General Rugby Discussion II

Clegg

Zebo had another pop at Schmidt on his Instagram. The majority of comments called him out on his lack of graciousness, he had a wobbly and turned off all notifications. I know he seems like a light character, but he's actually a bitter man whose own lack of professionalism and application stopped him for earning greater honours in his career.

Squidgy Black

Clegg wrote: »

Zebo had another pop at Schmidt on his Instagram. The majority of comments called him out on his lack of graciousness, he had a wobbly and turned off all notifications. I know he seems like a light character, but he's actually a bitter man whose own lack of professionalism and application stopped him for earning greater honours in his career.

Robbed the content from another Instagram page and didn't credit them, think that's why he turned off the comments.

Have to say, he makes it easy to imagine why he'd fall out with a coach like Schmidt. It's clear that he's still raging over the whole scenario but he's not exactly leaving himself open to a return at any point by constantly taking public jabs.

Exclamation Marc

Clegg wrote: »

Zebo had another pop at Schmidt on his Instagram. The majority of comments called him out on his lack of graciousness, he had a wobbly and turned off all notifications. I know he seems like a light character, but he's actually a bitter man whose own lack of professionalism and application stopped him for earning greater honours in his career.

He's a bitter entitled clown. Hardly doing himself any favours with the new coach by still going bitching about his perceived treatment from Joe. You'd swear he was the world's best full back the way he goes on.

Squidgy Black

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Have to say, he makes it easy to imagine why he'd fall out with a coach like Schmidt

Like Schmidt?

He's going to be on the **** list with Farrell and any future Irish coach over his attitude. I'd say he's ruled out any return in green in the short term - he's acted like an entitled child.

Squidgy Black

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Like Schmidt?

He's going to be on the **** list with Farrell and any future Irish coach over his attitude. I'd say he's ruled out any return in green in the short term - he's acted like an entitled child.

There's coaches who would be a bit more lenient with players, but Schmidt by all accounts was extremely detailed and was quick to pull players up on small mistakes and not executing his plans perfectly.

It's no coincidence that Zebo's good mates with Marland Yarde who seems to be the biggest diva in English rugby history, having fallen out with all of the Quins players and coaches, and apparently has now gotten on the wrong side of Diamond and his Sale teammates.

Worchester Warriors player Michael Fatialofa looks to have suffered quite a serious injury in their game against Saracens. Seems to be quite a high level of concern about him.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/50999557

Squidgy Black

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Worchester Warriors player Michael Fatialofa looks to have suffered quite a serious injury in their game against Saracens. Seems to be quite a high level of concern about him.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/50999557

His wife posted a video of him on Instagram, he's still in the neck brace in hospital and she was moving his arms/hands to make sure they don't go numb as he apparently hasn't moved since the collision. Scary stuff.

jacothelad

Squidgy Black wrote: »

There's coaches who would be a bit more lenient with players, but Schmidt by all accounts was extremely detailed and was quick to pull players up on small mistakes and not executing his plans perfectly.

It's no coincidence that Zebo's good mates with Marland Yarde who seems to be the biggest diva in English rugby history, having fallen out with all of the Quins players and coaches, and apparently has now gotten on the wrong side of Diamond and his Sale teammates.

Fromm BBC.


Former Ireland head coach Joe Schmidt says he had a positive relationship with Racing 92 back Simon Zebo and has kept in touch with him since he moved to France.
The wing was not selected for Ireland by Schmidt after leaving Munster for the French club ahead of the 2018-19 season.
"If you interviewed Simon, he would tell you about me travelling to Munster pleading with him to stay in the country," Schmidt said.

Clegg

Zebo wasn't a standout player for Ireland either. Had a handful a top level performances and then mostly average ones. We didn't miss him when he was dropped for Stockdale and still don't.

CatFromHue

I dunno, it looks like just a bit of a joke to me and I did laugh at it.

OldRio

Squidgy Black wrote: »

His wife posted a video of him on Instagram, he's still in the neck brace in hospital and she was moving his arms/hands to make sure they don't go numb as he apparently hasn't moved since the collision. Scary stuff.

That's awful. Scary to think he just went out to do his job, play Rugby. And now?

RobbieRuns

Game is bordering on being too brutal, all out warfare these days... winning collisions

Exclamation Marc

The Guardian is reporting that Saracens are set to announce this month whether they will be forced to release players or reduce wages after being penalised for breaking the Premiership salary cap over the past three seasons.

The club’s returning chief executive, Edward Griffiths, said he is keen “to demonstrate compliance as soon as possible” in order to show the English champions are operating legally this season.

I know Liam Williams is off but you'd imagine much more than that is needed. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Article also notes that the 5.3m fine has now been reallocated among the other 12 Premiership shareholders, with Exeter announcing they would be donating their £350,000 share to charity which is good to hear.

AbusesToilets

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

The Guardian is reporting that Saracens are set to announce this month whether they will be forced to release players or reduce wages after being penalised for breaking the Premiership salary cap over the past three seasons.

The club’s returning chief executive, Edward Griffiths, said he is keen “to demonstrate compliance as soon as possible” in order to show the English champions are operating legally this season.

I know Liam Williams is off but you'd imagine much more than that is needed. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Article also notes that the 5.3m fine has now been reallocated among the other 12 Premiership shareholders, with Exeter announcing they would be donating their £350,000 share to charity which is good to hear.

I'm surprised that they've been allowed to continue with their roster as is to this point. They're still reaping the benefits of having cheated.

Squidgy Black

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'm surprised that they've been allowed to continue with their roster as is to this point. They're still reaping the benefits of having cheated.

Salary cap investigations/penalties are done at the end of the season in the Premiership. However, even if they let players go, once they've played they'll be considered part of the cap so they'll be fined for breaching it for a period I think. Otherwise teams would just take players in on short contracts for mental money.

I really think they need to move to an NFL style cap if they're to continue, where the cap for each team is reviewed on a monthly or so basis so that bonuses etc have to come under the cap.

Exclamation Marc

Alun Wyn Jones has gone on an admirable offensive about the Ospreys hierarchy

There are guys who are doing everything they can and being questioned and are answering those questions to the press and trying to do it on the pitch.

But there are probably other people who aren’t being held to account in the organisation. It’s difficult to say that, but that’s what I feel having watched and been involved with Ospreys rugby for so long.

It comes to a point where you need to be honest. It’s probably a bit too late but as a senior player and someone who has been here long enough, you are not going to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes.

I’m very proud to see the group that we have and the resilience that they are trying to show, the way they are applying themselves and the way they are being accountable to the press and to each other and the values they are showing.

You could say that isn’t being replicated in other areas of our rugby entity at the minute.

sydthebeat

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Alun Wyn Jones has gone on an admirable offensive about the Ospreys hierarchy

Forgotten he actually played with them.

Exclamation Marc

sydthebeat wrote: »

Forgotten he actually played with them.

Yeah I think it was May that he last played for them!

prawnsambo

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Salary cap investigations/penalties are done at the end of the season in the Premiership. However, even if they let players go, once they've played they'll be considered part of the cap so they'll be fined for breaching it for a period I think. Otherwise teams would just take players in on short contracts for mental money.

I really think they need to move to an NFL style cap if they're to continue, where the cap for each team is reviewed on a monthly or so basis so that bonuses etc have to come under the cap.

I would have thought that the total salary (and extras) cost for the season would be included, not who's on the roster at the end of it. Also if they let players go, isn't it likely that they'll have to pay some sort of compensation? They're probably in breach of contract already if they've stopped the extra-curricular payments to the likes of the Vunipolas. It's all very messy.

Squidgy Black

prawnsambo wrote: »

I would have thought that the total salary (and extras) cost for the season would be included, not who's on the roster at the end of it. Also if they let players go, isn't it likely that they'll have to pay some sort of compensation? They're probably in breach of contract already if they've stopped the extra-curricular payments to the likes of the Vunipolas. It's all very messy.

They are yeah, that was the point I was trying to make (that you couldn't just sign short term contracts and cut before end of season).

At this point any cuts they make will be just trying to appease the league to reduce the fine they'll get at the end of this season. They were clearly breaching when the season started.

lawrencesummers

From the BBC

"Saracens squad faces possible overhaul, says interim chief executive Edward Griffiths"

"It's too early to say what we will do, but anybody running a business or anybody running any organisation who, for whatever reason, needs to reduce the salary bill has two fundamental choices," he told BBC Sport.

"One would be to reduce the head count and the other would be for people to take a pay cut. Now I'm not saying either or both are necessary, but those would be the two options or a combination of the two."

"I think the first step is really to demonstrate, unequivocally, that we are operating within the salary cap in the current season, in the 2019-2020 season, and that is really a challenge on two levels. It's a challenge with spreadsheets and calculators and the numbers, but it's also a challenge in terms of perception."



... what a Load of rugby balls. He talks about either reducing pay or letting players go in the same interview as he says they need to demonstrate that they are operating within budget, and that it is hard to show how they are operating within budget, if they are even able to figure out their budgets. Complete waffle.

lawrencesummers

prawnsambo wrote: »

I would have thought that the total salary (and extras) cost for the season would be included, not who's on the roster at the end of it. Also if they let players go, isn't it likely that they'll have to pay some sort of compensation? They're probably in breach of contract already if they've stopped the extra-curricular payments to the likes of the Vunipolas. It's all very messy.

The issue has highlighted how poor the rules are around enforcing the cap. There are ways around the situation if they need to rid themselves of players, It’s possible that Sarries could fire players in a premeditated move with the agreement that the players take legal action and are given a undisclosed settlement for unfair dismissal/ breach of contract. That would probably not come under the cap.

prawnsambo

lawrencesummers wrote: »

"I think the first step is really to demonstrate, unequivocally, that we are operating within the salary cap in the current season, in the 2019-2020 season, and that is really a challenge on two levels. It's a challenge with spreadsheets and calculators and the numbers, but it's also a challenge in terms of perception."

... what a Load of rugby balls. He talks about either reducing pay or letting players go in the same interview as he says they need to demonstrate that they are operating within budget, and that it is hard to show how they are operating within budget, if they are even able to figure out their budgets. Complete waffle.

I think you may be reading this wrong. The fundamental issue is to prove that they are operating within the salary cap. That's the numbers stuff that they would have to use to demonstrate it to PRL. But they wouldn't be giving their numbers to the wider public or even the other clubs for obvious reasons, so that's the perception issue that they have to address too. I took it to mean that they are intending to do something like drop a couple of players to address that public perception issue without having to give away any numbers that could provide a competitive advantage to the other clubs.

prawnsambo

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The issue has highlighted how poor the rules are around enforcing the cap. There are ways around the situation if they need to rid themselves of players, It’s possible that Sarries could fire players in a premeditated move with the agreement that the players take legal action and are given a undisclosed settlement for unfair dismissal/ breach of contract. That would probably not come under the cap.

An undisclosed settlement would still have to be disclosed in their accounts. But whether or not PRL would consider that part of their playing budget could be a loophole alright. Although to be fair, if the player is gone, they are not getting any benefit from the payment.

lawrencesummers

prawnsambo wrote: »

I think you may be reading this wrong. The fundamental issue is to prove that they are operating within the salary cap. That's the numbers stuff that they would have to use to demonstrate it to PRL. But they wouldn't be giving their numbers to the wider public or even the other clubs for obvious reasons, so that's the perception issue that they have to address too. I took it to mean that they are intending to do something like drop a couple of players to address that public perception issue without having to give away any numbers that could provide a competitive advantage to the other clubs.

I think it’s waffle, he’s saying they are not over, and that it’s hard to prove it (which is bollocks, just add it up) but they will try, perception has nothing to do with it, and Sarries never before cared about how others precieve them. once they prove to the authorities that are compliant the authorities can announce that they are compliant.

As far as reducing salaries or letting players go - why does he need to discuss this if they are compliant with the cap, like he is saying???

molloyjh

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I think it’s waffle, he’s saying they are not over, and that it’s hard to prove it (which is bollocks, just add it up) but they will try, perception has nothing to do with it, and Sarries never before cared about how others precieve them. once they prove to the authorities that are compliant the authorities can announce that they are compliant.

As far as reducing salaries or letting players go - why does he need to discuss this if they are compliant with the cap, like he is saying???

They have completed a mid-season audit. If they were compliant they wouldnt be talking about wage cuts or players being let go. Theyd just say they are now compliant. This is admission that they are not and they now need to figure out how to rectify that.

lawrencesummers

molloyjh wrote: »

They have completed a mid-season audit. If they were compliant they wouldnt be talking about wage cuts or players being let go. Theyd just say they are now compliant. This is admission that they are not and they now need to figure out how to rectify that.

Did you read the article?
The part where he says they are compliant kinda disagrees with you.

blackwhite

I've no doubt that the legal entity which operates Saracens - Saracens Ltd - will be (and probably always has been) compliant with the cap.

The issue is the "off-the-books" arrangements that have been shown to have been in place over a number of years. Those never touched the books of Saracens Ltd, despite them playing a part in player compensation. Nearly impossible for an audit to detect these arrangements if sheltered from the club's legal entity properly.

Sarries now face the problem of satisfying Premiership Rugby that they no longer have any hidden arrangements in place - but no longer get the benefit of the doubt that they (and all other clubs) would have previously enjoyed

lawrencesummers

prawnsambo wrote: »

An undisclosed settlement would still have to be disclosed in their accounts. But whether or not PRL would consider that part of their playing budget could be a loophole alright. Although to be fair, if the player is gone, they are not getting any benefit from the payment.

A legal settlement is a private matter, if they choose to go down that route I can’t see the league having the powers to compel them disclosure of that information. Plus a case would probably take a few years to come around.

I have no faith in how Sarries operate, and less faith that the league has the ability to get a level playing field based on salaries.

Quin_Dub

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Did you read the article?
The part where he says they are compliant kinda disagrees with you.

He doesn't say they are compliant though..

From BBC

The all-conquering Saracens squad could be dismantled in order for the club to comply with salary cap rules this season, according to interim chief executive Edward Griffiths.

The Premiership champions were docked 35 points and fined £5.36m in November for breaching salary cap regulations.

Griffiths is leading a "scoping exercise" as the first step in making the club "whiter than white".

And he said he has not ruled out the possibility of letting star players go.


"It's too early to say what we will do, but anybody running a business or anybody running any organisation who, for whatever reason, needs to reduce the salary bill has two fundamental choices," he told BBC Sport.

"One would be to reduce the head count and the other would be for people to take a pay cut. Now I'm not saying either or both are necessary, but those would be the two options or a combination of the two."

Nowhere does he say they are compliant - He only talks about "proving that they are" and then says that two
options are pay cuts or sackings..

Clearly he is of the opinion that something will have to change to make them compliant. If he felt they were compliant on paper he would be talking about "restoring confidence" and "rebuilding trust" etc.

He isn't though - He's talking about possible headcount reductions and/or pay cuts.