Worcester and Wasps GONE?

[Kawazaki]

Not quite, Sarries imported loads of experienced players to generate a platform for success and coach/teach/role model the development of younger players. It wasn't exactly all internal development. Likewise the money factor isn't always about bringing in players, but about keeping them to maintain or build upon successs. But the issue people have with Sarries isn't that they encourage players to have outside interests.

Given the outside interests were pretty much exclusively why they broke the cap then I suggest you're mistaken. Saracens never paid more in salaries than the cap allowed.

And you're wrong about imports as well, or at least it was never as high as you think. For example, Sale have imported far more South Africans in the last few years than Saracens every did except with Sale the Saffas are already fully capped test players. With Saracens, many of the imported players were not capped, a few actually played for England you might recall. But Sale don't get criticised largely because they don't win anything. Great coaching and a great culture are why Saracens won things.

But they were breaking it via assets and sly investments. So stop trying to move goalposts to deflet what a corrupt club Sarries are and how tainted their silverware is.

To four players. Four.

And ask yourself why all the premiership clubs wouldn't submit their own accounts to the same forensic analysis they wanted the Saracens ones exposed to. We're finding out now, I know you're not the smartest but don't be so naive to think that Saracens were the only team doing it.

[eldanielfire]

Given the outside interests were pretty much exclusively why they broke the cap then I suggest you're mistaken. Saracens never paid more in salaries than the cap allowed.

And you're wrong about imports as well, or at least it was never as high as you think. For example, Sale have imported far more South Africans in the last few years than Saracens every did except with Sale the Saffas are already fully capped test players. With Saracens, many of the imported players were not capped, a few actually played for England you might recall. But Sale don't get criticised largely because they don't win anything. Great coaching and a great culture are why Saracens won things.

But they were breaking it via assets and sly investments. So stop trying to move goalposts to deflet what a corrupt club Sarries are and how tainted their silverware is.

To four players. Four.

And ask yourself why all the premiership clubs wouldn't submit their own accounts to the same forensic analysis they wanted the Saracens ones exposed to. We're finding out now, I know you're not the smartest but don't be so naive to think that Saracens were the only team doing it.

Saracens refused to open their books to avoid a relegation. Please don't pretend they were only caught as some sad victims of their own openness or decency. They cooked the books so badly even the little the allowed to be checked got them a massive punishment.

Meanwhile I have no idea what premiership clubs might be cooking their books. Sure I suspect some, but none of that makes Saracens any less corrupt and bent.

[SaintK]

But they were breaking it via assets and sly investments. So stop trying to move goalposts to deflet what a corrupt club Sarries are and how tainted their silverware is.

To four players. Four.

And ask yourself why all the premiership clubs wouldn't submit their own accounts to the same forensic analysis they wanted the Saracens ones exposed to. We're finding out now, I know you're not the smartest but don't be so naive to think that Saracens were the only team doing it.

Saracens refused to open their books to avoid a relegation. Please don't pretend they were only caught as some sad victims of their own openness or decency. They cooked the books so badly even the little the allowed to be checked got them a massive punishment.

Meanwhile I have no idea what premiership clubs might be cooking their books. Sure I suspect some, but none of that makes Saracens any less corrupt and bent.

Guys, do fuck off with this tedious argument going round and round again
I have no particular affection for Saracens but this is now history. We should all be far more concerned that the Premiership is slowly falling apart before our very eyes and PRL appear to be doing 4 parts of bugger all about it.

[Torquemada 1420]

Awful for the staff, they've done nothing wrong.

Obviously this has a financial implication for all teams who've yet to play a home fixture against Worcester, but Glaws must feel particularly irked having had a fixture cancelled last season too.

You probaby saw, but the ground caretaker lives on site and will have to move out by tonight.

Ugh, I hadn't, but why wouldn't there be another element to this vortex of suffering? Poor bugger.

***t owners will walk scott free.

[PornDog]

Sorry, you've got that a bit backwards. Fewer subs means players playing more minutes, which means more players required overall to be able to compete in multiple competitions. More workload on individuals during matches means more injuries, more fatigue, and even more need for rest and rotation.

I think we also need to clarify whether "fewer subs" means "fewer substitutions allowed during a match" or "fewer substitutes on the bench". The latter has increased danger to players during a match and is more damaging to players careers. Messing with subs has a real knock on effect with regards to player welfare and the justification for it has always been pretty thin, be it an attempt to make players smaller (it won't make much difference and whatever gains you make will be lost when injured players are under pressure to play on) or to cut costs.

Either income has to go up dramatically, or costs need to be significantly cut back, or a combination of the two. In the absence of the first, players are going to feel some pain either in lower salaries, or fewer players employed. Neither are great, but rather lose something than everything if a club goes to the wall.

For clarity, I am not saying the players take all the pain, just that some is likely.

This is the bind we've got into. I am anti subs (fewer substitutions allowed) except for injury
- it's the single greatest cause of there being no space on the pitch and why the game is less exciting. Make the fatties stay on for 80 and then we'd see a totally different product.
- it's a joke that a quality prop (say) works over his opposite and then they simply bring on someone else. Or, the reverse e.g. if Os du Randt had had to play an 80 min game ever, he'd have been half as effective
- as weegie points out, it means bigger squads = greater £ overhead
- it allows the wealthy clubs to hoard the best players. Smaller squads = better distribution

BUT......... as you highlight, we cannot do this whilst there are too many matches in a season. So the other factor in quality over quantity is reducing the playing schedule.

There's definitely a delicate balance to find (and potentially a minefield to enforce), but I'd be strongly in favour of making utterly massive players that currently only play for a maximum of 50 minutes at a time (and often times only 30) play the full 80 mins regularly. I think it has the potential to positively impact not just the safety of the game but the entertainment level as well.

But - the ruck is for me a much higher priority. Why is the defending team allowed to put a player in a position that if he were on the attacking team would see him get pinged for sealing off? They're at least trying to make the tackle zone safer, they must do the same for the ruck. The ruck needs to be a place where players win through strength and technique, not through the force of impact - which is what it largely is now and incredibly dangerous because of it.

[weegie01]

Sorry, you've got that a bit backwards. Fewer subs means players playing more minutes, which means more players required overall to be able to compete in multiple competitions. More workload on individuals during matches means more injuries, more fatigue, and even more need for rest and rotation.

I think we also need to clarify whether "fewer subs" means "fewer substitutions allowed during a match" or "fewer substitutes on the bench". The latter has increased danger to players during a match and is more damaging to players careers. Messing with subs has a real knock on effect with regards to player welfare and the justification for it has always been pretty thin, be it an attempt to make players smaller (it won't make much difference and whatever gains you make will be lost when injured players are under pressure to play on) or to cut costs.

I had not really thought about the number on the bench, I was just thinking of BCM's suggestion of injury only subs.

I am not ignoring issues of player welfare as I have an underlying assumption that the overall intensity will drop. I take your point that players will, on average, be on the pitch longer. But if they can't be subbed unless injured, then players have to assume they are on the pitch for 80 mins so all have to play at an 80 minute intensity. Players can't exhaust themselves in 40 mins, and then be replaced by someone else who does the same.

There are clearly a lot of possible issues, many with risks for players. For example, if a player is coming back from injury, they can no longer be eased in. So are they risked by coming back early, or wait longer to be fully fitter than they are now?

I come from the era when players played the full match unless a leg was torn off. I have seen at first hand the issues that caused. My son on the other hand played in the current era and can't imagine the game without the current complement of subs. Rugby is now a 23 man game which has allowed certain things to improve, but has brought its own issues imho. I think it would be better as a 15 man game with subs allowed to remove the injury related issues of the past. Or perhaps a half way house of some kind.

Or somehow reduce the number of games and keep everything else the same. Which in return reduces revenue.

There is no good solution. Something has to give somewhere. But I take your underlying point that players can't just be pushed harder with all the issues that would entail.

[Kawazaki]

But they were breaking it via assets and sly investments. So stop trying to move goalposts to deflet what a corrupt club Sarries are and how tainted their silverware is.

To four players. Four.

And ask yourself why all the premiership clubs wouldn't submit their own accounts to the same forensic analysis they wanted the Saracens ones exposed to. We're finding out now, I know you're not the smartest but don't be so naive to think that Saracens were the only team doing it.

Saracens refused to open their books to avoid a relegation. Please don't pretend they were only caught as some sad victims of their own openness or decency. They cooked the books so badly even the little the allowed to be checked got them a massive punishment.

Meanwhile I have no idea what premiership clubs might be cooking their books. Sure I suspect some, but none of that makes Saracens any less corrupt and bent.

Saracens were open to a full forensic audit. Even you must know this.

Naive and stupid is a hell of way to pass through life fella.

[Tichtheid]

I just had a quick count up for Saturday's games

Tries per match across competitions

RC 7 + 7 = 14 tries in 2 games

GP 11+9+10+6 = 36 tries in 4 games

URC 12+9+6+7 = 34 tries in 4 games

T14 2+4+0+5+8+5 = 24 tries in 6 games

What are we trying to fix by having knackered players making themselves prone to injury in the last quarter of a match?

edited to fix simple arithmetic error, the pedant in me couldn't let it lie.

[PornDog]

I just had a quick count up for Saturday's games

Tries per match across competitions

RC 7 + 7 = 14 tries in 2 games

GP 11+9+10+6 = 36 tries in 4 games

URC 12+9+6+7 = 33 tries in 4 games

T14 2+4+0+5+8+5 = 24 tries in 6 games

What are we trying to fix by having knackered players making themselves prone to injury in the last quarter of a match?

Fair enough, the "it will open the game up" argument might be a solution looking for a problem - but your last sentence I would take issue with.

How is players been tired and bringing less intensity to the closing stages of the game a recipe for more injuries? On the flip side, by "breeding" the bigger, heavier "impact" players out of the game, and especially taking their impacts against said tired players that remain on the pitch out of the game, you could very well achieve exactly that. You should have fewer lopsided collisions.

Maybe. I mean we're all working off a bunch of assumptions here.

I still think its more important to focus on the ruck first though.

[Kawazaki]

Fortunately there is thousands of hours of historical data on injury rates for rugby players who are much lighter playing a much faster form of rugby.

Do 7s players get injured more, less or about the same as XVs players?

[Raggs]

I just had a quick count up for Saturday's games

Tries per match across competitions

RC 7 + 7 = 14 tries in 2 games

GP 11+9+10+6 = 36 tries in 4 games

URC 12+9+6+7 = 33 tries in 4 games

T14 2+4+0+5+8+5 = 24 tries in 6 games

What are we trying to fix by having knackered players making themselves prone to injury in the last quarter of a match?

Fair enough, the "it will open the game up" argument might be a solution looking for a problem - but your last sentence I would take issue with.

How is players been tired and bringing less intensity to the closing stages of the game a recipe for more injuries? On the flip side, by "breeding" the bigger, heavier "impact" players out of the game, and especially taking their impacts against said tired players that remain on the pitch out of the game, you could very well achieve exactly that. You should have fewer lopsided collisions.

Maybe. I mean we're all working off a bunch of assumptions here.

I still think its more important to focus on the ruck first though.

You ever try and perform a tackle after a knackering 80 minutes? My tackle technique starts off lovely, but at the end of the game it goes to hell. Yes, we're working on assumptions, but it's a rather clear possibility that more tired players = more errors.

[Tichtheid]

I just had a quick count up for Saturday's games

Tries per match across competitions

RC 7 + 7 = 14 tries in 2 games

GP 11+9+10+6 = 36 tries in 4 games

URC 12+9+6+7 = 33 tries in 4 games

T14 2+4+0+5+8+5 = 24 tries in 6 games

What are we trying to fix by having knackered players making themselves prone to injury in the last quarter of a match?

Fair enough, the "it will open the game up" argument might be a solution looking for a problem - but your last sentence I would take issue with.

How is players been tired and bringing less intensity to the closing stages of the game a recipe for more injuries? On the flip side, by "breeding" the bigger, heavier "impact" players out of the game, and especially taking their impacts against said tired players that remain on the pitch out of the game, you could very well achieve exactly that. You should have fewer lopsided collisions.

Maybe. I mean we're all working off a bunch of assumptions here.

I still think its more important to focus on the ruck first though.

I just googled, "at what point in a game do professional rugby players get injured most"

There wasn't much in the way of hits (pardon the pun).

I'm not really under the impression that players who have been on since the start get injured in the last quarter due to collisions with players who have just come on.

I wonder if there is any info on this? It could prove interesting.

I think if you have tight five forwards blowing out of their arses late in a game, they are more likely to be involved in a clumsy collision, if they are to shed several kilos and are able to hit just as hard on 75 minutes as they are on 10, then I don't really see how that lessens the chance of injury,

[Raggs]

I just had a quick count up for Saturday's games

Tries per match across competitions

RC 7 + 7 = 14 tries in 2 games

GP 11+9+10+6 = 36 tries in 4 games

URC 12+9+6+7 = 33 tries in 4 games

T14 2+4+0+5+8+5 = 24 tries in 6 games

What are we trying to fix by having knackered players making themselves prone to injury in the last quarter of a match?

Fair enough, the "it will open the game up" argument might be a solution looking for a problem - but your last sentence I would take issue with.

How is players been tired and bringing less intensity to the closing stages of the game a recipe for more injuries? On the flip side, by "breeding" the bigger, heavier "impact" players out of the game, and especially taking their impacts against said tired players that remain on the pitch out of the game, you could very well achieve exactly that. You should have fewer lopsided collisions.

Maybe. I mean we're all working off a bunch of assumptions here.

I still think its more important to focus on the ruck first though.

I just googled, "at what point in a game do professional rugby players get injured most"

There wasn't much in the way of hits (pardon the pun).

I'm not really under the impression that players who have been on since the start get injured in the last quarter due to collisions with players who have just come on.

I wonder if there is any info on this? It could prove interesting.

I think if you have tight five forwards blowing out of their arses late in a game, they are more likely to be involved in a clumsy collision, if they are to shed several kilos and are able to hit just as hard on 75 minutes as they are on 10, then I don't really see how that lessens the chance of injury,

Fairly sure that Ross Tucker was involved in some research on this, not sure if they're done yet though. It is being looked into.

[Kawazaki]

I think if you have tight five forwards blowing out of their arses late in a game, they are more likely to be involved in a clumsy collision, if they are to shed several kilos and are able to hit just as hard on 75 minutes as they are on 10, then I don't really see how that lessens the chance of injury,

F = m ⨉ a

[SaintK]

Worcester missed the 5:00pm deadline(surprise, surprise) and are suspended from the Premiership

Worcester Warriors have been suspended from all competitions after failing to meet a funding ultimatum set by the Rugby Football Union (RFU).
The financially stricken club had to provide proof of a "credible" plan for the future by 17:00 BST on Monday.
The men's team will now be banned from the Premiership and its women's side from the Premier 15s.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/63038335

[GogLais]

I think if you have tight five forwards blowing out of their arses late in a game, they are more likely to be involved in a clumsy collision, if they are to shed several kilos and are able to hit just as hard on 75 minutes as they are on 10, then I don't really see how that lessens the chance of injury,

F = m ⨉ a

I’ll risk posting Momentum = Mass x Velocity and beat a hasty retreat.

[FalseBayFC]

LOL LMAO. Os du Randt had a bigger engine than any NH prop of his generation. Adam Jones, Phil Vickery, Jason Leonard, Pieter de Villiers... Name me a prop who played as many minutes over his career. He got tackled once by Scott Gibbs and the entire Five Nations fanbase prematurely ejaculuated over themselves. Once you have a player who has won two WORLD CUP TROPHIES please mention his name with anything other than utter reverence please!

[Tichtheid]

I think if you have tight five forwards blowing out of their arses late in a game, they are more likely to be involved in a clumsy collision, if they are to shed several kilos and are able to hit just as hard on 75 minutes as they are on 10, then I don't really see how that lessens the chance of injury,

F = m ⨉ a

yes, for a trolley running down a slope on a bench in the physics room full of kids.

There are a hell of a lot of variables when you try to apply that to a rugby collision, but in its simplest form as the mass of the player goes down the acceleration can go up, so the force could well be greater with the lighter player.

Jerry Collins played at 112kg (wiki), Ben Tameifuna is listed at 141kg.

I know which one I'd rather have hitting me.

[Tichtheid]

Worcester missed the 5:00pm deadline(surprise, surprise) and are suspended from the Premiership

Worcester Warriors have been suspended from all competitions after failing to meet a funding ultimatum set by the Rugby Football Union (RFU).
The financially stricken club had to provide proof of a "credible" plan for the future by 17:00 BST on Monday.
The men's team will now be banned from the Premiership and its women's side from the Premier 15s.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/63038335

I guess it was only a matter of time, but it's a real shame.

[PornDog]

I just had a quick count up for Saturday's games

Tries per match across competitions

RC 7 + 7 = 14 tries in 2 games

GP 11+9+10+6 = 36 tries in 4 games

URC 12+9+6+7 = 33 tries in 4 games

T14 2+4+0+5+8+5 = 24 tries in 6 games

What are we trying to fix by having knackered players making themselves prone to injury in the last quarter of a match?

Fair enough, the "it will open the game up" argument might be a solution looking for a problem - but your last sentence I would take issue with.

How is players been tired and bringing less intensity to the closing stages of the game a recipe for more injuries? On the flip side, by "breeding" the bigger, heavier "impact" players out of the game, and especially taking their impacts against said tired players that remain on the pitch out of the game, you could very well achieve exactly that. You should have fewer lopsided collisions.

Maybe. I mean we're all working off a bunch of assumptions here.

I still think its more important to focus on the ruck first though.

You ever try and perform a tackle after a knackering 80 minutes? My tackle technique starts off lovely, but at the end of the game it goes to hell. Yes, we're working on assumptions, but it's a rather clear possibility that more tired players = more errors.

More errors - certainly. More injuries - I have my doubts, but my suspicions (based largely on what's emanating out my arse) would point the other way.

I think if you have tight five forwards blowing out of their arses late in a game, they are more likely to be involved in a clumsy collision, if they are to shed several kilos and are able to hit just as hard on 75 minutes as they are on 10, then I don't really see how that lessens the chance of injury,

And that clumsy collision is much more likely to result in a missed tackle rather than an injury (I'm guessing), but more to the rest of that - if he's several kilo's lighter then the all of his collisions are less impactful than the heavier mans contribution over 50 mins (or 30 mins). The collisions he makes in the 75th minute may be closer to the level of the ones he makes after ten, but they'll be nothing compared to the ones made by the huge fucker coming off the bench on 55 to replace him makes in the 75th.

Again - maybe.

[Kawazaki]

I think if you have tight five forwards blowing out of their arses late in a game, they are more likely to be involved in a clumsy collision, if they are to shed several kilos and are able to hit just as hard on 75 minutes as they are on 10, then I don't really see how that lessens the chance of injury,

F = m ⨉ a

yes, for a trolley running down a slope on a bench in the physics room full of kids.

There are a hell of a lot of variables when you try to apply that to a rugby collision, but in its simplest form as the mass of the player goes down the acceleration can go up, so the force could well be greater with the lighter player.

Jerry Collins played at 112kg (wiki), Ben Tameifuna is listed at 141kg.

I know which one I'd rather have hitting me.

If you ran hard at either of them you'd be ended.

[Raggs]

It's a lot easier to put your head on the wrong side of a tackle, or not get low for a tackle, when you're knackered. Highest cause of injury per incident is upright tackles. When you're tired, it's a lot more effort to get into a good position, and not just sort of run in front of them

[GogLais]

I just had a quick count up for Saturday's games

Tries per match across competitions

RC 7 + 7 = 14 tries in 2 games

GP 11+9+10+6 = 36 tries in 4 games

URC 12+9+6+7 = 33 tries in 4 games

T14 2+4+0+5+8+5 = 24 tries in 6 games

What are we trying to fix by having knackered players making themselves prone to injury in the last quarter of a match?

Fair enough, the "it will open the game up" argument might be a solution looking for a problem - but your last sentence I would take issue with.

How is players been tired and bringing less intensity to the closing stages of the game a recipe for more injuries? On the flip side, by "breeding" the bigger, heavier "impact" players out of the game, and especially taking their impacts against said tired players that remain on the pitch out of the game, you could very well achieve exactly that. You should have fewer lopsided collisions.

Maybe. I mean we're all working off a bunch of assumptions here.

I still think its more important to focus on the ruck first though.

I think if you have tight five forwards blowing out of their arses late in a game, they are more likely to be involved in a clumsy collision, if they are to shed several kilos and are able to hit just as hard on 75 minutes as they are on 10, then I don't really see how that lessens the chance of injury,

Ok what do I know? If I were a coach I’d be tempted to keep my forwards bigger and slower and bank on them smashing their supposedly faster lighter opponents to bits in the first sixty minutes. I realise that’s a not very Welsh attitude.

[FalseBayFC]

Seabelo Senatla just got put out of rugby for 6 months by a reckless clean out by Bundee Aki. Quinn Tuapaea maimed by a crude challenge from Darcey Swain. 76kg Kurt-Lee Arendse almost wrecked Beauden Barrett with a kamikaze hit. Its not just about size and power.

[geordie_6]

Worcester missed the 5:00pm deadline(surprise, surprise) and are suspended from the Premiership

Worcester Warriors have been suspended from all competitions after failing to meet a funding ultimatum set by the Rugby Football Union (RFU).
The financially stricken club had to provide proof of a "credible" plan for the future by 17:00 BST on Monday.
The men's team will now be banned from the Premiership and its women's side from the Premier 15s.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/63038335

I guess it was only a matter of time, but it's a real shame.

Presumably, until this progresses one way or another, the players and staff are stuck in limbo?

[Margin__Walker]

Mark Evans nails it here really. Clear from the start that these guys didn't actually have any money, so how did they end up being allowed to buy a prem club.

[fishfoodie]

Mark Evans nails it here really. Clear from the start that these guys didn't actually have any money, so how did they end up being allowed to buy a prem club.

A cynic might wonder if the reason they failed, is because that was always their intent, but they hoped to asset strip it entirely, before eventually running it into the ground.

[Margin__Walker]

Yeah, you have to wonder about the long term goal. They always looked like a pair of del boys.

Buying an entity that makes huge losses, without any capital yourself makes very little sense, other than in the vague hope it's about to explode in value. Them just seeing it as a long winded property deal seems more credible to a layman.

[fishfoodie]

Yeah, you have to wonder about the long term goal. They always looked like a pair of del boys.

Buying an entity that makes huge losses, without any capital yourself makes very little sense, other than in the vague hope it's about to explode in value. Them just seeing it as a long winded property deal seems more credible to a layman.

Yeah, with a few years they could have flogged all the ancillary land, & eventually sold the main ground to a shell company, & leased it back to the club, & then just let the tax bill take the whole lot under, now they had all assets safetly hidden away where the tax man & other creditors couldn't get them.

They'd probably even wangle a nice tax right off for an manufactured debt that the club owed the shell companies

[Kawazaki]

Colin Goldring and Jason Whittingham have used home addresses for some of the companies they've set up. They are easy to find on the Companies House website. Goldring's is a flat in a grim looking block in Enfield.

[Paddington Bear]

Mark Evans nails it here really. Clear from the start that these guys didn't actually have any money, so how did they end up being allowed to buy a prem club.

A cynic might wonder if the reason they failed, is because that was always their intent, but they hoped to asset strip it entirely, before eventually running it into the ground.

Yes that's my assumption

[Iain(bobbity)]

When they took over, wasn't recently retired David Seymour involved?

Not sure when that ended, or if he decided he was being used as a veneer of rugby credibility.

[Brazil]

From a little digging it appears Seymour was in the ownership group before this pair. May be wrong though.

Has anybody provided clarity on what happens next? Dimes seemed to be indicating that they'd be back up and running with a new owner, but that hardly seems fair on the clubs that have gone into administration in the past and been demoted to the bottom of the leagues. SImilarly, bouncing in and out of the Premiership for the rest of the season isn't going to do anyone any favours.

[SaintK]

From a little digging it appears Seymour was in the ownership group before this pair. May be wrong though.

Has anybody provided clarity on what happens next? Dimes seemed to be indicating that they'd be back up and running with a new owner, but that hardly seems fair on the clubs that have gone into administration in the past and been demoted to the bottom of the leagues. SImilarly, bouncing in and out of the Premiership for the rest of the season isn't going to do anyone any favours.

PRL didn't exist back in those days and there wasn't a ringfence.

[Kawazaki]

The owners are well into shit or bust territory now. I can't see them doing any deals that don't compensate them with as much money as they can squeeze out of any buyer, but I can't envisage any buyer with enough enthusiasm and passion for Worcester Warriors to want to pay a premium to a pair of obvious conmen in order to obtain the club with all of its assets. And let's be honest, who on earth will want to play for Worcester while the conmen owners are still involved?

[Brazil]

From a little digging it appears Seymour was in the ownership group before this pair. May be wrong though.

Has anybody provided clarity on what happens next? Dimes seemed to be indicating that they'd be back up and running with a new owner, but that hardly seems fair on the clubs that have gone into administration in the past and been demoted to the bottom of the leagues. SImilarly, bouncing in and out of the Premiership for the rest of the season isn't going to do anyone any favours.

PRL didn't exist back in those days and there wasn't a ringfence.

Of course. That makes it even more of a mess, and probably increases the likelihood of a fudge, particularly if other clubs are staring down the barrels of similar guns.

[Torquemada 1420]

But - the ruck is for me a much higher priority. Why is the defending team allowed to put a player in a position that if he were on the attacking team would see him get pinged for sealing off? They're at least trying to make the tackle zone safer, they must do the same for the ruck. The ruck needs to be a place where players win through strength and technique, not through the force of impact - which is what it largely is now and incredibly dangerous because of it.

I've been a huge critic of exoceting into rucks. The starting point of rugby is it's meant to be a game played by players on their feet. The ruck has made the game go all Tim Rodber as you are rewarded for immediately going to ground and we now have have a bastardised version of league. Separate point, but kicking is the same i.e. teams now kick more than play with ball in hand because the reward is higher.

Back to rucks. As a starter
- anyone joining a ruck has to do so by binding to a player first BEFORE being allowed to push. The contact needs depowering like the scrum engagement had to be.
- any player who is tackled who attempts to go to the floor after (i.e. to prevent being held up: this lifting legs in the air sh*t) results in a scrum turnover for the opposition
- genuinely tackled player on the floor must immediately place and then release the ball

[Torquemada 1420]

Mark Evans nails it here really. Clear from the start that these guys didn't actually have any money, so how did they end up being allowed to buy a prem club.

A cynic might wonder if the reason they failed, is because that was always their intent, but they hoped to asset strip it entirely, before eventually running it into the ground.

Yes that's my assumption

Yup. They copied the model of football e.g. the Glaziers at Man Utd.

[Torquemada 1420]

Fortunately there is thousands of hours of historical data on injury rates for rugby players who are much lighter playing a much faster form of rugby.

Do 7s players get injured more, less or about the same as XVs players?

You'd have to find some way of factoring time into that. It's an irrelevant comparison because they are entirely different sports. You may as well compare with gridiron or Aussi rules.

[Torquemada 1420]

Colin Goldring and Jason Whittingham have used home addresses for some of the companies they've set up. They are easy to find on the Companies House website. Goldring's is a flat in a grim looking block in Enfield.

Yes.
https://companycheck.co.uk/director/913 ... NG/summary

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Rec ... d0.0878094