London Welsh win appeal

by tigerleghorn Fri 29 Jun 2012, 6:51 pm

First topic message reminder :

Well done Welsh, tough luck Falcons.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9365484/London-Welsh-to-join-Aviva-Premiership-after-winning-appeal-against-decision-to-deny-them-promotion.html

by PJHolybloke Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:29 am

Disagreement is cool Dreamer, infact it's the entire point of this discussion.

Heres my last word till I've finished work.

This should've been challenged in the courts prior to the playoffs starting, at least that way all 4 clubs competing in them would have been competing for the same prize. As it happens, LW played the 2 teams that weren't playing for promotion when infact, it turns out they could have been.

As this appears to have turned into a discussion on fairness as opposed to what's good for the English game, can somebody explain how that equates to being fair?

by Guest Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:36 am

How is it LW's fault that the other teams didn't even consider an appeal?

How it it LW's fault that the criteria wasn't enforced in the Premiership anyway?

LW only saught to be rewarded for winning the play-offs, hardly the biggest crime in the world. I would have preferred it if they had a more solid long term plan ala Exeter, but I don't see why the inefficiencies of the RFU should stop a team getting promoted for winning on the pitch

by Guest Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:38 am

Also how was allowing clubs to remain up in the Premiership despite not meeting the criteria good for the English game? Simply put it's a mess, sure LW have exploited that, but then I don't see why they shouldn't have to be honest, kudos to them I say.

by Dubbelyew L Overate Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:38 am

gowales wrote:I think the main problem now is that the RFU is thinking of scrapping the min requirements.

If they do that, a rich businessmen can just buy up a squad like in football.

They've been doing that for years, notably an individual at Bath and a group at Sarries (and now, apparently at Wasps). If rich businessmen bring their money into rugby and invest, surely it's a good thing. If they buy in and asset strip, as has allegedly been the unfortunate case for several of the lower league teams, it's not.

I can't see the MSC being discarded entirely - there are many necessary things within it. Hopefully it will be redrafted to be fairer all round, its criteria properly enforced for both established and aspirant teams and, importantly, easing given for criteria apart from H&S with absolute deadlines for improvements needed.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:41 am

Its a bit odd to bring up soccer as an example of what would happen without the MSCs, they have them for entry to the football league and the Premiership

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:42 am

PJHolybloke wrote:Asbo, how do you feel about the fact that LW played the two teams in the play-offs that hadn't applied for promotion as they knew they couldn't meet the very criteria that LW have just ridden roughshod over?

It's not as if they can play the games again now everyone knows what the rules are.

Two teams playing for a cup, two playing for millions of pounds of additional revenue... that doesn't level up for me whichever way I look at it.

PJ, apologies, was out last night so only getting round to replying to your posts now

Fair point, i guess that all the Championship teams must be kicking themselves. Would they have played any differently tho with changed results, I'm not sure?

by gowales Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:44 am

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:
gowales wrote:I think the main problem now is that the RFU is thinking of scrapping the min requirements.

If they do that, a rich businessmen can just buy up a squad like in football.

They've been doing that for years, notably an individual at Bath and a group at Sarries (and now, apparently at Wasps). If rich businessmen bring their money into rugby and invest, surely it's a good thing. If they buy in and asset strip, as has allegedly been the unfortunate case for several of the lower league teams, it's not.

I can't see the MSC being discarded entirely - there are many necessary things within it. Hopefully it will be redrafted to be fairer all round, its criteria properly enforced for both established and aspirant teams and, importantly, easing given for criteria apart from H&S with absolute deadlines for improvements needed.

Yea but if they scrap the min requirement, you won't have to invest in the infrastructure or facilities. You can just focus on buying up a squad.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:45 am

PJHolybloke wrote:Well, if LW put the Law above the ethos of sport and all it stands for, good luck to them, as long as they continue in that high moral stance and report their own players for breaking the law if they assault another player... yaddah, yaddah, yaddah yeah, right, whatever.

They ignored the spirit and squealed to the Law on this, purely to serve their own best interests and to hell with the game, but you can't play that card in two hands.

The Championship format hasn't identified Worcester or Exeter as Premiership quality, their performances in the Jeff have done that.

Just as LW's performances next season will speak so for themselves, all be it rather briefly.

It's not a cartel, clique, closed shop or any other emotively "exclusive" label people want to hang on it, it's supposed to represent the pinnacle of the professional game in England. In order to keep up that level of excellence, perceived or actual, the Jeff imposed certain criteria that were understood at the time (ostensibly at least) by all parties to be fair and in the right spirit to encourage elite performance on and off the pitch.

Given the reaction to the HC performances of Jeff clubs last season, it would be easy to conclude that "elite" is not a word you could use to describe the standard in the Jeff.

LW will NOT improve that standard by their inclusion, in fact, I will go as far as to state that their very inclusion, by definition, will dilute the quality in the AP even further.

If you're old enough to remember the 80's and 90's you'll remember the last halcyon days of amateur rugby that evolved into the modern professional game, you'll also remember how many great clubs became extinct or as good as extinct, through not having an intrinsically sound business model to build on.

History repeats itself and unless this nonsense is nipped in the bud, this action by LW will just encourage another generation of chancers, to risk the very existence of some great clubs on a one-off shot at the pinnacle of English rugby.

If that does happen, LW will leave a very long and ignominious legacy to posterity.

You pays your lawyers, you takes your chances.

PJ, I agree with much of what you are saying, but i guess the panel held that in this instance the commercial intent behind PoT was a bigger deal than the 'sporting spirit', so was more likely to be successfully challenged under UK and EU competition laws. I personally hope that it make the PGB think very carefully about a new set of minimum standard criteria which will help he game we love develop, and that they first run them past the OFT to ensure that we can't have any more legal challenges like this

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:48 am

PJHolybloke wrote:It's how I feel Stag, I guess the other side of the coin is the underdog angle and whilst I'm not adverse to the romantic idea of the smaller clubs having a shot at the bigtime, I am rather adverse to the method of involving the "law" in what is essentially a sporting ethos.

Like I said, LW will not be running their players to the rozzers if they swing a few punches in a game, because the game doesn't need the law involved on that issue any more than it does on this one; however, it's too late for that now.

The MSC were in place to ensure all clubs knew what to aim for in order to get to the highest level of the club game in England, they were intended to help the sport establish itself on firm financial footings in the professional era and also to ensure that clubs were well positioned to produce young talent through the academy system.

I cannot for the life of me see how this has done anything other than rip that blueprint up and chuck it away along with the very spirit the plans were built on. The basis used by LW and their legal team to present their case was not one concerning their own fitness for the Jeff (they actually admitted they didn't meet the minimum standards), it was built on a law introduced as part of the wider European Union ideal of ensuring fair competition in business.

So, faceless bureaucrats who wouldn't know a rugby ball from a golf ball have helped LW circumvent the checks and balances put in place to build and systematically improve the club game at the highest level in England...and this is a positive thing?

Good for the game my ar5e.

PJ, the underdog stuff holds no sway with me at all, but i am persuaded that it's not fair in any sense that the PRL/RFU handle 'Club 1' differently than they would any side seeking promotion, particularly when there is a clear intention to widen the PoT exemption in any case.

I think we've also got to remember that promotion/relegation should be decided as far as possible on the pitch - it is right that there should be a set of minimum standard criteria to help the game develop, but it really should be the same rules being applied to everyone. The exempt clubs should have been given a time-limit to get their house in order imo

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:51 am

rugbydreamer wrote:Disagree sorry PJ.

LW won the rugby on the pitch, going by the ethos and spirit of rugby that should be rewarded. What the RFU had in place would have denied that, not only that but it was also hugely hypocritical and smacking of double standards from them when they were letting 4 clubs who didn't meet the criteria stay up.

This is a win for rugby imo, if only at least a team that's won on the pitch is being rewarded and now the RFU are finally going to be made to look at the situation and actually sort it out properly, instead of making a complete hash of it, which is what's led to this situation in the first place.

The whole point of rugby is to win, isn't it? LW won, the RFU criteria and application of it is a complete and utter shambles, not really sure what you expected them to do? How is it fair that LW would have to go throught he criteria process when clubs already up in the Premiership don't have to? That's just another way of closing off the top tier to those wanting to make the step up for me.

Dreamer, totally disagree with you on this one point - it's not at all hypocritical to permit grandfathering rather than have retrospective legislation (which in my book is utterly repulsive) - the mistake was to permit an additional club, 'Club1', to dodge the rules, and to not set the original 3 a time limit to sort their Poopie out

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:53 am

gowales wrote:I think the main problem now is that the RFU is thinking of scrapping the min requirements.

If they do that, a rich businessmen can just buy up a squad like in football.

They absolutely must not do that tho, go - instead work with the OFT to produce a set of water-tight criteria that might sporting standards and legal ones too

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:54 am

PJHolybloke wrote:Disagreement is cool Dreamer, infact it's the entire point of this discussion.

Heres my last word till I've finished work.

This should've been challenged in the courts prior to the playoffs starting, at least that way all 4 clubs competing in them would have been competing for the same prize. As it happens, LW played the 2 teams that weren't playing for promotion when infact, it turns out they could have been.

As this appears to have turned into a discussion on fairness as opposed to what's good for the English game, can somebody explain how that equates to being fair?

True, but that didn't happen, and you can't really blame LW for sticking their hand up and pointing out it was a shower of shoite?

by Dubbelyew L Overate Thu 05 Jul 2012, 11:00 am

gowales wrote:
Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:
gowales wrote:I think the main problem now is that the RFU is thinking of scrapping the min requirements.

If they do that, a rich businessmen can just buy up a squad like in football.

They've been doing that for years, notably an individual at Bath and a group at Sarries (and now, apparently at Wasps). If rich businessmen bring their money into rugby and invest, surely it's a good thing. If they buy in and asset strip, as has allegedly been the unfortunate case for several of the lower league teams, it's not.

I can't see the MSC being discarded entirely - there are many necessary things within it. Hopefully it will be redrafted to be fairer all round, its criteria properly enforced for both established and aspirant teams and, importantly, easing given for criteria apart from H&S with absolute deadlines for improvements needed.

Yea but if they scrap the min requirement, you won't have to invest in the infrastructure or facilities. You can just focus on buying up a squad.

That's quite correct for lower league teams, but, currently, a buyer of an established prem team doesn't have to invest in infrastructure or facilities anyway. It may come to light, but I doubt if the Wasps consortium will invest in prime tenancy of a stadium before the beginning of the season, as the MSC would require if they weren't exempted.

by gowales Thu 05 Jul 2012, 11:03 am

Dubbelyew,

The problem i'm talking about is the lower league teams. If the RFU did decide to do that someon could just buy Doncaster Knights for example, buy a host of international players and be playing the premiership in a year, but still in a crap stadium, no infrastructure etc... that's my main concern.

by Smirnoffpriest Thu 05 Jul 2012, 11:06 am

PJHolybloke wrote:Asbo, how do you feel about the fact that LW played the two teams in the play-offs that hadn't applied for promotion as they knew they couldn't meet the very criteria that LW have just ridden roughshod over?

It's not as if they can play the games again now everyone knows what the rules are.

Two teams playing for a cup, two playing for millions of pounds of additional revenue... that doesn't level up for me whichever way I look at it.

One of the problems I have with the above is at the start of the playoffs only one team were guarenteed promotion, Bristol, while the other 3 thought they wouldn't be able to get promoted (though LW thought there might be grounds to appeal). This didn't stop the Pirates beating Bristol, even though they knew/thought that they couldn't go up, while Bristol had a chance at 'millions of pounds of additional revenue'.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu 05 Jul 2012, 11:10 am

Righ t in theory it wouldve been all great for the RFU to make demands on the PRL clubs to do this that and the other and build nice shiney palaces of rugby whilst bankrupting themselves. The problem they faced was the clubs holding the constant threat of simply breaking away and making their own ring fenced league without the RFU.
The old system wasnt quite right, I think most of us agree on that, but the new one may be worse.
As the RFU pointed out they represent all clubs, and are looking to balance the needs of all stakeholders in RU with what comes next. Its going to be very hard to square the needs of existiting premiership clubs with the desires of others to join the party whilst ensuring everyone remains financially viable and excessive risk isnt encouraged by the league set up.

Really though we should be blaming Pirates for this mess. If they hadnt screwed up the first leg ....

by Dubbelyew L Overate Thu 05 Jul 2012, 11:14 am

gowales,

I agree to an extent, but what's different to a group buying Sarries, for example, buying a host of international players, playing in the prem for time immemorial, but still in a crap stadium? That's a poor example, since Sarries are moving to Copthall, but for many years Vicarage Road has been a venue unloved by visiting fans, journos and, (open to correction) home fans and hugely unsuitable to grow the game of rugby.

btw, Donny is a poor example since Castle Park is, I believe, a decent venue, but your point is well made.

by Guest Thu 05 Jul 2012, 11:57 am

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
rugbydreamer wrote:Disagree sorry PJ.

LW won the rugby on the pitch, going by the ethos and spirit of rugby that should be rewarded. What the RFU had in place would have denied that, not only that but it was also hugely hypocritical and smacking of double standards from them when they were letting 4 clubs who didn't meet the criteria stay up.

This is a win for rugby imo, if only at least a team that's won on the pitch is being rewarded and now the RFU are finally going to be made to look at the situation and actually sort it out properly, instead of making a complete hash of it, which is what's led to this situation in the first place.

The whole point of rugby is to win, isn't it? LW won, the RFU criteria and application of it is a complete and utter shambles, not really sure what you expected them to do? How is it fair that LW would have to go throught he criteria process when clubs already up in the Premiership don't have to? That's just another way of closing off the top tier to those wanting to make the step up for me.
Dreamer, totally disagree with you on this one point - it's not at all hypocritical to permit grandfathering rather than have retrospective legislation (which in my book is utterly repulsive) - the mistake was to permit an additional club, 'Club1', to dodge the rules, and to not set the original 3 a time limit to sort their Poopie out

Sure but by not applying a time limit for the 3 clubs, and ignoring the club 1 situation, aren't they being a tinsy bit hypocritical there in trying to force championship sides to adhere to it all? (I concede hypocritical might not be the right choice of word here)

by HammerofThunor Thu 05 Jul 2012, 1:23 pm

I work in field that requires state registration that was brought in about a decade ago. Any one working in the field before that point were grandfathered in and gained registration automatically. I had to jump through hoops and work hard to meet the criteria. they didn't. AND some may not even be capable of meeting the criteria. That's normal. And let's hope it stays that way for everything else, otherwise our moderator Kiwi will be deported.

As far as I'm concerned what Welsh did was not different to someone complaining that TBP allow a team to win the league over someone who won more games. It's there to encourage more tries, make the game more entertaining and generate income. Same can be said for the championship playoffs. No international windows so why are they there? For income generation. Both of these things are for commercial not sporting reasons. But all the clubs know the rules and go by them.

A team that knows they need bp will play differently to one that doesn't. If the one that goes out just to win ends up second and challenging the laws being against competition laws should they be over-turned?

What Welsh did wrong (IMO) is that they put in a late application (it should have been rejected out of hand but was accepted (IMO) for commercial reasons so the final wasn't 'dead rubber'). Then they originally appealed on the basis they claimed they met the criteria. It turns out this was a lie and they admitted it during the appeal.

by Portnoy Thu 05 Jul 2012, 1:58 pm

Has there ever been so much Celtic interest in Jeff affairs?

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 05 Jul 2012, 2:09 pm

Portnoy wrote:Has there ever been so much Celtic interest in Jeff affairs?

Probably not.

That said looking form a Welsh point of view you have a number of teams with coahes that we will want to keep an eye on Wasps (Dai Young, Paul Turner), Gloucester (Nigel Davies, Paul Moriaty), London Irish (Shawn Edwards) and London Welsh (Lyn Jones). And to that the number of Welsh players (an ex-regional players) who are plying their trade in the Jeff now (P James, TR Thomas, E Lewis-Roberts, D Day, D Welch, N Walker, C Giffiths, S Parker, W Taylor, B Morgan, S Jones and L Thomas all confirmed to move this season alone) with other Welsh players currently being involved in the league already. I think we would be rather silly if we didn't pay some attention to what is going on in the Jeff.

by Smirnoffpriest Thu 05 Jul 2012, 2:09 pm

Portnoy wrote:Has there ever been so much Celtic interest in Jeff affairs?

Well there's so many English posters on Rabo/Celtic threads, that we needed to go to other threads, so here we are... Very Happy

by Smirnoffpriest Thu 05 Jul 2012, 2:11 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Portnoy wrote:Has there ever been so much Celtic interest in Jeff affairs?

Probably not.

That said looking form a Welsh point of view you have a number of teams with coahes that we will want to keep an eye on Wasps (Dai Young, Paul Turner), Gloucester (Nigel Davies, Paul Moriaty), London Irish (Shawn Edwards) and London Welsh (Lyn Jones). And to that the number of Welsh players (an ex-regional players) who are plying their trade in the Jeff now (P James, TR Thomas, E Lewis-Roberts, D Day, D Welch, N Walker, C Giffiths, S Parker, W Taylor, B Morgan, S Jones and L Thomas all confirmed to move this season alone) with other Welsh players currently being involved in the league already. I think we would be rather silly if we didn't pay some attention to what is going on in the Jeff.

Don't forget Mitchell and of course there's Henson!!! Shocked

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 05 Jul 2012, 2:20 pm

Smirnoff - I was thinking about how bad it is that the Jeff is getting that despirate for good players and decent coaches that they are starting to plunder the low level Rabo.

by Portnoy Thu 05 Jul 2012, 2:23 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Portnoy wrote:Has there ever been so much Celtic interest in Jeff affairs?

Probably not.

That said looking form a Welsh point of view you have a number of teams with coahes that we will want to keep an eye on Wasps (Dai Young, Paul Turner), Gloucester (Nigel Davies, Paul Moriaty), London Irish (Shawn Edwards) and London Welsh (Lyn Jones). And to that the number of Welsh players (an ex-regional players) who are plying their trade in the Jeff now (P James, TR Thomas, E Lewis-Roberts, D Day, D Welch, N Walker, C Giffiths, S Parker, W Taylor, B Morgan, S Jones and L Thomas all confirmed to move this season alone) with other Welsh players currently being involved in the league already. I think we would be rather silly if we didn't pay some attention to what is going on in the Jeff.

I now understand the why there should be a sustained high level of interest in the Jeff from over the dyke.

by LordDowlais Thu 05 Jul 2012, 2:24 pm

Ryan Powell, Scott McCloed, Will James, Dwayne Peel, Shingler, good god, how many Welsh players are there in England ? I bet we could make an international side with subs with all of them, or heaven forbid, another region.

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 05 Jul 2012, 2:32 pm

Dowlais

Head Coach - Lyn Jones
Backs Coach - Nigel Davies
Forwards Coach - Dai Young
Defense Coach - Shawn Edwards (ok he aint welsh, but is honoury)

LH - Paul James, Rhys Gill
HK - TR Thomas
TH - Craig Mitchell, Eifion Lewis-Roberts
Locks - Dom Day, Will James, James Goode (Newcastle)
Backrow -

SH - Dwayne Peel, Martin Roberts
FH - Nicky Robinson, Stephen Jones
WG -
Centre - Lee Thomas, Steve Shingler
FB - Martyn Thomas

(There are a heap more of otehrs, but my head hurts.)

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 05 Jul 2012, 2:35 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Dowlais

Head Coach - Lyn Jones
Backs Coach - Nigel Davies
Forwards Coach - Dai Young
Defense Coach - Shawn Edwards (ok he aint welsh, but is honoury)

LH - Paul James, Rhys Gill
HK - TR Thomas
TH - Craig Mitchell, Eifion Lewis-Roberts
Locks - Dom Day, Will James, James Goode (Newcastle), Damien Welch
Backrow -

SH - Dwayne Peel, Martin Roberts
FH - Nicky Robinson, Stephen Jones
WG -
Centre - Lee Thomas, ~~Steve Shingler~~ Phil Dollman
FB - Martyn Thomas

(There are a heap more of otehrs, but my head hurts.)

A few more, and one fix - we should probably only include those that want to be Welsh Wink

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 05 Jul 2012, 2:45 pm

Asbo - In that case you can possibly tick Dom Day off, I heard part of hte move was he wanted to play international and fancied his chances better in England, and Damien Welch is no longer Welsh qualified.

Gutted I forgot Dollman.

by Smirnoffpriest Thu 05 Jul 2012, 3:04 pm

You forgot buggy boy Andy Powell of course and Cai Griffiths!

Personally I still think Shingler will represent Wales, and maybe even come back to Wales if he's in contention.

by PJHolybloke Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:46 pm

Smirnoffpriest wrote:
PJHolybloke wrote:Asbo, how do you feel about the fact that LW played the two teams in the play-offs that hadn't applied for promotion as they knew they couldn't meet the very criteria that LW have just ridden roughshod over?

It's not as if they can play the games again now everyone knows what the rules are.

Two teams playing for a cup, two playing for millions of pounds of additional revenue... that doesn't level up for me whichever way I look at it.

One of the problems I have with the above is at the start of the playoffs only one team were guarenteed promotion, Bristol, while the other 3 thought they wouldn't be able to get promoted (though LW thought there might be grounds to appeal). This didn't stop the Pirates beating Bristol, even though they knew/thought that they couldn't go up, while Bristol had a chance at 'millions of pounds of additional revenue'.

Well that isn't really a problem is it? Bristol had their chance and blew it, Bedford and Cornish didn't even get theirs... that's the problem.

by Sponsored content

London Welsh win appeal

London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal

Re: London Welsh win appeal