Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

General Rugby Discussion II

Options
1…186187189191192…293

Comments

  • Options
    #5642
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,580 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    If only you quoted the full article......





    "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


  • Options
    #5643
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,105 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    If only you quoted the full article......



    "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

    I don't read that at all as him saying they are compliant now.

    Saying 'we're currently compliant' and then also saying 'we might have to take a broom to the squad' would be a bit strange.

    Edit - and really why you'd believe a word out of their mouth I do not know. They cheated, they lied about it, they continued to lie about it after getting caught, they are totally unreliable.


  • Options
    #5644
    Squidgy Black
    Registered Users Posts: 21,678 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    I mean, they were insistent they hadn't broke the cap last season and were compliant and that it was all a misunderstanding....


  • Options
    #5645
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


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

    Ah ok so it’s just a CEO talking to the press about cutting salaries or making employees redundant from his company for absolutely no reason. Completely standard, normal and healthy business practice


  • Options
    #5646
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,580 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Ah ok so it’s just a CEO talking to the press about cutting salaries or making employees redundant from his company for absolutely no reason. Completely standard, normal and healthy business practice



    I did say it’s pure waffle. Twice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5647
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,580 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    Interested Observer wrote: »
    I don't read that at all as him saying they are compliant now.

    Saying 'we're currently compliant' and then also saying 'we might have to take a broom to the squad' would be a bit strange.

    Edit - and really why you'd believe a word out of their mouth I do not know. They cheated, they lied about it, they continued to lie about it after getting caught, they are totally unreliable.


    That was the point I made.


  • Options
    #5648
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    I did say it’s pure waffle. Twice.

    So he’s waffling to the press about cuts that aren’t going to and don’t need to happen for what reason do you think?


  • Options
    #5649
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    If only you quoted the full article......





    "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

    I dont think he means what you think he does there. He is saying they need to demonstrate that they are within the salary cap this season. He doesnt say that they currently are. In the wider context of the article he clearly means they need to look at cuts of some description in order to get there. Why else would he talk about those things if they were already compliant? There would be no need to make any cuts if they were so no reason for him to mention them.


  • Options
    #5650
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,580 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    molloyjh wrote: »
    I dont think he means what you think he does there. He is saying they need to demonstrate that they are within the salary cap this season. He doesnt say that they currently are. In the wider context of the article he clearly means they need to look at cuts of some description in order to get there. Why else would he talk about those things if they were already compliant? There would be no need to make any cuts if they were so no reason for him to mention them.



    He says they need to demonstrate that they are within the cap, he doesn’t say that they need to make changes to get within the cap.

    “Demonstrate that we ARE within”


  • Options
    #5651
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,580 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    So he’s waffling to the press about cuts that aren’t going to and don’t need to happen for what reason do you think?

    I never said they don’t need to it happen, and neither did he, but he is talking out of both sides of his mouth by saying they only need to demonstrate that they are within the cap this season and then talking about reducing salaries or letting players go.

    I was highlighting how he is talking waffle and that like his predecessor I don’t believe a word of it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5652
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    He says they need to demonstrate that they are within the cap, he doesn’t say that they need to make changes to get within the cap.

    “Demonstrate that we ARE within”

    What are the words immediately after that? "Within the current season". Not "at this moment in time" or anything like that. So by making cuts now they will be able to prove in a matter of weeks that they are within the cap within the season.


  • Options
    #5653
    aloooof
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    I never said they don’t need to it happen, and neither did he, but he is talking out of both sides of his mouth by saying they only need to demonstrate that they are within the cap this season and then talking about reducing salaries or letting players go.

    I was highlighting how he is talking waffle and that like his predecessor I don’t believe a word of it.

    You're entitled to not believe a word of it, but I think you're misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) what he's said. As others have mentioned the "in the current season, in the 2019-2020 season" is a really important part of that context. It doesn't in any way suggest they are currently within the salary cap.

    The fact that he's mention salary reductions or players leaving in the sentences before this further suggests as much as well.


  • Options
    #5654
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,580 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    molloyjh wrote: »
    What are the words immediately after that? "Within the current season". Not "at this moment in time" or anything like that. So by making cuts now they will be able to prove in a matter of weeks that they are within the cap within the season.



    You seem to think I’m taking some side in what he is saying, when I’m just highlighting that it’s all waffle.

    He also says that he isn’t saying reducing pay or shedding players is necessarily necessary.

    It’s a waffle piece, the person doing the interview should have probed more and I don’t believe a word of it. As the new face of Saracens management I take it as being more of the same that they went on with.


  • Options
    #5655
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    You seem to think I’m taking some side in what he is saying, when I’m just highlighting that it’s all waffle.

    He also says that he isn’t saying reducing pay or shedding players is necessarily necessary.

    It’s a waffle piece, the person doing the interview should have probed more and I don’t believe a word of it. As the new face of Saracens management I take it as being more of the same that they went on with.
    It may or may not be waffle, but the overriding concern for Sarries is that they can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that this season (and all future seasons) they are operating within the cap. Without that proof they are facing further fines and points deductions and possibly even ejection from the league.

    As someone else pointed out, Saracens (the company) were not making the 'top up' payments to players, so the provision of proof is far more complicated than just opening their books and pointing at the numbers. There is no doubt that they will have to cut players (or lose them because they can't keep up contracted payments) and as long as they have them on the roster, nobody will believe that they are still operating within the cap.

    I'm more inclined to believe Griffiths than Wray. Mostly because it's clear that he's been taken on as designated hatchet man to do the necessary that Wray et al don't have the stomach for. As I said earlier, it's going to get very messy. The likes of Vunprop Ltd. owns properties which is going to be a very complicated issue to resolve to the satisfaction of the requirements of the cap.


  • Options
    #5656
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    molloyjh wrote: »
    I dont think he means what you think he does there. He is saying they need to demonstrate that they are within the salary cap this season. He doesnt say that they currently are. In the wider context of the article he clearly means they need to look at cuts of some description in order to get there. Why else would he talk about those things if they were already compliant? There would be no need to make any cuts if they were so no reason for him to mention them.

    It's waffle because the clear and honest way to say that is "we are not compliant and will make changes to become compliant" not this ambiguous crap about proving compliance which is carefully worded to make it look as though they are (or might be of they do their sums right) and they just have to demonstrate it.


  • Options
    #5657
    Exclamation Marc
    Registered Users Posts: 11,991 ✭✭✭✭Exclamation Marc


    If they were compliant, they would have appealed the ban and fine, simple as. No business owner or organisation of any kind would shoulder a massive fine and huge operational penalty if they truly believed and/or knew they were compliant.

    Anyone who believes Wrays 'for the good of the game' guff for not appealing has their head in the sand.Big changes clearly need to be made and it looks like they will be.

    It's very likely that as part of the penalty, Saracens have a short period to rectify the issue (i.e. by the end of the season).


  • Options
    #5658
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    molloyjh wrote: »
    What are the words immediately after that? "Within the current season". Not "at this moment in time" or anything like that. So by making cuts now they will be able to prove in a matter of weeks that they are within the cap within the season.

    It's 2020. Him choosing to day 'within the 2019-2020 season' and using the present tense is weasley waffle and should be recognised as such.


  • Options
    #5659
    hahashake
    Registered Users Posts: 827 ✭✭✭hahashake


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

    As far as I could tell it was pure bad luck, nothing obviously wrong with the technique from either Fatialofa or the tacklers - which you could argue is shows that the force of the collisions is simply getting to be too much.

    However, there have been much worse injury outcomes recently in the lower levels of size and professionalism e.g. deaths in amateur women's games. I wouldn't agree that we have reached a breaking point in the top levels due to a size arms race, if anything it's somewhat amazing that there isn't more regular serious incidents at the top level.


  • Options
    #5660
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,481 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    hahashake wrote: »
    As far as I could tell it was pure bad luck, nothing obviously wrong with the technique from either Fatialofa or the tacklers - which you could argue is shows that the force of the collisions is simply getting to be too much.

    However, there have been much worse injury outcomes recently in the lower levels of size and professionalism e.g. deaths in amateur women's games. I wouldn't agree that we have reached a breaking point in the top levels due to a size arms race, if anything it's somewhat amazing that there isn't more regular serious incidents at the top level.

    Hopefully some good news for Fatialofa
    Worcester lock Michael Fatialofa has successfully undergone surgery on the neck injury he sustained on Saturday in the 62-5 defeat at Saracens.

    The 27-year-old is in intensive care at St Mary's Hospital, Paddington, in London, with bruising and swelling on his spinal cord.

    An operation on Monday evening has relieved the pressure.


  • Options
    #5661
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,258 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    Reports this morning in the media that Liam Williams may be released from his Saracens contract ahead of schedule following McCall admitting it's a possibilty. He's not a key player for them given their riches in the back three and can put out Goode, Maitland and Daly as their back three without him.

    But it is an interesting development and may be an indication as to what will come. I don't think we're going to see any more of their absolute stars go anywhere or take any pay cuts. But I do think there are going to be well paid members of the wider squad that will be let go particularly guys who are injured and don't play too much. Lads like Figallo with his injury history or Wigglesworth won't get his annual renewal. Both Isiekwe and Lozowski are out of contract and would be due a wage increase. Both could be set to depart. Utilising the wider squad and academy to back fill for those guys and we could see Saracens become compliant.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5662
    Clegg
    Registered Users Posts: 17,169 ✭✭✭✭Clegg


    You're right that Williams probably isn't a key player for Saracens. But losing him would still be a blow to Saracens short term prospects. Goode can't go on forever and Daly is a bomb scare under the high ball.


  • Options
    #5663
    aloooof
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    Clegg wrote: »
    You're right that Williams probably isn't a key player for Saracens. But losing him would still be a blow to Saracens short term prospects. Goode can't go on forever and Daly is a bomb scare under the high ball.

    He's still injured tho, isn't he?


  • Options
    #5664
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Reports of Michael Rhodes, Callum Clark, Juan Figalo, Brad Barritt and Richard Wigglesworth all leaving on the coming weeks too.


  • Options
    #5665
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Reports of Michael Rhodes, Callum Clark, Juan Figalo, Brad Barritt and Richard Wigglesworth all leaving on the coming weeks too.

    "We are under the salary cap now".. Nigel Wray 5 weeks ago.

    No wonder he had to go, he obviously never believed the cap should apply to his team and wasn't going to be the one to enforce it.


  • Options
    #5666
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,481 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Reports of Michael Rhodes, Callum Clark, Juan Figalo, Brad Barritt and Richard Wigglesworth all leaving on the coming weeks too.

    You've got to reckon that's at least a Million in salary for those 5 , if not more.

    And none of them would qualify for any of the cap exceptions/exclusions either.


  • Options
    #5667
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,258 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Reports of Michael Rhodes, Callum Clark, Juan Figalo, Brad Barritt and Richard Wigglesworth all leaving on the coming weeks too.

    Aside from Barritt and Wigglesworth (who are both due to retire in the not too distant future at 34 and 37 next season respectively), there's little impact on their first choice 23 there. I'd include Figallo but the fact is he has started one game since the 2017/18 season due to injury so is a non-entity.

    The wage bill will reduce but their strength won't in the short term anyway.


  • Options
    #5668
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Buer wrote: »
    Aside from Barritt and Wigglesworth (who are both due to retire in the not too distant future at 34 and 37 next season respectively), there's little impact on their first choice 23 there. I'd include Figallo but the fact is he has started one game since the 2017/18 season due to injury so is a non-entity.

    The wage bill will reduce but their strength won't in the short term anyway.

    True, but half of their remaining league games are between now and the end of the 6Ns. Clarke would have featured heavily in those. So they'd be losing him, Wigglesworth and Barritt plus their internationals. A few losses there could put some pressure on as they cant afford to put all their eggs into the HEC basket for European qualification next season.


  • Options
    #5669
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,258 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    molloyjh wrote: »
    True, but half of their remaining league games are between now and the end of the 6Ns. Clarke would have featured heavily in those. So they'd be losing him, Wigglesworth and Barritt plus their internationals. A few losses there could put some pressure on as they cant afford to put all their eggs into the HEC basket for European qualification next season.

    Is Clark available? He's played 7 minutes since November. Guys like Rhodes and Figallo haven't played at all this season. I would think they're looking to terminate guys who are going to be hardly available for them regardless.


  • Options
    #5670
    Dara93
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭Dara93


    Clegg wrote: »
    You're right that Williams probably isn't a key player for Saracens. But losing him would still be a blow to Saracens short term prospects. Goode can't go on forever and Daly is a bomb scare under the high ball.

    I think their long term plan is Malins at full back. He's got a very similar playing style and was pretty highly rated as a flyhalf at 20s level.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5671
    b.gud
    Registered Users Posts: 4,808 ✭✭✭b.gud


    Buer wrote: »
    Is Clark available? He's played 7 minutes since November. Guys like Rhodes and Figallo haven't played at all this season. I would think they're looking to terminate guys who are going to be hardly available for them regardless.

    If Rhodes and Figallo haven't played at all this season then getting rid of them might be nothing more than an empty gesture.

    I am open to correction on this but my understanding of the salary cap is that it is calculated solely based on players who play in the AP. So if a player doesn't actually play in the AP then they aren't included in the salary cap calculations


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement