€1.835m

That's the compensation that Mourad is claiming from World Rugby because of the Test Match Calendar and Player Release. From my very limited knowledge on this, I think that French law is on Mourad's side.

Let's hope that he wins, if for no other reason than to force a sensible rugby calendar.

Who'd pay that? World Rugby or the unions?

PhilBB wrote:That's the compensation that Mourad is claiming from World Rugby because of the Test Match Calendar and Player Release. From my very limited knowledge on this, I think that French law is on Mourad's side.

Let's hope that he wins, if for no other reason than to force a sensible rugby calendar.

If he was claiming from World Rugby, he would have to do it in the Irish courts.

yappysnap wrote:Who'd pay that? World Rugby or the unions?

Have to be the individual unions involved. I'd imagine he would get far in the SA or Australian courts.

Mourad would need to be careful that he doesn't open a can of worms whereby Unions might be looking for compensation for developing players. Paul O'Connell supposedly turned down a coaching role with Toulon because they don't do any development coaching - they buy their players fully developed.

Sin é wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Who'd pay that? World Rugby or the unions?

Have to be the individual unions involved. I'd imagine he would get far in the SA or Australian courts.

Mourad would need to be careful that he doesn't open a can of worms whereby Unions might be looking for compensation for developing players. Paul O'Connell supposedly turned down a coaching role with Toulon because they don't do any development coaching - they buy their players fully developed.

No, it would be World Rugby as it is World Rugby who sets the Regulations.

The final sentence is tremendous ignorance of the Toulon Espoirs squad, fair play.

As for the "unions" looking for compensation, what would be the legal basis for their claim? Please point it out to me in case I get challenged from one of my staff's previous employers.

Thanks in advance.

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Who'd pay that? World Rugby or the unions?

Have to be the individual unions involved. I'd imagine he would get far in the SA or Australian courts.

Mourad would need to be careful that he doesn't open a can of worms whereby Unions might be looking for compensation for developing players. Paul O'Connell supposedly turned down a coaching role with Toulon because they don't do any development coaching - they buy their players fully developed.

No, it would be World Rugby as it is World Rugby who sets the Regulations.

The final sentence is tremendous ignorance of the Toulon Espoirs squad, fair play.

As for the "unions" looking for compensation, what would be the legal basis for their claim? Please point it out to me in case I get challenged from one of my staff's previous employers.

Thanks in advance.

World Rugby is the collective of individual Unions.

I don't think POC was offered a coaching job with the Toulon Espoirs - it was with the senior squad. Anyway, the Espoirs must not be up to much because none of them can make the senior team. In their present squad only one local player has more than 5 appearances (with 2 or 3 others obviously there to fulfill some quota or other, but never get to play).

The Unions could instigate a transfer fee if they wanted to. Players moving from country to country need the approval of their Union. The FFR have a serious hold over the LNR - they can refuse them a licence to operate.

Sin é wrote:

World Rugby is the collective of individual Unions.

I don't think POC was offered a coaching job with the Toulon Espoirs - it was with the senior squad. Anyway, the Espoirs must not be up to much because none of them can make the senior team. In their present squad only one local player has more than 5 appearances (with 2 or 3 others obviously there to fulfill some quota or other, but never get to play).

The Unions could instigate a transfer fee if they wanted to. Players moving from country to country need the approval of their Union. The FFR have a serious hold over the LNR - they can refuse them a licence to operate.

World Rugby is the collective of individual Unions and is rightly the party being challenged as it is the party that sets the regulations.

The Espoirs finished 5th in this year's T14 Espoirs league, missing out on a play off by an extra time defeat by ASM. Not up to much seems a silly comment based on no knowledge. How many Toulon Espoir graduates are playing Top14? Do you know?

I'd love to see the legal claim on a player, out of contract, being refused the ability to work.

You do realise that World Rugby is not above the law of the land, don't you? Look at how FIFA deal with this, UEFA too. That's what Mourad is after, ffs.

What's a sensible rugby calendar ?

Irish Londoner wrote:What's a sensible rugby calendar ?

In simple terms, playing the 6N at the end of the season, into summer tours, rest, reciprocal tours, domestic season.

..and an end to all moans thereafter.

I'm all for this 'sensible' rugby calendar.

Oh and no International 'extra' games planned for league final weekends.

SecretFly wrote:..and an end to all moans thereafter.

I'm all for this 'sensible' rugby calendar.

Oh and no International 'extra' games planned for league final weekends.

And no Union ownership of domestic teams.

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

World Rugby is the collective of individual Unions.

I don't think POC was offered a coaching job with the Toulon Espoirs - it was with the senior squad. Anyway, the Espoirs must not be up to much because none of them can make the senior team. In their present squad only one local player has more than 5 appearances (with 2 or 3 others obviously there to fulfill some quota or other, but never get to play).

The Unions could instigate a transfer fee if they wanted to. Players moving from country to country need the approval of their Union. The FFR have a serious hold over the LNR - they can refuse them a licence to operate.

World Rugby is the collective of individual Unions and is rightly the party being challenged as it is the party that sets the regulations.

The Espoirs finished 5th in this year's T14 Espoirs league, missing out on a play off by an extra time defeat by ASM. Not up to much seems a silly comment based on no knowledge. How many Toulon Espoir graduates are playing Top14? Do you know?

I'd love to see the legal claim on a player, out of contract, being refused the ability to work.

You do realise that World Rugby is not above the law of the land, don't you? Look at how FIFA deal with this, UEFA too. That's what Mourad is after, ffs.

Let Mourad take on World Rugby in the Irish courts then If he wants to get his 1.8m, I suggest he docks his international players the money - don't forget, these players are getting paid match fees for their international appearances.

The Toulon Espoirs were 5th No wonder Mourad is buying up all those SH elder statesmen!

I've no idea how many former Toulon espoirs are in the Top 14, but if they are coming 5th in their league, there won't be too many.

Ive no idea what you are talking about when you say: ' I'd love to see the legal claim on a player, out of contract, being refused the ability to work. '

What law are World Rugby breaking? If Mourad doesn't want to follow the laws of World Rugby he can set up his own sport and see who will follow him then.

PhilBB wrote:That's the compensation that Mourad is claiming from World Rugby because of the Test Match Calendar and Player Release. From my very limited knowledge on this, I think that French law is on Mourad's side.

Let's hope that he wins, if for no other reason than to force a sensible rugby calendar.

I'd be all for a sensible rugby calendar too, your suggestion above would make sense if it was possible to do it I'd love it to happen.

Would Mourad have to be saying that this is his loss in earnings for a certain period of rugby? Or is this his salary cost for that period. Figure seems low?

PhilBB wrote:

SecretFly wrote:..and an end to all moans thereafter.

I'm all for this 'sensible' rugby calendar.

Oh and no International 'extra' games planned for league final weekends.

And no Union ownership of domestic teams.

And no sugar daddy domestic teams that get to be 'fairer' than the team down the road because they have a billionaire financing their 'fairness' whilst the team down the road has a local florist coughing up the dosh.

Now Fly, you're being completely unreasonable. Do you really want clubs to be run by Unions, which are there to promote the sport from local amateur through to Test level, a sporting body that is a union of the individual rugby clubs across the country, with those clubs in turn being controlled by the club members, the die-hard supporters of the game and ambassadors for the sport?

No thank you Fly, how can that ever be seen as fair? I'd much prefer for a comic book billionaire to own a club and pick'n'choose the rules of the game that should be applied.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Now Fly, you're being completely unreasonable.  Do you really want clubs to be run by Unions, which are there to promote the sport from local amateur through to Test level, a sporting body that is a union of the individual rugby clubs across the country, with those clubs in turn being controlled by the club members, the die-hard supporters of the game and ambassadors for the sport?

No thank you Fly, how can that ever be seen as fair?  I'd much prefer for a comic book billionaire to own a club and pick'n'choose the rules of the game that should be applied.

Its a lot fairer than some of the creative accounting applied by English and faceless American owners elsewhere

Sin é wrote:
Let Mourad take on World Rugby in the Irish courts then  If he wants to get his 1.8m, I suggest he docks his international players the money - don't forget, these players are getting paid match fees for their international appearances.

The Toulon Espoirs were 5th No wonder Mourad is buying up all those SH elder statesmen!

I've no idea how many former Toulon espoirs are in the Top 14, but if they are coming 5th in their league, there won't be too many.

Ive no idea what you are talking about when you say: ' I'd love to see the legal claim on a player, out of contract, being refused the ability to work. '

What law are World Rugby breaking? If Mourad doesn't want to follow the laws of World Rugby he can set up his own sport and see who will follow him then.

He won't have to take on WR in Irish courts to show they are breaking French law.

You're laughing at a team coming fifth?

You've no idea about a legal claim from an individual being denied work? I think that you're being disingenuous.

From the top of my head, there is a French law that states the primary employer is not under obligation to release his employee on secondment without compensation.

SecretFly wrote:
And no sugar daddy domestic teams that get to be 'fairer' than the team down the road because they have a billionaire financing their 'fairness' whilst the team down the road has a local florist coughing up the dosh.

But it's ok for a Union owned team to do exactly the same thing.

You know, like Munster for example.

The hypocrisy is outstanding.

marty2086 wrote:
Its a lot fairer than some of the creative accounting applied by English and faceless American owners elsewhere

It clearly is not because one owner of multiple teams skews a league far worse than individual clubs taking their own risks.

PhilBB wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
And no sugar daddy domestic teams that get to be 'fairer' than the team down the road because they have a billionaire financing their 'fairness' whilst the team down the road has a local florist coughing up the dosh.

But it's ok for a Union owned team to do exactly the same thing.

You know, like Munster for example.

The hypocrisy is outstanding.

So nothing to complain about then. We all finance ourselves the same crooked ways with grey accountants brushing the extra cash under the nearest plush carpet....

SecretFly wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
And no sugar daddy domestic teams that get to be 'fairer' than the team down the road because they have a billionaire financing their 'fairness' whilst the team down the road has a local florist coughing up the dosh.

But it's ok for a Union owned team to do exactly the same thing.

You know, like Munster for example.

The hypocrisy is outstanding.

So nothing to complain about then.  We all finance ourselves the same crooked ways with grey accountants brushing the extra cash under the nearest plush carpet....

WTF? I was just pointing out your hypocrisy.

No you were trying to point out our differences, but then you try to point out the similarities, but then you try to highlight the differences again before inevitably pointing out the similarities.

You're trying to win a debate and sliding up and down off a fence as you drop on one side and then the other, without a care in the world.

Which is it?  

Are we all the one, taking sly money from the Man (the 'self-made' millionaire/billionare) or are we all different - as in the Unions are crooked and in it for deceit and unfairness, but the billionaires are in it coz thinking about the pleasures of fair rugby make them cry a little from the emotion of it all?

Which is it?

SecretFly wrote:No you were trying to point out our differences, but then you try to point out the similarities, but then you try to highlight the differences again before inevitably pointing out the similarities.

You're trying to win a debate and sliding up and down off a fence as you drop on one side and then the other, without a care in the world.

Which is it?  

Are we all the one, taking sly money from the Man (the 'self-made' millionaire/billionare) or are we all different - as in the Unions are crooked and in it for deceit and unfairness, but the billionaires are in it coz thinking about the pleasures of fair rugby make them cry a little from the emotion of it all?

Which is it?

It's blindingly obvious which it is. The 'Man' has one team. The 'Union' has multiple. They act in the same manner towards both except the Union recipients are bitches not in charge of their own destiny or responsible for their own recklessness.

This is the basic obvious fact here. Please grasp it. Please move on from the attempted flowery prose that just make you look more drunk than clever, by the way.

Bunk.  

One man has a team that he can fund in the multi-millions.  Another man, who also came up from selling apples on a street corner, without any nod, nod, wink, wink loans, sub-loans and dubious off-shore holes-in-the-ground, has a paltry few million.

You call that fair.

I say hypocrisy.

That language simple enough for you, Phil?  I'll dumb it down a few grades more too for you if needed.

SecretFly wrote:Bunk.  

One man has a team that he can fund in the multi-millions.  Another man, who also came up from selling apples on a street corner, without any nod, nod, wink, wink loans, sub-loans and dubious off-shore holes-in-the-ground, has a paltry few million.

You call that fair.

I say hypocrisy.

That language simple enough for you, Phil?  I'll dumb it down a few grades more too for you if needed.

Go on then, dumb it down. Explain how it is hypocrisy.

It ain't fair.

You claim one model (Private clubs) is a fair system for Rugby Leagues as opposed to the evil Union run game operating in Ireland.

I say it isn't so. Your ideal club system is designed to allow more money to dictate who wins and who then plays for relegation. Nothing fair there. The biggest pocket hits the top and stays there.

SecretFly wrote:It ain't fair.

You claim one model (Private clubs) is a fair system for Rugby Leagues as opposed to the evil Union run game operating in Ireland.

I say it isn't so.  Your ideal club system is designed to allow more money to dictate who wins and who then plays for relegation.  Nothing fair there.  The biggest pocket hits the top and stays there.

Erm, the Union owned model dictates who wins, too. It is the Union pocket that kept the Irish teams at the top in Europe and can now do it in the PrO'12. The man in Dublin dictates who wins and who doesn't, so you're right to point out there's nothing fair there.

That's the level of your hypocrisy that seems to (somehow) escape you. The Union model of Ireland prevents fair competition.

In PROFESSIONAL sport, the man with the biggest pockets hits the top and stays there. Yes. That's the nature of PROFESSIONAL sport. He takes the risk to get there, he takes the reward. In Ireland, there's no penalty for financial failure, there's no chance to reap your own rewards. What you manifestly dislike elsewhere is at the core of the system you support. That's rank hypocrisy.

PhilBB wrote:

SecretFly wrote:It ain't fair.

You claim one model (Private clubs) is a fair system for Rugby Leagues as opposed to the evil Union run game operating in Ireland.

I say it isn't so.  Your ideal club system is designed to allow more money to dictate who wins and who then plays for relegation.  Nothing fair there.  The biggest pocket hits the top and stays there.

Erm, the Union owned model dictates who wins, too.

There you go. Admitting that your talk about fairness is claptrap.

So in a world defined by money, where it goes, who can pay most, which owner has the biggest pocket ..we'll keep our system of PROFESSIONALISM to move in that world. You keep to yours - Good luck.

SecretFly wrote:
There you go.  Admitting that your talk about fairness is claptrap.  

So in a world defined by money, where it goes, who can pay most, which owner has the biggest pocket ..we'll keep our system of PROFESSIONALISM to move in that world.  You keep to yours - Good luck.

The bit that you're failing to address is that the fairness comes from risk / reward. If an individual club takes on the risk then it can reap its reward, or it fails. Under the Union owned model, there is no failure. You just rob money from some other Union team to pay for your mistakes.

Your model of professionalism has failed the modern game. And it is only going to fail more and more. That's obvious.

And, if Sky pull out of the PrO'12, it will be interesting to see if that model of gerrymandered teams and imbalanced set ups continue. I doubt they will.

But at least its flushed out your hypocrisy when noting the private system. A stinking, foul hypocrisy.

PhilBB wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
There you go.  Admitting that your talk about fairness is claptrap.  

So in a world defined by money, where it goes, who can pay most, which owner has the biggest pocket ..we'll keep our system of PROFESSIONALISM to move in that world.  You keep to yours - Good luck.

The bit that you're failing to address is that the fairness comes from risk / reward. If an individual club takes on the risk then it can reap its reward, or it fails. Under the Union owned model, there is no failure. You just rob money from some other Union team to pay for your mistakes.

Your model of professionalism has failed the modern game. And it is only going to fail more and more. That's obvious.

And, if Sky pull out of the PrO'12, it will be interesting to see if that model of gerrymandered teams and imbalanced set ups continue. I doubt they will.

But at least its flushed out your hypocrisy when noting the private system. A stinking, foul hypocrisy.

No matter as to how much you want it to be true, you are talking the biggest load of

PhilBB wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
There you go.  Admitting that your talk about fairness is claptrap.  

So in a world defined by money, where it goes, who can pay most, which owner has the biggest pocket ..we'll keep our system of PROFESSIONALISM to move in that world.  You keep to yours - Good luck.

The bit that you're failing to address is that the fairness comes from risk / reward. If an individual club takes on the risk then it can reap its reward, or it fails. Under the Union owned model, there is no failure. You just rob money from some other Union team to pay for your mistakes.

Your model of professionalism has failed the modern game. And it is only going to fail more and more. That's obvious.

And, if Sky pull out of the PrO'12, it will be interesting to see if that model of gerrymandered teams and imbalanced set ups continue. I doubt they will.

But at least its flushed out your hypocrisy when noting the private system. A stinking, foul hypocrisy.

Keep talking. I'll allow Munch to answer for me. He did a good enough job.

Munchkin wrote:
No matter as to how much you want it to be true, you are talking the biggest load of

Fair enough. I'll look out for the Browne interviews in which he notes that he can outspend the English and French.

SecretFly wrote:
Keep talking.  I'll allow Munch to answer for me.  He did a good enough job.

He didn't address your obvious and foul hypocrisy.

This is why you should stick to writing flowery nonsense instead of trying to give an opinion - it's because it's easy to call you out when you have been honest.

PhilBB wrote:

SecretFly wrote:No you were trying to point out our differences, but then you try to point out the similarities, but then you try to highlight the differences again before inevitably pointing out the similarities.

You're trying to win a debate and sliding up and down off a fence as you drop on one side and then the other, without a care in the world.

Which is it?  

Are we all the one, taking sly money from the Man (the 'self-made' millionaire/billionare) or are we all different - as in the Unions are crooked and in it for deceit and unfairness, but the billionaires are in it coz thinking about the pleasures of fair rugby make them cry a little from the emotion of it all?

Which is it?

It's blindingly obvious which it is. The 'Man' has one team. The 'Union' has multiple. They act in the same manner towards both except the Union recipients are bitches not in charge of their own destiny or responsible for their own recklessness.

This is the basic obvious fact here. Please grasp it. Please move on from the attempted flowery prose that just make you look more drunk than clever, by the way.

I'd argue that the Unions have even more responsibility not to be reckless.

For example, all Government Grants would be stopped if there was anything dodgy going on.

Keep talking Phil.

You keep digging the hypocrisy hole deeper. Make sure the sides are well supported, don't want you getting buried in there. You're too much fun.

Sin é wrote:

I'd argue that the Unions have even more responsibility not to be reckless.

For example, all Government Grants would be stopped if there was anything dodgy going on.

That's a very subjective use of the word reckless

SecretFly wrote:Keep talking Phil.  

You keep digging the hypocrisy hole deeper.  Make sure the sides are well supported, don't want you getting buried in there.  You're too much fun.

Keep running, Jack.

I knew I'd up the heat enough to get a catcall.

Your Nigel Wray Approved Ethical Rugby Union League Assurance System (NWAERULA) isn't Fair, Phil.

Gottit?

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
No matter as to how much you want it to be true, you are talking the biggest load of

Fair enough. I'll look out for the Browne interviews in which he notes that he can outspend the English and French.

Look all you want. Irelands record in the professional era has been outstanding, and if you did read Browne's comments you would know that the model isn't rigid, and is exploring ways to increase revenue by means of private investment. To date, it has proved a more successful model than that of the WRU/Regions.

You have a point in that the T14 is a serious threat to PRO12 nations, but your dream of countering that threat by joining up with the English is fantasy. It isn't going to happen. Because it isn't going to happen, we need to look at ways to increase revenue within the PRO12. It is all we have and all we will have. A message that some, like Edwards, haven't got the intellect to grasp.

Maybe a viable alternative will surface at some time in the future but, until then, if ever, it's better to fully commit to your life support, instead of desperately trying to unplug it...

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

I'd argue that the Unions have even more responsibility not to be reckless.

For example, all Government Grants would be stopped if there was anything dodgy going on.

That's a very subjective use of the word reckless

Simply, sporting bodies who avail of tax free status in Ireland are subject to very rigid criteria. For example, the non-Executive Board of the IRFU cannot be remunerated under Irish company law.

I believe that was a particular bugbear with members of the Board of ERC

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Its a lot fairer than some of the creative accounting applied by English and faceless American owners elsewhere

It clearly is not because one owner of multiple teams skews a league far worse than individual clubs taking their own risks.

Hardly skews it when they are all operating on a similar footing and within the same limitations compared to those breaking the rules to gain an advantage but that's the model you want, maybe you should just move to London you'll be in heaven there sure

Munchkin wrote:
Look all you want. Irelands record in the professional era has been outstanding, and if you did read Browne's comments you would know that the model isn't rigid, and is exploring ways to increase revenue by means of private investment. To date, it has proved a more successful model than that of the WRU/Regions.

You have a point in that the T14 is a serious threat to PRO12 nations, but your dream of countering that threat by joining up with the English is fantasy. It isn't going to happen. Because it isn't going to happen, we need to look at ways to increase revenue within the PRO12. It is all we have and all we will have. A message that some, like Edwards, haven't got the intellect to grasp.

Maybe a viable alternative will surface at some time in the future but, until then, if ever, it's better to fully commit to your life support, instead of desperately trying to unplug it...

So Browne agrees with me. Excellent. We got there in the end.

Put it this way: if Sky pulls out of the PrO'12 then we may have no option other than to play in the English system. The PrO'12 is no life support, it's death by a thousand cuts.

Sin é wrote:
Simply, sporting bodies who avail of tax free status in Ireland are subject to very rigid criteria. For example, the non-Executive Board of the IRFU cannot be remunerated under Irish company law.

I believe that was a particular bugbear with members of the Board of ERC  

So it's a very colloquial and subjective use of the word reckless.

marty2086 wrote:
Hardly skews it when they are all operating on a similar footing and within the same limitations compared to those breaking the rules to gain an advantage but that's the model you want, maybe you should just move to London you'll be in heaven there sure

Its skewed because they are not all operating on a similar footing. They are not subject to the same limitations. They can't even decide their own employees, ffs.

That little, sad, jibe you make at the salary cap is so telling. What escapes you when you do that is the fact that the IRFU don't operate a salary cap. They just choose who is going to have a better chance to win and who isn't, which is substantially worse than a private company noting none of its members were able to be shown to breaking a private rule.

Any PRL cap affects PRL. PRL only. It's their league. It's of no concern to Union owned gerrymandered teams not in charge of their own staff, budget, direction or future.

All hail Nucifora.

None of them (AP sides) could be shown to have broken a private rule (private??? - thought it was all up and above board over there?) because it was swept under that carpet again - officially, so as not to 'damage the product' in marketing terms for BT, Aviva and the rest.

Another example of making up League Rules as you go along to please the 'funders'.  No wonder FIFA and FI Racing were in trouble - the sponsors/backscratchers and CEOs are writing the rules of the sports they take over - and deciding who wins and loses.

All Hail Nucifora.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
Look all you want. Irelands record in the professional era has been outstanding, and if you did read Browne's comments you would know that the model isn't rigid, and is exploring ways to increase revenue by means of private investment. To date, it has proved a more successful model than that of the WRU/Regions.

You have a point in that the T14 is a serious threat to PRO12 nations, but your dream of countering that threat by joining up with the English is fantasy. It isn't going to happen. Because it isn't going to happen, we need to look at ways to increase revenue within the PRO12. It is all we have and all we will have. A message that some, like Edwards, haven't got the intellect to grasp.

Maybe a viable alternative will surface at some time in the future but, until then, if ever, it's better to fully commit to your life support, instead of desperately trying to unplug it...

So Browne agrees with me. Excellent. We got there in the end.

Put it this way: if Sky pulls out of the PrO'12 then we may have no option other than to play in the English system. The PrO'12 is no life support, it's death by a thousand cuts.

No, Browne does not agree with you. You wrongly claimed that the Irish model isn't working in professional rugby. It is, so you are wrong. It is also a fluid model which is something that you have failed to understand.

If SKY pull out we will just have to make do with what we have. You make the absurd claim that if SKY pulled out we have no other option but to play in the English system, as if that is a real option. It isn't. It is just your fantasy. It's not real, Phil. The fact that you fail to grasp the obvious reality of that is staggering.

Wake up, Phil. It was all a dream.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Hardly skews it when they are all operating on a similar footing and within the same limitations compared to those breaking the rules to gain an advantage but that's the model you want, maybe you should just move to London you'll be in heaven there sure

Its skewed because they are not all operating on a similar footing. They are not subject to the same limitations. They can't even decide their own employees, ffs.

That little, sad, jibe you make at the salary cap is so telling. What escapes you when you do that is the fact that the IRFU don't operate a salary cap. They just choose who is going to have a better chance to win and who isn't, which is substantially worse than a private company noting none of its members were able to be shown to breaking a private rule.

Any PRL cap affects PRL. PRL only. It's their league. It's of no concern to Union owned gerrymandered teams not in charge of their own staff, budget, direction or future.

All hail Nucifora.

You are an idiot if you believe that.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
Look all you want. Irelands record in the professional era has been outstanding, and if you did read Browne's comments you would know that the model isn't rigid, and is exploring ways to increase revenue by means of private investment. To date, it has proved a more successful model than that of the WRU/Regions.

You have a point in that the T14 is a serious threat to PRO12 nations, but your dream of countering that threat by joining up with the English is fantasy. It isn't going to happen. Because it isn't going to happen, we need to look at ways to increase revenue within the PRO12. It is all we have and all we will have. A message that some, like Edwards, haven't got the intellect to grasp.

Maybe a viable alternative will surface at some time in the future but, until then, if ever, it's better to fully commit to your life support, instead of desperately trying to unplug it...

So Browne agrees with me. Excellent. We got there in the end.

Put it this way: if Sky pulls out of the PrO'12 then we may have no option other than to play in the English system. The PrO'12 is no life support, it's death by a thousand cuts.

oh, and this little gem.

Without the PRO12 the Regions would die. The Regions do not have a viable alternative. It is your life support. It's that simple.

Phil why do you think the PRL would save the region's s if the Pro12 went under?
What facts do you have that shows they would want the region's
What facts do you have that the WRU/RFU would allow the region's s to join

I'm guessing it's a very short list of facts

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Hardly skews it when they are all operating on a similar footing and within the same limitations compared to those breaking the rules to gain an advantage but that's the model you want, maybe you should just move to London you'll be in heaven there sure

Its skewed because they are not all operating on a similar footing. They are not subject to the same limitations. They can't even decide their own employees, ffs.

That little, sad, jibe you make at the salary cap is so telling. What escapes you when you do that is the fact that the IRFU don't operate a salary cap. They just choose who is going to have a better chance to win and who isn't, which is substantially worse than a private company noting none of its members were able to be shown to breaking a private rule.

Any PRL cap affects PRL. PRL only. It's their league. It's of no concern to Union owned gerrymandered teams not in charge of their own staff, budget, direction or future.

All hail Nucifora.

3 provinces receive the same funding and a fourth catching up yet not on a similar footing

The NZ 'franchises' which you claim are privately owned don't get to choose their own staff either

The provinces dont operate under a salary cap they have a budget, something quite a few privately owned teams don't operate under. Not sure how they choose whos going to have a better chance of winning but Im sure you'll conjure up some backward logic for it.

By the way, shutting down an investigation is a nice way of saying you can't show noones broken the rules