Always a Wasp
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
46
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: Professional Game Agrement
« on: April 14, 2023, 12:13:06 AM »Agree with all said before, and it will always (with the status quo) come down to a club versus country argument.
Someone needs to think outside the box and come up with some creative solutions.
Central contracts are unlikely to work within the current framework - the clubs spend too much on developing players to want to relinquish control of them to the RFU. Following the Irish model the RFU would then determine how often they played, against whom, and in some instances *for* whom! Clubs will not accept that.
Here's a thought (and that's all it is - I haven't thought this through: feel free to shoot it down):
Regional model (a la Ireland) competing in URC (or, more likely, British League) with the clubs a tier below. Bit like the NZ / Super Rugby model. Regions can have central contracts, clubs retain identities and develop their player pathways... competitive domestic league at club level, regions strong enough to compete at Euro level...
To support your statement about the RFU having a say in which club a player plays for... That has already happened in Ireland when Joey Carbery was moved from Leinster to Munster.
Can't remember the year but it was at the time when Carbery was considered Ireland's next 10 and needed to move away from Leinster to get regular game time.
47
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: Time for positivity.
« on: April 11, 2023, 11:39:57 PM »
I imagine that, as Pudsey is a popular figure amongst Wasps fans, anything coming through him (with the board's blessing no doubt) will be well received. This is in addition to him being one of few employees at Wasps too!
48
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: Time for positivity.
« on: April 11, 2023, 11:16:16 AM »We might not post as much but it doesn't mean that we have given up and left. It is this thread plus DWs that keeps us in touch with each other and gives us hope. If this thread went we really would give up, but this is (apart from DWs) the only contact and source of such info as there is and for me is the first and last piece of info that I check every day and for that I am deeply grateful. Thank you VV. Don't give up.
+1
Difficult to keep commenting on no new news. You can only put up with me saying the same crap over and over again
Likewise with me, I do think I'm a broken record on the forum sometimes ha. Though I do stop by pretty much every day to see if there's anything new to talk about, like the European 1/4s.
49
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: ERC 1/4s
« on: April 08, 2023, 05:23:15 PM »Many Tigers fans are moaning their team were playing pretty much the Irish national XV when, in reality, the overwhelming majority are local lads who have gone through their Academy system.
There is no reliance on expensive galacticos and their few overseas signings (eg Lowe, Gibson-Park) were pretty much unheard of before moving to Leinster. Since then they have been expertly coached and subsequently developed into international players.
The Leinster model should be applauded and copied.
The Irish model is definitely superior to the English model in many ways - player welfare and development being two examples.
However, I don't think it's all that great.
My understanding is that the IRFU finances the game in Ireland and the national team is the main focus.
The IRFU can, and have, moved players around the provinces to meet the needs of the national side (for example, Joey Carbery moving to Munster from Leinster as the thought at the time was that Carbery would take over from Sexton eventually).
Also, it means the provinces rarely see their top stars playing (I think Tagdh Furlong played 13 games last season with most of those being European games). This isn't a huge issue when the national side is doing as well as it is right now but would that change if success is limited in the future.
50
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: Premiership No Longer Viable?
« on: April 06, 2023, 08:45:54 PM »League stops growth in the North, London being London stops it in the South.
France has similar structural problems, their rugby heartland being the south west, a smattering of 'midland' clubs and two in the capital so how have they made it so financially successful?
Obviously local government support re stadia helps/helped but how did they get the big TV deal?
Maybe the French value their rugby a lot more than we do in the UK despite having similar issues and which is reflected in the money that is spent on TV rights.
Sugar daddies clearly exist in France but isn't the fit and proper test for owners both more stringent in itself and in its application? Perhaps the salary cap rules as well so at least, Toulon aside, there's no real dominance from one or two clubs longer term?
I think we know how the final will look this season so that will mean Saracens will have missed only 3 finals in the last 10 seasons, two of those due to their "punishment". That doesn't make an interesting or competitive league, unless you're a saracens fan in which case you won't mind!
52
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: A Good Wrapping Up of Current Situation
« on: March 30, 2023, 01:55:11 PM »
I am still hopeful and still stand by my original statement that I'd rather Wasps learned lessons of the past and only made public statements when announcing something that is true.
It does make things difficult as a fan and it is hard going without hearing anything for as long as we have but I guess we just have to sit back and wait because it's not like we have influence over proceedings.
It does make things difficult as a fan and it is hard going without hearing anything for as long as we have but I guess we just have to sit back and wait because it's not like we have influence over proceedings.
53
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: England today
« on: March 22, 2023, 09:04:31 PM »
I too don't think that the decision changed the result but I don't think the score is reflective of the game prior to Steward leaving the field.
Though I do think that the RC being rescinded shows that it was the wrong decision and perhaps influenced in some way by the occasion.
Though I do think that the RC being rescinded shows that it was the wrong decision and perhaps influenced in some way by the occasion.
54
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: Time for positivity.
« on: March 22, 2023, 08:47:51 PM »
Like others, still taking the view that nothing negative has come out so still hopeful. We'd have heard something by now if things weren't going to happen (either official or leaked), particularly with the heightened interest of Worcs and us coming back.
55
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: England today
« on: March 20, 2023, 12:11:16 PM »
The RC against Steward was the first time I have questioned a red card for head contact and can now see why, in some instances, people respond the way they do sometimes. It was also hard to accept the seatbelt tackle on Watson and the head contact with Ludlam when the Irish player joined a ruck where both were missed.
In my opinion, to the letter of the law, and JP's interpretation, the red card was probably the correct decision. However, what this shows is the way the laws are defined mean that there is a blanket ban on any head contact and does not allow for game-context. Steward was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. He either tackles Keenan anyway and risks an off-the-ball tackle, he kicks Keenan's hands (the replays suggest Steward may have attempted to kick the ball away before colliding with Keenan) or he clashes into him (which is what did happen). It also shows that the interpretation of the ref is key.
I'm not sure how you would define this within the existing laws though because the interpretation is so different between refs. That's if you could at all.
In my opinion, to the letter of the law, and JP's interpretation, the red card was probably the correct decision. However, what this shows is the way the laws are defined mean that there is a blanket ban on any head contact and does not allow for game-context. Steward was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. He either tackles Keenan anyway and risks an off-the-ball tackle, he kicks Keenan's hands (the replays suggest Steward may have attempted to kick the ball away before colliding with Keenan) or he clashes into him (which is what did happen). It also shows that the interpretation of the ref is key.
I'm not sure how you would define this within the existing laws though because the interpretation is so different between refs. That's if you could at all.
56
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: World Rugby proposes belly tackles
« on: March 13, 2023, 01:36:55 PM »
I agree with you Mellie, WR either outright ignores or has not considered (not sure which is worse) the fact that professional rugby influences the way that some clubs in the community play.
I also have yet to see any dangerous head shots in any games involving my club either involving our 1sts (Level 5), 2nds or 3rds, though it's not uncommon to see a tackle that attempts to stop the offload - which is something that started with the choke tackle at professional level. There has been times where I've noticed similarities between the way clubs in the Premiership play and clubs in the Premier Leagues (Midlands Premier for us) in the way backlines are organised etc. So it is certainly concerning that WR/RFU's aren't properly considering the influence professional rugby has.
I think there also needs to be a change of mindset in some corners of the community game. I've seen many comments on social media asking how they are now meant to stop the chance of an offload with the tackle height reduced. My thoughts would be that if an offload is a serious threat between a try being scored or not then perhaps it's a team's defensive ability needs to improve as well as tackling ability.
I also have yet to see any dangerous head shots in any games involving my club either involving our 1sts (Level 5), 2nds or 3rds, though it's not uncommon to see a tackle that attempts to stop the offload - which is something that started with the choke tackle at professional level. There has been times where I've noticed similarities between the way clubs in the Premiership play and clubs in the Premier Leagues (Midlands Premier for us) in the way backlines are organised etc. So it is certainly concerning that WR/RFU's aren't properly considering the influence professional rugby has.
I think there also needs to be a change of mindset in some corners of the community game. I've seen many comments on social media asking how they are now meant to stop the chance of an offload with the tackle height reduced. My thoughts would be that if an offload is a serious threat between a try being scored or not then perhaps it's a team's defensive ability needs to improve as well as tackling ability.
57
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: More Financial Trouble?
« on: March 10, 2023, 05:54:21 PM »
Mike, you make some good points and I don't disagree with you.
I am by no means an accountant, and assuming audits is something that did happen, is there anything that would stop a salary cap regulation defining the terms? For example:
Therefore, if any sponsorship or side deal opportunity is made available to the player due to involvement of the player's club (including people who are outside, but connected, to the club), then it is deemed a club expense and contributes to the cap. This still allows players to have business interests and bring in extra income, and provide stability once their playing career comes to an end, but allows competition across the league as clubs with richer benefactors won't be able to scoop up the country's talent by offering benefits/side deals that relatively poorer clubs cannot without having to declare that expenditure and putting it towards the cap.
Quote
But to audit a salary cap for a rugby club, determined to by pass controls - would be impossible. Easy to audit the salaries and expenses paid by the "club" - virtually impossible to do anything about side deals that aren't about sponsorship (i.e. a Red Bull scrum cap). And here we are....
I am by no means an accountant, and assuming audits is something that did happen, is there anything that would stop a salary cap regulation defining the terms? For example:
- A sponsorship (Red Bull scrum cap) is defined as an agreement between a player and a third-party company over an agreed time period. The player's club isn't involved in any way.
- Salaries and expenses defined as monies paid for a player's service and is paid directly by the player's club in line with the agreed contract between player and club.
- Other side deals being defined as an agreement between a player and a third-party company for a one-off service (such as after dinner speaking). The player's club isn't involved in any way.
- Benefits being defined as employment benefits that support rugby players to upskill and prepare for life outside of rugby. Financial support for training for both academic (college/university) and vocational (e.g. trades training at colleges or business training by independent training providers). For example, clubs will be allowed (and encouraged) to support the upskilling of a player wanting to go into business and supporting the business being set up. A club may provide further financial support, such as investing money into the player's business to help purchase equipment whilst starting up, but this should be declared under club expenses.
Therefore, if any sponsorship or side deal opportunity is made available to the player due to involvement of the player's club (including people who are outside, but connected, to the club), then it is deemed a club expense and contributes to the cap. This still allows players to have business interests and bring in extra income, and provide stability once their playing career comes to an end, but allows competition across the league as clubs with richer benefactors won't be able to scoop up the country's talent by offering benefits/side deals that relatively poorer clubs cannot without having to declare that expenditure and putting it towards the cap.
58
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: More Financial Trouble?
« on: March 08, 2023, 12:20:37 PM »
I think it depends on which club is staring into the abyss.
If it's a "big" club, then all the stops will pulled out to ensure the survival of the club. The 10 club league will have to wait.
If it's anyone else, then I'd speculate that enough support will be given, probably as a PR exercise to show lessons have been learned, but it might not be enough to stop a club from winding up as it will be a convenient path to the coveted 10 club league.
If it's a "big" club, then all the stops will pulled out to ensure the survival of the club. The 10 club league will have to wait.
If it's anyone else, then I'd speculate that enough support will be given, probably as a PR exercise to show lessons have been learned, but it might not be enough to stop a club from winding up as it will be a convenient path to the coveted 10 club league.
59
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: NWC - interesting Exeter Summary
« on: March 08, 2023, 07:57:11 AM »
I think the fan in the article is right, Exeter used to be great at getting the best out of players who were deemed surplus to requirements elsewhere. They also benefitted from having the core of their squad flying under England's radar for a number of seasons as well.
Love or loathe Exeter, they have been successful in their relatively short time in the Premiership and have become a victim of sorts of that success. A number of those players leaving are members of that core squad that have become international regulars. With wage demands and the salary cap, it's not feasible to keep them all.
Any opportunity I can take to have a stab at Saracens I will, as the article is underplaying Saracen's strength. If being able to put out a largely international backline, plus a couple of internationals in the pack, against Sale last weekend and it still could be considered an under-strength side, that would suggest Saracen's do not have stars "dotted" through their squad.
Love or loathe Exeter, they have been successful in their relatively short time in the Premiership and have become a victim of sorts of that success. A number of those players leaving are members of that core squad that have become international regulars. With wage demands and the salary cap, it's not feasible to keep them all.
Any opportunity I can take to have a stab at Saracens I will, as the article is underplaying Saracen's strength. If being able to put out a largely international backline, plus a couple of internationals in the pack, against Sale last weekend and it still could be considered an under-strength side, that would suggest Saracen's do not have stars "dotted" through their squad.
60
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: Jack Willis says England players joining foreign clubs could help Premiership.
« on: February 27, 2023, 07:05:35 PM »
There might be some options:
1. Do you introduce a caps-based system? But the question would be where do you set it? I know Wales are now reducing their requirement to 25 caps, do Australia still have theirs at 60? Though, I do know that Australia have taken advantage of making exceptions (Giteau was one IIRC). Another question would be how would you implement it? I'm thinking about the situation Rhys Webb found himself in when he signed for Toulon(?).
2. Do you make it a financial incentive to play in the Premiership? Two things come to mind:
2a. Say, a player in the Premiership gets an additional percentage on top of their match fees. The question here, though, would be what percentage would you apply and would this be competitive (i.e. would players still be earning more playing in France earning the base rate match fee than if they were to receive the increased match fee and play in England).
2b. Do the RFU consider central contracts, or a derivative of it? Are players either fully centrally contracted to the RFU and effectively loaned out to clubs, or are they partially contracted to the RFU where players receive a salary from both their club and the RFU. Might be a messy solution though.
3. A risky option for the RFU, but do you keep things as they are but with adding more flexibility. Players moving abroad would no longer have the door slammed shut behind them but under the caveat that their selection is not guaranteed and that their club will release them (something French clubs, for example, are often against). You're not saying no to players moving overseas but you're making them aware that England selection will not be a given. As I said, it's risky, in case some of your "go-to" players decided to up sticks and move abroad.
1. Do you introduce a caps-based system? But the question would be where do you set it? I know Wales are now reducing their requirement to 25 caps, do Australia still have theirs at 60? Though, I do know that Australia have taken advantage of making exceptions (Giteau was one IIRC). Another question would be how would you implement it? I'm thinking about the situation Rhys Webb found himself in when he signed for Toulon(?).
2. Do you make it a financial incentive to play in the Premiership? Two things come to mind:
2a. Say, a player in the Premiership gets an additional percentage on top of their match fees. The question here, though, would be what percentage would you apply and would this be competitive (i.e. would players still be earning more playing in France earning the base rate match fee than if they were to receive the increased match fee and play in England).
2b. Do the RFU consider central contracts, or a derivative of it? Are players either fully centrally contracted to the RFU and effectively loaned out to clubs, or are they partially contracted to the RFU where players receive a salary from both their club and the RFU. Might be a messy solution though.
3. A risky option for the RFU, but do you keep things as they are but with adding more flexibility. Players moving abroad would no longer have the door slammed shut behind them but under the caveat that their selection is not guaranteed and that their club will release them (something French clubs, for example, are often against). You're not saying no to players moving overseas but you're making them aware that England selection will not be a given. As I said, it's risky, in case some of your "go-to" players decided to up sticks and move abroad.