RugbyRebels

So, Pro Rugby have sent a message to all of their players announcing that they're activating a notice period in their contracts, as they don't believe USA Rugby are backing them sufficiently.

http://theprovince.com/sports/rugby/not ... eague-wide

What the hell is going on? This is brinksmanship and unprofessionalism of the very highest order and, even if this is resolved, I can't see many players wanting to sign up to a league that would treat its players like this. On the flip side, unless Schoninger is being utterly unreasonable without any justification, how on earth have USAR allowed the situation to get here? They have an angel investor who is literally paying for a pro league out of his own pocket and they've managed to screw it up!?

Pro Rugby are insisting that they aren't dead yet and more info is coming soon. Hopefully the situation can be recovered, but the whole thing is looking like a shambles currently and god knows what a casual fan thinks of it.

Puja

Seems to have been a bit of a damp squib, to be honest. What have attendances and TV ratings been like? Are they getting much sponsorship for it? The Canadians have decided not to join for the moment, and we haven't seen any improvement in the standard of the national team - although it's probably going to take a few more years for the effects of pro rugby to kick in. Humble beginnings, yes, but I'd hoped for a little more from the nation which has pro sports down to an art form.

USAR refused to back the league from the start. So, if it folds based on them not agreeing to help I can't see why the blaim lands at their feet.

The chap behind the league is pretty dodgy from what I've read. Speak to the ECB about getting your fingers burnt when hopping into bed with a dodgy rich man.

rowan wrote:Seems to have been a bit of a damp squib, to be honest. What have attendances and TV ratings been like? Are they getting much sponsorship for it? The Canadians have decided not to join for the moment, and we haven't seen any improvement in the standard of the national team - although it's probably going to take a few more years for the effects of pro rugby to kick in. Humble beginnings, yes, but I'd hoped for a little more from the nation which has pro sports down to an art form.

Attendances were averaging around 2k, which is pretty good for the initial year of a new competition. I was hopeful that it was a base to build on, but this shenanigans is going to drive people away.

Mellsblue wrote:USAR refused to back the league from the start. So, if it folds based on them not agreeing to help I can't see why the blaim lands at their feet.

The chap behind the league is pretty dodgy from what I've read. Speak to the ECB about getting your fingers burnt when hopping into bed with a dodgy rich man.

AFAIK, USAR did back the league. They sanctioned it and had a contract for exclusivity for 3 years with the guy and everyone seemed to be going home happy. No idea what's changed.

The guy does seem dodgy as hell though. Their social media accounts are insisting that the league isn't dead and will come back to life in time for the new season, which makes cancelling all the contracts shortly before Christmas a nasty piece of brinksmanship.

Such a shame, cause the league really did seem to be starting to build something across the first season.

Puja

Ah, ok. I thought the USAR were refusing to sanction it but I've not read too much about it. Regardless, it's a shame. 99% of the Champ dream of 2k attendances.

Mellsblue wrote:Ah, ok. I thought the USAR were refusing to sanction it but I've not read too much about it. Regardless, it's a shame. 99% of the Champ dream of 2k attendances.

There was another one a couple of years back with an even dodgier guy which didn't even get off the ground because USAR didn't sanction it (in which they refused to even apply for sanction, IIRC). Maybe that's the one you were thinking of?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Ah, ok. I thought the USAR were refusing to sanction it but I've not read too much about it. Regardless, it's a shame. 99% of the Champ dream of 2k attendances.

There was another one a couple of years back with an even dodgier guy which didn't even get off the ground because USAR didn't sanction it (in which they refused to even apply for sanction, IIRC). Maybe that's the one you were thinking of?

Puja

That sounds familiar. As you were.

Attendances were averaging around 2k, which is pretty good for the initial year of a new competition. I was hopeful that it was a base to build on, but this shenanigans is going to drive people away.

Thanks.

Interesting take on the Eagles here:

This column isn't to say that the USA Men's 15s team is screwed, because they're not, but this column is here today to tell you that they aren't getting any favors.

As noted in our piece on the Eagles roster for the ARC, less than half of the team is slated to be available for the entire run of five games - Eagles Names for ARC - <50% to Play All 5. That's an issue that has been true not only of the young ARC (this is only the second year of the ARC being a full-test competition), but in fall test trips, as well. In fact, while it was for years a characteristic of Eagles rugby that overseas pros didn't take any shenanigans from their clubs; clubs were told by players that when their country called, those players would go, no matter what.

But that has changed. Since former USA Rugby CEO Nigel Melville started a trade plan, it seems that the overseas pro clubs have held the upper hand.

Let's look at the numbers.

In 2016, the Eagles uses 59 players in eight test matches. That's a lot. From 2015-2016 the Eagles used 77 players in 18 tests. Compare that to New Zealand, which in 2016 played 13 tests and used only 41 players.

Compare it to like countries:

Player Use Comparison 2016
Team Additional Players Per Game % players playing 3/4 of Games
USA 5.14 8.4%
Canada 2.89 16.3%
Japan 4.90 2.8%
Georgia 2.10 27.3%
Romania 3.10 18.5%
Tonga 3.60 17.1%
Samoa 5.20 16.3%
Russia 2.60 19.6%
Fiji 4.40 20.0%
Additional players per game is figured out this way - we assume that a team picks 23 for each game, and each player gets to play. So the first game the team should cap 23 players. After that, we divide the number of players over and above 23 by the number of remaining games. So the USA played 8 games in 2016 and used 59 players. So 59 minus 23 is 36, and we divide 36 by 7 (the games left over after the first one), and we get 5.14.

The other column is pretty straightforward - it's the percentage of capped players who played at least 75% of a team's test matches.

As tracked these numbers covering 2015 and 2016, as well, they change a little - the player turnover goes down but so does the 75% number - but they change for everyone, so the comparison remains. The USA has the second-worst turnover and the second-worst record of repeat players. Only Japan is worse on the number of players playing 75% of their games or more. That's actually a big surprise to us - we'd have figured that with a pro league in Japan they wouldn't have those issues. Samoa's player turnover isn't much of a surprise, because Samoa runs into the same issues as the USA in getting players free from pro clubs.

But overall, it's pretty clear that the USA has a big player continuity problem. Add to that some play-specific information.

Test matches in 2016
Samu Manoa - 1
AJ MacGinty - 2
Blaine Scully - 4
Cam Dolan - 3
Thretton Palamo - 4
Titi Lamositele - 4
Taku Ngwenya - 1

Not one of these major, well-known pros played a full slate of games. Obviously injury can play a part, and certainly it did for Manoa, but still, what the Eagles are doing is playing without some of their best players, while those players are in their prime.

Why? Because in 2014 Nigel Melville worked a deal whereby overseas pros were made available to the Eagles for the November 1 game against the All Blacks, but in return those players (for the most part) were not available for the rest of the fall. But there was no additional tradeoff from the pro clubs. During the February-March window, pro clubs are not making their players available, and those players are still spotty during November and June isn't a sure thing, either.

The tradeoff failed, because it didn't make the overseas pros available more often, or even as often as before. Pro clubs like Americans on their teams in part because those players work enormously hard, but also in part because they will be able to play during the Six Nations and November tours. USA Rugby, which was supposed to have an internationally savvy leadership group that could get pro clubs and various unions to play ball, instead sold out. And worse yet, they sold out while putting the players in the middle.

Including that All Blacks game in 2014, the USA has played 22 test matches since November 1, 2014, winning 7 and losing 15. During that time, they have used 84 players, with no player playing more than two-thirds of the games (Eric Fry leads with 15 out of 22). Some of this is because coaches were changing the lineups to figure out who should play where, and part of this is, of course, because of injury, but a lot has to do with this lousy trade deal.

From January 1, 2012 through October 31, 2014, the Eagles played 20 test matches (almost the same as the 22 since that period). The Eagles used 55 players - 35% less than 2014 through 2016. One player (Eric Fry again) played in every game. Eight players played more than 85% of the games. Were they better? Well their record was 7-12-1, which is about 20% better. But more to the point, it is what we are supposed to see, especially from a program that doesn't have that much depth. We want to see a team formed, not just a group of individuals, and we want to see the coach have a chance to put something special together.

The best USA team I ever saw was in 2003. That team went 7-6, and was unlucky not to be 8-5 (they lost to Fiji 19-18). That team used 39 players, or 1.4 extra per game. Fully 12 of the players participated in at least 75% of the games. The numbers tell the story, and today they don't tell a story of unity.

http://www.goffrugbyreport.com/news/col ... nover-woes

As of now, Pro Rugby looks officially dead. They're still occasionally posting video highlights from last season on Facebook and actually had the front to put up a post celebrating "15 Pro Rugby players in the Americas Rugby Championship". When I posted a comment politely enquiring if they were still Pro Rugby players, as the 30 day notice period served in December had expired without any further announcements, it wasn't just ignored, but actively deleted from their page.

Damned shame, as it looked to be the start of a success and its failure has left everyone poorer, not least the US rugby scene.

Puja

A damp squib, for sure. Probably one of the biggest disappointments in rugby since they tried to revive the PNC. I don't have any real insight as far as North American rugby is concerned, but it seems awfully insular and conservative at administration level. The Canadians not only helped wreck this project by refusing to take part, they are making a mockery of the Americas Rugby Championship with the road-side parks they are playing their home games on. Are they really not able to get a little more funding through sponsorship and so on in the US and Canada, where so much money is being pumped into mainstream sports?

This column explains a few things (NB: Notice former Puma & Wallaby prop Topo Rodriguez's comments in the reply section (that;s the best part): https://blog.ridnell.com/2017/01/05/whe ... rnational/

Good link Rowan; thanks!

PRO Rugby are still flailing around in Facebook, furiously claiming that they're not defunct. The latest is a link to an artivle about putative Pro 12 expansion, which appears to have progressed - they wanted to know "what our supporters think [about] more pie-in-the-sky and another feeble attempt to attack PRO."

The internet has not so far been sympathetic. The thread can be found here:



Puja

I was chatting with my Canadian pal recently. He's actually tied up with the sport's administration in that country, though not on the national committee itself. Anyway, he says the admin there has gotten so bad everybody he knew was actually hoping they would lose to the US at the weekend. It's a pretty sad state of affairs when people start cheering for the other team. The only other example that springs to mind was the majority of South Africans during the Apartheid years...

Another story you might be interested in: http://www.thisisamericanrugby.com/2017 ... ed-to.html

Canada, incidentally, have just hit an all-time low in the rankings of 20th, behind Russia & Namibia !!

I got to a point under Capello, I think, where I was cheering on the oppo. I've now just stopped bothering to watch them. I did pretend to watch the Euro's last summer as my eldest is getting to an age at which he's taking interest. The two matches were the watching paint dry snooze fest that was the draw against Russia and the debacle against Iceland. Needless to say I wasn't inspired to start watching them again.

The Times report that the PRO 12 think that the N American franchises are pretty much a goer for the 2018/19 season. Toronto and New York are the favourites to host. They also stated that the CEO (or whatever his title is) of the Pro 12 was over in the States earlier this year scouting out potential US hosts. To me, that doesn't really tally with being ready to go in 18 months but what do I know.

I will admit to having cheered on the oppo during the worst of Cockers before he was fired. And to watching Argentina beat us at the end of Robinson's tenure with a grim cheerfulness and pleasure at seeing an underdog give us what we so richly deserved.

Other reports are saying Toronto and Houston for the Pro 12. Seems a little bit odd to go for Houston when there are two professional outfits in Austin that I'm sure would be interested in accession to the Pro 12, but okay.

Puja

Former Springbok great Naas Botha played for a club in Dallas at one time, I believe. My memory might be playing tricks, but I seem to recall he even had a (failed) try-out as kicker-punter for the Cowboys in the 80s. I also had a good friend playing for San Antonio back in the amateur era, and they were one of the best clubs at the time. Wonder if they're still any good.

Good find Rowan. Bloody shame that the whole thing has fallen apart really. While I suspect Mr Schoninger's account and timeline does miss out a couple of things that would paint him in a less favourable light, it does seem fairly certain that he is the aggrieved party in the matter and that USAR are a bunch of useless bellends. They had an angel investor out of nowhere, willing to put in a significant chunk of money, willing to take on all the risk, willing to put in all of the work - why the hell wouldn't you move heaven and earth to make that happen?! Yes, he wanted exclusive sanctioning for a significant period, but considering that it was his money setting it up and, as he said in the video, he was going to make a loss the first few years and wanted to make a profit from the project as a whole, I don't think that was a particularly unfair request.

I just hope MLR makes a go of it, cause otherwise USAR have pissed away a golden opportunity.

Puja

The impression I get with American rugby is too many chiefs and not enough Indians. The people involved in running the game on that continent are completely and utterly arrogant. I've got some personal insight in that department, and really you could not wish to come across a more self-important group of individuals in sports. They think they know it all, for a start. Everyone has his vision of how North American rugby should progress and is both contemptuous and dismissive of everyone else. There is no semblance of teamwork, just a lot of gnashing the teeth at anyone who comes along with an idea or two. Rednecksville, basically. Hate to say it, but that's the variety of athlete the game appears to attract state-side.

The sequel . . .

Feisty interview! I almost thought they were going to come to blows a couple of times there. To be honest, it sounds like the Pro Rugby organizers have just messed up really, really badly. You'd think the United States, of all countries, would have a bit more nous when it comes to setting up a professional sports league. Interesting comments from Schoninger that San Francisco is not a good market for new sports, with the World 7s Cup to be held there in 2018 . . .

How about this:

I write this with a heavy heart. It’s been a long time since I contributed an opinion piece for Americas Rugby News. I certainly wished that I had taken Paul up on writing a piece about the storied career of Todd Clever as he retired from International duty. Instead I have chose to attempt to address the volcano that is nearing eruption with USA Rugby dead in it’s path.

Let’s be very honest. Anyone who has poured their heart into the sport of rugby in America knows that something is wrong. Perhaps, people that just show up on Saturday to play and drink beers think that all is wonderful. Sometimes I wish that I was one of those people. Because the cold, hard truth is that not only is something wrong with USA Rugby, but it has been going on for a long time. The keyboard warriors have been typing away on various platforms voicing their displeasure, for one reason or another, for years. They were always met by a USA Rugby apologist saying things weren’t really that bad or that their concerns were valid. I know that there were times, while I was still writing frequently, that I often hopped back and forth over that fence of being critical of our union and giving them a pat on the back. It wasn’t all bad? Was it?

We, as a rugby community, have had our heads in the sand and the really sad part about it all is that it has taken some very serious missteps for people to start to take notice. Our union is massively in debt, about to face litigation over the PRO mess, and facing unprecedented unrest from their constituents. The fallout over PRO Rugby is embarrassing as the contract that was pushed through our leaders is questionable to even the untrained eye. I have seen it and I was shocked by the number of red flags in it. Even then, the rugby community is so forgiving and filled with hope that when the Strategy 2020 documents came out we were ready to “turn the corner” and move onto brighter horizons. Back when I first started writing about rugby over ten years ago, I feel like I used that same phrase a lot. I mean A LOT. USA Rugby seemed to always be “turning a corner”. Funny part is that if you turn enough corners, eventually you end up back where you began. Which is exactly where we are after the last ten or so years.

Before I go further, I want to state that I do believe in our CEO Dan Payne. He has been thrown into a mess that has been 10 years in the making and left with little power to correct it. He is passionate and has shown the desire to make changes in USA Rugby. The problem is that the entity may be broken to the point that no amount of passion can get past some of the obstacles that are in his way.

There is no questioning the fact that USA Rugby is at a crossroads. We are facing a seminal moment in our history. The question is will the members of USA Rugby take back the union or will we put our heads back into the sand? There are people out there leading this charge that deserve mention. Former Eagle Tony Ridnell has been extremely vocal in his concerns about many aspects of how USA Rugby is being run. It has rattled some cages and that is a good thing. To take it another step he has also raised his hand and stepped up to the plate to help make change. I support his efforts 100% and it is time that we had more people involved at USA Rugby that understand that the members aren’t there just to generate revenue for the union. We are stakeholders in USA Rugby, so every misstep and mistake made by our leaders needs to be held accountable. Tony is on a mission to fix the issues with USA Rugby. A rudder for a ship that lacks direction. Whether they give him the chance is the question. Their choice may decide whether we avoid going down a much darker path.

Speaking of…

Recently, Michael Fealey filed a formal grievance against USA Rugby. The grievance is reportedly being revised, but its claims against USA Rugby are staggering and cover a span of multiple years. The grievance includes claims of gross negligence, self dealing, misconduct, and a myriad of other issues. All questions that others have brought up over the years only to be called conspiracy theories by apologists. If proven, the grievance could destroy USA Rugby as we know it.

There are days that I wonder if that isn’t the best solution. Burn it down to the ground. Start over with a clean slate. Return the union to it’s members where it belongs. Then perhaps, we’ll change the name of our national teams to the Phoenix as a new USA Rugby rises from the ashes. Then, of course, there is the part of me that wants to see the changes made to USA Rugby before we reach this point. Either way, the time for change is now. Not in another 5-10 years when we can hand these problems off to another generation. Let’s bite the bullet and fix it now for the sake of future generations.

Now it’s your turn members of USA Rugby. Educate yourselves on the topics at hand. Draw your line in the sand. Or not.

http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2017/0 ... rossroads/

Another interesting piece:

Tony Ridnell wants to chair the USA Rugby board of directors. Who cares, you might say? What does that have to do with me, you might ask? The entire goal of this column is for you, whether you’re a low-level senior club player, a newly minted collegiate recruit, a high school coach, a referee, a rugby parent, an Eagle or an old boy, to understand why this matters.

In order to get to that point, I’m going to outline for you why you should care about the board and its happenings, why it is in need of big change, why Ridnell is a good agent for this change, and what you can do to affect positive change.

Continues here: http://www.rugbytoday.com/columns/cliff ... ase-change

rowan wrote:The sequel . . .

On players not getting paid past the end of the season and how it's USAR's fault for breaching the agreement and dooming the league - "If someone sells you a house and then they burn it down, do you continue paying your mortgage? No!" That's actually a great example Doug, but probably not in the way that you think it is - yes, you are still liable for your mortgage and you either have to keep paying it or go bankrupt. Sure, you pursue the person who burned it down, but you don't get to just stop paying a third party.

He is horribly reminiscent of Trump - spinning away when confronted, continually talking over things he doesn't like, claiming to be oppressed and victimised when questions are asked, and brazenly denying anything factual which he doesn't like. I still think he's been undeniably screwed by USAR, but he's certainly no angel and has added his own fuel to the dumpster fire of US rugby.

Puja