NPR

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 8:02 am

PornDog wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:57 pm 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

Fair enough, but it's about balance which is why people talk about the possibility of banning the jackal, or at least making it harder. If points one and three there were rigorously enforced, but the ability to jackal remained the same, there would be a turnover at every other breakdown.

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 8:12 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 8:02 am

PornDog wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:57 pm 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

Fair enough, but it's about balance which is why people talk about the possibility of banning the jackal, or at least making it harder. If points one and three there were rigorously enforced, but the ability to jackal remained the same, there would be a turnover at every other breakdown.

And not sure that would be a bad thing i.e. maybe teams would seek to keep the ball alive a la Toulouse 2004 which, for me, was the pinnacle of club rugby in the NH.

PS The majority of jackals are illegal anyway because players don't support own weight. It's ignored, like so many other laws, because the other laws surrounding the ruck are ignored too.

Rucks always had players going to ground - you'd take the ball into contact turn to face your own team as you fell and they would ruck over the top of you.

The difference back then was that if someone tried to put hands on the ball it was a very painful experience.

Brazil wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 7:32 am 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.

From reading about the Richmond and London Scottish thing, it appears that the professional entities were rolled into London Irish. The amateur clubs were then reformed but had to start at the bottom. It's arguably not the same thing as demotion to the bottom rung.

That may not be what happens here.

This doesn't look any better:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/63045806

1) If a prerequisite for anyone looking to chuck money at saving the club is the current owners handing over the surrounding land, then it's good night? Because it's clear their activities have all been designed to shield those assets (for their own benefits) from the rugby club itself.

2) Regardless, I cannot see how Wuss cannot be relegated now.

RFU's regulations are that once you move into administration, or have an insolvency event, unless you can prove that this is a no-fault situation due to Covid, then you would be relegated in the following season and therefore in the Championship.

Someone would have to prove both that the 2 owners were not the club itself (i.e. somehow a separate entity) and that they were to blame.

It's genius really. Buy a struggling business, whilst putting none of your own money on the table. Ride a wave of CVC, Covid (and Duckworth) Loan cash and skim off a hefty slice for yourself. Shift a few assets around and wait for it all to fail.

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 9:22 pm It's genius really. Buy a struggling business, whilst putting none of your own money on the table. Ride a wave of CVC, Covid (and Duckworth) Loan cash and skim off a hefty slice for yourself. Shift a few assets around and wait for it all to fail.

They're Glazerslite.

It's weird but I'd quite like to hear that somebody has kicked the shit out of the pair of them.

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 9:22 pm It's genius really. Buy a struggling business, whilst putting none of your own money on the table. Ride a wave of CVC, Covid (and Duckworth) Loan cash and skim off a hefty slice for yourself. Shift a few assets around and wait for it all to fail.

Like I said. A tried and tested model aped from football.

So the Worcester players are stuck in limbo due as they are contracted to
a business that is not in administration.
Can't really get much worse! I do hope something spectacularly awful happens to the two spivs

The RPA has now clarified that players are actually contracted to a separate company that is not in administration, unlike the rest of the club.
A statement from the players’ body reads: “Our members are currently in a position where WRFC Players Ltd, the company holding their contracts, is not in administration, whilst WRFC Trading Ltd (in administration) has entered the administration process.

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/rpa-re ... tracts/

SaintK wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:10 pm So the Worcester players are stuck in limbo due as they are contracted to
a business that is not in administration.
Can't really get much worse! I do hope something spectacularly awful happens to the two spivs

The RPA has now clarified that players are actually contracted to a separate company that is not in administration, unlike the rest of the club.
A statement from the players’ body reads: “Our members are currently in a position where WRFC Players Ltd, the company holding their contracts, is not in administration, whilst WRFC Trading Ltd (in administration) has entered the administration process.

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/rpa-re ... tracts/

You'd like to think a group of the players might like to go and knock on a couple of doors

SaintK wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:10 pm So the Worcester players are stuck in limbo due as they are contracted to
a business that is not in administration.
Can't really get much worse! I do hope something spectacularly awful happens to the two spivs

The RPA has now clarified that players are actually contracted to a separate company that is not in administration, unlike the rest of the club.
A statement from the players’ body reads: “Our members are currently in a position where WRFC Players Ltd, the company holding their contracts, is not in administration, whilst WRFC Trading Ltd (in administration) has entered the administration process.

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/rpa-re ... tracts/

Why are the players not being paid then? I assume the holding company doesn't have funds to fulfil obligations, does this holding company also need to be dragged through administration?

Apols if above reads like I'm slagging you, not my intention - just perplexed by some of the shenanigans. I appreciate the players haven't been stiffed to quite the same extent as the poor sods in the non-playing staff, but they have had missed or reduced payments.

Another layer of smoke and mirrors.

inactionman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:30 pm

SaintK wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:10 pm So the Worcester players are stuck in limbo due as they are contracted to
a business that is not in administration.
Can't really get much worse! I do hope something spectacularly awful happens to the two spivs

The RPA has now clarified that players are actually contracted to a separate company that is not in administration, unlike the rest of the club.
A statement from the players’ body reads: “Our members are currently in a position where WRFC Players Ltd, the company holding their contracts, is not in administration, whilst WRFC Trading Ltd (in administration) has entered the administration process.

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/rpa-re ... tracts/

Why are the players not being paid then? I assume the holding company doesn't have funds to fulfil obligations, does this holding company also need to be dragged through administration?

Apols if above reads like I'm slagging you, not my intention - just perplexed by some of the shenanigans. I appreciate the players haven't been stiffed to quite the same extent as the poor sods in the non-playing staff, but they have had missed or reduced payments.

Another layer of smoke and mirrors.

Yeah, the players who haven't been paid in full are effectively creditors. They could issue a winding up order.

What bellends.

Sorry, not sorry.

Pricks.

inactionman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:30 pm

SaintK wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:10 pm So the Worcester players are stuck in limbo due as they are contracted to
a business that is not in administration.
Can't really get much worse! I do hope something spectacularly awful happens to the two spivs

The RPA has now clarified that players are actually contracted to a separate company that is not in administration, unlike the rest of the club.
A statement from the players’ body reads: “Our members are currently in a position where WRFC Players Ltd, the company holding their contracts, is not in administration, whilst WRFC Trading Ltd (in administration) has entered the administration process.

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/rpa-re ... tracts/

Why are the players not being paid then? I assume the holding company doesn't have funds to fulfil obligations, does this holding company also need to be dragged through administration?

Apols if above reads like I'm slagging you, not my intention - just perplexed by some of the shenanigans. I appreciate the players haven't been stiffed to quite the same extent as the poor sods in the non-playing staff, but they have had missed or reduced payments.

Another layer of smoke and mirrors.

Yeah, surely if you’re not being paid your employer is in breach of contract so you can walk?

As well as the fans fault for not turning up, the spivs are now blaming the players
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/63087149

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 3:17 pm As well as the fans fault for not turning up, the spivs are now blaming the players
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/63087149

Despite paying themselves £550,000 in 2021 - a 450% increase in directors remuneration since 2018.

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 3:20 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 3:17 pm As well as the fans fault for not turning up, the spivs are now blaming the players
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/63087149

Despite paying themselves £550,000 in 2021 - a 450% increase in directors remuneration since 2018.

Make them stand on the 22 and get Duhan to run full pelt at them

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 3:31 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 3:20 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 3:17 pm As well as the fans fault for not turning up, the spivs are now blaming the players
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/63087149

Despite paying themselves £550,000 in 2021 - a 450% increase in directors remuneration since 2018.

Make them stand on the 22 and get Duhan to run full pelt at them

.......and the send them down a dartk alley where the Kitchener brothers are waiting for them!!!

The exodus has begun, Ted Hill and Ollie Lawrence are among four players who have joined Bath on loan.

How does that work with the salary cap though - surely Bath have already spent up to the cap for the year?

PornDog wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 8:39 am How does that work with the salary cap though - surely Bath have already spent up to the cap for the year?

Medical jokers can cost upto £400k, and it's not a full season loan, so it won't be a full season wage.

geordie_6 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 7:56 am The exodus has begun, Ted Hill and Ollie Lawrence are among four players who have joined Bath on loan.

Kerrist. Surely better to be unemployed than the humiliation of that?

Worcester Warriors players and staff are to have their contracts terminated, following part of the club being wound up in the High Court.

The squad are now free agents so can sign for any club.

westport wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 12:13 pm Worcester Warriors players and staff are to have their contracts terminated, following part of the club being wound up in the High Court.

The squad are now free agents so can sign for any club.

Yep
https://www.skysports.com/rugby-union ... -court

Worcester now also expect to have their suspension from the rest of the Gallagher Premiership season and enforced relegation to the Championship confirmed by the RFU.

Any news on whether the two arses have been found in any way culpable - although recognising some financial problems pre-existed them - for this complete shambles?

Or is this something the administrators wold look into?

I'm hoping they get at least some comeuppance, not sure where that might come from.

Edinburgh Rugby is pleased to announce British & Irish Lions and Scotland star winger Duhan van der Merwe is coming back to the capital on a long-term deal, subject to visa, medical and regulatory clearances.

inactionman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:13 pm Any news on whether the two arses have been found in any way culpable - although recognising some financial problems pre-existed them - for this complete shambles?

Or is this something the administrators wold look into?

I'm hoping they get at least some comeuppance, not sure where that might come from.

Unless they committed fraud or embezzlement hard to see what they could be done for. Asset stripping is a fine British business and so being morally reprehensible sh*tebags isn't a problem.

Obviously their reputations are in tatters. But if they're too dodgy for Morecambe I can't imagine they even have one.

westport wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:26 pm Edinburgh Rugby is pleased to announce British & Irish Lions and Scotland star winger Duhan van der Merwe is coming back to the capital on a long-term deal, subject to visa, medical and regulatory clearances.

Looks like Rory Sutherland is going to Glasgow.

westport wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:26 pm Edinburgh Rugby is pleased to announce British & Irish Lions and Scotland star winger Duhan van der Merwe is coming back to the capital on a long-term deal, subject to visa, medical and regulatory clearances.

I know it shouldn't, but that does make me

Who was the English international that got deported pretty much the instant he retired?

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:40 pm

inactionman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:13 pm Any news on whether the two arses have been found in any way culpable - although recognising some financial problems pre-existed them - for this complete shambles?

Or is this something the administrators wold look into?

I'm hoping they get at least some comeuppance, not sure where that might come from.

Unless they committed fraud or embezzlement hard to see what they could be done for. Asset stripping is a fine British business and so being morally reprehensible sh*tebags isn't a problem.

Obviously their reputations are in tatters. But if they're too dodgy for Morecambe I can't imagine they even have one.

Sadly under Tory Britain, their reputations are likely to be enhanced.

PornDog wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 5:02 pm
Who was the English international that got deported pretty much the instant he retired?

Another myth the Irish think is true. No wonder the catholic church is so revered over there.

Article in the Guardian trying to unravel some of the financial shenanigans by Worcester’s owners

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ubs-demise

Lobby wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:31 am Article in the Guardian trying to unravel some of the financial shenanigans by Worcester’s owners

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ubs-demise

And he was deemed fit and proper to own a Premiership club by PRL and the RFU? What a mess!

A few days later, it was reported that, following a tribunal in April, Goldring had been barred by the Solicitors Regulation Authority from working for any law firm without clearance. Between approximately June 2016 and April 2017, during a stint as a “trainee solicitor” at a now-defunct Manchester law firm, he “caused or allowed” the disappearance of €8.3m of a Saudi client’s money, raising questions from some observers over the fate of a major community rugby club remaining under his influence.

Lobby wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:31 am Article in the Guardian trying to unravel some of the financial shenanigans by Worcester’s owners

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ubs-demise

I'm no accountant but that reads like Jed McCrory has some serious questions to answer for what he was doing with the Warriors assets before Covid.

SaintK wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:43 am

Lobby wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:31 am Article in the Guardian trying to unravel some of the financial shenanigans by Worcester’s owners

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ubs-demise

And he was deemed fit and proper to own a Premiership club by PRL and the RFU? What a mess!

A few days later, it was reported that, following a tribunal in April, Goldring had been barred by the Solicitors Regulation Authority from working for any law firm without clearance. Between approximately June 2016 and April 2017, during a stint as a “trainee solicitor” at a now-defunct Manchester law firm, he “caused or allowed” the disappearance of €8.3m of a Saudi client’s money, raising questions from some observers over the fate of a major community rugby club remaining under his influence.

There might be instances where when the authorities want to look into is X a fit and proper person you'd allow a delay in that investigation whilst a club was struggling with their financing as Worcester were. Why however you'd allow a delay for a person suspected of serious financial transgressions to shore up a serious financial shortcoming I've no idea, other than the RFU wanted to pass the buck and hope it'd stay somebody else's problem

SaintK wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:43 am

Lobby wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:31 am Article in the Guardian trying to unravel some of the financial shenanigans by Worcester’s owners

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ubs-demise

And he was deemed fit and proper to own a Premiership club by PRL and the RFU? What a mess!

A few days later, it was reported that, following a tribunal in April, Goldring had been barred by the Solicitors Regulation Authority from working for any law firm without clearance. Between approximately June 2016 and April 2017, during a stint as a “trainee solicitor” at a now-defunct Manchester law firm, he “caused or allowed” the disappearance of €8.3m of a Saudi client’s money, raising questions from some observers over the fate of a major community rugby club remaining under his influence.

And therein lies why f**k all will be done because PRL (like the FSA/FCA authorising dodgy banks) is equally culpable.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 9:18 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:43 am

Lobby wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:31 am Article in the Guardian trying to unravel some of the financial shenanigans by Worcester’s owners

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ubs-demise

And he was deemed fit and proper to own a Premiership club by PRL and the RFU? What a mess!

A few days later, it was reported that, following a tribunal in April, Goldring had been barred by the Solicitors Regulation Authority from working for any law firm without clearance. Between approximately June 2016 and April 2017, during a stint as a “trainee solicitor” at a now-defunct Manchester law firm, he “caused or allowed” the disappearance of €8.3m of a Saudi client’s money, raising questions from some observers over the fate of a major community rugby club remaining under his influence.

There might be instances where when the authorities want to look into is X a fit and proper person you'd allow a delay in that investigation whilst a club was struggling with their financing as Worcester were. Why however you'd allow a delay for a person suspected of serious financial transgressions to shore up a serious financial shortcoming I've no idea, other than the RFU wanted to pass the buck and hope it'd stay somebody else's problem

From the article it seems that both Jason Whittingham and Colin Goldring were able to evade any financial or other scrutiny because they were not part of the consortium that bought Worcester (or at least were not presented as such). The original consortium consisted of Jed McCrory, Scott Priestnall, Errol Pope and Dave Seymour. McRory was appointed as a Director of the Club, but announced his intention to resign a couple of weeks later and installed Whittingham and Goldring as directors to succeed him. They then took over control of the Club 6 months later.

Although they only came onto the Worcester Board after the takeover, the various Company shenanigans in the background suggest that this was always their intention, and the Consortium was a way of hiding their involvement until after the sale had been concluded.

Meantime the Wasps sh*thshow continues unabated:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/63155795

What the article does not say is what happens to Pests should this action occur? IIRC, one rule for being in the Prem is the club must have primary tenancy over its home ground?

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 11:58 am Meantime the Wasps sh*thshow continues unabated:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/63155795

What the article does not say is what happens to Pests should this action occur? IIRC, one rule for being in the Prem is the club must have primary tenancy over its home ground?

Don't think that's a rule, since the likes of Irish don't have that I believe.

Hopefully it means investors will buy before administration, as after will means wasps are without the stadium, which is the draw in the first place.