General rugby thread
Discussion
phil_cardiff said:
magooagain said:
phil_cardiff said:
Run by the Irish for the benefit of the Irish.
Awful standard of play.
Awful referees.
No away fans.
Welsh fans don't care about Irish/Scottish/Italian/SA opposition.
League generates insufficient TV money.
Other than that it's great.
The pro 14 welsh clubs can't get into Europe now! Imagine them in the premiership! At least in the pro 14 they get the odd win.Awful standard of play.
Awful referees.
No away fans.
Welsh fans don't care about Irish/Scottish/Italian/SA opposition.
League generates insufficient TV money.
Other than that it's great.
Welsh teams!!! Please don't leave the Pro14.
Hi
Can’t find much information on the way the financial arrangements work between Nigel Wray and the Saracens players - can anyone summarise it for me please ?
It’s it purely :-
Company set up between player and Wray
Wray provides capital to buy property
Player takes salary from company???
Is it that simple in essence or a more complicated???
Can’t find much information on the way the financial arrangements work between Nigel Wray and the Saracens players - can anyone summarise it for me please ?
It’s it purely :-
Company set up between player and Wray
Wray provides capital to buy property
Player takes salary from company???
Is it that simple in essence or a more complicated???
Edited by Rockettvr on Sunday 10th November 09:50
Rockettvr said:
Hi
Can’t find much information on the way the financial arrangements work between Nigel Wray and the Saracens players - can anyone summarise it for me please ?
It’s it purely :-
Company set up between player and Wray
Wray provides capital to buy property
Player takes salary from company???
Is it that simple in essence or a more complicated???
That's basically it, the company is set up with a suspiciousy South African named investor (Daniel Johannes Van Dr Heever) who provides the capital for the investment (houses), who then leaves the company leaving the player as the sole director. So the player is left with a £500k plus house that they can rent out. Can’t find much information on the way the financial arrangements work between Nigel Wray and the Saracens players - can anyone summarise it for me please ?
It’s it purely :-
Company set up between player and Wray
Wray provides capital to buy property
Player takes salary from company???
Is it that simple in essence or a more complicated???
jimKRFC said:
Rockettvr said:
Hi
Can’t find much information on the way the financial arrangements work between Nigel Wray and the Saracens players - can anyone summarise it for me please ?
It’s it purely :-
Company set up between player and Wray
Wray provides capital to buy property
Player takes salary from company???
Is it that simple in essence or a more complicated???
That's basically it, the company is set up with a suspiciousy South African named investor (Daniel Johannes Van Dr Heever) who provides the capital for the investment (houses), who then leaves the company leaving the player as the sole director. So the player is left with a £500k plus house that they can rent out. Can’t find much information on the way the financial arrangements work between Nigel Wray and the Saracens players - can anyone summarise it for me please ?
It’s it purely :-
Company set up between player and Wray
Wray provides capital to buy property
Player takes salary from company???
Is it that simple in essence or a more complicated???
Many thanks
If it’s that simple in essence it makes the mind boggle why it has taken so long to bring them to book
Also makes me wonder how many other clubs have followed suit having seen Saracens using (and getting away with ) this ruse.... I suspect they may be the worst but not the only offenders
If it’s that simple in essence it makes the mind boggle why it has taken so long to bring them to book
Also makes me wonder how many other clubs have followed suit having seen Saracens using (and getting away with ) this ruse.... I suspect they may be the worst but not the only offenders
Edited by Rockettvr on Monday 11th November 18:37
I don’t think that’s the way the scheme works, at least not from my reading of the accounts. From memory, alongside the property asset was a sizeable liability, a surprising portion of which was short term. I think (again going from memory) in Itoje’s case it looked like he added a chunk of capital himself so it’s not as if the player wasn’t taking any personal risk.
So it really depends on the nature of the financing of the properties that’s been provided. If that’s arms-length then it doesn’t look so bad. But if it’s preferential in some way (for example in interest rate or via a guarantee, say by Wray) then not so much. It wasn’t possible for me to see either way from the accounts.
So it really depends on the nature of the financing of the properties that’s been provided. If that’s arms-length then it doesn’t look so bad. But if it’s preferential in some way (for example in interest rate or via a guarantee, say by Wray) then not so much. It wasn’t possible for me to see either way from the accounts.
JonChalk said:
..and therein lies the problem. Why “hide” something that is in line with the letter and/or principle of the salary cap?
Because they’re small companies (as defined by the Companies Act) and, like all small limited companies, they file abbreviated accounts. I’ve no idea how much more, if anything, was disclosed to Premier Rugby 
Warren Gatland interview in The Telegraph today.
amongst other things he said:-
"Coaching England was a prospect that enticed him, he says, during his spell at Wasps (2002-2005): “Definitely at that stage, at some time it would have appealed to me. I went through an exercise in my mind and looked at the two squads at this World Cup and thought - how many of our players would make the England squad, and I thought - maybe eight or nine.
“How many would have started? I’m not too sure. Our guys gave us everything, yet there’s probably 10 or 15 England players who didn’t make the England squad who would possibly be good enough for our squad as well. That’s a testament to the Welsh boys in how much they gave".
amongst other things he said:-
"Coaching England was a prospect that enticed him, he says, during his spell at Wasps (2002-2005): “Definitely at that stage, at some time it would have appealed to me. I went through an exercise in my mind and looked at the two squads at this World Cup and thought - how many of our players would make the England squad, and I thought - maybe eight or nine.
“How many would have started? I’m not too sure. Our guys gave us everything, yet there’s probably 10 or 15 England players who didn’t make the England squad who would possibly be good enough for our squad as well. That’s a testament to the Welsh boys in how much they gave".
The Mad Monk said:
Warren Gatland interview in The Telegraph today.
amongst other things he said:-
"Coaching England was a prospect that enticed him, he says, during his spell at Wasps (2002-2005): “Definitely at that stage, at some time it would have appealed to me. I went through an exercise in my mind and looked at the two squads at this World Cup and thought - how many of our players would make the England squad, and I thought - maybe eight or nine.
“How many would have started? I’m not too sure. Our guys gave us everything, yet there’s probably 10 or 15 England players who didn’t make the England squad who would possibly be good enough for our squad as well. That’s a testament to the Welsh boys in how much they gave".
He's absolutely right.amongst other things he said:-
"Coaching England was a prospect that enticed him, he says, during his spell at Wasps (2002-2005): “Definitely at that stage, at some time it would have appealed to me. I went through an exercise in my mind and looked at the two squads at this World Cup and thought - how many of our players would make the England squad, and I thought - maybe eight or nine.
“How many would have started? I’m not too sure. Our guys gave us everything, yet there’s probably 10 or 15 England players who didn’t make the England squad who would possibly be good enough for our squad as well. That’s a testament to the Welsh boys in how much they gave".
In talent terms, in the Prem alone, England have an embarrassment of riches. Theoretically, taking into account poor-performing teams and imports, England should be able to pick from 6-7 high-level pros in every position on the park. That completely ignores the very impressive academies churning out talent.
By contrast, Wales only ever seem to have 2 functioning regions at any one time, and imports strewn all over the place.
The gap should be significantly bigger than it is, and his point about "testament to ... how much they gave" is bang on.
C70R said:
The gap should be significantly bigger than it is, and his point about "testament to ... how much they gave" is bang on.
I wouldn't dispute that.We (England) don't try enough, don't work hard enough, aren't hungry enough....
Given the money, facilities, size of squads, player pool to choose from, on every yardstick, England should sweep the board.
England's income is roughly equal to Scotland, Wales and Ireland combined. The RFU Annual Report for 2018/19 will be out in a couple of weeks, it's available online, just have a gander, and marvel at how we manage to do, relatively, so little, when we have so much.
Edited by The Mad Monk on Tuesday 12th November 13:53
I think the player pool size is a bit of a red herring.
You can only have so many at your international training camps and you need stability in the team and the squad. Ultimately you only have 15 men on the pitch at any one time and that 15 are not going to be any better because there were some other good choices who didn't make the cut sat at home.
There was a former Kiwi I heard at some point in the last few days saying they made a point of having a relatively slow churn of players thank perhaps they could to keep that consistency and really invest in a chosen few rather than cycling through players faster who'd then be less familiar with each other's game.
You can only have so many at your international training camps and you need stability in the team and the squad. Ultimately you only have 15 men on the pitch at any one time and that 15 are not going to be any better because there were some other good choices who didn't make the cut sat at home.
There was a former Kiwi I heard at some point in the last few days saying they made a point of having a relatively slow churn of players thank perhaps they could to keep that consistency and really invest in a chosen few rather than cycling through players faster who'd then be less familiar with each other's game.
768 said:
I think the player pool size is a bit of a red herring.
You can only have so many at your international training camps and you need stability in the team and the squad. Ultimately you only have 15 men on the pitch at any one time and that 15 are not going to be any better because there were some other good choices who didn't make the cut sat at home.
There was a former Kiwi I heard at some point in the last few days saying they made a point of having a relatively slow churn of players thank perhaps they could to keep that consistency and really invest in a chosen few rather than cycling through players faster who'd then be less familiar with each other's game.
It's certainly not a direct correlation between having lots of pro players and winning tournaments.You can only have so many at your international training camps and you need stability in the team and the squad. Ultimately you only have 15 men on the pitch at any one time and that 15 are not going to be any better because there were some other good choices who didn't make the cut sat at home.
There was a former Kiwi I heard at some point in the last few days saying they made a point of having a relatively slow churn of players thank perhaps they could to keep that consistency and really invest in a chosen few rather than cycling through players faster who'd then be less familiar with each other's game.
However, before the training camps even happen, having a much larger pool of talent to select from (the point about England having 6-7 first-choice club EQPs from the Prem in each position to pick from) in a highly performing/competitive league means that the level of competition and likelihood of finding winners is significantly higher.
NZ is a significant outlier in this respect. They are a nation who obsess about rugby - kids literally play two sports at school growing up; rugby in the winter and cricket in the summer, nothing else. These schools feed rugby academies, which feed Mitre10 clubs, which feed provincial clubs, which feed the national team. It's a perfectly optimised system for rugby with a small population.
Add this to the fact that they have lot of great, raw physical specimens (from their Polynesian players) coming through this system, and it's slightly easier to understand why they punch above their weight.
Edited by C70R on Tuesday 12th November 15:52
DocJock said:
I agree. The periods when England have performed poorly have generally been when they have been dishing out caps left, right and centre.
I'm actually not too sure about that.Lancaster's obsession (when England exited their own WC in the group stage) was to have the most number of caps possible in the 23, because he believed that it suggested consistency of partnerships and experience.
He put in place, and rigidly stuck with, a lot of the core partnerships that we see in the current England team - Youngs, Ford, Farrell, Joseph, Watson and May (all of whom started in this RWC) were regular features in his backlines. Marler, Mako and Cole were all part of his front row, and Billy was his first choice 8.
He gets a lot of criticism, and some of it is merited because he went back on this ethos in possibly the most important match of his career (Wales in the RWC). However, Lancaster identified a lot of the talent and laid the foundations for the team that made it to the final this year.
OMITN said:
Smollet said:
Also when they have taken on too much League influence. 2015 being a case in point.
Ah, the old "Sam Burgess lost us the World Cup" complaint.Presumably just like Jason Robinson did. 2003 being a case in point.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff