RugbyRebels

Raggs wrote:Academy players aren't included in the cap. We're talking about homegrown players who came through the academy.

Not including them in the cap just leaves a massive excess of funds available to those with more numbers. Teams could start to get more aggressive in targeting academy players to achieve the double whammy effect of simultaenously strengthening their team, whilst weakening an opponent (and also forcing them to spread their cap more thinly).

You're (somewhat weirdly) assuming that the cap stays where it is apart from taking out all academy graduates (and yes I know we, as in I, since I'm the person who brought up the topic, are talking about players who came through the academy but I used "academy players" in an entirely comprehensible abbreviation). There's no reason to do that and I wouldn't expect them to.

As for clubs having an incentive to poach academy players, well yes they would. Just as they do now. Just as they have an incentive to poach any player. It's still much harder to identify the real deal from an academy than it is up the tree and you know what, if you don't want your academy prospects to be pinched then keep them under contract. If despite having them under your wing and the ability to have them outside the cap you haven't managed to encourage them to stay then perhaps you don't really deserve to have them.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Raggs wrote:Academy players aren't included in the cap. We're talking about homegrown players who came through the academy.

Not including them in the cap just leaves a massive excess of funds available to those with more numbers. Teams could start to get more aggressive in targeting academy players to achieve the double whammy effect of simultaenously strengthening their team, whilst weakening an opponent (and also forcing them to spread their cap more thinly).

You're (somewhat weirdly) assuming that the cap stays where it is apart from taking out all academy graduates (and yes I know we, as in I, since I'm the person who brought up the topic, are talking about players who came through the academy but I used "academy players" in an entirely comprehensible abbreviation). There's no reason to do that and I wouldn't expect them to.

As for clubs having an incentive to poach academy players, well yes they would. Just as they do now. Just as they have an incentive to poach any player. It's still much harder to identify the real deal from an academy than it is up the tree and you know what, if you don't want your academy prospects to be pinched then keep them under contract. If despite having them under your wing and the ability to have them outside the cap you haven't managed to encourage them to stay then perhaps you don't really deserve to have them.

Perhaps it's comprehensible to others.

What do you mean by academy players?

A) 18-20ish year old players, registered in the academy of the club and not the 1st XV?
B) Any player who has come through the clubs academy?

If A, then as I answered, they're already outside the cap.

If B, then it's as I clarified, if you remove them from the cap, there's more cap left to spend on poaching others. If you now want to say the cap doesn't stay where it is once you remove them, then they aren't removed from the cap.

Raggs wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Raggs wrote:Academy players aren't included in the cap. We're talking about homegrown players who came through the academy.

Not including them in the cap just leaves a massive excess of funds available to those with more numbers. Teams could start to get more aggressive in targeting academy players to achieve the double whammy effect of simultaenously strengthening their team, whilst weakening an opponent (and also forcing them to spread their cap more thinly).

You're (somewhat weirdly) assuming that the cap stays where it is apart from taking out all academy graduates (and yes I know we, as in I, since I'm the person who brought up the topic, are talking about players who came through the academy but I used "academy players" in an entirely comprehensible abbreviation). There's no reason to do that and I wouldn't expect them to.

As for clubs having an incentive to poach academy players, well yes they would. Just as they do now. Just as they have an incentive to poach any player. It's still much harder to identify the real deal from an academy than it is up the tree and you know what, if you don't want your academy prospects to be pinched then keep them under contract. If despite having them under your wing and the ability to have them outside the cap you haven't managed to encourage them to stay then perhaps you don't really deserve to have them.

Perhaps it's comprehensible to others.

What do you mean by academy players?

A) 18-20ish year old players, registered in the academy of the club and not the 1st XV?
B) Any player who has come through the clubs academy?

If A, then as I answered, they're already outside the cap.

If B, then it's as I clarified, if you remove them from the cap, there's more cap left to spend on poaching others. If you now want to say the cap doesn't stay where it is once you remove them, then they aren't removed from the cap.

Indeed it was comprehensible to you since you answered on the basis of the obvious meaning until just now.

Edward Griffiths has perhaps overstepped his authority in saying Sarries did anything wrong

Digby wrote:Edward Griffiths has perhaps overstepped his authority in saying Sarries did anything wrong

Now, they are saying that a very short stint was always the plan????

And definitely nothing to do with him acting as am unlicensed agent.

Prem Rugby confirm Sarries hit with a further 70pts fine. I assume that’s 35pts per season over the cap.

Mellsblue wrote:Prem Rugby confirm Sarries hit with a further 70pts fine. I assume that’s 35pts per season over the cap.

No, it’s a new rule they’ve literally just invented.

Not even joking.

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:Edward Griffiths has perhaps overstepped his authority in saying Sarries did anything wrong

Now, they are saying that a very short stint was always the plan????

Yes, but 12 months, not 25 days

Timbo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Prem Rugby confirm Sarries hit with a further 70pts fine. I assume that’s 35pts per season over the cap.

No, it’s a new rule they’ve literally just invented.

Not even joking.

Ffs

Timbo wrote: No, it’s a new rule they’ve literally just invented.

Not even joking.

No it's not. The original punishment was to be -70 points, 35 points per season over, this got reduced. So PRL have decided to apply the 35 they got let off last time and hand out the -35 for this season breaches as well.

I agree the approach is wrong though as it' unfair on the sides that played Sarries while they had a chance to catching 11th. I think they now need to void all the Sarries games, this would drop Exeter to 2nd (they got 4 pts from Sarries) with Saints going top, positions 3/4/5 are unaffected, Quins (5pts v sarries) drop from 6th to 9th, with Bath, Worcster and Wasps going up place each, L.Irish (1pt vs Sarries) stay where they are but see Leicester move 1 pt closer.

jimKRFC wrote:

Timbo wrote: No, it’s a new rule they’ve literally just invented.

Not even joking.

No it's not. The original punishment was to be -70 points, 35 points per season over, this got reduced. So PRL have decided to apply the 35 they got let off last time and hand out the -35 for this season breaches as well.

I agree the approach is wrong though as it' unfair on the sides that played Sarries while they had a chance to catching 11th. I think they now need to void all the Sarries games, this would drop Exeter to 2nd (they got 4 pts from Sarries) with Saints going top, positions 3/4/5 are unaffected, Quins (5pts v sarries) drop from 6th to 9th, with Bath, Worcster and Waps going up place each, L.Irish (1pt vs Sarries) stay where they are but see Leicester move 1 pt closer.

Ordinarily, I'd be in favour, but we've been so shite this season that we don't deserve any freebies.

Puja

jimKRFC wrote:

Timbo wrote: No, it’s a new rule they’ve literally just invented.

Not even joking.

No it's not. The original punishment was to be -70 points, 35 points per season over, this got reduced. So PRL have decided to apply the 35 they got let off last time and hand out the -35 for this season breaches as well.

I agree the approach is wrong though as it' unfair on the sides that played Sarries while they had a chance to catching 11th. I think they now need to void all the Sarries games, this would drop Exeter to 2nd (they got 4 pts from Sarries) with Saints going top, positions 3/4/5 are unaffected, Quins (5pts v sarries) drop from 6th to 9th, with Bath, Worcster and Wasps going up place each, L.Irish (1pt vs Sarries) stay where they are but see Leicester move 1 pt closer.

New rule.
If you refuse a mid-season audit, automatic -70.
https://lastwordonrugby.com/2020/01/28/ ... s-updated/

Puja wrote:

jimKRFC wrote:

Timbo wrote: No, it’s a new rule they’ve literally just invented.

Not even joking.

No it's not. The original punishment was to be -70 points, 35 points per season over, this got reduced. So PRL have decided to apply the 35 they got let off last time and hand out the -35 for this season breaches as well.

I agree the approach is wrong though as it' unfair on the sides that played Sarries while they had a chance to catching 11th. I think they now need to void all the Sarries games, this would drop Exeter to 2nd (they got 4 pts from Sarries) with Saints going top, positions 3/4/5 are unaffected, Quins (5pts v sarries) drop from 6th to 9th, with Bath, Worcster and Waps going up place each, L.Irish (1pt vs Sarries) stay where they are but see Leicester move 1 pt closer.

Ordinarily, I'd be in favour, but we've been so shite this season that we don't deserve any freebies.

Puja

Why single out this season? When was the last time you weren't utter shite? And what will you do next season with no Sarries to cover?

jimKRFC wrote:

Timbo wrote: No, it’s a new rule they’ve literally just invented.

Not even joking.

No it's not. The original punishment was to be -70 points, 35 points per season over, this got reduced. So PRL have decided to apply the 35 they got let off last time and hand out the -35 for this season breaches as well.

Nope, it’s a new rule. They’ve amended one of the regulations and added in a brand new one. As you do.

Timbo wrote: Nope, it’s a new rule. They’ve amended one of the regulations and added in a brand new one. As you do.

You're right, I hadn't seen that so I take it back.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

jimKRFC wrote:
No it's not. The original punishment was to be -70 points, 35 points per season over, this got reduced. So PRL have decided to apply the 35 they got let off last time and hand out the -35 for this season breaches as well.

I agree the approach is wrong though as it' unfair on the sides that played Sarries while they had a chance to catching 11th. I think they now need to void all the Sarries games, this would drop Exeter to 2nd (they got 4 pts from Sarries) with Saints going top, positions 3/4/5 are unaffected, Quins (5pts v sarries) drop from 6th to 9th, with Bath, Worcster and Waps going up place each, L.Irish (1pt vs Sarries) stay where they are but see Leicester move 1 pt closer.

Ordinarily, I'd be in favour, but we've been so shite this season that we don't deserve any freebies.

Puja

Why single out this season? When was the last time you weren't utter shite? And what will you do next season with no Sarries to cover?

To be fair, we've only been utter shite this season and last season - previous to that we were still top half of the table. The total turdiness came with the worldwide search for a world-class coach that turned up Matt O f*cking Connor, followed by our inspired decision to give him the whole preseason and then sack him after the first game, before compounding the issue by promoting Murphy, a man who is a club legend, but who has repeatedly sucked at every coaching role that he has been given.

I'm quasi-confident about the future - restarting serious investment in our academy has led to a fearsome crop of youngsters coming through and the likes of George Martin and Freddie Steward should be old enough for first team rugby next season. Plus, Murphy getting promoted away from coaching is a definite plus, and Borthwick is a much better get than I expected from us. Our squad may not be title-winning quality, but it's not bottom-half based on the individual players and I'm hoping that a decent coach might be enough to put us on an upward path until our youngsters start dominating.

Puja

Puja wrote:To be fair, we've only been utter shite this season and last season - previous to that we were still top half of the table. The total turdiness came with the worldwide search for a world-class coach that turned up Matt O f*cking Connor, followed by our inspired decision to give him the whole preseason and then sack him after the first game, before compounding the issue by promoting Murphy, a man who is a club legend, but who has repeatedly sucked at every coaching role that he has been given.

I'm quasi-confident about the future - restarting serious investment in our academy has led to a fearsome crop of youngsters coming through and the likes of George Martin and Freddie Steward should be old enough for first team rugby next season. Plus, Murphy getting promoted away from coaching is a definite plus, and Borthwick is a much better get than I expected from us. Our squad may not be title-winning quality, but it's not bottom-half based on the individual players and I'm hoping that a decent coach might be enough to put us on an upward path until our youngsters start dominating.

Puja

How long has your academy been doing well for? u18s are clearly doing well. Watching the rugbypass thing seems to have them place a lot of emphasis on winning, whereas from interviews at Wasps, the major emphasis was development, and the hope that results went well.

Raggs wrote:

Puja wrote:To be fair, we've only been utter shite this season and last season - previous to that we were still top half of the table. The total turdiness came with the worldwide search for a world-class coach that turned up Matt O f*cking Connor, followed by our inspired decision to give him the whole preseason and then sack him after the first game, before compounding the issue by promoting Murphy, a man who is a club legend, but who has repeatedly sucked at every coaching role that he has been given.

I'm quasi-confident about the future - restarting serious investment in our academy has led to a fearsome crop of youngsters coming through and the likes of George Martin and Freddie Steward should be old enough for first team rugby next season. Plus, Murphy getting promoted away from coaching is a definite plus, and Borthwick is a much better get than I expected from us. Our squad may not be title-winning quality, but it's not bottom-half based on the individual players and I'm hoping that a decent coach might be enough to put us on an upward path until our youngsters start dominating.

Puja

How long has your academy been doing well for? u18s are clearly doing well. Watching the rugbypass thing seems to have them place a lot of emphasis on winning, whereas from interviews at Wasps, the major emphasis was development, and the hope that results went well.

I don't mind an emphasis on winning at U18s as long as it's not to the exclusion of everything else - getting an attitude of swagger and success is no bad thing for an academy and gods knows Leicester could do with a coming group of players who are used to winning

In terms of results, it's started producing squad players for the first team already (Olowofela, Reffell, White, Hardwick, etc), but it's the generation coming after that I'm really interested in (Martin, Steward, van Poortvliet, Ilione, etc). The proof of the pudding will be when/whether they do step up into adult rugby, but I am hopeful.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:Prem Rugby confirm Sarries hit with a further 70pts fine. I assume that’s 35pts per season over the cap.

70 eh? They should have at least made it funny and gone for a million or something like that?

Timbo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Prem Rugby confirm Sarries hit with a further 70pts fine. I assume that’s 35pts per season over the cap.

No, it’s a new rule they’ve literally just invented.

Not even joking.

It is a joke tbh. Sarries don't deserve sympathy, but PRL are making it up as they go along.

jimKRFC wrote:

Timbo wrote: No, it’s a new rule they’ve literally just invented.

Not even joking.

No it's not. The original punishment was to be -70 points, 35 points per season over, this got reduced. So PRL have decided to apply the 35 they got let off last time and hand out the -35 for this season breaches as well.

I agree the approach is wrong though as it' unfair on the sides that played Sarries while they had a chance to catching 11th. I think they now need to void all the Sarries games, this would drop Exeter to 2nd (they got 4 pts from Sarries) with Saints going top, positions 3/4/5 are unaffected, Quins (5pts v sarries) drop from 6th to 9th, with Bath, Worcster and Wasps going up place each, L.Irish (1pt vs Sarries) stay where they are but see Leicester move 1 pt closer.

....what happens to the upcoming games with Sarries? I thought you didn't care how they were relegated

TheNomad wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Prem Rugby confirm Sarries hit with a further 70pts fine. I assume that’s 35pts per season over the cap.

70 eh? They should have at least made it funny and gone for a million or something like that?

Ha! Yep.

Listening to House of Rugby on the morning commute. Tom May saying how Wray invested in a company with him whilst he was at Newcastle. No benefit to Wray’s club, just helping out a rugby player and the rugby community - the business was a consultancy to help community clubs become financially viable and grow.

The excellent Rugby & the Law twitter feed has a view on the PRL announcement.