London Welsh to take on the RFU

London Welsh to take on the might of the RFU

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18285069

Good luck to them

Yup, I know the rules are there and such but to win the championship and not go up would be disappointing. The stadium looks fine to me, what's the problem is it because they can't guarantee to play the fixtures at the exact dates the RFU give out due to a ground share with Oxford Utd, whereas people like Wasps, Irish and Saracens can?

100% agree, If I was a Falcons fan and I'm glad I'm not I'd be worried.

The stadium looked good, nice coloured seats.

Reading have been promoted and there is no way London Irish will be able to dictate fixture dates.

London Irish definitely do not meet the criteria.

I suspect Saracens dont either

But how many problems have arisen because these teams aren't primary tenants?

I haven't heard of many games being moved because of this (there are also plenty of other stadiums in London that could be used for one off games)

It's about time the RFU had the balls to ring fence the Jeff, as thats what they are basically doing, but by underhand tactics.

An RFU statement said that not having primacy of tenure at their chosen ground was one of "various failures" in Welsh's promotion bid.

That quote was from the BBC site - so it's not all about primacy of tenure - although LW seem to be stessing this element above the others.

Can anybody blame them for doing this ? They earned the right for promotion and there is a lot of money involved.

Cymroglan wrote:Can anybody blame them for doing this ? They earned the right for promotion and there is a lot of money involved.

Can't blame them for trying. I do think that the move to Oxford will hurt them fan wise - it is a decent hike out of London, to a non-rugby area. Similar moves haven't exactly paid off for Wasps or London Irish.

Can't blame them for trying. I do think that the move to Oxford will hurt them fan wise - it is a decent hike out of London, to a non-rugby area. Similar moves haven't exactly paid off for Wasps or London Irish.

+1 for all of this.

I suspect Saracens dont either

Sarries will have a new stadium soon though which will move them into a position to meet the requirements though sharing with Watford should mean they get first pick on dates as Watford aren't really worth televising.

geoff998rugby wrote:Reading have been promoted and there is no way London Irish will be able to dictate fixture dates.

London Irish definitely do not meet the criteria.

I suspect Saracens dont either

The criteria allow for exemptions for teams that did not meet the criteria when they were brought into being - not saying that's right, but that's how it works

martyr_94 wrote:Yup, I know the rules are there and such but to win the championship and not go up would be disappointing. The stadium looks fine to me, what's the problem is it because they can't guarantee to play the fixtures at the exact dates the RFU give out due to a ground share with Oxford Utd, whereas people like Wasps, Irish and Saracens can?

See above, martyr, whether we agree with it or not, the criteria permit exemptions for those teams in the prem already when the criteria were formally introduced

Smirnoffpriest wrote:But how many problems have arisen because these teams aren't primary tenants?

I haven't heard of many games being moved because of this (there are also plenty of other stadiums in London that could be used for one off games)

priest, not aware of any tbh, but the criteria still have to be met (unless a club is permitted an exemption, mainly thru being in the prem already when the criteria were introduced)

So when you have exemptions that means LW does have a leg to stand on.

Cymroglan wrote:Can anybody blame them for doing this ? They earned the right for promotion and there is a lot of money involved.

Cymro, nobody can really "blame" London Welsh for anything - they have earned the right to be promoted on the field, but perhaps not off the field - that is the contention. They are fortunate to know some lawyers in high places that might chose to work for next to no fees - there would be some extra money for getting promoted, but as LW would get no 'P' shares (same as Exeter), it's not all that much (ie Amlin revenue, bigger away crowds, etc.)

Cymroglan wrote:So when you have exemptions that means LW does have a leg to stand on.

Not sure I get you, Cymro? Let's say one of the criteria is 600mm between urinals and that is specified in the document - the document will also list that Clubs X, Y & Z are exempt from having to meet this criterion as long as they remain in the prem (cos they were in the prem when it was put into practice) - equally if any of those 3 clubs drops down, they would have to meet that criterion (and all others), just like LW, to get promoted back up - does that make sense?

So there are two possible challenges:
1. LW meet the criteria and have been incorrectly audited => appeal
2. LW don't meet the criteria but the criteria (cos of exemptions) are unfairly applied => law case

Kiwireddevil wrote:

Cymroglan wrote:Can anybody blame them for doing this ? They earned the right for promotion and there is a lot of money involved.

Can't blame them for trying. I do think that the move to Oxford will hurt them fan wise - it is a decent hike out of London, to a non-rugby area. Similar moves haven't exactly paid off for Wasps or London Irish.

Oxford is easy to get to from London. I suspect that's one of the reasons they chose it and there are a lot of grass roots rugby clubs in Oxfordshire. This could potentially tap into a strong source for London Welsh.

mckay1402 wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote:

Cymroglan wrote:Can anybody blame them for doing this ? They earned the right for promotion and there is a lot of money involved.

Can't blame them for trying. I do think that the move to Oxford will hurt them fan wise - it is a decent hike out of London, to a non-rugby area. Similar moves haven't exactly paid off for Wasps or London Irish.

Oxford is easy to get to from London. I suspect that's one of the reasons they chose it and there are a lot of grass roots rugby clubs in Oxfordshire. This could potentially tap into a strong source for London Welsh.

They might well do, mckay, and that would be great. However, if last night is anything to go by, there were c.3.5k in attendance, of whom roughly half had made the journey up from Cornwall - not that encouraging?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs
If those clubs were given exemptions because they were already in the prem that's fine but they should also have been given a certain time to put their house in order.
You either have hard fast rules that apply to everybody or you allow new members to also have the same exemptions.

Cymroglan wrote:AsLongAsBut100ofUs
If those clubs were given exemptions because they were already in the prem that's fine but they should also have been given a certain time to put their house in order.
You either have hard fast rules that apply to everybody or you allow new members to also have the same exemptions.

Logically I would agree 100%, but that's not the way it's written at the moment - does that qualify as the basis of a legal case, I'm not sufficiently expert?

3500 is not bad for championship. I reckon there would be an increase in support if the club moved to Oxford. Just an opinion from someone who grew up near the area though...

mckay1402 wrote:3500 is not bad for championship. I reckon there would be an increase in support if the club moved to Oxford. Just an opinion from someone who grew up near the area though...

mckay, I'll bow to your local expertise - my only thought is to compare to the Bristol vs Exeter and Pirates vs Wuss last two championship finals - from memory (not exact figures), Sandy Park had about 6.5k for Exe's home leg, and the Mem was packed when we travelled to Bris (c.>10k); Pirates draw up to c.5k+ for big games (semi and finals), and Sizways would have been near full (say, c.8k) for their leg

It's completely hypocritical of the RFU to claim the Rabbo teams have it easy because theirs no relegation then all but ring fence their own league

munkian wrote:It's completely hypocritical of the RFU to claim the Rabbo teams have it easy because theirs no relegation then all but ring fence their own league

Yup, altho you may have noticed a subtle shift in the argument recently from the line you've noted to the 'our-teams-have-to-finish-in-the-top-six-to-qualify'!

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

munkian wrote:It's completely hypocritical of the RFU to claim the Rabbo teams have it easy because theirs no relegation then all but ring fence their own league

Yup, altho you may have noticed a subtle shift in the argument recently from the line you've noted to the 'our-teams-have-to-finish-in-the-top-six-to-qualify'!

Those cheeky pr.... prawn sandwhich munchers !

munkian wrote:It's completely hypocritical of the RFU to claim the Rabbo teams have it easy because theirs no relegation then all but ring fence their own league

If course the RFU haven't claimed this. The PRL have. Also the premeirship isn't ring-fenced, teams just need to have a decent infrastructure as well as buying in decent players.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

munkian wrote:It's completely hypocritical of the RFU to claim the Rabbo teams have it easy because theirs no relegation then all but ring fence their own league

Yup, altho you may have noticed a subtle shift in the argument recently from the line you've noted to the 'our-teams-have-to-finish-in-the-top-six-to-qualify'!

Where's the subtle shift? Most AP fans talk about Pro12's auto/easy qualification for the HC. Relegation is not much of a worry for most clubs. Most AP clubs bounce straight back once relegated - certainly the more established ones like Quins and Saints have.


Exeter had to jump through the hoops. They are in a much healthier position (sustainability wise) than the likes of Wasps,Saracens and London Irish because they put in the time building the infrastructure.

London Welsh if promoted would just fit into the same bracket as Wasps,Saracens and London Irish which don't have good models. Do we really need another club like that?

Saracens at least are getting a new stadium.

London Welsh moving to Oxford would be mad in my opinion.

http://www.copthall-application.co.uk/Barnet%20Copthall/Appendix%20E%20-%20PGB%20Criteriax.pdf

Seems like the RFU, PRL and the PGB are intent on creating an indirect closed shop, with a number of rulings which are so precise that a specific stadium will have to be constructed to gain promotion.

What bothers me is that the clubs who are already in the Premiership don't have to meet these standards - smacks of, dare I say it, corrupt leadership.

You should all read this quite fantastic ditty about the RFU, it's very clever and even funnier!!

http://madincroydon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/rfu-london-welsh-eurovision-entry.html?m=1

HongKongCherry wrote:You should all read this quite fantastic ditty about the RFU, it's very clever and even funnier!!

http://madincroydon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/rfu-london-welsh-eurovision-entry.html?m=1

from your link HKC:

Following the dodgy dealings by the RFU

no mention nor reference is made to the pre-agreed regulations and satisfying requirements.

Portnoy wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:You should all read this quite fantastic ditty about the RFU, it's very clever and even funnier!!

http://madincroydon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/rfu-london-welsh-eurovision-entry.html?m=1

from your link HKC:

Following the dodgy dealings by the RFU

no mention nor reference is made to the pre-agreed regulations and satisfying requirements.

You are a miserable so and so aren't you Portnoy! You often find retirees throw themselves into a hobby, yours is clearly moaning!

Here's something to bore this thread to death:

If you want to change or modify the electrical circuits in your kitchen or bathroom, they have to be protected by an RCD, if you fail to ensure this is the case they will not meet current IEE Regulations and will be deemed unsafe and unusable.

If your current electrical circuits in your kitchen or bathroom are not protected by an RCD, and have not been modified since January 2003 - they're perfectly safe.

I don't see that LW can achieve anything other than making a noise on this point, there aren't many new Laws brought onto the statute books that are retrospective, in fact I can't think of any...

Well no matter what the outcome...either way...its not totally fair on us either.

Are we up or are we down...for feic's sake.....hardly good for preparation is it.

Whilst we are signing players regardless...there may be players who are looking to leave if we go down...but would stay if we stay up...players like Shiels who despite signing a new contract is attracting teams like Edinburgh etc.

I hope LW arent just doing this to be annoying...they knew the rules prior to the season kicking off....

And on a personal and very sour grape opinion....the Falcons offer more to England than LW potentially will...so they should keep us up...

Ye's up Geordie, I promise. I'm not sure it's fair on anyone, but it is how it is and you'll be in the AP next season.

There isn't a court in the land that will rule on something like this retrospectively.

Why on earth allow teams to be eligible for promotion if you know full well they don't meet the criteria.
Teams need help in situations like this putting obstacle's in their way is not the way forward.
What new rule will they come up with to stop other sides in the future from gaining promotion.

They're not eligible for promotion unless they meet the criteria though Cymro, that's the point. The criteria are there, have been for some time now and are blatantly obvious for any team seeking promotion from the Championship.

Out of the four teams contesting the play-off, only Bristol ticked all the boxes but they lost out in the semi to the Pirates, who didn't even apply for promotion, should Pirates have thrown the game to make sure someone from the Championship got promoted?

The criteria that some sides in the premiership don't have to meet.
This is the point though that the criteria has been there for a while yet the likes of Wasps are still allowed to ground share.

If Wasps or some other side who ground share get relegated this season does that mean they will not stand a chance of promotion again .

Yes, as I understand it the criteria only apply to teams seeking promotion to the AP, they are not criteria that are applied to those already in it. Which explains Sale's abity to ground swap az they please.

It isnt entirely fair Cymro, but as my ma used to say "neither is the hair on yer fathers head."

PJ thats the point I was trying to make that it is not entirely fair and that could be a reason why LW will have a chance of winning this case if it goes to court.
The court could view it as unfair competition or whatever the legal term is for these kind of things.

I can't see a court ruling against the AP though Cymro, because whilst it may be unfair in terms of comparing the situation of those already in the AP against those seeking to gain admission, the fact is that ALL teams seeking admission have to meet the same criteria.

If you look at the principal using an alternative set of circumstances, it would be like changing a speed limit from 60mph to 50mph and then going back and issuing fines to anyone doing more than 50mph before the limit was dropped...

It's a shame, but I can't see how LW can do anything about it.

In the meantime however, what preparations can the Falcons make?

LW knew the regulations and didn't prepare for the event of promotion. And now intend to contest the rules in court. How long will that take?

Best thing LW can do is plan for next year, they now know they are good enough to win the league, so can ensure that they have everybox ticked for next year.

Failing that they just want the money (tv rights, share of RFU money to clubs and the payments when they get relagated) rather than care about playing in the AP or they would have made sure they were eligible

one more note, the Pirates knew they did not have the right inferstructure in place or the other requirements, so did not apply, even when they made it to the final.

LW on the other hand find themselves in a final and then thow togther a quick application in the shortest notice possible to try and get in.

One is doing it the correct way (ala Exeter) and one is trying to do a smash and grab for the one season and take as much money as they can with them

Agree with that knackeredknees. Exeter had to jump through the hoops, so should others.

Exeter put in the hard graft to meet the tough AP standards - they are reaping the benefits.

It's a bit harsh on London Welsh but they need to improve their infrastructure.

and one is trying to do a smash and grab for the one season and take as much money as they can with them.

Whilst that is an uncharitible view, the activities and noises eminating from LW does really make you wonder what the hell they were thinking.

An other view is that they are just looking to make a bit mischieve with the English administration, have a go at the PRL, poke the RFU a bit etc, after all the Legal Eagle that's making all the noises is on the board for the Scarlets, so he just might be acting as a fith columnist.


I do hope that the cash grab and RFU baiting are not really on the agenda of the LW's management, because the main losers in all this will be the not the stuffed shirts, Blazers and Old Farts on either side but fans and players.

What was the deal with RFU money going to Exeter when they got promoted?

I cannot make head nor tail of it.

http://www.rugbyspectator.com/2011/05/championship-promotion-aviva-premiership-relegation-flawed-system/

And how much would it cost to bring incumbent clubs up to scratch?
Which clubs don't? (Not Sale any more after this stinger from Exeter chief executive, Tony Rowe

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/apr/21/the-breakdown-rfu-championship

For me the Primacy issue isn't so great so long as the games get played over the weekend. And a graduated ground capacities should be considered.

I agree Portnoy - The Primacy of Tenancy issue doesn't seem that big a deal - especially as other clubs already in the AV manage to deal with not having Primacy.

But that's what annoys me as this is the problem they've stated was why they refused LW.

If they'd been clear and stated other reasons then it would have been fine. As people say LW don't seem to have gone down the Exeter/Pirates route of building slowly and ensuring they could stay in the AV.

But at the same time, we don't know LW's business plan and maybe they could go straight up and stay up - in Oxfords ground.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:I agree Portnoy - The Primacy of Tenancy issue doesn't seem that big a deal - especially as other clubs already in the AV manage to deal with not having Primacy.

But that's what annoys me as this is the problem they've stated was why they refused LW.

If they'd been clear and stated other reasons then it would have been fine. As people say LW don't seem to have gone down the Exeter/Pirates route of building slowly and ensuring they could stay in the AV.

But at the same time, we don't know LW's business plan and maybe they could go straight up and stay up - in Oxfords ground.

Seems to me though, smirnoff, that LW just didn't prepare themselves an are now just winging it.

Seems to me that all 3 parties are just winging it

Seems to me that all 3 parties are just winging it.

Sorry Smirnoffpriest, but the rules have been in place for awhile now, LW's late submission has possibly made a few people have to rush a few things along, but the only party that seems to be in headless chicken mode is LW.

The only output Ihave seen from the RFU/PRL is that LW failed the audit on several points - primacy of tenure being one of them, and since then all of the noise has come from LW's camp, if anybody knows of any other release on behalf of the authorities, please let me know, but it seems they are maintaining a dignified silence.