your eyes, it is an incident, potential foul play, it's not a trip because it was not found to be a trip! thats fact, why are you being so willfully ignorant of facts presented to you?

There was no penalty given because there was found to be no offence, you are the only one calling it a trip! If you get away with murder in a court of law you'r not known as a murderer, if there was no penalty given there was no offence!!

I think it's got to the point where your willfully avoiding facts, in the attempt to annoy, you've insulted, questioned professionals abilities, as well as my own all in the name of because England wooo. I'm done with this subject, there is no debate to be had, as the saying goes...

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience

He was asked to look att he foul play which was the trip on Care. You have a different definition of ushered away than the dictionary as when asked to look by Wood Lacey relied'We re looking'.

I ve provided direct quotes from Lacey as to the reason he didnt review the trip he said he was going to look at 'no, no, no. In touch' Realising the error the 4th official prompts again. You re still trying to question 2 professionalsw ho were trying to correct Laceys mistake. Everyone makes them but refs mistakes are normally judgement mistakes rather than forgetting or not knowing the laws as Lacey and Garces are guilty of.

Do you have a link to Moores article which you say backs my argument?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

rodders wrote: contracted to one of the 4 provinces which are subsidiaries of the IRFU.  

With these types of players - would their salaries appear in the "professional game costs" section of the IRFU accounts?

His salaries would be in:
''YDO & Provincial staff':  €2.7m
''Referee Development'': €544,959
''Clubs & Schools Support'': €1.4m

page 53 - IRFU ANNUAL REPORT & ACCOUNTS 2014/15

http://www.irishrugby.ie/downloads/IRFU_Annual_Report_2014_15.pdf

Why would a player be in this section then?

John Lacey isn't a player. I'm trying to explain to you how the IRFU works (as in all the provinces are branches of the IRFU) and John Lacey is an employee of the IRFU.

That's not what I asked. I asked where abouts in the accounts, a player "contracted to one of the 4 provinces which are subsidiaries of the IRFU." would appear.

Then you gave me some random stuff that appears  on page 53 for some reason.

It wouldn't appear. You will see references throughout the accounts of the 'Munster Branch of the IRFU' (i.e., the Munster Branch of the IRFU got a loan of 9m for Thomond Park).

Now I know that all the players are contracted to the IRFU because Paul McNaughton said so in an interview a while back. He said the IRFU contribute a basic amount to every player and after that the branches may give top ups.

The chief executive of Munster Rugby is an IRFU employee who is employed to run the Munster Branch of the IRFU.

edit: There is a company 'Munster Rugby Limited' registered as dormant and the adress it gives is IRFU HQ in Lansdowne Rd. The two directors are Philip Browne and Conor O'Brien (who I think is the IRFU's solictor or financial controller).

Hopefully you will now accept that the Provinces & IRFU are one and the same

Sin é wrote:

It wouldn't appear. You will see references throughout the accounts of the 'Munster Branch of the IRFU' (i.e., the Munster Branch of the IRFU got a loan of 9m for Thomond Park).

Now I know that all the players are contracted to the IRFU because Paul McNaughton said so in an interview a while back. He said the IRFU contribute a basic amount to every player and after that the branches may give top ups.

That's all I was after, thanks.

The chief executive of Munster Rugby is an IRFU employee who is employed to run the Munster Branch of the IRFU.

edit: There is a company 'Munster Rugby Limited' registered as dormant and the adress it gives is IRFU HQ in Lansdowne Rd. The two directors are Philip Browne and Conor O'Brien (who I think is the IRFU's solictor or financial controller).

Hopefully you will now accept that the Provinces & IRFU are one and the same

I've never doubted the IRFU run everything and the 4 branches are controlled. As long as everybody realises the amount of money the Irish have, and that it's comparable to some French teams.

£23m for Pro game costs, plus branch moneys is huge.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

It wouldn't appear. You will see references throughout the accounts of the 'Munster Branch of the IRFU' (i.e., the Munster Branch of the IRFU got a loan of 9m for Thomond Park).

Now I know that all the players are contracted to the IRFU because Paul McNaughton said so in an interview a while back. He said the IRFU contribute a basic amount to every player and after that the branches may give top ups.

That's all I was after, thanks.

The chief executive of Munster Rugby is an IRFU employee who is employed to run the Munster Branch of the IRFU.

edit: There is a company 'Munster Rugby Limited' registered as dormant and the adress it gives is IRFU HQ in Lansdowne Rd. The two directors are Philip Browne and Conor O'Brien (who I think is the IRFU's solictor or financial controller).

Hopefully you will now accept that the Provinces & IRFU are one and the same

I've never doubted the IRFU run everything and the 4 branches are controlled. As long as everybody realises the amount of money the Irish have, and that it's comparable to some French teams.

£23m for Pro game costs, plus branch moneys is huge.

I don't know where you got the £23m (surely Euro) but lets not forget that the IRFU hold onto all the competition money earned (9.8m last year).

Then realise that both Ulster and Munster actually own their own grounds (unlike most of the French or Welsh clubs) - in fact Munster has two grounds - Thomond and Musgrave Park and are in the process of building their own training centre.

Sin é wrote:

I don't know where you got the £23m (surely Euro) but lets not forget that the IRFU hold onto all the competition money earned (9.8m last year).

From the link you just posted. Pro game costs = 32.3m Euros.

Then realise that both Ulster and Munster actually own their own grounds (unlike most of the French or Welsh clubs) - in fact Munster has two grounds - Thomond and Musgrave Park and are in the process of building their own training centre.

Indeed, although Munster are still 9m Euros in debt due after building theirs.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

I don't know where you got the £23m (surely Euro) but lets not forget that the IRFU hold onto all the competition money earned (9.8m last year).

From the link you just posted. Pro game costs = 32.3m Euros.

Then realise that both Ulster and Munster actually own their own grounds (unlike most of the French or Welsh clubs) - in fact Munster has two grounds - Thomond and Musgrave Park and are in the process of building their own training centre.

Indeed, although Munster are still 9m Euros in debt due after building theirs.

The 32m euro covers Tours, Management & match (3m) costs.
Player & Management €28.4m. Provincial income was 9.8 = €18m (rounding it off) which averages out at about 4.5m (about £3m) each. Not a huge amount, now is it.

Munster raised 40m for thomond (and still owe 9m back to IRFU). Not bad going to have paid that much back in 6 years (as well as redeveloping Musgrave which is fully paid for).

What will Munster be like when its not developing something !

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

I don't know where you got the £23m (surely Euro) but lets not forget that the IRFU hold onto all the competition money earned (9.8m last year).

From the link you just posted. Pro game costs = 32.3m Euros.

Then realise that both Ulster and Munster actually own their own grounds (unlike most of the French or Welsh clubs) - in fact Munster has two grounds - Thomond and Musgrave Park and are in the process of building their own training centre.

Indeed, although Munster are still 9m Euros in debt due after building theirs.

The 32m euro covers Tours, Management & match (3m) costs.
Player & Management €28.4m.  Provincial income was 9.8  =   €18m (rounding it off) which averages out at about 4.5m (about £3m) each. Not a huge amount, now is it.

Munster raised 40m for thomond (and still owe 9m back to IRFU). Not bad going to have paid that much back in 6 years (as well as redeveloping Musgrave which is fully paid for).

What will Munster be like when its not developing something !

Sorry, are you suggesting that the provinces are funded 4.5m Euros each only by the Irish union?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

I don't know where you got the £23m (surely Euro) but lets not forget that the IRFU hold onto all the competition money earned (9.8m last year).

From the link you just posted. Pro game costs = 32.3m Euros.

Then realise that both Ulster and Munster actually own their own grounds (unlike most of the French or Welsh clubs) - in fact Munster has two grounds - Thomond and Musgrave Park and are in the process of building their own training centre.

Indeed, although Munster are still 9m Euros in debt due after building theirs.

The 32m euro covers Tours, Management & match (3m) costs.
Player & Management €28.4m.  Provincial income was 9.8  =   €18m (rounding it off) which averages out at about 4.5m (about £3m) each. Not a huge amount, now is it.

Munster raised 40m for thomond (and still owe 9m back to IRFU). Not bad going to have paid that much back in 6 years (as well as redeveloping Musgrave which is fully paid for).

What will Munster be like when its not developing something !

Sorry, are you suggesting that the provinces are funded 4.5m Euros each only by the Irish union?

Not sure what your question is. The Provinces have other income such as ticket sales, sponsorship, etc., but Munster in particular has big costs running two centres which would be far more costly to run than your average French club who usually get their grounds for free. Toulon get a subsidy (think 3m per annum) from their city as well as a free ground.

This bit:

Provincial income was 9.8 = €18m (rounding it off) which averages out at about 4.5m (about £3m) each.

what is this 4.5m?

Its 18m between 4 provinces (18 divided by 4 = 4.5) - the actual cost to the IRFU.

Sin é wrote:Its 18m between 4 provinces (18 divided by 4 = 4.5) - the actual cost to the IRFU.

How much do you think Leinster, Munster and Ulster spend on squad wags per annum?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:Its 18m between 4 provinces (18 divided by 4 = 4.5) - the actual cost to the IRFU.

How much do you think Leinster, Munster and Ulster spend on squad wags per annum?

I don't know, but I'd guess about 4 or 5 million.

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:Its 18m between 4 provinces (18 divided by 4 = 4.5) - the actual cost to the IRFU.

How much do you think Leinster, Munster and Ulster spend on squad wags per annum?

I don't know, but I'd guess about 4 or 5 million.

Euros?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:Its 18m between 4 provinces (18 divided by 4 = 4.5) - the actual cost to the IRFU.

How much do you think Leinster, Munster and Ulster spend on squad wags per annum?

I don't know, but I'd guess about 4 or 5 million.

Euros?

Yes. The players are not that well paid - most the squad would be on about 50K per annum with a few like say Tommy O'Donnell, Jones on about 120K per annum. Plenty of lads on Dev Contracts of less than 30K per annum. Then you have guys like CJ Stander, Francis Saili and Tyler Bleyendaal on biggish money.

That would make all 4 Irish teams the bottom 4 spenders on wages in the PrO'12

What a nation.

Chunky Norwich wrote:That would make all 4 Irish teams the bottom 4 spenders on wages in the PrO'12

What a nation.

Nation?

Sin é wrote:IRFU contribute a basic amount to every player and after that the branches may give top ups

Do Munster/Munster branch top up John Lacey's wages ?