Playoffs in the Jeff

First topic message reminder :

Just to put an occasional toe in the water.

With a final round of matches to be contested simultaneously (Sat 2pm)

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Erm that's all too easy Asbo:

The essential PRL votes that created the nanny state:

Absolute value wage caps
EPS payments distributed equally irrespective of contribution
Voting decisions which created the situation where (especially this season) to press forward with Jeff contests without reference to club International (particularly English) losses.

I wouldn't disagree with some of those, particularly the distribution of EPS payments irrespective of contribution - I guess the academy players excluded from the wage cap is an attempt to balance that one out indirectly. I'ad also agree that wage caps could be created in a better way than simple absolute value, but that's not to say that there wouldn't be problems with your preferred alternative (% of turnover) either. I note that you, as usual, make no comment on the inequitable distribution of 'P' shares (it doesn't affect the Tigers, so not relevant in your world?), which forces Exe to play with c.£1m less income than the rest of the AP.

But I notice you ignored the other part of my question: if you'd like to be thought of as holding a balanced view, how about posting some examples to support the other side of the argument? For example, relegation/promotion creates an incredibly competitive league with players constantly used to high-intensity, meaningful games

ffs. I do. Have you never read any of my recent articles ?

I asked you to list a few here? If you can't be orsed, no worries

Start from https://www.606v2.com/t26601p100-the-jeff-run-in which celebrates the fact that dead rubbers are minimised.

If anyone can quote me any post that has me criticising the relegation system as opposed to supporting it then I'd like to be reminded.

By the way there are some clubs resident in the Jeff that would no pass their own PRL determined entry requirements.

Ah, so you can if you try!

If you say so As. But I didn't need really to try. I just failed to complete the questionnaire.

Portnoy, basically we're debating the agreement reached between the clubs and the RFU when professionalism was introduced, and one or two amendments to the original since then? Would that be fair? So the list includes:

Salary cap
Max # of NEQ players
Academy success
EPS payment distribution
Promotion/relegation & ring-fencing
Min ground standards
'A' & 'P' share distribution and transfer
International window scheduling
International player release

Anything else that should be debated to get the full picture?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Portnoy, basically we're debating the agreement reached between the clubs and the RFU when professionalism was introduced, and one or two amendments to the original since then? Would that be fair? So the list includes:

Salary cap
Max # of NEQ players
Academy success
EPS payment distribution
Promotion/relegation & ring-fencing
Min ground standards
'A' & 'P' share distribution and transfer
International window scheduling
International player release

Anything else that should be debated to get the full picture?

Salary cap
Based on affordability (turnover %) with a higher top end maximum (just to prevent clubs from running too far ahead).

Max # of NEQ players
Absolutely like in RL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League#Salary_cap

The ‘club trained player’ rule stipulates that each club must have a minimum number of players who are aged under 21 years or are graduates from their own academy system in their 25 man first team squad. Clubs are also required to have a minimum number of UK-trained players (or in the case of the Dragons, France-trained players) in their squads, and also are limited to a maximum number of "overseas" trained players.

The table below shows how the figures for the ruling from 2008–2011.[15]
club trained players
Year home grown players (min) UK trained players (min) overseas trained players (max)
2008 5 10 10
2009 6 11 8
2010 7 12 6
2011 8 12 5

Academy success
Acadamy allowance (not sure how to quantify the measure of 'success')

EPS payment distribution
On a pro-rata basis

Promotion/relegation & ring-fencing
Ring fence new incumbents for at least one year. Maybe more than that if they exceptionally exceed promises of ground/facilities improvements.

Min ground standards
Not really bothered about that. Initially where 3000 supporters can be accommodated and have a good chance to have a pee inside a toilet.

'A' & 'P' share distribution and transfer
Sorry. Explain - don't follow the banter.

International window scheduling
As far as possible, yes.
A Two-division (8-10?) team Jeff would help facilitate this.

International player release
Depends what you mean. If you are talking Jeff-> England, no doubt.
The rest is a bit foggy

But that's enough to be going on with to initiate a sensible arbitration and reconciliation discussion

As far as the A & P share thing goes Portnoy, the clubs who originally set up PRL retained a special shareholding for themselves that they keep regardless of whether they were relegated or not. So anyone promoted to the Prem that wasn't in the original 12 (e.g.Exeter) don't get any payments from that bucket of dividends, and relegated clubs (Leeds) get a slice of the Premiership pie even though they are down a tier.

Kiwireddevil wrote:As far as the A & P share thing goes Portnoy, the clubs who originally set up PRL retained a special shareholding for themselves that they keep regardless of whether they were relegated or not. So anyone promoted to the Prem that wasn't in the original 12 (e.g.Exeter) don't get any payments from that bucket of dividends, and relegated clubs (Leeds) get a slice of the Premiership pie even though they are down a tier.

Now I recall the context. (if not the jargon).

Well that is clearly the sort of bollix I'm raging about.

A majority who vote on the hoof to preserve their own self-interests. I don't care if it's from bottom-up or top down, this sort of crap monolpolistic thinking is anathema to me.

And if anyone cares to suggest that if the top teams put on their cast iron wellies to subjugate the weaker, then I suggest they'd get a lip-full from me.

From the Grauniad (re Wasps):

Member clubs of Premiership Rugby have A and P shares. The former number 40 and if a side is relegated, it loses them at the rate of five a year. The value lies in the P (for perpetual) share, which is annually worth 24 per cent of the central income enjoyed by clubs in the top flight, not far short of £3m.

If Wasps sold their P share, a buyer would receive annual income of around £730,000 but the club would be left with little to attract a new owner unless he or she were an avid supporter of the club.

Tbh, As, 730k p.a. is a trivial amount even allowing for any potential £10m debt write-off for a potential new investor.

No ground. no assets. And a desperate 'please buy me - any reasonable offer accepted' slogan on the wall does not bode well for Wasps supporters.

My fancy is that whichever side wins this weekends game, neither will be the winner.

Portnoy wrote:Tbh, As, 730k p.a. is a trivial amount even allowing for any potential £10m debt write-off for a potential new investor.

No ground. no assets. And a desperate 'please buy me - any reasonable offer accepted' slogan on the wall does not bode well for Wasps supporters.

My fancy is that whichever side wins this weekends game, neither will be the winner.

It is? Each year, that's how much Chiefs' income starts down relative to the rest of the AP until we have enough money to 'buy' them from Bristol (or maybe now Leeds) and we have the expense of going to arbitration to agree a price

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Tbh, As, 730k p.a. is a trivial amount even allowing for any potential £10m debt write-off for a potential new investor.

No ground. no assets. And a desperate 'please buy me - any reasonable offer accepted' slogan on the wall does not bode well for Wasps supporters.

My fancy is that whichever side wins this weekends game, neither will be the winner.

It is? Each year, that's how much Chiefs' income starts down relative to the rest of the AP until we have enough money to 'buy' them from Bristol (or maybe now Leeds) and we have the expense of going to arbitration to agree a price

Without getting into asset pricing models (since I'm pretty sure As knows a lot more about them than I do), an asset that is relatively* risk-free paying dividends of £730k pa is probably worth a good £10m or more.


* Unless the Leveson inquiry guts Sky and no other TV network pops up.

My point is proved entirely by this A & P nonsense.

The have majority have always voted with extreme self-interest at the forefront of their minds.

Such a shame that SCW felt the need to resign whilst Squeaky remains.

Wouldn't Woodward have wanted everything England at the expense of the clubs? That is unlikely to happen in our lifetimes

Woodward would have played hard ball as opposed to Andrew's Cat-footing.

Let me ask you this question in a maritime analogy.

Would an Admiral Woodward have not be alarmed that his fleet having its ships sunk before they set sail?

Sub-lieutenant Squeaky certainly wasn't. He was busy doing ... well he must have being doing something mustn't he? He was paid for something.

Mind that iceberg Mr Squeaky.

By hard ball do you mean "Do as I say! No? Then I'm off" [Stalks off in a huff]?

Or the hard ball was too much for the incumbent farts.