Peter Jackson, hitting the nail on the head.

First topic message reminder :

Why should Zebre qualify for the CC ? It is a joke, and it is a scourge on the league that a team that can ship 160 points in 4 away games can get to play in the top level European competition. 


[size=30]Peter Jackson column: Stripe me! How can this Zebre side be Champions?[/size]

Zebre have lost their last four away matches by scores that could double up as opening stands at the T20 World Cup – 52-0, 32-0, 47-0 and 29-0. It adds up to a cumulative score of 0-160.
Despite those results, Zebre are on course to take their place in what Europe’s clubs call the Champions’ Cup, a grandiose description for a tournament supposedly reserved for the crème de la crème.
Edinburgh stand to suffer more than their Welsh rivals, ironically so given that they duly followed Leinster, Ulster and Munster in taking maximum-point advantage of the depleted Italians at Murrayfield on Friday night.  Scotland’s capital team may have lost a few games too many but they stand alone as the only club to have done the double over the champions, Glasgow.
Ospreys, twice crowned Pro 12 champions with not one but two Grand Final victories over Leinster in Dublin to their credit, supplied the Lions with five players for their last tour and may well supply five more for the next one, to New Zealand next year.  Despite their proven quality and ever-presence on the starting grid for Europe’s premier competition over the last 13 seasons, the Swansea-based side will be disqualified from the Champions’ Cup even if they recover sufficiently to finish seventh.
Some will say serve them right for a season of under-achievement, that nobody gets a free ride into Europe because it’s a competitive world – except that argument doesn’t apply when it comes to rewarding one Italian team for avoiding bottom place.
The same fate awaiting Edinburgh or the Ospreys could also very easily apply to a third club, Cardiff Blues. They are in the same boat and therefore in much the same danger of running aground despite having scored the most tries and most points going into the weekend round of matches.
Although seven places are available to Pro 12 teams in the Champions’ Cup, seventh gets whoever finishes there nowhere.  Rules are rules and the multi-national dimension of the Pro 12 requires that all four countries must be represented, including Italy, irrespective of where their two teams finish.
Treviso qualified from second last place because they lost only 18 of their 22 matches against Zebre’s 19.  Both are still in the bottom two except that Zebre have reversed the roles on the strength of a Christmas double over their compatriots.
Connacht were sacrificed last season although their seventh place did earn them entry to an abortive play-off series involving Gloucester and Bordeaux.      The intrusion of the World Cup leaves no room this season for any play-offs. Whoever finishes seventh – Ospreys, Edinburgh or the Cardiff Blues – will go straight into the secondary European Challenge Cup along with all those stranded in the nether regions of the Premiership, Top 14 and Pro 12.
Altruism is a noble quality. Guaranteeing Italy a place at the top table of the club game gives some reason for using the word European in the context of the Champions’ Cup.
It seemed a good idea at the time, one agreed on the basis that the Italian teams would become more competitive. Instead they have become less competitive, jammed in the same reverse gear as the national team.
If the tournament organisers, European Professional Club Rugby, are not already under pressure to review the Italian arrangement, it can be but a matter of time before they are.
The rules, as agreed by the Pro 12 as well as everyone else, dictate that the first four Pro 12 places go to the highest ranked team from Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales. If, for argument’s sake, the top eight finish in the same positions as they were on Friday morning, Connacht (1st), Zebre (11th), Glasgow (6th) and Scarlets (3rd) would fill those four positions.
That leaves three more to be filled by the remainder of the top six – Leinster (2nd), Munster (4th) and Ulster (5th). Ireland, therefore, face the happy prospect of all four provinces making the Champions’ Cup for the first time. Wales face the grim one of their representation being halved to one.
For the chosen few, Europe’s supreme club event brings prestige and commercial clout.  In a true meritocracy nobody qualifies for losing four matches out of every five even if that means narrowing the horizon of the tournament and renaming it the FIB (French, Irish, British) Cup.

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Going to have to assume you have no real point on 2020 then.

It seems Phils MO these days is to come on, tell everyone they are wrong, call them names and then disappear when he's proven to be wrong.

A child with ego and anger issues

Oh dear.

I thought that we all knew that major changes to the calendar were on the table for 2020.

I must stop assuming that posters on this board actually follow rugby.

Sin é wrote:Hey Phill - isn't that special Welsh tv deal dead now? And if it isn't it is affecting what the PRO12 could get from Sky for exclusive UK coverage?

Interesting to see that the great and mighty ERCC have sold 36K tickets for both Champ Cup semis in England (3 England and 1 French) so it looks like the English clubs have a similar problem to the Welsh clubs with regard to fan attendance at games. Leinster v Munster in the PRO12 got more than that.

Sorry, what 'special tv deal' is dead now?

Good to see you recognising that TV is now the driver in sport.

TJ wrote:
And the bit you completely fail to comprehend is that without the opposition the rest of the pro12 provide PRW would get none of that money!  Its not a quuestion of "getting the money back" - its about sharing out of the money fairly - the money that is generated by all.

Myself I think there is a case for using the TV money to eventhings up - lower placed teams get more money - a bit like the americanfootball draft system.  Just think how well the itallians might do if they had as much money as the middle of the pack teams like glasgow?  4 seasons ago Glasgow and Edinburgh had the smallest playing budgets in the pro 12 ( maybe more than Aironi)  Now with playing budgets in the middle of the pack they are doing much better.

No, the money is not 'generated by all'. The money is paid to show the home Welsh team.

The budget of the Italian teams is around €6m, about the same as the Welsh team's salary budget.

The idea that Glasgow have a 'middle of the pack budget' with over 30 internationals in the squad is utterly ludicrous, by the way.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Going to have to assume you have no real point on 2020 then.

It seems Phils MO these days is to come on, tell everyone they are wrong, call them names and then disappear when he's proven to be wrong.

A child with ego and anger issues

Oh dear.

I thought that we all knew that major changes to the calendar were on the table for 2020.

I must stop assuming that posters on this board actually follow rugby.

If changes are happening then why are the NZRU making threats if changes aren't made?

Why threaten something when the changes are coming?

Don't you follow rugby Phil?

Munchkin wrote:
Basic English, I understand. Your English, not so much:

"Because the IRFU would just allow four teams to leave the PrO'12, whilst under contract and whilst supply at least half of the TV money, without recourse at all, would they?........."

So you were claiming; 'and whilst supply of half the TV money', not that the Regions contribute a third (around 50% of the SKY deal)..... The issue here is obvious, Phil, and it isn't my lack of comprehension.

So, you rubbish the 70% claim, because it isn't proof to you   Funny that. Seems that you are very willing to accept the opinions of boys in a pub, as proof, or some Twitter waffle, when it fits your agenda.

The combined TV money is £10m. The Welsh four supply at least half of that. £3.2m + £1.8m = £5m.

It seems that maths isn't your strongpoint, either.

What '70% claim' are you on about, sorry?

The regions do not contribute a third. thats the point. without the opposition the rest of the pro 12 provide the welsh regions have nothing to sell. Welsh TV may contribute a third but its not the same thing.

marty2086 wrote:
If changes are happening then why are the NZRU making threats if changes aren't made?

Why threaten something when the changes are coming?

Don't you follow rugby Phil?

FFS.

"World Rugby has a three-year deadline looming, with no test matches scheduled beyond the 2019 World Cup in Japan, and Tew is effectively giving the governing body an ultimatum to devise a different system before then."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/78030658/New-Zealand-Rugby-boss-Steve-Tew-gives-World-Rugby-ultimatum-on-global-season

What a moronic set of questions.

TJ wrote:The regions do not contribute a third.  thats the point.  without the opposition the rest of the pro 12 provide the welsh regions have nothing to sell.  Welsh TV may contribute a third but its not the same thing.

Oh Jesus wept.

The opposition could be anybody. Could be English. Could only be French D2.

The product is sold to primarily the home audience. It's why it is a BBC WALES production.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
If changes are happening then why are the NZRU making threats if changes aren't made?

Why threaten something when the changes are coming?

Don't you follow rugby Phil?

FFS.

"World Rugby has a three-year deadline looming, with no test matches scheduled beyond the 2019 World Cup in Japan, and Tew is effectively giving the governing body an ultimatum to devise a different system before then."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/78030658/New-Zealand-Rugby-boss-Steve-Tew-gives-World-Rugby-ultimatum-on-global-season

What a moronic set of questions.

How is that moronic? You stated changes are coming and that clearly says that NZRU are trying to force changes, those are two completely separate things. Name calling doesn't make you right so maybe address the questions rather than letting your arrogance blind you

PhilBB wrote:

TJ wrote:The regions do not contribute a third.  thats the point.  without the opposition the rest of the pro 12 provide the welsh regions have nothing to sell.  Welsh TV may contribute a third but its not the same thing.

Oh Jesus wept.

The opposition could be anybody. Could be English. Could only be French D2.

The product is sold to primarily the home audience. It's why it is a BBC WALES production.

Im sure the local production quota plays no part in it all

marty2086 wrote:
How is that moronic? You stated changes are coming and that clearly says that NZRU are trying to force changes, those are two completely separate things. Name calling doesn't make you right so maybe address the questions rather than letting your arrogance blind you

NO.

It clearly states that the contracts for international tours end in 2019 so change is coming.

Please, come on, read. I even pulled out the relevant quote for you.

PhilBB wrote:

TJ wrote:
And the bit you completely fail to comprehend is that without the opposition the rest of the pro12 provide PRW would get none of that money!  Its not a quuestion of "getting the money back" - its about sharing out of the money fairly - the money that is generated by all.

Myself I think there is a case for using the TV money to eventhings up - lower placed teams get more money - a bit like the americanfootball draft system.  Just think how well the itallians might do if they had as much money as the middle of the pack teams like glasgow?  4 seasons ago Glasgow and Edinburgh had the smallest playing budgets in the pro 12 ( maybe more than Aironi)  Now with playing budgets in the middle of the pack they are doing much better.

No, the money is not 'generated by all'. The money is paid to show the home Welsh team.

The budget of the Italian teams is around €6m, about the same as the Welsh team's salary budget.

The idea that Glasgow have a 'middle of the pack budget' with over 30 internationals in the squad is utterly ludicrous, by the way.

still the confusion from you trying to sound hard done by.  Glasgows total budget is around 5 million.  Welsh regions playing budget is 3.5 million plus whatever they get for the centrally contracted players.   Italians teams total budget is 3 million each.  again significatly less than the welsh regions 3.5 million plus playing budget

Y9ou need to get this in your head.  Youare comparing apples and pears.  The welsh 3,5 million is just players saleries and on top of that they get money from the WRU for the players on central contracts.  Glasgow 5 million includes the coaches saleries, the security at games, Physios and many other costs that do not come out of the welsh 3.5 millionplus

4 years ago the scots teams had the lowest playing budgets of all bar perhaps aironi.  yes Glasgow have 31 internationals - but how many world class stars? I bet there are 20 players in wales who earn more than the best paid Glasgow player.  The scots teams have not attempted to hold ontotheir players who are stars by paying them loads.  they offer good packages, good team ethos and they look after their players well. Hence Denton went to bath for more money, Big Ritchie to france etc etc.

marty2086 wrote:
Im sure the local production quota plays no part in it all

It plays the entire part that proves TJ and co are wholly incorrect.

PhilBB wrote:

TJ wrote:The regions do not contribute a third.  thats the point.  without the opposition the rest of the pro 12 provide the welsh regions have nothing to sell.  Welsh TV may contribute a third but its not the same thing.

Oh Jesus wept.

The opposition could be anybody. Could be English. Could only be French D2.

The product is sold to primarily the home audience. It's why it is a BBC WALES production.

Ah, so its irrelevant then that Brian O'Driscoll has never played in Wales. The Irish Provinces should just send over their academy players and let the big names rest

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
How is that moronic? You stated changes are coming and that clearly says that NZRU are trying to force changes, those are two completely separate things. Name calling doesn't make you right so maybe address the questions rather than letting your arrogance blind you

NO.

It clearly states that the contracts for international tours end in 2019 so change is coming.

Please, come on, read. I even pulled out the relevant quote for you.

No it doesn't mean that it just increases the potential for it, the IRPA had tried 3 years ago to push through changes for after last years RWC but they didn't come so maybe tone it down and stop thinking you are right every time.

TJ wrote:
still the confusion from you trying to sound hard done by.  Glasgows total budget is around 5 million.  Welsh regions playing budget is 3.5 million plus whatever they get for the centrally contracted players.   Italians teams total budget is 3 million each.  again significatly less than the welsh regions 3.5 million plus playing budget

Y9ou need to get this in your head.  Youare comparing apples and pears.  The welsh 3,5 million is just players saleries and on top of that they get money from the WRU for the players on central contracts.  Glasgow 5 million includes the coaches saleries, the security at games, Physios and many other costs that do not come out of the welsh 3.5 millionplus

4 years ago the scots teams had the lowest playing budgets of all bar perhaps aironi.  yes Glasgow have 31 internationals - but how many world class stars? I bet there are 20 players in wales who earn more than the best paid Glasgow player.  The scots teams have not attempted to hold ontotheir layers who are stars by paying them Poopie.  they offer good packages, good team ethos and they look after their players well.Hence Deton went to bath for more money, Big Ritchie to france etc etc.

Totally wrong.

The salary cap in Wales is £4.5m. The salary floor is £3.5m.

The SRU spent £22,761,000 on pro and international rugby in 2014/15. They have only two pro teams. The idea that everything at Glasgow is is financed in just £5m of the £22,761,000 doesn't wash.

marty2086 wrote:

No it doesn't mean that it just increases the potential for it, the IRPA had tried 3 years ago to push through changes for after last years RWC but they didn't come so maybe tone it down and stop thinking you are right every time.

This is painful.

NO international tour 2020 onwards is yet confirmed. Can you guess why? A clue: it's because the contracts end for tours after the 2019 World Cup. Clue: that linked article above told you this.

Why can you not understand this?

Whatever the IRPA tried to do is utterly irrelevant to the World Rugby international tours programme.

Sin é wrote:

Ah, so its irrelevant then that Brian O'Driscoll has never played in Wales. The Irish Provinces should just send over their academy players and let the big names rest  

Yes, for our TV contract. As history proves.

PhilBB wrote:

TJ wrote:
still the confusion from you trying to sound hard done by.  Glasgows total budget is around 5 million.  Welsh regions playing budget is 3.5 million plus whatever they get for the centrally contracted players.   Italians teams total budget is 3 million each.  again significatly less than the welsh regions 3.5 million plus playing budget

Y9ou need to get this in your head.  Youare comparing apples and pears.  The welsh 3,5 million is just players saleries and on top of that they get money from the WRU for the players on central contracts.  Glasgow 5 million includes the coaches saleries, the security at games, Physios and many other costs that do not come out of the welsh 3.5 millionplus

4 years ago the scots teams had the lowest playing budgets of all bar perhaps aironi.  yes Glasgow have 31 internationals - but how many world class stars? I bet there are 20 players in wales who earn more than the best paid Glasgow player.  The scots teams have not attempted to hold ontotheir layers who are stars by paying them Poopie.  they offer good packages, good team ethos and they look after their players well.Hence Deton went to bath for more money, Big Ritchie to france etc etc.

Totally wrong.

The salary cap in Wales is £4.5m. The salary floor is £3.5m.

The SRU spent £22,761,000 on pro and international rugby in 2014/15. They have only two pro teams. The idea that everything at Glasgow is is financed in just £5m of the £22,761,000 doesn't wash.

No phill in your opinion. Back it up with some facts?

carpet baboon wrote:
No phill in your opinion. Back it up with some facts?

Erm, everything I've written is in the public domain already. Didn't you know?

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:
No phill in your opinion. Back it up with some facts?

Erm, everything I've written is in the public domain already. Didn't you know?

Still no fact to back up your opinion?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

No it doesn't mean that it just increases the potential for it, the IRPA had tried 3 years ago to push through changes for after last years RWC but they didn't come so maybe tone it down and stop thinking you are right every time.

This is painful.

NO international tour 2020 onwards is yet confirmed. Can you guess why? A clue: it's because the contracts end for tours after the 2019 World Cup. Clue: that linked article above told you this.

Why can you not understand this?

Whatever the IRPA tried to do is utterly irrelevant to the World Rugby international tours programme.

Or maybe its because the current chairman is not running again and its being left to the new board to make the decision hence why Bill Beaumont, the favourite for the position is mentioned.

What the IRPA wanted was directly linked to the tours as they wanted the windows changed particularly in the summer with a change to July rather than June to allow more recovery time, so tell me again how its irrelevant?

And see I can make a point, challenge yours and not call you names

carpet baboon wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:
No phill in your opinion. Back it up with some facts?

Erm, everything I've written is in the public domain already. Didn't you know?

Still no fact to back up your opinion?

Which opinion? I've stated only one and that is that £5m out of £22.7m is unlikely.

Do you disagree with that? If so, prove to me that the £5m is right.

marty2086 wrote:

Or maybe its because the current chairman is not running again and its being left to the new board to make the decision hence why Bill Beaumont, the favourite for the position is mentioned.

What the IRPA wanted was directly linked to the tours as they wanted the windows changed particularly in the summer with a change to July rather than June to allow more recovery time, so tell me again how its irrelevant?

And see I can make a point, challenge yours and not call you names

New Chairman, old Chairman, no Chairman. None of that is relevant to the fact that the contracts end in 2019 - something you failed to grasp above.

The IRPA can't affect the World Rugby international window.

The end of the agreement in 2019 can affect he international window.

This is painful.

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:
No phill in your opinion. Back it up with some facts?

Erm, everything I've written is in the public domain already. Didn't you know?

Still no fact to back up your opinion?

Which opinion? I've stated only one and that is that £5m out of £22.7m is unlikely.

Do you disagree with that? If so, prove to me that the £5m is right.

Oh I need to show proof but your word is fine. Hahaha

carpet baboon wrote:
Oh I need to show proof but your word is fine. Hahaha

The figures I mentioned are in the public domain.

The figure of £5m is not.

I'm sure that you can now see your logical error.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Or maybe its because the current chairman is not running again and its being left to the new board to make the decision hence why Bill Beaumont, the favourite for the position is mentioned.

What the IRPA wanted was directly linked to the tours as they wanted the windows changed particularly in the summer with a change to July rather than June to allow more recovery time, so tell me again how its irrelevant?

And see I can make a point, challenge yours and not call you names

New Chairman, old Chairman, no Chairman. None of that is relevant to the fact that the contracts end in 2019 - something you failed to grasp above.

The IRPA can't affect the World Rugby international window.

The end of the agreement in 2019 can affect he international window.

This is painful.

Its actually all relevant because the chairman is a key component in deciding what will be in the new contract as pointed out in the article

So what are the new windows then Phil? You tell us that

the 22 million pays for all the international expenses including but not limited to overseas tours for full international. youth, womens, under 20s, 7s. around half or a bit less for the two mens pro sides sounds about right to me. so actually the welsh teams could have 4.5 million plus the central contracts money just for players. Thats a good chunk more than Glasgow has.

It is conmpletly absurd to suggest that because the welsh tv plays 1/3 of the tv money thats generted by the welsh teams only - without opposition they have no product to sell. so its all generated by the pro 12 teams 1/3 of which are welsh. How much would welsh TV pay just for the welsh teams playing each other? Not much

So you think that NZwant to decrease the amount of international rugby?

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:
Oh I need to show proof but your word is fine. Hahaha

The figures I mentioned are in the public domain.

The figure of £5m is not.

I'm sure that you can now see your logical error.

Actually last time this was discussed I found the 5 million figure in the public domain - actually extrapoloated from 4.5 million the previous year
So yes its a realistic figure and yes its a smaller playing budget than some of the welsh clubs

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:
Oh I need to show proof but your word is fine. Hahaha

The figures I mentioned are in the public domain.

The figure of £5m is not.

I'm sure that you can now see your logical error.

Haha OK Phil my only error was engaging with you.

Shall we recap all the things you have claimed in the last few months?

PRL want the welsh teams
BT sport have agreed a new league
No teams can sue if they ain't gonna invited to new league.
The irfu would sue the welsh if they joined the new league.
A big meeting is taking place.
A meeting will take place.
BT sport will decide who they invite to the league.
Irfu are refusing to negotiate on this new league.
The PRL are interested in saving welsh rugby.

All this is fact although you have offered none. If people disagree they must prove your wrong.

I must be hard when everyone else is laughing but you didn't get the joke

ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
Basic English, I understand. Your English, not so much:

"Because the IRFU would just allow four teams to leave the PrO'12, whilst under contract and whilst supply at least half of the TV money, without recourse at all, would they?........."

So you were claiming; 'and whilst supply of half the TV money', not that the Regions contribute a third (around 50% of the SKY deal)..... The issue here is obvious, Phil, and it isn't my lack of comprehension.

So, you rubbish the 70% claim, because it isn't proof to you   Funny that. Seems that you are very willing to accept the opinions of boys in a pub, as proof, or some Twitter waffle, when it fits your agenda.

The combined TV money is £10m. The Welsh four supply at least half of that. £3.2m + £1.8m = £5m.

It seems that maths isn't your strongpoint, either.

What '70% claim' are you on about, sorry?

This is hilarious

First you claim that the Regions pay half the TV money, and as you claim the total TV money is £10m, half that money, according to you, will be £5m. So I asked you if you believe that the Regions were contributing an extra £1.8m, on top of the £3.2m, to make up that half. You reply with this:

"PRW bring £3.2m to the table from BBC Wales. They only need to bring 1/3 of the Sky payment to the table to make up half of the TV income for the PrO'12. It's that simple. Sion Barry thinking they get 70% back is no proof for me, sorry."

So, you backtrack on your original claim, and then claim one third, not one half (blaming me for lack of comprehension). I then point out your contradiction, and now you're back to claiming that the Regions pay £5m, and without providing the evidence that I originally asked you for, to back up your claim!

So you think there's £10m in total TV money, and that paid between the Regions broadcasters and SKY? Do the Scottish, or the combination of the Provinces broadcasters not contribute anything?

Anyway, show me this evidence that the Regions broadcasters are paying £5m?

Oh, and in answer to your question; "What '70% claim' are you on about, sorry?". Did you forget your own reply earlier?:

" Sion Barry thinking they get 70% back is no proof for me, sorry. "

Seems you know all about the 70%.....

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Or maybe its because the current chairman is not running again and its being left to the new board to make the decision hence why Bill Beaumont, the favourite for the position is mentioned.

What the IRPA wanted was directly linked to the tours as they wanted the windows changed particularly in the summer with a change to July rather than June to allow more recovery time, so tell me again how its irrelevant?

And see I can make a point, challenge yours and not call you names

New Chairman, old Chairman, no Chairman. None of that is relevant to the fact that the contracts end in 2019 - something you failed to grasp above.

The IRPA can't affect the World Rugby international window.

The end of the agreement in 2019 can affect he international window.

This is painful.

Its actually all relevant because the chairman is a key component in deciding what will be in the new contract as pointed out in the article

So what are the new windows then Phil? You tell us that

Think we can officially say Phil doesn't have the answers he claims to have and has run away

marty2086 wrote:

Think we can officially say Phil doesn't have the answers he claims to have and has run away

Ok, let's play this game.

Provide me with the post in which I claim 'the answers' you refer to above.

I've got a few minutes to, again, highlight your stupidity so let's play this game.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Think we can officially say Phil doesn't have the answers he claims to have and has run away

Ok, let's play this game.

Provide me with the post in which I claim 'the answers' you refer to above.

I've got a few minutes to, again, highlight your stupidity so let's play this game.

Didn't you claim changes were coming?

And again with the name calling

You think NZ want to decrease the amount of tests they play?

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Think we can officially say Phil doesn't have the answers he claims to have and has run away

Ok, let's play this game.

Provide me with the post in which I claim 'the answers' you refer to above.

I've got a few minutes to, again, highlight your stupidity so let's play this game.

Didn't you claim changes were coming?

And again with the name calling

You provide me with the post that you referred to. Your claim, your game, you show your hand.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You think NZ want to decrease the amount of tests they play?

It's not about the number of games they play.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Think we can officially say Phil doesn't have the answers he claims to have and has run away

Ok, let's play this game.

Provide me with the post in which I claim 'the answers' you refer to above.

I've got a few minutes to, again, highlight your stupidity so let's play this game.

Didn't you claim changes were coming?

And again with the name calling

You provide me with the post that you referred to. Your claim, your game, you show your hand.

'It clearly states that the contracts for international tours end in 2019 so change is coming'

Now care to give us the details of these changes

Phil, you were asked for details of the change you say is coming, went AWOL and now instead of conceding you were wrong you are defensive and asking others to back up claims that are right there

marty2086 wrote:
'It clearly states that the contracts for international tours end in 2019 so change is coming'

Now care to give us the details of these changes

Err, that means that a change is coming because the existing contract is ending. It gives no prediction of how the changes could manifest.

This is basic English. Why are you struggling with it? Why are you playing the excited puppy role? The purpose of your post above was to have a pop at me and now it is proven that the basis of your pop was your own inability to comprehend basic English.

Why do you embarrass yourself so? You should have learned your lesson a long time ago.

marty2086 wrote:Phil, you were asked for details of the change you say is coming, went AWOL and now instead of conceding you were wrong you are defensive and asking others to back up claims that are right there

WTF?

a) I didn't go AWOL. I don't use this board everyday, thankfully. If you ever need me, darling, there's the twitter button on each of my posts.
b) I am not wrong. Change is coming, by definition. When a contract ends, a new contract is drawn up. That's a change.

No the point of the post was that you made an accusation of me running away last week yet when asked for the details of the changes you vanished, it was highlighting hypocrisy

I don't fail to grasp English, you are making a conclusion that the contract ending means changes yet the last contract ending brought no change so the basis of your conclusion is not supported by anything

marty2086 wrote:No the point of the post was that you made an accusation of me running away last week yet when asked for the details of the changes you vanished, it was highlighting hypocrisy

I don't fail to grasp English, you are making a conclusion that the contract ending means changes yet the last contract ending brought no change so the basis of your conclusion is not supported by anything

How can it be hypocrisy when I didn't 'vanish'?

When a contract ends, something changes. A new contract starts. They are not the same contract. Therefore, a change happens. This is basic English.

Your level of comprehension is woeful and, frankly, embarrassing.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Phil, you were asked for details of the change you say is coming, went AWOL and now instead of conceding you were wrong you are defensive and asking others to back up claims that are right there

WTF?

a) I didn't go AWOL. I don't use this board everyday, thankfully. If you ever need me, darling, there's the twitter button on each of my posts.
b) I am not wrong. Change is coming, by definition. When a contract ends, a new contract is drawn up. That's a change.

Well you could post elsewhere on here yet can't answer a simple question but if that's the change you are talking about you are clutching at straws

marty2086 wrote:
Well you could post elsewhere on here yet can't answer a simple question but if that's the change you are talking about you are clutching at straws

The basis of your question is entirely false and non-sensical. That you fail to comprehend that shows how poorly armed you are for the battle you want to fight.

A contract ends.
A new contract starts.

That is clearly a change. Changes don't happen during fixed contracts.

Basic. English.

'World Rugby has a three-year deadline looming, with no test matches scheduled beyond the 2019 World Cup in Japan, and Tew is effectively giving the governing body an ultimatum to devise a different system before then'

'NO.

It clearly states that the contracts for international tours end in 2019 so change is coming.

Please, come on, read. I even pulled out the relevant quote for you'

The relevant quote refers to new systems, so please don't bs about the change being a new contract. You are an arrogant bully who instead of saying he got it wrong tries to belittle others to protect his own pitiful ego, again hypocrisy from you

What is Peter building anyway? A porch? Ain't he finished yet? How many nails in that box of his?

New Contract = Change.
Change = Semantics.
Semantics = Cop Out.
Cop Out = 606 Norm.
606 Norm = No Change.

QED

marty2086 wrote:'World Rugby has a three-year deadline looming, with no test matches scheduled beyond the 2019 World Cup in Japan, and Tew is effectively giving the governing body an ultimatum to devise a different system before then'

'NO.

It clearly states that the contracts for international tours end in 2019 so change is coming.

Please, come on, read. I even pulled out the relevant quote for you'

The relevant quote refers to new systems, so please don't bs about the change being a new contract. You are an arrogant bully who instead of saying he got it wrong tries to belittle others to protect his own pitiful ego, again hypocrisy from you

The new 'system' is the new contract because the existing system is coming to an end. Tew wants the post 2020 contract sorted now so that businesses can plan future income streams.

I'm pretty gobsmacked that you just wrote that hugely hypocritical post. I didn't get anything wrong. Change is coming in 2020 because that's the end of the existing bloody contract.

This is basic. And you can't grasp it. Incredible.

Well Phil, you keep repeating that but a new contract does not equal a new system as history tells us

Im signing off now but its nice seeing you continue to insist you are right and how you clutch to the minutiae to insist on that but you feel free to insist this is me running away