Jeff : How much longer will Newcastle Falcons have to wait before they learn their fate?

by Portnoy Fri 15 Jun 2012, 4:11 pm

Whilst the shenanigans go on around them, the Falcons have to plod on not knowing what division they will be in. But have to budget, plan and train for (I guess) either. A difficult proposition.

Meanwhile Wasps are shuffling their shoes on the 'consortium buyout' - not a lot of which has hit any recent press coverage. (The lack of which I'm finding increasingly worrying.)

LW is bound to take longer as there is a court case to be contemplated.

I hope that the Falcons can legally seek some recompense via a third party claim.

by Kingshu Fri 15 Jun 2012, 4:19 pm

I think its unfair on both LW and Newcastle that its not settled. I think the review of who can go up or not will be decided at the start of the year with appeals beig durning the year, and kown before play offs, an dclubs can't complain.

Don't want to see appeals durning the summer again.

by Portnoy Fri 15 Jun 2012, 4:24 pm

Kingshu wrote:I think its unfair on both LW and Newcastle that its not settled. I think the review of who can go up or not will be decided at the start of the year with appeals beig durning the year, and kown before play offs, an dclubs can't complain.

Don't want to see appeals durning the summer again.

Correct Kingshu - except that whichever way you look at it, the Falcons are not in any way to blame for all this mess. They are the one innocent party.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 15 Jun 2012, 4:45 pm

Portnoy, disappointed - no poll Sad

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 15 Jun 2012, 4:49 pm

The appeal date has been set for Thurs 21st June: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18360787

by Portnoy Fri 15 Jun 2012, 4:54 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:The appeal date has been set for Thurs 21st June: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18360787

That's the RFU date As. LW have pre-loaded with threats of legal action.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 15 Jun 2012, 4:57 pm

Portnoy wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:The appeal date has been set for Thurs 21st June: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18360787

That's the RFU date As. LW have pre-loaded with threats of legal action.

Well, not until after that date then, and I'd be gobsmacked if any legal action resolved itself before the start of the season in that case

by Portnoy Fri 15 Jun 2012, 5:13 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Portnoy wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:The appeal date has been set for Thurs 21st June: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18360787

That's the RFU date As. LW have pre-loaded with threats of legal action.
Well, not until after that date then, and I'd be gobsmacked if any legal action resolved itself before the start of the season in that case

Precisely. How do Newcastle manage the hiatus?

Squeaky should make a pronouncement as he's the bird at the top of the tree.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 15 Jun 2012, 5:22 pm

Right, gotcha now, this is partly a dig at Squeaky article - if only you'd make these things clearer at the start then we could all join in/disagree?

I guess that Squeaky could make a pronouncement, but the courts might easily overturn that too?

by TrailApe Fri 15 Jun 2012, 5:29 pm

The Falcons are just getting on with it. They are preparing to play rugby next season - training started on Monday - in whatever league they find themselves in.

It is a bit of a nerve wracking wait though.

I think all of the silence from the RFU is in preparation of the inevitable court case.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sun 17 Jun 2012, 10:13 am

Portnoy wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Portnoy wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:The appeal date has been set for Thurs 21st June: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18360787

That's the RFU date As. LW have pre-loaded with threats of legal action.
Well, not until after that date then, and I'd be gobsmacked if any legal action resolved itself before the start of the season in that case

Precisely. How do Newcastle manage the hiatus?

Squeaky should make a pronouncement as he's the bird at the top of the tree.

The legal action would be seeking compensation I assume. It wouldnt change the decision, but it could involve the shift of a large sum of money.

by HammerofThunor Sun 17 Jun 2012, 12:32 pm

When Rotherham didn't go up in 2003(?) they were given the money that had been earmarked for Leeds as a parachute payment. I'd assume something like that would happen again.

by Portnoy Mon 18 Jun 2012, 11:03 am

HammerofThunor wrote:When Rotherham didn't go up in 2003(?) they were given the money that had been earmarked for Leeds as a parachute payment. I'd assume something like that would happen again.

When Rotherham didn't get promoted Hammer, the knew that they wouldn't be promoted and so it didn't have to prepare for variable expectations.

Newcastle still are in limbo. I suspect that Wasps will find a consortium and that LW will stay down.

But tempus fugit and it remains the fact that the Falcons remain unaware of their fate.

If the Wasps stay up, and LW stay down then maybe Newcastle should retain at least half of their parachute payments from LW as a recompense for their inconvenience.

by Portnoy Tue 19 Jun 2012, 11:49 am

Another delay in the Falcons' limbo it seems.

LW have secured a 7-day delay in their RFU hearing. That's the benefit of having a legal beagle at the helm I suppose.

New date 28 June (source : R5 news update)

by LordDowlais Tue 19 Jun 2012, 6:03 pm

There must be something in this fot LW or otherwise it would have been sorted by now.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 19 Jun 2012, 8:49 pm

LD, yes, money

by Irish Londoner Wed 20 Jun 2012, 8:44 am

Is "it's not fair !" grounds to go to court - if so I expect to be receiving a summons from my teenage son any day now Wink

by TrailApe Wed 20 Jun 2012, 9:50 am

From what I have gathered, it's not the failing of the audit that they are solely complaining about, apparently failing the audit is not the be-all and end-all of the process and there is a mechanism for promoting a club if they don't tick all of the boxes.

I think this deciscion by the RFU not to allow 'clemency' (although - lets be honest it looks a right half baked attempt by the management of LW - if only their admin had been as good as their rugby) and also the RFU have made no explanation of this deciscion - although I don't think they have to.

So it's not just about not ticking the boxes (which they obviously haven't), its about the lack of comms from the RFU and added to that is the fact that some of the Premiership teams would not pass the audit themselves.

Personally I think that the LW management are hoping to get some moulah and sympathy from everyone out of this and are secretly hoping they don't get promoted.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 20 Jun 2012, 10:19 am

As I understand it theres two processes...theres the appeal (which they will almost certainly lose) to get the decision overturned, then the possible legal challenge which would attack the fairness of the rules and the way they are applied to teams in/out the league...which they would be seeking a big bag of cash in

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed 20 Jun 2012, 10:27 am

Irish Londoner wrote:Is "it's not fair !" grounds to go to court - if so I expect to be receiving a summons from my teenage son any day now

Nice one, Ollie, I'll be sending my eldest along too

by Big Wed 20 Jun 2012, 11:49 am

Kingshu wrote:I think its unfair on both LW and Newcastle that its not settled. I think the review of who can go up or not will be decided at the start of the year with appeals beig durning the year, and kown before play offs, an dclubs can't complain.

Don't want to see appeals durning the summer again.

My sympathy for London Welsh is limited. They delayed submitting their application for promotion by nearly 2 months and as a result are entirely to blame for this now running into the summer. That put the RFU in a tough spot and in my opinion they should have refused to accept the late application - something they may now think about doing in the future. Had they been accepted for promotion I'd wager a fair amount that Newcastle would be suing on the grounds that the application was late and shouldn't have been considered in the first place (unless they preferred going into the Championship with the parachute payment and opportunity to regroup). The rules are ridiculous and unfair, but in my view they left it too late and should not go up. If they want to challenge the rules and get them changed for future years then fair enough and I'd very much support them, but that is a side issue.

by Portnoy Wed 20 Jun 2012, 12:37 pm

Meanwhile the Wasps remain in the shadows. No news is is no news.

by Portnoy Wed 20 Jun 2012, 12:52 pm

Big wrote:
Kingshu wrote:I think its unfair on both LW and Newcastle that its not settled. I think the review of who can go up or not will be decided at the start of the year with appeals beig durning the year, and kown before play offs, an dclubs can't complain.

Don't want to see appeals durning the summer Jeff sides again.

My sympathy for London Welsh is limited. They delayed submitting their application for promotion by nearly 2 months and as a result are entirely to blame for this now running into the summer. That put the RFU in a tough spot and in my opinion they should have refused to accept the late application - something they may now think about doing in the future. Had they been accepted for promotion I'd wager a fair amount that Newcastle would be suing on the grounds that the application was late and shouldn't have been considered in the first place (unless they preferred going into the Championship with the parachute payment and opportunity to regroup). The rules are ridiculous and unfair, but in my view they left it too late and should not go up. If they want to challenge the rules and get them changed for future years then fair enough and I'd very much support them, but that is a side issue.

+1

Some of the rules are entirely stupid:
1: that existing Jeff sides can maintain their status whilst not being compliant to the rules.
2: ground capacity requirement far too high

by TrailApe Wed 20 Jun 2012, 1:37 pm

1: that existing Jeff sides can maintain their status whilst not being compliant to the rules.

This is not unusual - think of the driving licence analogy - I passed mine years ago and am still allowed to drive although I have never sat a theory exam. And if one of those Premiership clubs that are not compliant get relegated, then they have to upgrade before they can get in.

2: ground capacity requirement far too high.

That is a valid point, some of the clubs (Falcons being one of them) rarely get anywhere near 10k, however 5k-7k is not unusual and obviously it would be very limiting for a club to turn up with a ground with a capacity of 2k-3k, this would make you wonder how they proposed to fund their operation.

I feel sorry for the LW fans - if the club wins its case they have to travel miles to see them in the premiership - and I can imagine that there are going to be some thumpings as their squad is whittled down through injury and if it loses its case they feel shafted by the authorities.

by Big Wed 20 Jun 2012, 2:31 pm

TrailApe wrote:
1: that existing Jeff sides can maintain their status whilst not being compliant to the rules.

This is not unusual - think of the driving licence analogy - I passed mine years ago and am still allowed to drive although I have never sat a theory exam. And if one of those Premiership clubs that are not compliant get relegated, then they have to upgrade before they can get in.

Perversely I don't think that is true. I cannot confirm whether or not this is correct as it is information gained in the pub chatting to Exeter fans. However, I believe that the original premiership squads are protected from this and do not need to demonstrate compliance to get back up. It gets worse in that I think that an original PRL team going down will also get a larger cut of the premiership financial pie in their parachute payment than the team going up will get for competing in the league. The team giong up needs to be up for a season or two before they are considered full members (something they weren't best pleased about). If correct it's safe to say that some of the rules really are ridiculous self protectionism and need to change.

by TrailApe Wed 20 Jun 2012, 2:43 pm

Perversely I don't think that is true.

If that indeed is the case then it stinks to high heavens and the Championship lads DO have a right to feel disgruntled - and if you read some of the Championship message boards, never has their gruntle been so dis.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed 20 Jun 2012, 3:13 pm

Big wrote:
TrailApe wrote:
1: that existing Jeff sides can maintain their status whilst not being compliant to the rules.

This is not unusual - think of the driving licence analogy - I passed mine years ago and am still allowed to drive although I have never sat a theory exam. And if one of those Premiership clubs that are not compliant get relegated, then they have to upgrade before they can get in.

Perversely I don't think that is true. I cannot confirm whether or not this is correct as it is information gained in the pub chatting to Exeter fans. However, I believe that the original premiership squads are protected from this and do not need to demonstrate compliance to get back up. It gets worse in that I think that an original PRL team going down will also get a larger cut of the premiership financial pie in their parachute payment than the team going up will get for competing in the league. The team giong up needs to be up for a season or two before they are considered full members (something they weren't best pleased about). If correct it's safe to say that some of the rules really are ridiculous self protectionism and need to change.

Big, i think it is true, and not at all sure that the Exe fans you were chatting to have that right - the exemptions are specific to individual clubs, from memory, and fall away should those clubs be relegated

by Big Wed 20 Jun 2012, 4:49 pm

That would be slightly better, though it is still perverse that they can go on seemingly indefinitely without getting themselves up to standard provided that they don't get relegated. In a sense I suppose it shows why some clubs are so scared of relegation, perhaps they could cope with the loss of income but would have no chance of getting their facilities up to scratch.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 20 Jun 2012, 11:02 pm

Whats really stupid is that London Welsh back onto a ground that could be compliant if they could come to an agreement to use it. Unfortunately two grounds already share it.

The reality is that there arent enough sustainable clubs around to have a competitive 12 club Jeff. For all the slagging its getting in this debate the PRL has actually protected the leaches line Newcastle over the last few years. Having a 10 club Jeff wouldnt help 3 rate clubs like LW get in the mix

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 26 Jun 2012, 1:37 am

Well here we go ...looks like LW are hoping to bore the RFU to death with a 48 page whinge

http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership-2011-12/rugby/story/165993.html

by HammerofThunor Tue 26 Jun 2012, 10:32 am

43 pages. I'm sure it's all riviting stuff and not a load of waffle trying to mask the fact they're simply not meeting the standards.

by Portnoy Tue 26 Jun 2012, 11:37 am

Clearly they are going to claim unfairness (selectively).

Rules is de rules but only the ones OW want to comply with.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/tables/4777167.stm

OW : "Yes they'll do."

Fill in a form for promotion compliancy -

OW : "You are violating and stretching the limits of fairness you bumholes. See you in court."

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 26 Jun 2012, 11:47 am

Interesting to ready Tony Rowe's views in TRP this weekend - in essence, "no shortcuts" and "new teams must bring something more to the premiership"

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 26 Jun 2012, 12:14 pm

Read that as " Yeah go on then LW win this and then we can justify ring fencing a 10 team franchise league"

That for me is the worst of this, and what is is disengenous about some of soundbites coming from LW. In the long run it will hurt the smaller clubs, not help them. Short term cash or glory grab from a club that simply wont have the resources to add to the Jeff, whilst at the same time threatening to rip its own soul out. The merit based idea is quite laughable too...they finsihed 4th in the league table and second in their group ...and relied on Pirates to knock bristol out for them. They are lucky the old merit based system isnt still in place, or theyd wouldvbe had to beat newcastle on the field rather than the courts.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 26 Jun 2012, 12:15 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Read that as " Yeah go on then LW win this and then we can justify ring fencing a 10 team franchise league"

That for me is the worst of this, and what is is disengenous about some of soundbites coming from LW. In the long run it will hurt the smaller clubs, not help them. Short term cash or glory grab from a club that simply wont have the resources to add to the Jeff, whilst at the same time threatening to rip its own soul out. The merit based idea is quite laughable too...they finsihed 4th in the league table and second in their group ...and relied on Pirates to knock bristol out for them. They are lucky the old merit based system isnt still in place, or theyd wouldvbe had to beat newcastle on the field rather than the courts.

I know that it would add to an already long season, but I would like to see that fixture take its place in the calendar

by Portnoy Tue 26 Jun 2012, 12:19 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Interesting to ready Tony Rowe's views in TRP this weekend - in essence, "no shortcuts" and "new teams must bring something more to the premiership"

Source/quote please As.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 26 Jun 2012, 12:26 pm

Sorry, Portnoy, I only had a hard copy (TRP = The Rugby Paper) and I suspect that it's in the recycling at home - I will check for you tonite and if time and inclination allow, i will re-type it for you (it wasn't a huge article, middle of p2 from memory)

by **LondonTiger** Tue 26 Jun 2012, 12:48 pm

Typed from my copy:

Exeter chief executive Tony Rowe insists London Welsh have not done enough to deserve promotion to the Premiership.
Rowe believes giving Welsh the thumbs up would make a mockery of the elite game.
"to be a premiership club you've got to get all the bits right. you've got to bring something to the party and I don't think London Welsh are doing that. It appears they got to the final and thought 'We could win this, so let's use Oxford'"
"If they do go up it makes a mockery of clubs like Exeter and Worcester, who both invested in facilities so that they could get into the Premiership. We played the game the right way, but Welsh have just spent money on the playing side and seem to have a 'try and stop us' attitude"

Rowe admits the Premiership ground criteria are exacting, but insists they are in palce for all the right reasons.

"the criteria are high, but premiership rugby have tried to raise standards and move the game on. There's an awful lot of money been invested by Premiership clubs and it's not just been about putting a team on the pitch."
"Fans expect good facilities and it's about investing to encourage more spectators to come along. the playing field is not always level, but at Exeter we invested in our ground, then built a fan base and a team"

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 26 Jun 2012, 1:04 pm

Thanks, LT

by Sponsored content