RugbyRebels

I'm picking up on the radar that Yorkshire Carnegie have either folded or cant operate in the Championship next season.

Being stated by some that the Championship will be an 11 team league.

Richmond have gone down to nat 1 and are committed to it.

L.Irish go up. Newcastle come down.

No relegation from the Championship next season.

No relegation or promotion to the Premiership next season....which sounds funny, however they are looking for any excuse.

Unconfirmed.

Bloody hell. If true, that’s another ‘local’ away match for me to watch Bedford up in smoke. Rotherham last season and Leeds this.

I know they let anyone without a contract go at the end of the season but hadn’t heard anything other than those contracted for next season - 7ish players, I think - would be honoured but be surrounded by semi-pros.

Given the crowds they get and the competition the have - football, league etc - the club folding wouldn’t be a surprise.

No promotion to the Premiership next season? Surely not possible with Newcastle in the Champ?

Puja

Not looking good:

https://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/domesti ... pay-debts/

Sounds pretty bleak. Another blow for rugby in the North.

So the last statement means ... Carnegie have to convince the RFU they can fulfil their fixtures.
I hope Geech has still got his boots.

Carnegie listed in the leaked fixtures. All they need to do now is find some players!

Edit:
Official fixture list now released and Carnegie are there.

Yup

Noticed.

See what pans out.

We have signed a back row from Quins - Luke Wallace - who I must admit I've never heard of.

richy678 wrote:Yup

Noticed.

See what pans out.

We have signed a back row from Quins - Luke Wallace - who I must admit I've never heard of.

Damn, that is a hell of a good signing for any Champ club - he's the long haired openside who used to be a first team regular. Played an England vs Barbarians game if memory serves - he's a decent player.

Puja

Puja wrote:

richy678 wrote:Yup

Noticed.

See what pans out.

We have signed a back row from Quins - Luke Wallace - who I must admit I've never heard of.

Damn, that is a hell of a good signing for any Champ club - he's the long haired openside who used to be a first team regular. Played an England vs Barbarians game if memory serves - he's a decent player.

Puja

That's right - I read all that - just wasn't on my radar, apparently, he is only 28 as well.
I hope he's decent - we have a couple of decent flankers - Jack Ram from Tonga being one - what we needed was genuine lumpy 8 or 6 heavy hitting ball carrier type player.

Can Luke Wallace do that?

richy678 wrote:

Puja wrote:

richy678 wrote:Yup

Noticed.

See what pans out.

We have signed a back row from Quins - Luke Wallace - who I must admit I've never heard of.

Damn, that is a hell of a good signing for any Champ club - he's the long haired openside who used to be a first team regular. Played an England vs Barbarians game if memory serves - he's a decent player.

Puja

That's right - I read all that - just wasn't on my radar, apparently, he is only 28 as well.
I hope he's decent - we have a couple of decent flankers - Jack Ram from Tonga being one - what we needed was genuine lumpy 8 or 6 heavy hitting ball carrier type player.

Can Luke Wallace do that?

No.

I mean, he put on some weight in recent years, but he's a pretty traditional fetcher type. And I've actually never been his biggest fan.

richy678 wrote:

Puja wrote:

richy678 wrote:Yup

Noticed.

See what pans out.

We have signed a back row from Quins - Luke Wallace - who I must admit I've never heard of.

Damn, that is a hell of a good signing for any Champ club - he's the long haired openside who used to be a first team regular. Played an England vs Barbarians game if memory serves - he's a decent player.

Puja

That's right - I read all that - just wasn't on my radar, apparently, he is only 28 as well.
I hope he's decent - we have a couple of decent flankers - Jack Ram from Tonga being one - what we needed was genuine lumpy 8 or 6 heavy hitting ball carrier type player.

Can Luke Wallace do that?

Erm... no. Not even slightly. Sorry.

He's a pure 7, fetcher and turnover merchant - he can tackle and carry, but he'll never cover 6 or 8.

Puja

Puja wrote:

richy678 wrote:

Puja wrote:
Damn, that is a hell of a good signing for any Champ club - he's the long haired openside who used to be a first team regular. Played an England vs Barbarians game if memory serves - he's a decent player.

Puja

That's right - I read all that - just wasn't on my radar, apparently, he is only 28 as well.
I hope he's decent - we have a couple of decent flankers - Jack Ram from Tonga being one - what we needed was genuine lumpy 8 or 6 heavy hitting ball carrier type player.

Can Luke Wallace do that?

Erm... no. Not even slightly. Sorry.

He's a pure 7, fetcher and turnover merchant - he can tackle and carry, but he'll never cover 6 or 8.

Puja

Jack Ram ex of Doncaster? If so, he must be getting on but he is a pretty heavy ball carrier when I’ve seen him play Bedford.

Wallace should tear it up in the Champ. A backrow of Ram, Wallace, Nutley is a good one.

I must be a bit thick here as Im not getting the next season bit of the points reduction.

I get the minus 28 will be applied unless all creditors agree to be bound by the CVA, what I don't get is the clauses about the following season.

The way I read it is - if Carnegie manages to stay up, having coped with the handicap of minus 28 - they get a further handicap next season.

However - if they are relegated - and their accrued points from match play wouldn't have been enough to keep them up - they are further handicapped the following season in Nat 1.

So the points reduction is designed to relegate them this season - but compete at a level where they accrue enough match play points to have finished second from bottom - so the best case scenario for Carnegie is to go down to Nat 1 without a further points deduction to follow?

so the RFU are saying - "you stay up this year - and you have to play well enough to finish second from bottom - but your going down."

Maybe it's a really poorly worded clause about if, for some reason, relegation doesn't happen in the Championship this season?

Puja

richy678 wrote:I must be a bit thick here as Im not getting the next season bit of the points reduction.

I get the minus 28 will be applied unless all creditors agree to be bound by the CVA, what I don't get is the clauses about the following season.

The way I read it is - if Carnegie manages to stay up, having coped with the handicap of minus 28 - they get a further handicap next season.

However - if they are relegated - and their accrued points from match play wouldn't have been enough to keep them up - they are further handicapped the following season in Nat 1.

So the points reduction is designed to relegate them this season - but compete at a level where they accrue enough match play points to have finished second from bottom - so the best case scenario for Carnegie is to go down to Nat 1 without a further points deduction to follow?

so the RFU are saying - "you stay up this year - and you have to play well enough to finish second from bottom - but your going down."

I think it's poorly worded but means that there will be a points deduction if there is no agreement with creditors next season, too.

Maybe.

I had to read it numerous times as well but I think, possibly, it might mean that should they stay up they cop the points deduction in 20 - 21 as well, and if they go down and would’ve gone down regardless of the 28 point deduction, ie they’re 29 or more points behind second from bottom (probably Coventry), they get shafted again in 20 - 21 when in Nat 1, which is harsh.

Mellsblue wrote:I had to read it numerous times as well but I think, possibly, it might mean that should they stay up they cop the points deduction in 20 - 21 as well, and if they go down and would’ve gone down regardless of the 28 point deduction, ie they’re 29 or more points behind second from bottom (probably Coventry), they get shafted again in 20 - 21 when in Nat 1, which is harsh.

Not very subtle.

Mellsblue wrote:I had to read it numerous times as well but I think, possibly, it might mean that should they stay up they cop the points deduction in 20 - 21 as well, and if they go down and would’ve gone down regardless of the 28 point deduction, ie they’re 29 or more points behind second from bottom (probably Coventry), they get shafted again in 20 - 21 when in Nat 1, which is harsh.

I've always thought this sort of punishment ludicrous, even whilst understanding the logic; its almost Catch 22.

Stom wrote:

richy678 wrote:I must be a bit thick here as Im not getting the next season bit of the points reduction.

I get the minus 28 will be applied unless all creditors agree to be bound by the CVA, what I don't get is the clauses about the following season.

The way I read it is - if Carnegie manages to stay up, having coped with the handicap of minus 28 - they get a further handicap next season.

However - if they are relegated - and their accrued points from match play wouldn't have been enough to keep them up - they are further handicapped the following season in Nat 1.

So the points reduction is designed to relegate them this season - but compete at a level where they accrue enough match play points to have finished second from bottom - so the best case scenario for Carnegie is to go down to Nat 1 without a further points deduction to follow?

so the RFU are saying - "you stay up this year - and you have to play well enough to finish second from bottom - but your going down."

I think it's poorly worded but means that there will be a points deduction if there is no agreement with creditors next season, too.

Maybe.

The CVA will bind creditors for its entire term, it's not an annual thing. As long as the club adheres to the terms* and keeps on top of new creditors it shouldn't be a factor in the points deduction

*itwill end up in administration or, more likely, liquidation if it doesn’t.

Read thread below original tweet:

This may be the worst of the lot: