rugbyunion
Latest News:
New Page 1

Whatever your views on Saracens, whether a Sarries fan or not, leave them here.

To leave a message on this board you must register. To register click HERE, it takes only a minute.
Non-rugby posts are welcome, but please prefix your subject header with "OT" or "Off Topic".


Thought for the Day:
ANY WAY THE WIND BLOWS

Latest: SARACENS 51 : 25 CARDIFF BLUES
Next:Cardiff Blues v Saracens Sat 15th Dec, 13.00 Arms Park, EPCR,
Audio: Click the link below. If it ain' there, it ain't on!
Upcoming TV: Cardiff Blues v Saracens, Sat 15th Dec 12.30 BT Sport 2

BBC Online Rugby Union Commentaries

The Fish | Rugby Union News | Fez Boys | Saracens Fixtures | The SSA | Rugby on TV


Only Nick and Loz returned...
1876-Fez (IP Logged)
31 January, 2018 18:59
Full backs
Mike Brown (Harlequins), Nathan Earle (Saracens)*, Jonny May (Leicester Tigers), Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby)

Inside backs
Danny Care (Harlequins), Owen Farrell (Saracens), George Ford (Leicester Tigers), Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby), Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs), Ben Te’o (Worcester Warriors), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

Forwards

Back five
Gary Graham (Newcastle Falcons)*, Maro Itoje (Saracens), George Kruis (Saracens), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints), Joe Launchbury (Wasps), Chris Robshaw (Harlequins), Sam Simmonds (Exeter Chiefs), Sam Underhill (Bath Rugby)

Front row
Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers), Jamie George (Saracens), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints), Alec Hepburn (Exeter Chiefs) *, Mako Vunipola (Saracens), Harry Williams (Exeter Chiefs).

Uncapped *



SUPPORT Help for Heroes:
Help for Heroes



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 31/01/2018 19:00 by 1876-Fez.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
Seany_Boy0511 (IP Logged)
01 February, 2018 08:02
As said in a previous post I only expected 2 players to return due to Injuries

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
#wolfpack (IP Logged)
01 February, 2018 08:48
TBH I would be surprised if George plays either, so we might be spared another one getting an injury.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
Sara'sman (IP Logged)
01 February, 2018 11:21
Four Locks.

No, I'll tug my forelocks to you # and suggest one will wear 6 and another 19. I think GK will play.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
BarnetSarrie (IP Logged)
01 February, 2018 14:34
I make that
Saracens 6 taken
Leicester 4 taken
Chiefs 4 taken
Quins 3 taken
Bath 3 taken
Northampton 2 taken
Worcester 1 taken
Wasps 1 taken
Newcastle 1 taken

None from Gloucester, Irish or Sale.
And you have to assume that imbalance would have been even worse if Billy or possibly Mikey had been fit. Then people wonder why we end up not playing so well during internationals. DUH. It ain't rocket science ..... especially when we are losing players to Wales and Scotland as well. A team can cope with the loss of two or even three top players - but when you are losing more than half the matchday normal squad at a time, for weeks on end, it's no wonder it has an effect!

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
OldMarovian (IP Logged)
01 February, 2018 17:48
BarnetSarrie I 100% agree with you and yet we could mitigate against some of that through our recruitment. If fit we knew we'd be losing Maitland and Williams come Internationals and given his talent and already being in their system it was a fair guess we'd lose Tolofua (again before injury) Likewise when deciding to retain Lozo we knew by then that Jones was including him.

I am not saying that any or all of those were wrong but it makes you think about the value of non-NH players a bit more.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
TonyTaff (IP Logged)
01 February, 2018 18:45
Quote:
OldMarovian
BarnetSarrie I 100% agree with you and yet we could mitigate against some of that through our recruitment. If fit we knew we'd be losing Maitland and Williams come Internationals and given his talent and already being in their system it was a fair guess we'd lose Tolofua (again before injury) Likewise when deciding to retain Lozo we knew by then that Jones was including him.
I am not saying that any or all of those were wrong but it makes you think about the value of non-NH players a bit more.

Aye, but whom would you recruit? And in which position?
We've hired two inadequate second rows to provide cover during the International periods.

We have a promising back row forward and an ageing one from SA neither of whom will be called up during the 6N.

Is that it?



£721.05 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]

Please read and submit articles for publication. (*) As at October 31, 2018.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
BarnetSarrie (IP Logged)
03 February, 2018 12:20
This is really interesting and actually raises a much wider debate -
Saracens are one of the two clubs doing the most to bring through new English talent in the academies - note Maro, Nathan and Nick Isiekwe (and you could argue Loz - who was nowhere near selection when he was still at Wasps but after one season of coaching/training and game time for us is suddenly 'picked' and unavailable to us for weeks!) in Eddie's recent pillage - but what actually happens is that as with our more senior England players - we are penalised for our investment in them and bringing them through.
This has to be nonsensical. It is a disincentive to bring through English talent.
I have a suggestion to put out there -
Why not make players who come through your academy and into the senior squad EXEMPT - or at least a percentage of their salary exempt, from the salary cap for the ENTIRE time they play for the club. If they leave and go somewhere else and come back, then of course that exemption disappears. That would be a reward to the clubs and a real incentive for all clubs to invest in their academies. It would keep a nucleus of good players together - and we have all seen just how beneficial that is to our club - and it would mean that we could actually afford to keep hold of great players we have brought through rather than have to see them go elsewhere because other clubs can afford it within the cap and we literally arent allowed to compete to do that! By deciding to keep Owen and Maro - it meant we couldnt keep Nathan for instance - so all that investment in him is being reaped by Quins. It does seem nonsensical that the academy allowance disappears once they join the senior squad! Why? Bonkers. There are times with all the players England and the other nations take from us with injuries, we literally cant field a team. Our squad isnt big enough to cope with those demands from outside. I know Tiggers will say "well we managed (and didnt like it either)" but the number of injuries and the number of matches, with the rest weeks (which are absolutely needed!) puts far more strain on teams now than it ever has before!

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
Rolls (IP Logged)
03 February, 2018 14:01
Good points, Barnet Sarrie! I don’t think the Tiggers line of ‘we had to put up with it,now it’s your turn, get on with it’ washes any more. They were the biggest, best, highest achieving club amongst a limited set of oppos, cue incoming! In spite of the play-offs there are more and better clubs competing, a while ago you could probably pick the top four straight away, now you may have six clubs challenging for the four places and a home advantage is pretty much essential. Among the new and rising clubs who could put their hands on their hearts and predict they saw the rise and rise of Saracens and Chiefs?

The RFU I don’t think gives a jot about the problems the clubs are experiencing during the international periods. Club England has the right to pillage - your word - our players and while they’re at it nick some coaches as well and impose a salary cap which means it is very hard to hang onto all your academy players that you have invested in. Somewhere, something has to give. By the by, I’m very pro club, that’s where I pay my season ticket money to watch my players, of course I want England to do well, where the answers lie I don’t know, I don’t think the RFU will give ground easily easily especially when EJ is getting their results. Barnet Sarrie to run the RFU? Far too logical!

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
Seany_Boy0511 (IP Logged)
03 February, 2018 14:51
Why would the RFU give a stuff about club rugby? Seriously think about it what makes them the most money, internationals.. so they want the best players in the country playing so they can sell tickets... It's incorrect possibly, but that's the RFU for you, I like the idea of a percentage of exemption from the Salary Cap, and I also like the idea of BarnetSarrie running the RFU the issue is, BS has far too much common sense to run an organisation like the RFU...

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
BarnetSarrie (IP Logged)
03 February, 2018 15:47
Oh I am SO blushing - but seriously - what do you think about the academy idea? I was really shocked by just how far ahead Sarries are in terms of the investment in our academy in that recent research that was posted on this board and the resultant product. (Sorry boys ...product in the loosest sense!) Surely there IS a benefit in making it financially sensible and practically worthwhile for ALL the premiership clubs to invest in their academies for the RFU? They broaden the pool of talent from which to select, the clubs have a reason to actually put money into the academies because there is a specific benefit in doing so -

I have never understood the arbitrary cut off for 'academy product' once they get to the senior squad. It just makes no sense at all.

BTW They would never make me CEO of the RFU. I'm a girlie and I wouldnt put up with all the B@!"!@s. (Sm100)

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
derbyshire fan (IP Logged)
03 February, 2018 16:09
Well said BarnetSarrie; i’d vote for you as RFU CEO!

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
Adey (IP Logged)
03 February, 2018 18:21
If there was an exemption or a percentage exemption of the salary cap for academy products it would encourage clubs to invest in their academies. But you’re also going to get a huge boom in salaries.

Say for instance a club with very deep pockets scouts another clubs academy, sees a future star and offers the player an academy contract. When they graduate the academy they’re out on a big salary to retain them and also because it’s exempt from the cap. That player doesn’t then produce the goods, they’re not the future star they were thought to be. Where do they go?

You might not want them anymore but they’ve had big money and won’t take a pay cut. Another club might want them but can’t match their salary demands, and they’re not exempt from their cap.

So you’re paying academy prospects too much money, how much do you then have to pay the core of your squad? And your Faz and Maro superstars?

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
BarnetSarrie (IP Logged)
03 February, 2018 18:49
The boom in salaries is already happening as a result of the cap - it didnt lead to larger squads. Poaching already goes on anyway - but the point is that there is no guarantee that someone scouted at Academy level is guaranteed to go on and 'become a superstar'. They are still so immature in so many ways. That is to do with how much an individual is prepared to put in in terms of training, in terms of their attitude - in terms of how they actually develop physically. Maro and Owen are and always were exceptional. Those in the know at Sarries were talking about both of them in England terms years and years ago - because all those boxes seemed to be ticked. But they still had to get the proper training and develop in the right way. There were still no guarantees. Nathan and Nick Isiekwe were scraggy kids (sorry boys, but you were) when I first met them. There were confidence issues and a lot of learning to do. Nathan went to New Zealand with Saracens and Nick had expert help from George, Hilly and of course Don Barrell and the academy coaches. That is what helped make them the players they are rapidly becoming. Who knows what would have happened at another club?

You are assuming that it is all about Money Adey. And of course it is partly about that - but there are a lot of different factors when a player decides to move. For example - the money was the clincher for Nathan - but it was also about Saracens bringing in Lewington, uncertainty about what Wylesy was doing, the club having to juggle other contracts to keep within the cap and being unable to make an offer when he needed certainty - about him wanting to stay in london - about him being reluctant (to put it mildly) to leave his friends in his cohort -
As for if they dont make the grade - well then they wont make the grade anywhere. That is true whether there is an exemption or not. Sometimes they play at a different level - sometimes they go on to do other things, hopefully supported by their club in that decision. That's why the boys in our academy are always encouraged to pursue other qualifications and skills outside of rugby - something that not all clubs do, unfortunately.

The basic principle of keeping your players if you have invested in them and they want to be able to stay - and you want them to, should surely be supported. The improvement in all Premiership Academies and giving clubs a reason to focus more and invest in them HAS to be a sensible one, surely

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
Sara'sman (IP Logged)
03 February, 2018 20:04
I'd also support Barnet's concept of enabling all clubs a better chance of retaining their academy products. But the league needs to remain competitive, not too much in favour of (we) richer clubs. We should also bear in mind that Quins, Irish and us have the advantage of a rich academy region; it is no coincidence that they are probably 3 of the best academies.

I think the concept of a percentage (50?) of an Academy product's salary being outside the cap, capped at (£50k?) might create a balance. But any system must be heavily policed. It would be bad for the game if (we) hovered up all exceptional prospects from "borderline" areas or encouraged young prospects to move, largely because we can afford so to do. For example, there is already concern that Wasps are doing this to Wuss' academy. Separately, as Wuss can't pay to the cap will the system help them (or Irish with Bath) to retain their 5 U20 proteges? Should the RFU help more by additional payments to clubs - perhaps (£5k) per player plus (£2k) per game for each player used at U20 level? And smaller amounts for U18?

The RFU get our senior players on the cheap (top Internationals play 20 club games, several are on £500k - £25k per game). They deserve more than £23k for such intensely physical games, and so do their clubs (and the academies that produced them). Perhaps the same amount should be paid, split 30/70 (current/producing club) in the season of the first cap, changing by 10 per year - 40/60, 50,50, ...

One problem with any payment/cap exemption is the difficulty of a DoR predicting such income/allowances when forming a squad for the coming season. Perhaps a solution would be to permit any reasonable estimate to be made, with any shortfall/unused sum carried forward to the next season, perhaps with a (20%) reduction/increase for any error over (£100k).

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
BarnetSarrie (IP Logged)
03 February, 2018 23:19
Totally in agreement with you about the RFU getting our senior players cheap when you consider the physicality of internationals. Also think a contribution for Junior players when they are taken or development squads should be paid to the clubs.

I'm not sure that our academy region is the strongest - actually we struggle in a large area because most schools over much of the London area Saracens cover dont actually play rugby. The Foundation is doing its best to introduce it and has had some success - but again - Saracens are working hard to do that and investing! Yes Hertforshire is a good area - again, Sarries are working with the clubs and county - but just look at the South West - an established rugby area where rugby is really strong - so are the Midlands. Worcester have a really productive academy - probably the second best to Saracens actually. Convincing young players to follow Union in the North is certainly more of a challenge - but look how successful Newcastle are being and that can only improve with the teams performances!
You cant prevent players at any level from moving to more successful clubs and I dont think it is about being able to 'afford to do so'. We can't - the boys want to come to Saracens when they do for a wide variety of reasons - and it is rarely about money. Wasps may be attracting Worcester academy players - but surely part of that is uncertainty about staying in the premiership and having the opportunity to be part of winning trophies and Europe (sorry Wuss - but at the moment that is true) rather than about money. Its the same for the senior players isnt it? But if Worcester really invested in their academy and bring groups of players through together there would be more reason to stay.
You may be right in that it should be a percentage of salary - but I think more than 50% and maybe the RFU rolling as they are in all that cash, should actually invest through the clubs in the Academies - in they end they reap the benefit and use our boys to generate that profit, dont they?

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
03 February, 2018 23:53
Well said Barnet Sarrie.



Just a farm team from Devon.
We know who we be!

The lowest depth to which people can sink before Truth is defined by the word 'God'.

Pawel Vygot. 2018

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
OldMarovian (IP Logged)
04 February, 2018 10:12
Let's be clear we didn't lose Earle because we didn't have his academy credit anymore but because we didn't communicate with him and/or committed to bringing Lewington and possibly Strettle to compete in "his" position. Ultimately whether right or wrong we made a call that a non-Academy Sarries player was a more important signing than retaining an Academy player. That is on us.

I wouldn't be a fan of BarnetSarries idea as I understand it as it creates an even greater disparity between the have and have-nots in the AP. A team like us with backers and the ability to legally spend above the cap could end up with £100Ks probably £Ms over the cap over a players career under that system.

That said I agree 100% that it's a problem, that it is ridiculous that you are effectively punished for a thriving Academy but am not sure there is an obvious solution.

The system needs to not only to enable clubs like us to keep developing a large number of top Academy players but also offer incentives/protection to clubs like Sale and LI who have developed quality players for many seasons but lose them to the "big clubs" once they leave their Academies.

Ultimately I think the solution would have to be via extra funds from the RFU rather than exemptions. That way clubs would be rewarded equally as long as they are developing the talent. Right now we have one? player in the U20s. I am not sure who has the most but lets say its a team spending under or just up to the cap. If their Academy talent delivers, isn't poached and become Internationals under BarnetSarries idea they don't have the funds above the cap to keep hold of that talent.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
BarnetSarrie (IP Logged)
04 February, 2018 13:14
Old Marovian - I think you misunderstand the situation Sarries are in if you think that our backers are willing to simply throw money at the club. There has been a drive to try to live within our means for several years now, with prices rising in hospitality, less given with corporate packages - and the most obvious example - the fact that the West Stand still remains as it is, with planning in place but no sign of action to demolish and rebuild it. The club has been trying to minimise spend in all areas. Even clubs which make profit are unable and unwilling to throw money into the pot. Perhaps Wasps and maybe Bath are the only exception as certainly at the Ricoh these days, rugby is a sideshow effectively. The club would be profitable were it never actually to play a game! Nigel and our South African backers are not an eternal money pit. Yes, they love the club of course, but they are actually trying to minimise losses.

All clubs urgently need to be rewarded for bringing through players and to be able to keep them - and keep them together as a coterie. That extra understanding is what buys that extra second or two on the pitch in top class rugby. That is to the individual club's advantage but also to England's (or any national team) when it works. Doing nothing is not an option as far as I am concerned. All clubs are not equal - but the place to start building that equality is surely at the grass roots level. If you bring groups through together, money becomes a lesser part of the decision to leave - the desire to stay is reinforced. We (particularly - but other clubs too) need larger squads to allow rest periods - commonsense for player welfare. Raising the cap has not inflated squad size, but wages. That means indirectly it is even harder to keep players you have spent time and money to develop. Incentivising adademy product throughout the time with your club has to make sense. If the allowance was increased and extended to the whole time they remain at the club, then all clubs would see the value in attracting investment to make it possible and increase their involvement in grassroots rugby.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
Adey (IP Logged)
04 February, 2018 15:14
BS, you’re saying it’s not all about money. Of course it is. If under your idea we could throw money at Nathan Earle to get him to stay he’d still be 4th choice at best for the next couple of seasons. So you’re just paying over the odds for a squad player. Those above him then want more money (understandably) so you’re only paying everyone more, and swallowing more of the cap, as opposed to increasing the squad size.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
TonyTaff (IP Logged)
04 February, 2018 17:22
The Salary Cap is a child of PRL not RFU. BS should be CEO of that!

Her CFO should point out that the allowance should be a fixed amount rather than a percentage, as the latter would be inflationary.



£721.05 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]

Please read and submit articles for publication. (*) As at October 31, 2018.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
Sara'sman (IP Logged)
04 February, 2018 17:46
Quote:
BarnetSarrie
and the most obvious example - the fact that the West Stand still remains as it is, with planning in place but no sign of action to demolish and rebuild it.

I'm hoping, dreaming perhaps, that there will be an announcement in the "Celebrating 5 Years at AP" detail promised for the Newcastle game.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
OldMarovian (IP Logged)
04 February, 2018 18:57
Quote:
BarnetSarrie
Old Marovian - I think you misunderstand the situation Sarries are in if you think that our backers are willing to simply throw money at the club

Not at all BarnetSarrie I am using us as an example of a club who certainly pay up to the salary cap and significantly beyond (in the form of totally legal Marquee players) which indicates there is money there. A system which rewarded ONLY teams able to find funds above the salary cap would be monstrously unfair.

Can you not see how taking Academy players outside the cap would be a massive advantage for clubs in our position or similar and no help what-so-ever for clubs who aren't even able to pay up to the cap. Tbh I would rather the status quo than see something that further rewards the top clubs even though we are one of those.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
BarnetSarrie (IP Logged)
04 February, 2018 20:09
Quote:
Adey
BS, you’re saying it’s not all about money. Of course it is. If under your idea we could throw money at Nathan Earle to get him to stay he’d still be 4th choice at best for the next couple of seasons. So you’re just paying over the odds for a squad player. Those above him then want more money (understandably) so you’re only paying everyone more, and swallowing more of the cap, as opposed to increasing the squad size.

I think in Nathans case since I was the one who posted to explain exactly why he is leaving you will see it is very complex. It was about timing, game time, friendship - and lastly money. But it was not primarily or initially about Quins offer, other clubs had made offers as well quite a while ago - it was about no offer forthcoming from Saracens in time when others around him had already been given that certainty, he really wanted to be able to stay - and ironically if things had panned out - the way he is playing would definitely have had much more game time next season. I am sorry to contradict you Adey - but I can say categorically that it was not simply about money. That was a factor in the end - and definitely in the end had a big influence - but it was far more complicated than that. And anyway I would argue with your assertion that Nathan is or will simply be 'a squad player'.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
BarnetSarrie (IP Logged)
04 February, 2018 20:18
Quote:
OldMarovian
Quote:
BarnetSarrie
Old Marovian - I think you misunderstand the situation Sarries are in if you think that our backers are willing to simply throw money at the club

Not at all BarnetSarrie I am using us as an example of a club who certainly pay up to the salary cap and significantly beyond (in the form of totally legal Marquee players) which indicates there is money there. A system which rewarded ONLY teams able to find funds above the salary cap would be monstrously unfair.

Can you not see how taking Academy players outside the cap would be a massive advantage for clubs in our position or similar and no help what-so-ever for clubs who aren't even able to pay up to the cap. Tbh I would rather the status quo than see something that further rewards the top clubs even though we are one of those.

Sorry to disagree again but no - I don't. It just rewards our belief in them, our investment of time, support and expertise which is only right and fair. All clubs especially in the Premiership should be investing in their academies IMHO. This would just mean there was an actual advantage rather than ultimately being punished for doing so. There are plenty of wealthy clubs out there (mentioning noone in particular) not doing their bit - and plenty of less well off clubs doing far more! You are right that the rules about poaching academy players might need tightening up - but that is part and parcel of sorting this whole issue out and could and should be agreed.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
Adey (IP Logged)
04 February, 2018 20:47
BS, to be clear, the whole conversation is regarding money. Not just Earle’s lot. Of course clubs should be rewarded handsomely for nurturing talent from a young through to international recognition. That in itself should incentivise clubs to improve academies for talent development. But by dismissing their salaries from the cap will only raise wages across the game.

Oh and just over 30 caps in 6 years, Williams and Maitland already ahead of him, Lewington signed in preference to renewing his contract and the return of Strettle, I think it’s fair to say he’s a squad player and not first choice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2018 20:47 by Adey.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
BarnetSarrie (IP Logged)
04 February, 2018 21:15
And Williams and Maitland will be taken by Wales and Scotland for large portions of the season and for the World Cup - Strettle will come on probably mainly as an impact sub rather than playing full games as he almost certainly in his last season, being 34 this year! He only has a one year contract. He may end up having to fill in when they are away now anyway. We need Lewington because Chris IS retiring - and there will undoubtedly be injuries. Both Sean and Liam have already had to miss large parts of this season (and last season) so unsurprisingly I don't agree with you. Not a squad player but a future powerful England one who Eddie has in his sights - definitely one that got away.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
OldMarovian (IP Logged)
04 February, 2018 21:28
Quote:
BarnetSarrie
It just rewards our belief in them, our investment of time, support and expertise which is only right and fair. All clubs especially in the Premiership should be investing in their academies IMHO. This would just mean there was an actual advantage rather than ultimately being punished for doing so.

Running a decent Academy program is a significant cost. I believe we have an unusually high % of players that make it from Academy to 23 or wider squad but even so there's a high drop-out and it's expensive. Again the money for that has to be found somewhere. We did the buying in thing for quite a while but then made a real effort to concentrate on the Academy and its paid dividends but it takes time. Clubs struggling with relegation or even just mid-table but who know that Academy talent will continuously go to bigger clubs obviously have to make cost-based decisions. You're talking about something which just isn't a financial reality for some clubs. I'd love to know what our Academy set-up costs us and compare it to that of LI, Wuss, Sale, etc

There is already an advantage and that's having first dibs on those players as they come through. How many of our current Academy stars would we have been able to afford if we wanted to buy them in (even before they secured England contracts?) how many of them stay possibly for less money than they could get elsewhere because they have bought into the club and its culture? It's a massive advantage.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
quinsfan123 (IP Logged)
04 February, 2018 22:17
AP clubs do receive a lump sum of money from when a player is called for international duty so it is not all doom and gloom.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
Adey (IP Logged)
04 February, 2018 23:07
Quote:
BarnetSarrie
And Williams and Maitland will be taken by Wales and Scotland for large portions of the season and for the World Cup - Strettle will come on probably mainly as an impact sub rather than playing full games as he almost certainly in his last season, being 34 this year! He only has a one year contract. He may end up having to fill in when they are away now anyway. We need Lewington because Chris IS retiring - and there will undoubtedly be injuries. Both Sean and Liam have already had to miss large parts of this season (and last season) so unsurprisingly I don't agree with you. Not a squad player but a future powerful England one who Eddie has in his sights - definitely one that got away.

As I’ve said before, when we sign someone it’s always ‘in the coaches we trust’ when we let someone go ‘it’s the one that got away’. I can’t think of a single player who has left us/ been allowed to leave which has come back to us in the backside.

I’d say the smart money is on Lewington getting an invite to train with the England squad after a short time with us. He’s already a quality player behind a beaten pack and back line, he’s going to love the front foot ball and armchair ride our squad give him.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
BarnetSarrie (IP Logged)
05 February, 2018 11:11
Quote:
quinsfan123
AP clubs do receive a lump sum of money from when a player is called for international duty so it is not all doom and gloom.

Maybe someone reading this can explain exactly how it works? I was under the impression that there is a lump sum, equally divided between the 12 clubs - but in any case does not actually benefit us relative to the number of players we provide?

Adey - No argument with you on your last post - but then we havent played Toulon, boosted with Ashy yet! (Sm100) There havent been many players I've felt so strongly about leaving, but then it is usually the case that our players retire or have particular reasons for leaving - Parra going to Irish for example - a final flourish for him with players coming through at Saracens behind him. Stretts feeling that the opportunity and money in Clermont was a good way to finish HIS career after the disappointment and treatment by England - and similarly Ashy. I was wracking my brains to think of the last time I felt this way - and it was actually a similar situation - Shortty going to Exeter. I saw real promise in him -

Dont get me wrong - I am always sad to see the boys leave - but pretty much always understand the reasons why. In almost every case it has been a very difficult decision for them because Sarries has always been a welcoming and supportive club in so many areas. I remember so many heartfelt conversations over many years with people going - looking forward of course to new challenges and opportunity, but being torn two ways nonetheless.
That's why I get prickly about the assertion that its just about the money. Of course if there is a massive wedge on offer it is hard to refuse - but you know, they quite often do in order to stay! Its just that we dont hear about that, at least not publicly.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
JO'G (IP Logged)
06 February, 2018 11:28
there are two parts to this

1) Cash. The clubs get a bonus from the RFU if they have a certain number of EQ players in matchday squads - pretty well all the clubs make sure they get full payments. There was a complaint from Sarries that in periods where England players were pinched, together with injuries they had to field junior players to keep to the limits

2) Salary cap - there are dispensations for each and every match any International player is unavailable. Whether the cover is enough to compensate for another player to replace them during their missing periods. Whether payments are made for U20 fixtures are another thing - although clubs can refuse to release them for these games

generally the payments and dispensations are enough and Sarries do pretty well out of them.

 
Re: Only Nick and Loz returned...
JO'G (IP Logged)
06 February, 2018 12:37
looking at the hard cold facts above, it does seem that the RFU encourage mediocrity. fill your squad with EQ players, but not quite good enough to play for England and you will do the best out of the system

Personally, I would like to see some small tweaks to the system

1. Cash should be paid out not on the players you have in your squad, but on the number of weeks they are taken away by England in the U18, U20, Saxons and full squad. Perhaps rather than a flat fee there should be 5% of their salary for each week taken. That money would not be part of the salary cap

2. Dispensation as a %age of a players salary depending on the number of years / starting age they were in your academy up to say their U20 year. Say 30% if they were in your academy when their U20 RWCup took place, with another 10% for each year they were with you before that so if they were with you from say U14 you got them outside the cap for ever


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?