Pro 16 needs to pull the plug on Premier Sports

First topic message reminder :



If the Pro 16 wants to compete with the likes of the other top leagues in Europe and further abroad, they need to part ways with Premier Sports. The current Premier Sports contract with the Pro 14 finishes at the end of this season it still remains to be seen if this will be renewed or another broadcaster will takeover the rights.

Many fans have voiced their dislike of the online platform which after several seasons appears to be stable via Sky or Virgin sports packages but less so as an outright online viewing package. Coupled with annoying multiple login requirements to swap from devices and random lost connection error codes before, during and even when trying to watch on demand matches, it would be a real shame to see the new Pro 16 format begin in this manner.

Do you feel the upcoming Pro 16 competition would be a good addition to BT Sports or Sky Sports or even one of the streaming platforms like Amazon Prime?

Would it be better for a return to the domestic networks in a similar format as before?

Could CVC play a part in this decision with their recent investment in the Pro 14 league and 6N?

Old Man wrote:Yes, both signed for the Bulls, there are two more rounds for rainbow cup, and apparently a final against the top European pro14 team.

That is it basically.

Looks like Benetton.

profitius wrote:

Old Man wrote:Yes, both signed for the Bulls, there are two more rounds for rainbow cup, and apparently a final against the top European pro14 team.

That is it basically.

Looks like Benetton.

Whats wrong with that ?

LordDowlais wrote:

profitius wrote:

Old Man wrote:Yes, both signed for the Bulls, there are two more rounds for rainbow cup, and apparently a final against the top European pro14 team.

That is it basically.

Looks like Benetton.

Whats wrong with that ?

Because they finished bottom in the regular season winning 0 out of 16 matches.

profitius wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

profitius wrote:

Old Man wrote:Yes, both signed for the Bulls, there are two more rounds for rainbow cup, and apparently a final against the top European pro14 team.

That is it basically.

Looks like Benetton.

Whats wrong with that ?

Because they finished bottom in the regular season winning 0 out of 16 matches.

Two different competitions though. So what has the league standings got to do with the Rainbow cup ? Which in all honesty is a farce that shouldn't have been played, but you shouldn't take anything away from Benneton for getting to the final. They achieved it on merit.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I understood your point Phil was to say that there isn't a case that private ownership for Leinster would not necessarily mean less money for them. I then put that next to a wage cap meaning they'd get nothing from it if that were the case anyway. Coming back to if it works for Leinster they're not likely to want the change.

That's a rather bizarre way of looking at it, as though salary is the only significant expenditure that will improve a team

Old Man wrote:I cannot see any scenario where a cap would be practical in the Pro 14/16.

Each Union lives on meagre means as is, unless you bring in a salary cap that is low enough for every Union’s teams to achieve, and then those with higher means have no incentive to drop to such a low cap.

You can't have a cap with single ownership of multiple entrants, opaque financing and multiple currencies / tax regimes.

PhilBB wrote:

Brendan wrote:

So the top guy at the Scarlets doesnt know what they are getting for the elite players and is wrong When he said the WRU pay 80% of the 38 players waes and the club picks up the remaining 20%.

Can you show us why you think his facts are wrong.  This is why people see the giving out about the Irish as sour grapes by sum when they don't even accept their own Regions answers.

It was just reported badly.

If the WRU pays those wages, they'd need to be recorded in the WRU Annual Report. They are not. The clubs have confirmed to their supporters that they are the employers of the players. If the WRU did pay those wages, there'd not be the finance crisis there presently is in Welsh rugby by the WRU paying only £3m of their contracted £26m this season.

Your final sentence is pure ignorance, based by your own misreading of a badly written Matthew Southcombe article.

And, here, if you want to learn a little more is a nice killer sentence for you: "On player cuts it’s not really for me to comment on because the players are not my employees" (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/steve-phillips-qa-wales-making-20256614)

Just to confirm this for the final time: part of the payment for services from the WRU must be used to pay 80% of the wages of the 38 players named each season by Pivac. The WRU doesn't pay the wage. There are no additional payments to cover this sum. It is just that the agreed payment figure must include that stipulation.

Again, just so that you're finally and really sure on this, the WRU has paid only £3m this season to its supply chain yet the players (who are paid by their clubs, remember) have all been paid.

So, now you have the facts, doesn't that final sentence of yours look out of place?

Brendan - you'd look a lot less disingenuous if you engaged with the posts, such as the one above, that disprove you

You're playing semantics though Phil :'Just to confirm this for the final time: part of the payment for services from the WRU must be used to pay 80% of the wages of the 38 players named each season by Pivac. The WRU doesn't pay the wage. '

They don't pay the wage they just supply the money to pay the wage.

PhilBB wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Brendan wrote:

So the top guy at the Scarlets doesnt know what they are getting for the elite players and is wrong When he said the WRU pay 80% of the 38 players waes and the club picks up the remaining 20%.

Can you show us why you think his facts are wrong.  This is why people see the giving out about the Irish as sour grapes by sum when they don't even accept their own Regions answers.

It was just reported badly.

If the WRU pays those wages, they'd need to be recorded in the WRU Annual Report. They are not. The clubs have confirmed to their supporters that they are the employers of the players. If the WRU did pay those wages, there'd not be the finance crisis there presently is in Welsh rugby by the WRU paying only £3m of their contracted £26m this season.

Your final sentence is pure ignorance, based by your own misreading of a badly written Matthew Southcombe article.

And, here, if you want to learn a little more is a nice killer sentence for you: "On player cuts it’s not really for me to comment on because the players are not my employees" (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/steve-phillips-qa-wales-making-20256614)

Just to confirm this for the final time: part of the payment for services from the WRU must be used to pay 80% of the wages of the 38 players named each season by Pivac. The WRU doesn't pay the wage. There are no additional payments to cover this sum. It is just that the agreed payment figure must include that stipulation.

Again, just so that you're finally and really sure on this, the WRU has paid only £3m this season to its supply chain yet the players (who are paid by their clubs, remember) have all been paid.

So, now you have the facts, doesn't that final sentence of yours look out of place?

Brendan - you'd look a lot less disingenuous if you engaged with the posts, such as the one above, that disprove you

In your eyes maybe.

I gave you the article, I gave you one of the head guys in Regional Rugby who backed up the point.

I don't care if it doesn't line up with your views but please provide the same standard of evidence to back yourself up. You say it was mis reporting but did he or Scarlets say that or imply it after the article was released.

It is plain for 90+% of people that if those 15 players were to move to another region then Scarlets would only have 20% of those players current wage bill to spend on new players.  It wouldn't be unreasonable to say they are on 3m between them.  That means if they all left in the morning Scarlets would have 600k to replace those players and the remaining 2.4m would go to other Regions.

I know you think that Scarlets, Ospreys and Blues are only run by Private investors but 38 (nearly an entire squad) is largely covered by this program of which the 3 private teams are the main beneficiaries not the Dragons and the three of them are given plenty by the WRU.

PhilBB wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Brendan wrote:

So the top guy at the Scarlets doesnt know what they are getting for the elite players and is wrong When he said the WRU pay 80% of the 38 players waes and the club picks up the remaining 20%.

Can you show us why you think his facts are wrong.  This is why people see the giving out about the Irish as sour grapes by sum when they don't even accept their own Regions answers.

It was just reported badly.

If the WRU pays those wages, they'd need to be recorded in the WRU Annual Report. They are not. The clubs have confirmed to their supporters that they are the employers of the players. If the WRU did pay those wages, there'd not be the finance crisis there presently is in Welsh rugby by the WRU paying only £3m of their contracted £26m this season.

Your final sentence is pure ignorance, based by your own misreading of a badly written Matthew Southcombe article.

And, here, if you want to learn a little more is a nice killer sentence for you: "On player cuts it’s not really for me to comment on because the players are not my employees" (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/steve-phillips-qa-wales-making-20256614)

Just to confirm this for the final time: part of the payment for services from the WRU must be used to pay 80% of the wages of the 38 players named each season by Pivac. The WRU doesn't pay the wage. There are no additional payments to cover this sum. It is just that the agreed payment figure must include that stipulation.

Again, just so that you're finally and really sure on this, the WRU has paid only £3m this season to its supply chain yet the players (who are paid by their clubs, remember) have all been paid.

So, now you have the facts, doesn't that final sentence of yours look out of place?

Brendan - you'd look a lot less disingenuous if you engaged with the posts, such as the one above, that disprove you

Simple questions Phil with a yes or no answer:
1 - Do the WRU make payments to the regional clubs?
2 - Does that payment increase if the club has more Welsh international players?
3 - Are the clubs meant to use those payments to help cover the salaries of the international players on their books?
4 - If the clubs don't just transfer the money from the WRU to the players but instead treat it as general funding from the WRU (that just happens to vary according to how many internationals they have on their books) but in real terms the clubs would be unable to pay the players wages without the WRU funding either directly or indirectly the clubs, then regardless of the semantics aren't the WRU actually paying the players?

profitius wrote:

Old Man wrote:Yes, both signed for the Bulls, there are two more rounds for rainbow cup, and apparently a final against the top European pro14 team.

That is it basically.

Looks like Benetton.

They have a hard run in and have a mini league with Connacht and Ospreys with all three having a round robin. Every other team in the top half play teams that have 0 or 1 win.

Benetton also had massive issues with Covid and had to pull players up from the Super10 to cover hence why they had such a bad season. Next season they will be back to where they were and the cup is just showing that

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're playing semantics though Phil :'Just to confirm this for the final time: part of the payment for services from the WRU must be used to pay 80% of the wages of the 38 players named each season by Pivac. The WRU doesn't pay the wage. '

They don't pay the wage they just supply the money to pay the wage.

Ah, ok

In which case, the RFU pays the wages of Farrell, Itoje and co.

Understood.

After all, it's just 'semantics' right? Oh, and your wages are paid by your employer's customers, obviously

Brendan wrote:

In your eyes maybe.

I gave you the article, I gave you one of the head guys in Regional Rugby who backed up the point.

I don't care if it doesn't line up with your views but please provide the same standard of evidence to back yourself up. You say it was mis reporting but did he or Scarlets say that or imply it after the article was released.

It is plain for 90+% of people that if those 15 players were to move to another region then Scarlets would only have 20% of those players current wage bill to spend on new players.  It wouldn't be unreasonable to say they are on 3m between them.  That means if they all left in the morning Scarlets would have 600k to replace those players and the remaining 2.4m would go to other Regions.

I know you think that Scarlets, Ospreys and Blues are only run by Private investors but 38 (nearly an entire squad) is largely covered by this program of which the 3 private teams are the main beneficiaries not the Dragons and the three of them are given plenty by the WRU.

I take it that bit I've bolded is a Mickey take, right? Nobody with an ounce of honesty could have written that to mean anything else.

Just to underline: the players are not employed by the WRU so the WRU do not pay them. As the Chief Exec of the WRU confirmed "these are not my players"

Irish Londoner wrote:

Simple questions Phil with a yes or no answer:
1 - Do the WRU make payments to the regional clubs?
2 - Does that payment increase if the club has more Welsh international players?
3 - Are the clubs meant to use those payments to help cover the salaries of the international players on their books?
4 - If the clubs don't just transfer the money from the WRU to the players but instead treat it as general funding from the WRU (that just happens to vary according to how many internationals they have on their books) but in real terms the clubs would be unable to pay the players wages without the WRU funding either directly or indirectly the clubs, then regardless of the semantics aren't the WRU actually paying the players?

1. Yes, just as the RFU does to English clubs.
2. Yes, just as with the RFU payments to English clubs
3. No, they have to do so.
4. There is no such thing as "general funding". There are only payments for services.

Just to confirm: there is no funding. Is this now understood? No funding. Just payments for services.

Your employer provides a service to its customer, it uses the income from that service to pay you. So, who is paying you? Your employer or your company's customer?

It's not difficult to work out.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're playing semantics though Phil :'Just to confirm this for the final time: part of the payment for services from the WRU must be used to pay 80% of the wages of the 38 players named each season by Pivac. The WRU doesn't pay the wage. '

They don't pay the wage they just supply the money to pay the wage.

Ah, ok

In which case, the RFU pays the wages of Farrell, Itoje and co.

Understood.

After all, it's just 'semantics' right? Oh, and your wages are paid by your employer's customers, obviously

For their club salary no I don't think thats right. You yourself said 'Just to confirm this for the final time: part of the payment for services from the WRU must be used to pay 80% of the wages of the 38 players named each season by Pivac.' Thats not the case for Farrell, Itoje etc. You could be stretching it to say that the RFU pay the one off match fees for England appearances; that would be true and happens for anyone playing for England for any club/region etc side.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

For their club salary no I don't think thats right. You yourself said 'Just to confirm this for the final time: part of the payment for services from the WRU must be used to pay 80% of the wages of the 38 players named each season by Pivac.' Thats not the case for Farrell, Itoje etc. You could be stretching it to say that the RFU pay the one off match fees for England appearances; that would be true and happens for anyone playing for England for any club/region etc side.

But the money comes from the RFU, right? So follow your logic through.

And, of course, you'll see the logic doesn't stack up.

Wages are paid ONLY by the employer. They are not paid by the customer of the Employer. This is just basic.

The money to pay the match fees comes from the RFU, yes.

I thought they still played okay most of the times I seen them. Crowley is now the Italy coach though, so not sure if that will help Benetton continue to improve.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The money to pay the match fees comes from the RFU, yes.

And the £2m or so per club from the RFU? Some of that must go on wages, right? Remembering your previous stance on Leinster and a salary cap.....

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You did talk about some Welsh wanting a fairer chance than playing a 'corporation' with an endless pot of money then talk of Irish finals (location) and Irish sponsors though. Scene setting can define how a discussion is going to go.

But they were facts.

1. 10 out of 12 finals in Ireland.
2. Irish broadcasters.
3. Irish sponsors.
4. The IRFU do have more money than the private backers.

These are nothing that has been made up.

The IRFU might have more money then some private backers but not all private backers such as the Benetton Group.  The WRU and private backers in Wales have more money then the IRFU especially as the IRFU has less then the WRU.

1. 10 of 12 - first season of playoffs 09/10.  Top ranked team got the home final. Of the 5 seasons Ireland hosted the final as the top team was Irish.
In 14/15 it changed to a set location where cities had to put up guarantees.  Of the 5 finals 2 were in Scotland and 3 in Ireland.
Then the IRFU unleashed a sickness on the world that force travel restrictions because they were so upset Wales had got the final on their first attempt of tendering for it.

2. Only since the Pro14 has there been one broadcaster for all of the UK and the highest bid won that happened to be of Irish origins (In a country with more Irish people then any other country and alot of irish companies have as their main market. The other 100 odd markets were covered by non-Irish deals except for Ireland.  Sky also had rights before for the UK and Ireland but I'm sure they have Irish connections too.

3. Before the league had Irish sponsers it had no sponsers.  There was Rabo but they didnt last long. As above Irish companies generally have outside of Ireland as their main market and are looking at everything to grow it.  Guinness sponsered the Premiership (I guess to get Irish teams in).  The 4 Irish teams have the biggest sponsership deals in the league.  Look at the Provinces shirts and sponser names v the other teams that look like racing car drivers.  Who sponsored the 6N after they couldn't find someone.

4. Ownership of participating teams is up to the Union who puts them into the league.  As above Benetton are probably as rich as the rest of the European based teams combined (including unions).  The Welsh have chosen their model and are free to do what they want.  The only requirement the league has stipulated is the WRU has to enter 4 teams. When WRU took over the Dragons the other Welsh teams complained but the league didn't care.

Old Man wrote:Yes, both signed for the Bulls, there are two more rounds for rainbow cup, and apparently a final against the top European pro14 team.

That is it basically.

Both are good players, but you'd assume they were brought back in so they could eventually be put into the Springbok set-up.

I guess the match against the B&I Lions will be their only chance to put themselves into the shop window.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The money to pay the match fees comes from the RFU, yes.

And the £2m or so per club from the RFU? Some of that must go on wages, right? Remembering your previous stance on Leinster and a salary cap.....

You mean any payments made by the RFU for England qualified players to the clubs? That goes to the clubs not the players.

Brendan wrote:

The IRFU might have more money then some private backers but not all private backers such as the Benetton Group.  The WRU and private backers in Wales have more money then the IRFU especially as the IRFU has less then the WRU.

1. 10 of 12 - first season of playoffs 09/10.  Top ranked team got the home final. Of the 5 seasons Ireland hosted the final as the top team was Irish.
In 14/15 it changed to a set location where cities had to put up guarantees.  Of the 5 finals 2 were in Scotland and 3 in Ireland.
Then the IRFU unleashed a sickness on the world that force travel restrictions because they were so upset Wales had got the final on their first attempt of tendering for it.

2. Only since the Pro14 has there been one broadcaster for all of the UK and the highest bid won that happened to be of Irish origins (In a country with more Irish people then any other country and alot of irish companies have as their main market. The other 100 odd markets were covered by non-Irish deals except for Ireland.  Sky also had rights before for the UK and Ireland but I'm sure they have Irish connections too.

3. Before the league had Irish sponsers it had no sponsers.  There was Rabo but they didnt last long. As above Irish companies generally have outside of Ireland as their main market and are looking at everything to grow it.  Guinness sponsered the Premiership (I guess to get Irish teams in).  The 4 Irish teams have the biggest sponsership deals in the league.  Look at the Provinces shirts and sponser names v the other teams that look like racing car drivers.  Who sponsored the 6N after they couldn't find someone.

4. Ownership of participating teams is up to the Union who puts them into the league.  As above Benetton are probably as rich as the rest of the European based teams combined (including unions).  The Welsh have chosen their model and are free to do what they want.  The only requirement the league has stipulated is the WRU has to enter 4 teams.  When WRU took over the Dragons the other Welsh teams complained but the league didn't care.

You were doing so well until that final sentence.

Who complained and when / how?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The money to pay the match fees comes from the RFU, yes.

And the £2m or so per club from the RFU? Some of that must go on wages, right? Remembering your previous stance on Leinster and a salary cap.....

You mean any payments made by the RFU for England qualified players to the clubs? That goes to the clubs not the players.

Just like the payments for the 38, then.

Well done.

We got there in the end.

Not quite Phil as you've stated yourself that the WRU payment has to paid to the players. Not the case in the other example.

Brendan wrote:
3. Before the league had Irish sponsers it had no sponsers.  There was Rabo but they didnt last long. As above Irish companies generally have outside of Ireland as their main market and are looking at everything to grow it.  Guinness sponsered the Premiership (I guess to get Irish teams in).  The 4 Irish teams have the biggest sponsership deals in the league.  Look at the Provinces shirts and sponser names v the other teams that look like racing car drivers.  Who sponsored the 6N after they couldn't find someone.

Just to point out that the Diageo Group aren't an Irish company.

Diageo are based in London, so your guess about "to get Irish teams in" is hilarious.

How do you know the 4 Irish teams have the biggest sponsorship deals in the league?

RBS were to sponsor the 6N until John Feehan, the Irishman, screwed up the deal https://punditarena.com/rugby/thepateam/six-nations-organisers-forced-into-sponsorship-uturn/ So that's not really you something you should be boasting about.

Phil it's fine to be incorrect. I never said they were WRU employees and the Chairman of Scarlets as I quoted in the article says they are Scarlets players.

Believe what you want but unless you know more then the Chairman of the Scarlets you are incorrect. If you do know more then Welsh Rugby is in big trouble.

We will leave it there but as previously said if any of the 15 players leave Scarlets and move o Opsreys or Blues for the same wages then 80% of that players wages will be taken out of the Scarlets cheque and put into the other Regions cheques.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not quite Phil as you've stated yourself that the WRU payment has to paid to the players. Not the case in the other example.

But. The. Payment. Goes. To. The. Club.

Sigh.

So exactly the same as the point you raised.

And thats where the semantics come in. One payment is made by the wru to be used only for players wages. The rfu payment is to try and entice the clubs to have more England eligible players in their squads. The rfu money is not then automatically paid to those players, owners do with it as they like.

Brendan wrote:Phil it's fine to be incorrect.  I never said they were WRU employees and the Chairman of Scarlets as I quoted in the article says they are Scarlets players.

Believe what you want but unless you know more then the Chairman of the Scarlets you are incorrect.  If you do know more then Welsh Rugby is in big trouble.

We will leave it there but as previously said if any of the 15 players leave Scarlets and move o Opsreys or Blues for the same wages then 80% of that players wages will be taken out of the Scarlets cheque and put into the other Regions cheques.

This is quite astonishing.

Ok, I'll break this down to the very basics for you.

An employee (the player) is paid by the employer. The player is not paid by the customer of the employer else the player would be an employee of the customer. Is this now sinking in?

The EMPLOYER pays the salary.

Your final sentence is right, other than you misnaming a team, of course.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And thats where the semantics come in. One payment is made by the wru to be used only for players wages. The rfu payment is to try and entice the clubs to have more England eligible players in their squads. The rfu money is not then automatically paid to those players, owners do with it as they like.

But they don't get the money unless they employ the player, just as in Wales. So it's not semantics. It's about accuracy.

And use the quote button, else your point will get lost in the stream.

PhilBB wrote:

Brendan wrote:
3. Before the league had Irish sponsers it had no sponsers.  There was Rabo but they didnt last long. As above Irish companies generally have outside of Ireland as their main market and are looking at everything to grow it.  Guinness sponsered the Premiership (I guess to get Irish teams in).  The 4 Irish teams have the biggest sponsership deals in the league.  Look at the Provinces shirts and sponser names v the other teams that look like racing car drivers.  Who sponsored the 6N after they couldn't find someone.

Just to point out that the Diageo Group aren't an Irish company.

Diageo are based in London, so your guess about "to get Irish teams in" is hilarious.

How do you know the 4 Irish teams have the biggest sponsorship deals in the league?

RBS were to sponsor the 6N until John Feehan, the Irishman, screwed up the deal https://punditarena.com/rugby/thepateam/six-nations-organisers-forced-into-sponsorship-uturn/ So that's not really you something you should be boasting about.

So if Diageo are a UK company how does the league have Irish sponsers. Was your fact not a fact after all.

Brendan wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Brendan wrote:
3. Before the league had Irish sponsers it had no sponsers.  There was Rabo but they didnt last long. As above Irish companies generally have outside of Ireland as their main market and are looking at everything to grow it.  Guinness sponsered the Premiership (I guess to get Irish teams in).  The 4 Irish teams have the biggest sponsership deals in the league.  Look at the Provinces shirts and sponser names v the other teams that look like racing car drivers.  Who sponsored the 6N after they couldn't find someone.

Just to point out that the Diageo Group aren't an Irish company.

Diageo are based in London, so your guess about "to get Irish teams in" is hilarious.

How do you know the 4 Irish teams have the biggest sponsorship deals in the league?

RBS were to sponsor the 6N until John Feehan, the Irishman, screwed up the deal https://punditarena.com/rugby/thepateam/six-nations-organisers-forced-into-sponsorship-uturn/ So that's not really you something you should be boasting about.

So if Diageo are a UK company how does the league have Irish sponsers.  Was your fact not a fact after all.

You were answering Dowlais about Irish sponsors, not me.

No comment on the rest of that post? No evidence about the sponsorship deals for the Irish teams? No comment on Feehan? More disingenuous posting, it seems

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And thats where the semantics come in. One payment is made by the wru to be used only for players wages. The rfu payment is to try and entice the clubs to have more England eligible players in their squads. The rfu money is not then automatically paid to those players, owners do with it as they like.

But they don't get the money unless they employ the player, just as in Wales. So it's not semantics. It's about accuracy.

And use the quote button, else your point will get lost in the stream.

Yes. And the original point was about payment by the union to pay players wages. As you acknowledge the wru pays money which contributes to the players wages and the clubs cannot do anything but do that. The rfu pay money to the clubs to meet a quota and that money does not have to be paid to the players. So its different.

No point in using the quote function most of the time.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And thats where the semantics come in. One payment is made by the wru to be used only for players wages. The rfu payment is to try and entice the clubs to have more England eligible players in their squads. The rfu money is not then automatically paid to those players, owners do with it as they like.

But they don't get the money unless they employ the player, just as in Wales. So it's not semantics. It's about accuracy.

And use the quote button, else your point will get lost in the stream.

One is based on having a specific player, the other is based on just having English players or being part of the PRL depending which payment from the RFU.

Brendan wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And thats where the semantics come in. One payment is made by the wru to be used only for players wages. The rfu payment is to try and entice the clubs to have more England eligible players in their squads. The rfu money is not then automatically paid to those players, owners do with it as they like.

But they don't get the money unless they employ the player, just as in Wales. So it's not semantics. It's about accuracy.

And use the quote button, else your point will get lost in the stream.

One is based on having a specific player, the other is based on just having English players or being part of the PRL depending which payment from the RFU.

Your post makes no sense.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And thats where the semantics come in. One payment is made by the wru to be used only for players wages. The rfu payment is to try and entice the clubs to have more England eligible players in their squads. The rfu money is not then automatically paid to those players, owners do with it as they like.

But they don't get the money unless they employ the player, just as in Wales. So it's not semantics. It's about accuracy.

And use the quote button, else your point will get lost in the stream.

Yes. And the original point was about payment by the union to pay players wages. As you acknowledge the wru pays money which contributes to the players wages and the clubs cannot do anything but do that. The rfu pay money to the clubs to meet a quota and that money does not have to be paid to the players. So its different.

No point in using the quote function most of the time.

There's always a point using the quote function.

The original point about about the Union paying players wages. So your second sentence, above, is the cause of your mistake

mikey_dragon wrote:

Old Man wrote:Yes, both signed for the Bulls, there are two more rounds for rainbow cup, and apparently a final against the top European pro14 team.

That is it basically.

Both are good players, but you'd assume they were brought back in so they could eventually be put into the Springbok set-up.

I guess the match against the B&I Lions will be their only chance to put themselves into the shop window.

Perhaps, not sure whether they will make any of the Springbok alignment camps though. Will follow it keenly and see

Again that's semantics phil. Wru pay the money which has to be paid to the players. The rfu do not.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Again that's semantics phil. Wru pay the money which has to be paid to the players. The rfu do not.

But the RFU don't pay that money unless the clubs have those players.

So it's exactly the same thing.

Its not the same thing though as the rfu money which is paid to the clubs does not have to be given to the players.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Its not the same thing though as the rfu money which is paid to the clubs does not have to be given to the players.

We're going around in circles as you've missed the crucial point. I'll explain it for you, clearly.

Welsh Club employs player. For doing so, WRU makes payment to employing club that contributes 80% of that player's salary IF IF IF said player is within the "Welsh Elite Player Squad" [the 38]

English Club employer players. For doing so, RFU makes payment to employing club as compensation for use of that player IF IF IF said player is within the English Elite Playing Squad. See Clauses 15, 16 and 17 of the Premiership Regulations.

See? The employment comes first. Employing said player releases a payment from the respective union to compensate for the use of that player.

The only 'difference' is the sum of money involved as it differs per player in Wales. The process is exactly the same: employ player, receive compensation payment (not funding) from respective Union.

I imagine that a lot if not all of these 'Japanese' will move back home to Aus, NZ, etc, when their playing days are done, just like the South Africans playing for everyone else's teams' do.

mikey_dragon wrote:I imagine that a lot if not all of these 'Japanese' will move back home to Aus, NZ, etc, when their playing days are done, just like the South Africans playing for everyone else's teams' do.

a) wrong thread
b) disgusting use of 'Japanese'
c) so what? It's possible to have multi-nationality but not many of us can afford to live in multiple countries during the year.

Your point isn't the point above though Phil. The WRU provide funds which have to be paid to the players. The rfu does not. The clubs in England could spend that money on the car park and the playes never see a penny.

Brendan wrote:1. 10 of 12 - first season of playoffs 09/10. Top ranked team got the home final. Of the 5 seasons Ireland hosted the final as the top team was Irish.
In 14/15 it changed to a set location where cities had to put up guarantees. Of the 5 finals 2 were in Scotland and 3 in Ireland.
Then the IRFU unleashed a sickness on the world that force travel restrictions because they were so upset Wales had got the final on their first attempt of tendering for it.

Funny how that criteria was changed at a time when Ospreys were looking likely to be the top ranked side, yep they changed the criteria half way through the season.

Yet here we are.

Sorry, I couldn't be bothered with your other points as it is just you trying to turn it into an Irish V Welsh thing.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Your point isn't the point above though Phil. The WRU provide funds which have to be paid to the players. The rfu does not. The clubs in England could spend that money on the car park and the playes never see a penny.

My point is that the WRU doesn't pay wages. Do I have to keep repeating that?

Brendan keeps banging on about that payment following the player. So, I pointed out the EPS payment follows the player

You don't have to repeat yourself Phil. You've said yourself that the wru pays money which has to then be used to pay the players. There is no other choice in regards to that money from the wru. You're playing semantics as pointed out above. Dont know why.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You don't have to repeat yourself Phil. You've said yourself that the wru pays money which has to then be used to pay the players. There is no other choice in regards to that money from the wru. You're playing semantics as pointed out above. Dont know why.

Those who dislike accuracy shout "semantics".

So to summarise. The clubs pay the players with the money given to them by the WRU which can't be used for any other reason other than paying those players.

The RFU give money to clubs to encourage more use of English qualified players. That money can be spent on anything the clubs want.