Re. the "statement" in the programme on Saturday - for the first time I had a sinking feeling having read it, that we too are involved.
Of course we are involved. We are part of the PRL. We agreed to the settlements and we agreed to increase the cap. Are we really so naive as to believe we can stay out of it?
All the other clubs that say they didn't enter into a settlement or break the cap. Great. Take a bow. Then explain to me what you actually did to nail the perps and bring them to order? Have any of them said anymore that "it wasn't me guv". Have any of them explained why they support an increase in cap, what the dispute was about precisely, what the rules and sanctions are going forward? No, they explained Jack, let's not kid ourselves.
It will never go away until it's completely cleared up and people are informed of the facts and the set rules on payments moving forward, if indeed there are any set rules on payments anymore.
fleabane wrote:No side spent more on wages in last season’s Premiership and they are one of the biggest names in the game, so Salvi’s move does hint at underlying issues at the club.
Article is about Salvi, Parling and Waldrom, but this paragraph has never been challenged.
It doesn't need to be challenged as it is factually correct. We spent up to the limit of the salary cap. We have always been clear about that. Therefore, logically no club can spend more than us. Unless of course we/they breach the salary cap. And we know that didn't happen, right. Of course nobody knows what the precise spend is because afaik it's not published. It should be IMO but that is another debate.
Apparently the club have released a statement at the AGM. It basically states that they haven't said anything because that is what all the clubs agreed to, and they are disappointed with other clubs speaking out.
The statement is on the home page.
Listening to the pouring rain
Waiting for the world to change
Beginning to wonder if we'll wait in vain
For one fine day
philw wrote:Apparently the club have released a statement at the AGM. It basically states that they haven't said anything because that is what all the clubs agreed to, and they are disappointed with other clubs speaking out.
Disappointing statement, why are they not fighting for transparency? I'm also pretty sure the legal argument has gone out of the window re not saying anything.
Expect more from a family club than hiding behind corporate and legal stuff.
Was able in the end to get to the AGM and, as promised, I asked the question of Simon - can he assure us that we were not one of the clubs involved in the settlement statement by the PRL and this was immediately batted sideways to Digby Jones who read out the statement now released by the board on the home page. This action was pre-prepared and it was obvious that we were going to get nowhere. There were several people commented as the statement finished with comments like "sweep it under the carpet" etc. and Digby repeated the part that said "it is only fair to all our stakeholders to clarify now that our decision not to comment before today should not be taken as confirmation of our involvement in any settlement with Premiership Rugby."
I tried guys but unless there is a whistle blower or the press get involved through contacts they have and I don't - we will get no more.
Obviously as the two players signed from London Welsh to great dispair and uproar have actually appeared to be quite good, this is the new whinging topic of choice.
Like it or not, the PRL settlement was confidential, and I applaud the club for not bowing to unnecessary pressure brought on by after various (fluffy) statement from other clubs and (in some cases) their coaches.
I wish I was in a position where this could be the biggest thing I had to worry about in my life, which it seems to be for some here.
Digby repeated the part that said "it is only fair to all our stakeholders to clarify now that our decision not to comment before today should not be taken as confirmation of our involvement in any settlement with Premiership Rugby."
Digby repeated the part that said "it is only fair to all our stakeholders to clarify now that our decision not to comment before today should not be taken as confirmation of our involvement in any settlement with Premiership Rugby."
So thats a denial then
Looks like it to me
find a better way of life, http://www.marillion.com
Hot_Charlie wrote:Obviously as the two players signed from London Welsh to great dispair and uproar have actually appeared to be quite good, this is the new whinging topic of choice.
Like it or not, the PRL settlement was confidential, and I applaud the club for not bowing to unnecessary pressure brought on by after various (fluffy) statement from other clubs and (in some cases) their coaches.
I wish I was in a position where this could be the biggest thing I had to worry about in my life, which it seems to be for some here.
Agree wholeheartedly, was initially perturbed by the whole saga, but to be honest am completely bored by it now. Case is closed and move on, nothing is going to be achieved apart from getting wound up by perpetual argument that is never going to achieve any outcome. Everyone knows (including the two clubs referred to) that this has achieved an end game (like it or not, can we all just move on?)
Hot_Charlie wrote:Obviously as the two players signed from London Welsh to great dispair and uproar have actually appeared to be quite good, this is the new whinging topic of choice.
Like it or not, the PRL settlement was confidential, and I applaud the club for not bowing to unnecessary pressure brought on by after various (fluffy) statement from other clubs and (in some cases) their coaches.
I wish I was in a position where this could be the biggest thing I had to worry about in my life, which it seems to be for some here.
Did you have to make your point with two sweeping denigrations of people who have a different perspective to you? Are you Noddy555 in disguise
Some really interesting comments from Simon C [at the AGM] about the cap & wordings/interpretations & that he now sees the rules as so tight it isn't worth his looking for loop-holes any more (he gave a good example of a loop-hole exploited in the early days around payments for travel expenses).
I am not an expert on the rules relating to the Cap, BUT it would seem logical that if the current/previous rules were open to flexible interpretation, then after all the goings on that have been going on, THEN new Cap rules will need to be applied, which will need to be completely water-tight. (As suggested by previous poster with script from unoffi).
Therefore, if and when the new Cap rules are published, it would be really, really helpful if those legal-eagles amongst the posters could compare the new and old and highlight where the changes/ differences are.
Ideally, there should be a formal announcement from the powers-that-be which does this for everyone, as I am certain that journalists will want to this anyway - irrespective of which clubs were involved [WE ALL KNOW WHO THEY ARE!!]
