Pro 12 plus maybe Friends 20/21

First topic message reminder :

As one season finishes it seems the new one seems to start sooner each year.  Here is the breakdown of teams over the last three years. Places (based on league points) and points are order 19/20, 18/19, 17/18

Leinster (Champions and clearly the team to beat)
Place 1, 3, 2, Average 2
Points 69, 76, 70 total 215
Always have finished top of their conference and winners for the last three years
Goal - Win, anything else is failure

Munster
Place 3, 2, 4 Average 3
Points 51, 77, 69 Total 197
Yet another table where Munster fall short yet again.  Each of the last three years have been knocked out by Leinster
Goal - Top Conference (2nd in league) to finally avoid Leinster in the playoffs to make the final

Glasgow
Place 7, 1, 1 Average 3
Points 38, 81, 76 Total 195
Was this year a WC hangover or is it the start of the slide back to the chasing pack.  Losing key players is taking it's toll. No longer the best team in Scotland.
Goal - Win back dominance in Scotland

Ulster
Place 4, 4, 6 Average 4.33
Points 44, 63, 62 Total 169
Improving each year and seem like one of the teams to challange Leinster.
Goal - Get back to the final

Scarlets
Place 4, 9, 3 Average 5.33
Points 47, 52, 70 Total 169
Last year killed them but on their day a match of anyone. Best team usually in Wales.
Goal - make the final

Edinburgh
Place 2, 10, 5 Average 5.66
Total 51, 51, 68 Total 170
Like Scarlets last year killed them.  Have conquered Scotland and have one of the best coaches in the league.  Possibly the 2nd best team for next season if Cockers has cracked rotation.
Goal - make the final

Connacht
Place 6, 5, 10 Average 7
Points 40, 61, 39 Total 140
Excluding the first year under Keane have been playoff contenders each year.  But they need to push on and not just be happy fighting for a playoff sport.
Have to push for Top 4

Benetton
Place 8, 7, 7 Average 7.33
Points 36, 57, 55 Total 148
Consistency has got them middle of the table which is a good place to build from rather than just the place to stay.
Goal - time to push for Top 6

Blues
Place 9, 8, 8 Average  8.33
Points 33, 54, 54 Total 141
Again consistent in their place but have fallen down and past by their peers.  Have to be looking over their shoulders at Dragons and Zebre.
Goal - time to get above 8th.

Ospreys
Place 12, 6, 9 Average 9
Points 17, 58, 54 Total 119
Which year was the anomaly, when they finished 6th or 12th.  An old team who live on past glories. Last year 6th may have been down to the drop in form of Scarlets and Edinburgh.
Goal - stop the rot

Dragons
Place 10, 11, 12 Average 11
Points 24, 26, 20 Total 70
Slowly improving.  No longer unable to win away from home and building nicely.
Goal - has to be 9th

Zebre
Place 11, 12, 11 Average 11.33
Points 21, 19, 36 Total 76
Have alot of young players coming through.  Last year wasn't great but the other two were improvements on previous years.
Goal - Finished 10th and pick up some big wins.

rugby racing and beer wrote:
Of course test players get paid more because they are deemed of higher value.

And how many test players are in the squads of Glasgow and Edinburgh?

There may be a bit of a clue, therefore, in how much they get paid JUDGING BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS

rugby racing and beer wrote:None of that suggests that Johnny Gray and Russell were earning what the highest paid Welsh and Irish players. It might make sense that they were but there's no evidence for it. None whatsoever. You're completely making that up/wanting to believe there is a 'market' for test players as if Wales, Ireland, and Scotland have standardised their salaries (hint: they haven't) with each other. The whole point of this discussion is the discrepancy between how the unions fund their respective countries and clubs - and now you're suggesting there's a market rate? Between these countries? Waaaahhhhhhhhhhh...?!      

Classic attempt to divert the argument from the topic. You should have given this up years ago.

To bring it back to the point: this isn't about the outliers of individual player salaries but the total spend on the squads of each club.

So do try to stop taking the discussion to some irrelevant path. Thanks.

rugby racing and beer wrote:

The £95,000 figure you've come up with is an incredibly poor use of statistics to justify a conclusion you'd already decided on long before looking at any evidence. It's fitting figures in to alternative facts, it's not actually relevant. Do you think the Italians pay the 'average' salary? Do you think the Irish do? Or is it more fitting to consider each nation a standalone country that operates its own model...like...this...thread...has...been...discussing...

Oh dear.

The £95k figure is the average salary IF the claim of £9.9m total salary spend is accurate. I didn't make that claim, somebody else did.

The statistics I used were the number of contracted players (as per the SRU annual report) and the claim of £9.9m offered by somebody else in this thread.

That figure, and how it is derived, has nothing to do with "the Italians". It also seems that you don't understand what an average is or how Esportif worked it out.

How embarrassing for you, not knowing what an average is.

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Are they actually going to be called 'Cardiff'? Can you post some evidence for this? Likewise, can you please provide evidence (and not just your claims) that they're a standalone club and not a region?

If so, I'll happily defer to you and brand myself an 'idiot' as you seem to believe I am.

Cardiff RFC ltd annual accounts 2003-04, filed for year end May 2004.

As noted here: https://twitter.com/RugbyPhilBB/status/1316647700142723072?s=20

I don't need your confirmation, Champ. You just keep going as you are.

I'll ask again - can you please show me where the Cardiff Blues are rebranding to become 'Cardiff'?

You'll see, in time.

In the meantime, now that I've provided the evidence of them being a standalone club, please could you point me to the website for this team called "blues".

Thanks

Oh right. 'In time'. What are you, Merlin? Hahahaha. This gets worse and worse, it really does.

They're called the Cardiff Blues, Phil, due to the existence of a team in Auckland, NZ, known as the Blues who were a 'regional' team created before them. You and I both know this. Everyone knows this. For some reason you're wanting to pretend the Emperor is clothed. I'm not sure why.

This South Wales regional rugby team (not a club) are commonly known as the Blues due to the fact the region encompasses many of Cardiff RFC's former rivals, hence calling them Cardiff is a pointlessly divisive and factually incorrect statement that engenders conflict and something of a proxy rivalry between those who cannot accept that regional rugby destroyed Welsh club rugby as the pinnacle of the domestic game.

Their proper name is still the Cardiff Blues but calling them Cardiff rather than the Blues is a very odd decision given that Cardiff RFC are known as 'Cardiff' and obviously are a club and not a region. When talking in a Welsh context, it's obvious enough who the Blues are (though it does need qualification when talking outside Wales, hence the Cardiff prefix) - they're the regional rugby team that "are responsible for developing rugby in the city of Cardiff, Vale of Glamorgan, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Merthyr Tydfil and south Powys.[5] There are 75 associate clubs within this wider Cardiff Blues region including semi professional Pontypridd RFC, Merthyr RFC and the Cardiff RFC Welsh Premiership side.[2]" (very helpful, wikipedia!)

I'm afraid that dunce hat has to go back to its owner for now...unless you're willing to tell what 'in time' actually means? Are there genuinely plans to rebrand the Cardiff Blues?

rugby racing and beer wrote:
As it stands, my guess work is as good as your guess work.

That's another lie as you've provided no stats for your thinking. No substance. Nothing.

I've provided the actual salary bill of the SRU. Remember? You know - the thing that you claimed didn't have any evidence behind it.

Anyway, that's enough dopamine dished out for one day.

rugby racing and beer wrote:
Oh right. 'In time'. What are you, Merlin? Hahahaha. This gets worse and worse, it really does.

I'll look forward to bringing this post up in the future.

rugby racing and beer wrote:Anyway, that's enough dopamine dished out for one day.

I see you've moved on. You used to project about thioridazine and haloperidol

rugby racing and beer wrote:
They're called the Cardiff Blues, Phil, due to the existence of a team in Auckland, NZ, known as the Blues who were a 'regional' team created before them. You and I both know this. Everyone knows this. For some reason you're wanting to pretend the Emperor is clothed. I'm not sure why.

This South Wales regional rugby team (not a club) are commonly known as the Blues due to the fact the region encompasses many of Cardiff RFC's former rivals, hence calling them Cardiff is a pointlessly divisive and factually incorrect statement that engenders conflict and something of a proxy rivalry between those who cannot accept that regional rugby destroyed Welsh club rugby as the pinnacle of the domestic game.

Their proper name is still the Cardiff Blues but calling them Cardiff rather than the Blues is a very odd decision given that Cardiff RFC are known as 'Cardiff' and obviously are a club and not a region. When talking in a Welsh context, it's obvious enough who the Blues are (though it does need qualification when talking outside Wales, hence the Cardiff prefix) - they're the regional rugby team that "are responsible for developing rugby in the city of Cardiff, Vale of Glamorgan, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Merthyr Tydfil and south Powys.[5] There are 75 associate clubs within this wider Cardiff Blues region including semi professional Pontypridd RFC, Merthyr RFC and the Cardiff RFC Welsh Premiership side.[2]" (very helpful, wikipedia!)

I'm afraid that dunce hat has to go back to its owner for now...unless you're willing to tell what 'in time' actually means? Are there genuinely plans to rebrand the Cardiff Blues?

You forgot to mention East Glamorgan, Geraint.

Yes, there are plans to rebrand again.

Cardiff it is, Cardiff it's always been, Cardiff is what its supporters chant.

p.s. the 'region' is just the pathway. You might want to educate yourself by watching the Q&A with the Board Members that was recently online.

rugby racing and beer wrote:There's half an interesting convo here but the lack emotional IQ and respect just makes it too hard going.

Well, at least you're honest about yourself in that post. That's progress.

None of that suggests that Johnny Gray and Russell were earning what the highest paid Welsh and Irish players

They were not. Stuart Hogg before moving south was the highest paid player on £300 000 pa. The SRU said they "pushed th eboat out" to try to keep both - but both players wanted to move regardeless of money

There is no doubt at all that the best paid players in Scotland are earning far less than theior counterparts elsewhere. its how Glasgow and Edinburgh can afford the big squads to get depth. I bet not a single player is on much over £300 000 and most of the "stars" on half that

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:There's half an interesting convo here but the lack emotional IQ and respect just makes it too hard going.

Well, at least you're honest about yourself in that post. That's progress.

I'm not even joking, this might be of use to you: https://www.mind.org.uk/

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

TJ wrote: Dragons the poor relations

Correct. 100% spot on.

Except that is completely untrue, as has been shown by the the last three WRU Annual Reports.

The 'claim' in the latest report is that the Dragons cost £7.1m but that excludes stadia costs and many admin costs.

The WRU paid out £19.7m to the other three, so an average of £6.56m each.

Therefore, whichever way you look at it, the Dragons get the most from the WRU

They don't though, they've gotten the least since 2004/05 season.

Gaz, I just gave you the figures from the last WRU Annual Report to show that they do. They do now, at least, and have done since WRU ownership.

Don't fall for the spin of "player budget". This is about the total the WRU spends operating the Dragons.

So what is the playing budget? As you keep going on about that and using it as a stick to try and beat other teams, yet when it comes to Dragons you keep going about playing budget, bills/overheads, etc.

PhillBB are you against the owner of a team putting money into their team to improve it. It's not like the owner has any other teams they own so I'm sure you are all for the WRU pumping in as much money as they want.

If the other Welsh teams want more money they can ask their rich backers.

Oh jebus. It’s phill. Run away everyone and very quickly

TJ wrote:

None of that suggests that Johnny Gray and Russell were earning what the highest paid Welsh and Irish players

They were not.  Stuart Hogg before moving south was the highest paid player on £300 000 pa.  The SRU said they "pushed th eboat out" to try to keep both - but both players wanted to move regardeless of money

There is no doubt at all that the best paid players in Scotland are earning far less than theior counterparts elsewhere.  its how Glasgow and Edinburgh can afford the big squads to get depth.  I bet not a single player is on much over £300 000 and most of the "stars" on half that

Exactly.

They have lots more players on middle to high wages, paid for by allowing the highest earners to leave

The total they spend, therefore, is significant.

rugby racing and beer wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:There's half an interesting convo here but the lack emotional IQ and respect just makes it too hard going.

Well, at least you're honest about yourself in that post. That's progress.

I'm not even joking, this might be of use to you: https://www.mind.org.uk/

I see what you've sunk to as you can't win an argument. You used to take a little longer getting there.

mikey_dragon wrote:
So what is the playing budget? As you keep going on about that and using it as a stick to try and beat other teams, yet when it comes to Dragons you keep going about playing budget, bills/overheads, etc.

I do that because the Dragons can't pay their own way, so they need the WRU to do it for them. Therefore, in TOTAL, they get more from the WRU than any of the other three.

As for their playing budget, it's the lowest of the four.

So both statements can be equally true and compatible, as I'm sure you'll now agree.

Brendan wrote:PhillBB are you against the owner of a team putting money into their team to improve it.  It's not like the owner has any other teams they own so I'm sure you are all for the WRU pumping in as much money as they want.

If the other Welsh teams want more money they can ask their rich backers.

The first sentence is such palpable nonsense - you should be embarrassed to have written it.

The WRU has a contract with the other three clubs and the Union should not be a competitor to its members, so it would be a daft stance to support the WRU "pumping in as much as they want".

So that's three pieces of ignorance from you in one post.

mikey_dragon wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

Didn't see the Turnbull incident or POM incident. Was that straight red card on the field for shoulder to head area a "lesser offence" by Turnbull than the two yellow cards for entering a breakdown by the shoulder by POM?  Was Turnbull at a breakdown, maul, open field? Was POM to the head?  Just looking to clarify. Game doesn't need cheapshots, I'm more than happy if the refs/league go to town on it for 2-3 months to eliminate it from the game.

Turnbull made a high tackle. Not deliberate, more a case of the attacker getting lower just before contact and Turnbull using the wrong shoulder. Red was a fair call, as was the ban - the laws are quite clear.

POM's second yellow was for an elbow drop to Jake Ball's face - it started out as a shoulder charge. It wasn't enough to hurt him but I thought the laws were pretty clear on that too, and an elbow was up there with gouging. I've also seen a shoulder charge to the face given a red card (Hogg on Biggar) - because like I said the letter of the law is pretty clear. The ref got it wrong as it should have been a straight red, and then the judicial panel got it wrong by stating a "sending off was sufficient punishment". It's bonkers.

https://twitter.com/ultimaterugby/status/1312421552202362880?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1312421552202362880%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.walesonline.co.uk%2Fsport%2Frugby%2Frugby-news%2Futter-disgrace-welsh-rugby-fans-19076985

I'd agree with you, any elbow to a players face should be a ban.

Turnbull getting three weeks for an accident, POM getting nothing for a deliberate act of thuggery and Henderson getting three weeks for a deliberate act of thuggery all show this league is genuinely awful at nigh on everything it does

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

Didn't see the Turnbull incident or POM incident. Was that straight red card on the field for shoulder to head area a "lesser offence" by Turnbull than the two yellow cards for entering a breakdown by the shoulder by POM?  Was Turnbull at a breakdown, maul, open field? Was POM to the head?  Just looking to clarify. Game doesn't need cheapshots, I'm more than happy if the refs/league go to town on it for 2-3 months to eliminate it from the game.

Turnbull made a high tackle. Not deliberate, more a case of the attacker getting lower just before contact and Turnbull using the wrong shoulder. Red was a fair call, as was the ban - the laws are quite clear.

POM's second yellow was for an elbow drop to Jake Ball's face - it started out as a shoulder charge. It wasn't enough to hurt him but I thought the laws were pretty clear on that too, and an elbow was up there with gouging. I've also seen a shoulder charge to the face given a red card (Hogg on Biggar) - because like I said the letter of the law is pretty clear. The ref got it wrong as it should have been a straight red, and then the judicial panel got it wrong by stating a "sending off was sufficient punishment". It's bonkers.

https://twitter.com/ultimaterugby/status/1312421552202362880?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1312421552202362880%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.walesonline.co.uk%2Fsport%2Frugby%2Frugby-news%2Futter-disgrace-welsh-rugby-fans-19076985

I'd agree with you, any elbow to a players face should be a ban.

Was it? Where was the mark on Ball's face?

PhilBB wrote:Turnbull getting three weeks for an accident, POM getting nothing for a deliberate act of thuggery and Henderson getting three weeks for a deliberate act of thuggery all show this league is genuinely awful at nigh on everything it does

So its thuggery when Henderson does it but a mistake when Turnbull does it.

profitius wrote:

PhilBB wrote:Turnbull getting three weeks for an accident, POM getting nothing for a deliberate act of thuggery and Henderson getting three weeks for a deliberate act of thuggery all show this league is genuinely awful at nigh on everything it does

So its thuggery when Henderson does it but a mistake when Turnbull does it.

What a bizarre question

One was a split second tackle decision, caused by an obstruction made by a team mate, with a minimal contact area. The other was a shoulder to the face of a bloke nowhere to the ball, premeditated and deliberate.

That you even had to ask the question is just bonkers.

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:
Oh right. 'In time'. What are you, Merlin? Hahahaha. This gets worse and worse, it really does.

I'll look forward to bringing this post up in the future.

When in the future? Just wondering if it'll be this life or the next.

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:There's half an interesting convo here but the lack emotional IQ and respect just makes it too hard going.

Well, at least you're honest about yourself in that post. That's progress.

I'm not even joking, this might be of use to you: https://www.mind.org.uk/

I see what you've sunk to as you can't win an argument. You used to take a little longer getting there.

You can't 'win' arguments with people who refuse to accept logic, facts etc. It's also not the point. I'm not here to 'win'. Are you? Weird if so.

profitius wrote:Was it? Where was the mark on Ball's face?

What on earth are you even trying to get at with this stupidity? Munster fan obviously .

mikey_dragon wrote:

profitius wrote:Was it? Where was the mark on Ball's face?

What on earth are you even trying to get at with this stupidity? Munster fan obviously .

An elbow to the face would cause a bit of damage. I didn't see any elbow strike a face from all the camera angles.

profitius wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

profitius wrote:Was it? Where was the mark on Ball's face?

What on earth are you even trying to get at with this stupidity? Munster fan obviously .

An elbow to the face would cause a bit of damage. I didn't see any elbow strike a face from all the camera angles.

As I alluded to, the elbow strike wasn’t intentional but that’s how it ended. If you can’t see it from the video then maybe you need your eyes checked.

There’s nothing in the laws to state that “if he is unmarked then it wasn’t serious enough for a ban.” I can still remember Munster fans defending O’Connell’s vicious elbow on Jon Thomas. And the crowd booing the sending off decision as if the ref had done something wrong

I see Cheetahs beat the Bulls. I think that the SA fans that think they are going into a league where they will waltz into the playoffs, may be in for a surprise.

I thought Bulls and Stormers would do better given what they put out up front. As I said before it would be a shame to drop the Cheetahs, they've been an exciting team to watch. I think their TH de Bruin, and locks Steenkamp and du Preez are quality players. They usually have good back 3 players too. Joseph Dweba was probably their best player, now in France.

rugby racing and beer wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:
Oh right. 'In time'. What are you, Merlin? Hahahaha. This gets worse and worse, it really does.

I'll look forward to bringing this post up in the future.

When in the future? Just wondering if it'll be this life or the next.

Do you mean for your log in or do you mean in general?

rugby racing and beer wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:There's half an interesting convo here but the lack emotional IQ and respect just makes it too hard going.

Well, at least you're honest about yourself in that post. That's progress.

I'm not even joking, this might be of use to you: https://www.mind.org.uk/

I see what you've sunk to as you can't win an argument. You used to take a little longer getting there.

You can't 'win' arguments with people who refuse to accept logic, facts etc. It's also not the point. I'm not here to 'win'. Are you? Weird if so.

That first sentence is a remarkable take on self awareness.

At the minute, I'm here to underline that much of what you write has no basic in logic or fact. I do this by presenting the actual facts.

Was thinking about the Cheetahs getting kicked out. Over the last number of years SA has supported 6 Pro teams*, first in super rugby and then 4 in super rugby and 2 in the Pro 14. I was wondering why SA didn't push to have 6 teams in the Pro 14? They could easily have promoted Pumas or Griquas to replace SK.
Do you think the Pro 14 only allowed them 4 teams? As Wales and Ireland only have 4 teams, and if SA became a partner in Celtic Rugby, with 6 teams they may have more influence than the WRU or IRFU, so to protect that statis they were limited to 4?

*Yes Kings were crap, but in their last year of super rugby they were ok, then with the uncertainty on the move from super rugby to Pro 14 they lost most of their players and had to rebuild, and then it happened again due to mismanagement. There is evidence there that a stable well run team, could have been decent. If Griquas or Pumas were given 3 years and didnt have to rebuild from scratch twice, could they not get to the level SK were in their last year of Super Rugby, and if managed well, with security, they should be able to push on?

Kingshu wrote:Was thinking about the Cheetahs getting kicked out. Over the last number of years SA has supported 6 Pro teams*, first in super rugby and then 4 in super rugby and 2 in the Pro 14. I was wondering why SA didn't push to have 6 teams in the Pro 14? They could easily have promoted Pumas or Griquas to replace SK.
Do you think the Pro 14 only allowed them 4 teams? As Wales and Ireland only have 4 teams, and if SA became a partner in Celtic Rugby, with 6 teams they may have more influence than the WRU or IRFU, so to protect that statis they were limited to 4?

*Yes Kings were crap, but in their last year of super rugby they were ok, then with the uncertainty on the move from super rugby to Pro 14 they lost most of their players and had to rebuild, and then it happened again due to mismanagement. There is evidence there that a stable well run team, could have been decent. If Griquas or Pumas were given 3 years and didnt have to rebuild from scratch twice, could they not get to the level SK were in their last year of Super Rugby, and if managed well, with security, they should be able to push on?

The number of entrants doesn't equate to a change in the shareholding, so there's nothing in that to dictate 'influence'.

As I understand it, SA are hoping to come on board for two years before CVC will be in a position to offer all broadcast contracts simultaneously, opening the door for potential new competitions.

I think that the answer is on what the SARU said about the Cheetahs. SR in some form or another will need to go on in order to carry on with SANZAAR. Any SR competition run by them will have at least one SA team in it (possibly more) so they must be seen to be acting in good faith. If SR doesn't happen then I can see the Cheetahs coming back into the Pro16.

If NZ and Oz deciede that they don't care for SA at all and instead will do a Pacific focus tournament at club and international then all bets are off as to what will happen.

Either way having SARU aligined with the Pro12 Nations will make the league stronger both rugby and political wise aswell as financially.

It will be curious to see if Argetina end up in the Pacific American or Europe club sceen

I am not so sure about that Brendan.

Rugby Australia is solely focused on a Trans Tasman competition, NZRU may still want to play SA at Franchise level, but they won’t accept the Cheetahs, they will insist on a competitive team from SA.

The withdrawal of SARU from this year’s RC has definitely soured the relationship between SA and the others.

Previously SARU had confirmed they will have to reduce the franchises from six to four.

So from their perspective (around six weeks ago) there will only be four.

The Cheetahs have said they are considering taking SARU to court as contractually they are still signed on to Pro 14 until I think 2023.

However they are also considering options to join the Major League rugby in the US or Russia.

Old Man wrote:I am not so sure about that Brendan.

Rugby Australia is solely focused on a Trans Tasman competition, NZRU may still want to play SA at Franchise level, but they won’t accept the Cheetahs, they will insist on a competitive team from SA.

The withdrawal of SARU from this year’s RC has definitely soured the relationship between SA and the others.

Previously SARU had confirmed they will have to reduce the franchises from six to four.

So from their perspective (around six weeks ago) there will only be four.

The Cheetahs have said they are considering taking SARU to court as contractually they are still signed on to Pro 14 until I think 2023.

However they are also considering options to join the Major League rugby in the US or Russia.

Not sure that Cheetahs have strong legal grounds as they were selected to play under the six-year Participation Agreement between SARU and Celtic Rugby, which included a mid-term review point about the quality and performance of the teams and whether they would be continued to be selected.

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:
Oh right. 'In time'. What are you, Merlin? Hahahaha. This gets worse and worse, it really does.

I'll look forward to bringing this post up in the future.

When in the future? Just wondering if it'll be this life or the next.

Do you mean for your log in or do you mean in general?

Your crystal ball will show you the answer...

rugby racing and beer wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:
Oh right. 'In time'. What are you, Merlin? Hahahaha. This gets worse and worse, it really does.

I'll look forward to bringing this post up in the future.

When in the future? Just wondering if it'll be this life or the next.

Do you mean for your log in or do you mean in general?

Your crystal ball will show you the answer...

Did you watch the online Q&A with Williams, Holland, Walker and Jones?

Were they reading tea leaves on Zoom?

Not much to write home about in the Treviso Scarlets game so far.

60 mins gone. Scarlets level. 3-3. Game full of scrappy mistakes, kicking, and knock ons. Looks lik the Scarlets are getting on top now though.

65 minutes. AOB missed a kick just over halfway bang in front. Has the length, not the line. Who dares wins stuff now. The Scarlets have had most of the game, they should win.

Not a fan of Andrew Brace either. Highly strung ref who makes bizarre decisions with the utmost self importance. He hasn't helped the spectacle, particularly at scrum time. Lottery.

70 mins. Try time. It was coming although it came on the break. Great kick ahead recovered by AOB. Moved wide, try begging, marginal forward pass by Asquith to Dn Jones, back to Asquith, try. Checked but judged flat. Lucky but deserved try. Con good. 3-10 Scarlets lead.

I'd feel miffed if I were a Treviso player though given the pass was forward.

Ridiculous red card for the Scarlets. Head clash in tackle judged as...who knows. Red card. Clownish officiating continues.

Treviso knocking on door but held up in corner and then penalty for sealing off. 2 to go, Scarlets clear. Should see it out now.

Ref fins no arms tackle bck in the play. 60 seconds to go. Scrum under the posts, 5m out. Looks like this should be a draw now if Treviso don't f it up.