rugbyunion
Latest News:

The COML Message Board

The place for discussion, debate and nonsense about Bath Rugby.

Join our new Facebook Group today!

New visitors please read the house rules before posting

Test your prognostications at our Prediction League


Bathovalballer
Bathovalballer (IP Logged)

Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 14:33
Any takers on guessing the amount of the fine we have incurred because of the TF release?

Or worse, the possible points deduction for ignoring the rules and the example of Saints fine, and sanctions are likely to be higher this season?

Does the fine come out of the Cap?

 
BathMatt53
BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 15:05
Same offence, surely the same sanction?

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 15:07
Committed an offence, knowing the sanction - will almost certainly be more. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a points deduction. It probably should be.

 
sid the seagull
sid the seagull (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 15:17
I for one think playing TF the right thing.
We will hardly attract that level of talent if we say ah yes but you can't play for your country. Rule-mongers, pah!

HOP

 
MESSAGES->author
BathSalmon (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 15:19
4 point deduction. We blatantly ignored the rules. They will try to set an example, otherwise a fine is no deterrant.

4 points will be enough to impact our top 4 / 6 ambitions.

And will be greater felt by the club than a financial penalty.



Adopted Player 17-18 & 16-17: Dave Attwood
Adopted Player 15-16: Matt Garvey

 
Beergoggles
Beergoggles (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 15:27
IMHO it will be a fine and they'll be further discussions to stop clubs being put in this position again.

 
BathMatt53
BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 15:42
Quote:
Beergoggles
IMHO it will be a fine and they'll be further discussions to stop clubs being put in this position again.

Agree with this.

Not sure where it leaves TF though - presumably he will move away from England which will be a fabulous own goal by the Premiership as not only will he miss one match, he will miss them all.

 
MESSAGES->author
OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 16:03
Probably should be a points deduction as the rule breach was flagrant, however can the PL do this within their regulations for a 1st offence?

TF will clearly have to head back to Wales at the end of his contract if he insists on playing for Wales outside of the agreed window.



Jack Wilson - Adopted player 2017/18

 
BathMatt53
BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 16:09
Quote:
OutsideBath
Probably should be a points deduction as the rule breach was flagrant, however can the PL do this within their regulations for a 1st offence?
TF will clearly have to head back to Wales at the end of his contract if he insists on playing for Wales outside of the agreed window.

Or before. Presumably we would have to arrange release as we would have to either breach his contract or get a points deduction every time it happens which is no good for either party. Someone in France will then probably snap him up given the salary he would command - lets face it he is good enough to play anywhere.

 
MESSAGES->author
shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 16:12
Fine, £60K plus TF match fee equivalent.

Depends a bit which way they will go in the future and the length of season discussions.

 
MESSAGES->author
Which Tyler (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 16:46
If it's anything other than £60k fine then PRL will have some serious explaining to do about their own precedent isn't a precedent.

What it ought to be is a £60k fine with written confirmation that each and every future occurrence will see an increase in the fine.

Saints got a £60k fine to cover any occasions of North being absent, and this was outside that cap. We should get the same for each time that Taulupe is absent, it should count within the cap - though I doubt they'd get away with escalating that far in one swoop and without warning.
They should codify that for each future case the fine increased by 50%, and counted as player salary for the purposes of the cap (with the potential for further sanctions down the line).

£60k, outside the cap can be laughed off (and has been)
£60k per year, inside of the cap bites a little
£90k per year, inside the cap and you're sacrificeing a squad player
£135k per year, inside the cap and it costs you a starter
£202k per year inside the cap is simply not worth risking



A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything
http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/download/file.php?id=377
RAEBURN SHIELD

 
BathMatt53
BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 16:48
So is the aim of the Premiership to not attract top talent? Top talent will have International commitments. Seems self-defeating to me.

 
MESSAGES->author
Which Tyler (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 16:53
Yes, it's also to keep top English talent in England, and to received recompense from the RFU for borrowing that talent.

PRL, as a whole, put a price of (about, it's been 4 years since I did the maths) £75k per player per match for international release.
If you're charging 1 party £75k, whilst letting a different party have it for free, then you will soon lose the contract you have with the first party; or at least, massively reduce the payment you receive.
For clubs who would be busy were it not for this payment, they may not like the idea of reducing or losing that payment.

How many businesses do you know that have 2 different charges based on who the purchaser is?



A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything
http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/download/file.php?id=377
RAEBURN SHIELD

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 16:54
No, the aim of the Premiership is to retain the substantial payment that they negotiated with the RFU for release of England players for a fourth international and to maintain the integrity of the competition.

 
MESSAGES->author
woodpecker (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 16:55
Is there a wy to fine the player as well i.e. directly?

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 16:57
Why would the player be fined?

 
MESSAGES->author
OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 16:57
Ultimately the problem is being caused by the WRU and their meaningless match outside of the agreed IRB match window.

Shame they can't be sanctioned for this.



Jack Wilson - Adopted player 2017/18

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 17:00
England do it every other year. They pay the clubs for the privilege.

 
MESSAGES->author
woodpecker (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 17:28
Quote:
hasta
Why would the player be fined?

For playing outside of the international window

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 17:32
Not sure why that would form the basis of a fine. Faletau has a contract that allows him to play these games. He doesn't have one with PRL. He's not in breach of anything. Countries can arrange internationals whenever they like (and, as I've said, England do this frequently) they just can't force clubs to release players for them outside the window. In this case no forcing has been done, an agreed and known contract clause was exercised.

 
Devonport Boy
Devonport Boy (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 21:38
Just to be clear and to try to allay some concerns, Tarquin addressed this directly at the Season Ticket holder event last night. The Club is fully expecting a fine (nothing worse). He also explained that there are grounds to expect that the current arrangements which have applied in this case will be reviewed and hopefully changed for the future to remove this issue. The fine will not have an impact on Bath Rugby’s commitment to continue to spend up to the salary cap.

 
dannyf2
dannyf2 (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
06 December, 2017 21:49
The penalty should be playing Gloucester 's sucker punch winning try against us on the big screen, on repeat for the whole of Christmas

Much, much worse



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/2017 21:57 by dannyf2.

 
john fox
johnnyf (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 07:41
Great shout Danny boy.

 
MESSAGES->author
shendy (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 07:52
If it's points - and I think it could be - 4 is pessimistic. 1 maybe 2 I'd reckon.
Points deductions for fielding ineligible players in the Prem seem to be 1 or 2, discounting the London Welsh case which was deliberate deception by one employee.

I haven't been able to find the links as all google turns up is the current Bath case, but I'm sure there was a veiled threat of points deductions after Saints case with North.



There ain't no Sanity Clause

 
MESSAGES->author
shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 09:29
Quote:
shendy
If it's points - and I think it could be - 4 is pessimistic. 1 maybe 2 I'd reckon.
Points deductions for fielding ineligible players in the Prem seem to be 1 or 2, discounting the London Welsh case which was deliberate deception by one employee.

I haven't been able to find the links as all google turns up is the current Bath case, but I'm sure there was a veiled threat of points deductions after Saints case with North.

I don't think it is points. In fact I don't even think its an increased fine, so I disagree with myself. (Not for the first time I might add!)

Its Bath's first offence, Northampton's fine is irrelevant, the tariff can't simply increase incrementally because the offence has been repeated. The fine for speeding doesn't go up simply because another driver commits the same offence.

 
HMilner
Big Dog (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 09:38
I really think this is so ridiculous. If the league wants to attract the best players then those are likely to be players being picked for tier 1 rugby international sides as well.

If the club has the contract with the player and it is negotiated into the contract then it is the prerogative of the club to release players for international duty no?
Can someone shed some light on the rules around this as I really don't understand how Premiership rugby can fine us because we released our player as per the terms of his contract WITH US?? Did we sign something with them saying 'we will not release players for internationals outside of a certain period' or something?

What I will say is I don't understand why Wales keep having these games late and outside of this IRB window. All the other teams in the Pro14 got their internationals back for the fixtures on the weekend just gone and the welsh teams did not fare so well (bar Dragons who drew with Ulster) as a result!!



Adopted players: 2017-18 Shaun Knight

 
BathMatt53
BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 09:53
especially when they offer 'gestures of flexibility'?

[www.itv.com]

(I see that this was a one-off whilst the matters was discussed further.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2017 09:54 by BathMatt53.

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 10:05
Sigh. OK.

This is about MONEY. Specifically it's about the very large sum of money that PRL negotiated to get from the RFU for hosting occasional internationals outside of the window. If they release other countries' players outside of the window for free then when it comes to renegotiation with the RFU the RFU will ask why they should pay for what others get for free.

Willful breaching of that agreement threatens the finances of all Prem clubs.

 
cb2
cb2 (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 11:16
Fine the team the maximum points they could score in the match concerned and take away their voting rights for a season. You have openly broken a rule which you were part of making.

 
MESSAGES->author
Which Tyler (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 11:57
Big Dog
Faletau has a contract with us
We have a contract with PRL
The two were mutually incompatible

We either had to throw money at TF in the hopes that he'd agree not to enforce his contract; or pay up to PRL for breaching their contract.

I know it's all been explained half-a-dozen times in this and t'other thread. How many more times will it need to be explained though? anyone opening a book on this question?



A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything
http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/download/file.php?id=377
RAEBURN SHIELD




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2017 11:58 by Which Tyler.

 
annie blackthorn
annie blackthorn (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 16:32
Surely the only deterrent to Prem Clubs or whoever it happens to be flouting the rules is points deduction.

A fine when it costs millions to run a Premiership squad is peanuts.



Adoptee for 2017/18 James Phillips - newly arrived and bringing a wealth of experience in the Prem!

 
Rolfs_Cartoon_Club
@Hydor18 (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 17:03
Quote:
hasta
Committed an offence, knowing the sanction - will almost certainly be more. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a points deduction. It probably should be.

I agree with this. It ought to be a points deduction so as to put the kybosh on it happening again. After all, the WRU can't refund 4 points.

If if did / does happen, I can see BC throwing his toys right out the pram.

 
tigerburnie
tigerburnie (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 17:42
Whilst I'm more than happy for you get some points deducted and I know rules are rules and all that. But if the club doesn't mind and the player wants a cap, why should you be penalised. If anyone is at fault here it's the Welsh RFU for having a money spinning game outside the window, it's the WRFU who should fined a couple of millions.

 
Olde Lagge
Olde Lagge (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 17:53
One possible punishment could be the equivalent of a suspended sentence in order to be a deterrent against a repeat offence. In this case, perhaps a fine of £60K, together with a 2 points deduction, the latter being suspended for a season. Minds would then become focussed on how to avoid it happening again next year... contract renegotiation, etc.

 
BathMatt53
BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 18:39
Since the welsh used the games as 'development' games for testing a load of new guys it does seem like its a lot of hassle for not much.

 
MESSAGES->author
Which Tyler (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 18:44
Quote:
annie blackthorn
Surely the only deterrent to Prem Clubs or whoever it happens to be flouting the rules is points deduction.
A fine when it costs millions to run a Premiership squad is peanuts.
which is one of the reasons the fine needs to be inside the cap.
Essentially, when we worked a contract with Taulupe we would have had a choice; pay Taulupe £XXX, or pay Taulupe £YYY AND pay PRL £60k, we chose the latter. We essentially put the value of the fine outside of the cap.

Second fly, any fine being counted inside the cap bites a LOT harder a lot sooner. A £60k fine would mean we drop an academy new-grad.
A £90k fine, and we'd have to drop a squad player
A £135k fine and it's costing us a starter
It really doesn't take long until that fine is too heavy to bear. If that fine puts you over the salary cap, then we can start talking about points deductions



A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything
http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/download/file.php?id=377
RAEBURN SHIELD

 
MESSAGES->author
shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 18:53
WT do you really think this is such a big issue that it will be pursued to extreme lengths.

Look at it from the point of view of the player, should we be denying a player the chance to play for his country when on average this would be about 10-15 caps. Particularly when injuries can foreshorten international careers?

I completely get the contractural aspect but perhaps the contract is wrong.

 
MESSAGES->author
Which Tyler (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 19:15
You're asking the wrong person.
I don't think it's worth a 5 league-point deduction. I do, however feel that contracts are there for a reason and should've honoured, not just ignored when they're inconvenient. Furthermore, I feel that where there is a known, precedented punishment for ignoring your obligations, then that punishment should be applied.

FTR: I said much the same when Saints did this with North; I say the same when a player wants to leave us before the end of his contract, and I say the same when we want to get rid of amplayer before the end of his contract.



A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything
http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/download/file.php?id=377
RAEBURN SHIELD




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2017 19:16 by Which Tyler.

 
B4thB4ck
B4thB4ck (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 19:31
The penalty needs to be a big deterrent without being a big punishment this time around.

I suggest whoever is responsible should be forced to sit next to BoB at an Exeter v Bath match. They would never make the same mistake again.

 
BathMatt53
BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 20:19
They would need to wear a mac.

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 20:24
I seriously think this should be a points deduction.

Tigerburnie, BathMatt, shipwrecked, please read earlier. This has nothing to do with Faletau or the WRU. Bath knowingly signed a contract in breach of their existing agreements.

 
MESSAGES->author
shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 21:07
Quote:
hasta
I seriously think this should be a points deduction.
Tigerburnie, BathMatt, shipwrecked, please read earlier. This has nothing to do with Faletau or the WRU. Bath knowingly signed a contract in breach of their existing agreements.

My point is that the agreement is wrong, in my mind morally and contractually its one game max. Premiership Rugby’s proposed season extension shows they care little for the players welfare or future of the game.

Faletau wanted to play, the club new that and supported him by taking a hit, the rules has been broken twice, they are challenging those rules by doing so.

If they deducted points I could see it being strongly challenged. It's such a small window of opportunity for players to exploit.

 
Beergoggles
Beergoggles (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 21:16
Given the posters on here are Bath fans the term ’turkeys voting for Christmas’ comes to mind. Fortunately any penalty will be decided by the league and not ERE posters.

 
MESSAGES->author
Garbageman (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 21:54
Quote:
Beergoggles
Given the posters on here are Bath fans the term ’turkeys voting for Christmas’ comes to mind. Fortunately any penalty will be decided by the league and not ERE posters.

Agreed

 
Bathovalballer
Bathovalballer (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 22:49
Well there we go again, more puerile insults when I introduced a subject that I believed needed to be aired and debated as our club is probably going to suffer either financially or , in my view worse, a points deduction. We as supporters obviously cannot influence anything in the decision making but I thought as loyal supporters it was a serious subject that would be of interest.

By the way, I sat amongst a group of Exeter fans last Saturday, and whilst I vocalised my support, they sympathised with my exasperation at how badly we played. Many tried to reassure me that with our players, we will come again, as we did when they took their foot off the pedal and rested starter players in the last 15 minutes. At the time, I found it hard to believe.

And I didn't have to wear a mac!

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 23:42
Quote:
shipwrecked
Quote:
hasta
I seriously think this should be a points deduction.
Tigerburnie, BathMatt, shipwrecked, please read earlier. This has nothing to do with Faletau or the WRU. Bath knowingly signed a contract in breach of their existing agreements.

My point is that the agreement is wrong, in my mind morally and contractually its one game max. Premiership Rugby’s proposed season extension shows they care little for the players welfare or future of the game.

Faletau wanted to play, the club new that and supported him by taking a hit, the rules has been broken twice, they are challenging those rules by doing so.

If they deducted points I could see it being strongly challenged. It's such a small window of opportunity for players to exploit.

On what basis though? Bath signed a contract with Faletau that they knew was in breach of an existing contract they had. Proposed extensions, only one game etc has nothing to do with it, this is a clear breach of contract that threatens a substantial amount of money to ask 12 clubs.

To be clear, I don't want Bath to be docked points, nor even am I convinced they will be. But I think they probably should be.

 
MESSAGES->author
joethefanatic (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
07 December, 2017 23:46
Quote:
Beergoggles
Given the posters on here are Bath fans the term ’turkeys voting for Christmas’ comes to mind. Fortunately any penalty will be decided by the league and not ERE posters.

How about "doing the right thing for the integrity of the competition"?



... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

 
MESSAGES->author
shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 08:05
Quote:
hasta
Quote:
shipwrecked
Quote:
hasta
I seriously think this should be a points deduction.
Tigerburnie, BathMatt, shipwrecked, please read earlier. This has nothing to do with Faletau or the WRU. Bath knowingly signed a contract in breach of their existing agreements.

My point is that the agreement is wrong, in my mind morally and contractually its one game max. Premiership Rugby’s proposed season extension shows they care little for the players welfare or future of the game.

Faletau wanted to play, the club new that and supported him by taking a hit, the rules has been broken twice, they are challenging those rules by doing so.

If they deducted points I could see it being strongly challenged. It's such a small window of opportunity for players to exploit.

On what basis though? Bath signed a contract with Faletau that they knew was in breach of an existing contract they had. Proposed extensions, only one game etc has nothing to do with it, this is a clear breach of contract that threatens a substantial amount of money to ask 12 clubs.

To be clear, I don't want Bath to be docked points, nor even am I convinced they will be. But I think they probably should be.

I think we agree on the breach of contract. However, I feel the issue is wider than just the Premiership. The club expected the rule to change, it didn't so we were charged.

One of the reasons the club felt the rule would change and remember we have good contact with WRU thinking, was that there would be a realisation of the need for one country in particular would go outside the window for an extra AI.

Its no coincidence that both Faletau and North are key Welsh internationals, Welsh rugby currently is funded not by the clubs but by the WRU who unashamedly see the extra game as a fund raiser. Faletau just wanted to play for his country, the fact that the WRU out the game outside the window is not his fault.

The agreement could have foreseen this issue, but even if they hadn't at the time it was pretty clear after the first fine it was a big issue.

From Matts link it seems they might now have realised some flexibility is now needed.

Incidentally I don't think Wales saw the game as a development game as Matt suggested more as a financial crutch.

 
Beergoggles
Beergoggles (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 08:23
What does the contract say about penalties for breach ? Presumably nothing about points deductions otherwise Saints would have got clobbered last year, if only on a suspended basis.

What did the league say to the teams after Saints breach ? Other than the fine was there any other future penalty such as points deductions mentioned. If not then it surely has to be the same penalty.

Quote:
Joe The Fanatic
How about "doing the right thing for the integrity of the competition"?

I'd argue this has little to do with the integrity of the competition. More to do with commercial and sponsorship.

The penalty will relect the outcome :
- Did Bath get a sporting advantage ? No, quite the opposite
- Did Bath get a commercial advantage ? Yes. Fine is appropriate.

 
MESSAGES->author
Garbageman (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 09:03
Quote:
Bathovalballer
Well there we go again, more puerile insults when I introduced a subject that I believed needed to be aired and debated as our club is probably going to suffer either financially or , in my view worse, a points deduction. We as supporters obviously cannot influence anything in the decision making but I thought as loyal supporters it was a serious subject that would be of interest.!

Puerile insults?

 
cb2
cb2 (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 09:09
In isolation it might be "turkeys voting for Christmas" but we have our future standing and reputation to think of and this behaviour might come back to bite us as will not allow us to take the moral high ground in the future.

 
MESSAGES->author
Which Tyler (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 09:11
Quote:
shipwrecked

I think we agree on the breach of contract. However, I feel the issue is wider than just the Premiership. The club expected the rule to change, it didn't so we were charged.

One of the reasons the club felt the rule would change and remember we have good contact with WRU thinking, was that there would be a realisation of the need for one country in particular would go outside the window for an extra AI.

Its no coincidence that both Faletau and North are key Welsh internationals, Welsh rugby currently is funded not by the clubs but by the WRU who unashamedly see the extra game as a fund raiser. Faletau just wanted to play for his country, the fact that the WRU out the game outside the window is not his fault.

The agreement could have foreseen this issue, but even if they hadn't at the time it was pretty clear after the first fine it was a big issue.

From Matts link it seems they might now have realised some flexibility is now needed.

Incidentally I don't think Wales saw the game as a development game as Matt suggested more as a financial crutch.
In what way is the issue bigger than the Premiership? It's purely a premiership issue.
Your final point from paragraph 1 is a lie. The club did NOT expect the rule to change... because they're not bloody idiots.

Paragraph 2 is a lie, see above.

Paragraph 3 is completely irrelevant. Absolutely nobody is blaming Faletau or the WRU. The WRU are perfectly entitled to arrange whatever matches they want to arrange, and TF is perfectly entitled to demand whatever clauses he wants in his contract. Bath are not allowed to agree though.

The agreement did foresee this issue, hence having the rule in the first place.

The "gesture of flexibility" was pure spin, that was an AWC weekend the players were released from, so no Premiership matches were missed, whilst we actually WANT the internationals to miss development matches.

Finally, something we agree on here. The 4th AIs are about making money, which is no bad thing.



A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything
http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/download/file.php?id=377
RAEBURN SHIELD




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2017 09:16 by Which Tyler.

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 09:37
The 4th international for Wales basically pays for their funding of the regions.

 
MESSAGES->author
Garbageman (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 09:42
Quote:
hasta
The 4th international for Wales basically pays for their funding of the regions.

So you agree the issue is wider than the premiership?

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 09:52
No. This issue is about Bath's breach of contract with Prem Rugby that jeopardises the funding of the entire league.

 
Chief-cum-Lately
Chief-cum-Lately (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 09:58
Quote:
hasta
No. This issue is about Bath's breach of contract with Prem Rugby that jeopardises the funding of the entire league.

Spot on, Bath signed up to the Premiership rules, knowing the likely penalty. I think a £100,000 fine plus a two point deduction would be appropriate probably with the points deduction suspended for a couple of years as this would be the first deduction for this offense.

 
BathMatt53
BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 10:05
Well its done now so whatever the result we just need to suck it up and get on with it. Most importantly since we were in a position (of our own making) where we had no choice last month we need to come up with a plan to stop it happening again.

Onward.

 
MESSAGES->author
shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 10:20
Quote:
Which Tyler
Quote:
shipwrecked

I think we agree on the breach of contract. However, I feel the issue is wider than just the Premiership. The club expected the rule to change, it didn't so we were charged.

One of the reasons the club felt the rule would change and remember we have good contact with WRU thinking, was that there would be a realisation of the need for one country in particular would go outside the window for an extra AI.

Its no coincidence that both Faletau and North are key Welsh internationals, Welsh rugby currently is funded not by the clubs but by the WRU who unashamedly see the extra game as a fund raiser. Faletau just wanted to play for his country, the fact that the WRU out the game outside the window is not his fault.

The agreement could have foreseen this issue, but even if they hadn't at the time it was pretty clear after the first fine it was a big issue.

From Matts link it seems they might now have realised some flexibility is now needed.

Incidentally I don't think Wales saw the game as a development game as Matt suggested more as a financial crutch.
In what way is the issue bigger than the Premiership? It's purely a premiership issue.
Your final point from paragraph 1 is a lie. The club did NOT expect the rule to change... because they're not bloody idiots.

Paragraph 2 is a lie, see above.

Paragraph 3 is completely irrelevant. Absolutely nobody is blaming Faletau or the WRU. The WRU are perfectly entitled to arrange whatever matches they want to arrange, and TF is perfectly entitled to demand whatever clauses he wants in his contract. Bath are not allowed to agree though.

The agreement did foresee this issue, hence having the rule in the first place.

The "gesture of flexibility" was pure spin, that was an AWC weekend the players were released from, so no Premiership matches were missed, whilst we actually WANT the internationals to miss development matches.

Finally, something we agree on here. The 4th AIs are about making money, which is no bad thing.

Clearly you feel strongly about this but please don't misquote me, I didn't say "bigger" I said "wider" quite different.

To state the "I am lying" is a bit strong I was merely going on what was said earlier in the thread. From this comment by Tarquin I based my comments.

Quote:
Devonport Boy
Just to be clear and to try to allay some concerns, Tarquin addressed this directly at the Season Ticket holder event last night. The Club is fully expecting a fine (nothing worse). He also explained that there are grounds to expect that the current arrangements which have applied in this case will be reviewed and hopefully changed for the future to remove this issue. The fine will not have an impact on Bath Rugby’s commitment to continue to spend up to the salary cap.

"The 4th AIs are about making money, which is no bad thing." True, but its not just "no bad thing" Its necessary.

Its not so necessary for English clubs, the Premiership didn't consider the factors outside its boundaries which I consider a mistake. In the same way that its no considering players welfare by extending the number of games.

 
MESSAGES->author
Which Tyler (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 10:34
My apologies and "bigger" vs "wider" I mis-read.

Tarquin though, is both spinning, and not saying the same as you.
He expects that the rule "will be reviewed and hopefully changed for the future". If he expects the rule to be removed. Then he's kidding himself.
To say that he expected it (past tense) with an implication that he thought he could ignore the rule as it wouldn't apply by now... is simply not true.


I don't particularly feel strongly about this rule and whether it's right or wrong. I dk feel strongly about the principal that if you agree to be bound by rules, then you should adhere to them or pay the price; not just ignored them because they're inconvenient at this point in time.
I understand it, I agree with it, but I don't feel particularly strongly about it.

I feel that if the price to pay is too low to discourage people, then the price should rise until it does stop people.

I feel that we should say "Mea Culpa", pay up and say no more. We absolutely should not say that we thought it wouldn't apply, or even that it shouldn't apply.
If we don't like the rule, then we should go back to PRL and say " you know this rule we have, about player release - well, Wales are STILL playing matches outside of IRB9 (as they were before, hence this rule being made) but we don't like it, and don't think it's fair that we should have to abide by rules that we don't like. We propose that PRL scrap this rule, hand back all that lovely money the RFU give us for player release, and bankrupt 2/3 of the Premiership". All in favour say "Aye".



A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything
http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/download/file.php?id=377
RAEBURN SHIELD




Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2017 10:53 by Which Tyler.

 
cb2
cb2 (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 11:22
TF could have had an option of future change written into his contract. No release unless the rule is changed. You can't go at 90 MPH on the motorway and argue that you thought a new speed limit may be implemented next year.

 
Bath Hammer
Bath Hammer (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 11:28
When are we going to know the punishment to put us out of our misery?

 
MESSAGES->author
shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 11:30
Quote:
Which Tyler
My apologies and "bigger" vs "wider" I mis-read.
Tarquin though, is both spinning, and not saying the same as you.
He expects that the rule "will be reviewed and hopefully changed for the future". If he expects the rule to be removed. Then he's kidding himself.
To say that he expected it (past tense) with an implication that he thought he could ignore the rule as it wouldn't apply by now... is simply not true.


I don't particularly feel strongly about this rule and whether it's right or wrong. I dk feel strongly about the principal that if you agree to be bound by rules, then you should adhere to them or pay the price; not just ignored them because they're inconvenient at this point in time.
I understand it, I agree with it, but I don't feel particularly strongly about it.

I feel that if the price to pay is too low to discourage people, then the price should rise until it does stop people.

I feel that we should say "Mea Culpa", pay up and say no more. We absolutely should not say that we thought it wouldn't apply, or even that it shouldn't apply.
If we don't like the rule, then we should go back to PRL and say " you know this rule we have, about player release - well, Wales are STILL playing matches outside of IRB9 (as they were before, hence this rule being made) but we don't like it, and don't think it's fair that we should have to abide by rules that we don't like. We propose that PRL scrap this rule, hand back all that lovely money the RFU give us for player release, and bankrupt 2/3 of the Premiership". All in favour say "Aye".

Thanks for the correction, I agree we have to admit culpability or agreements become meaningless.

I also think those agreements need to consider clubs and players rather than simply financial viability.

Welsh rugby is in a state of flux right now with the WRU now directly funding on of the regions. (The Dragons, to good effect as it happens). I doubt they get bigger crowds, they might get extra funding with the extension of the Pro 12 to the Pro 14.

My concern going forward would be what happens next year? Faletau will still want to play for Wales. Wales will still need the money.

 
Beergoggles
Beergoggles (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 11:38
I think its likely that we new that TF's contract breached the player release agreement and but that it was necessary to sign the world class no. 8 we were after, we knew that the penalty would be a fine in the order of £60,000, and that we made provision for the payment of the fine.

We and Tarquin may argue in supporter's forums about it being a daft regulation and that it's the WRU who should get fined (which they should) but I suspect we'll get the fine we expect and pay up.

You can't argue that we shouldn't break the rules and then have the prem make up their own penalties on the spot. £60k fine for Saints, 10 point reduction and £1m fine for Bath, £10k fine for Sarries because they're our favourite.

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 11:41
Saints got their fine for the contract - not for each individual breach. I would expect the same here.

 
MESSAGES->author
Which Tyler (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 11:58
Quote:
Beergoggles
I think its likely that we new that TF's contract breached the player release agreement and but that it was necessary to sign the world class no. 8 we were after, we knew that the penalty would be a fine in the order of £60,000, and that we made provision for the payment of the fine.
We and Tarquin may argue in supporter's forums about it being a daft regulation and that it's the WRU who should get fined (which they should) but I suspect we'll get the fine we expect and pay up.

You can't argue that we shouldn't break the rules and then have the prem make up their own penalties on the spot. £60k fine for Saints, 10 point reduction and £1m fine for Bath, £10k fine for Sarries because they're our favourite.
1. Agreed
2. Agreed apart from why on Earth shouldn't be WRU pay up for our breach of contract? That's like charging BMW for your speeding ticket
3. Agreed within reason. £60k certainly sets the ball park, but as it's the second time this has happened, with a lot of publicity around the first, then it could be a "reasonable" increase, but any increases need to be clarified and codified. I'd feel that including the fine inside the cap, or extending it to be for each match released for; then those would be reasonable increases. Increasing from £60k to league points, or much more than doubling the fine would not be reasonable.



A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything
http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/download/file.php?id=377
RAEBURN SHIELD

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 12:01
It won't be included in the cap - there are two many arguments to be had about existing contracts etc. It'd probably have to be against the cap in 2 years time to even be practical.

 
MESSAGES->author
Which Tyler (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 12:14
Absolutely fair. I'd like to see it brought in, to give the fine some teeth; but you're right, it would need to be as a future escalation.
Or it could be fudged so that the £60k fine is brought inside the cap, but Bath are given a £60k leeway on the cap for this year.



A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything
http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/download/file.php?id=377
RAEBURN SHIELD

 
MESSAGES->author
woodpecker (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 12:30
when does it get announced what the penalty is

 
Beergoggles
Beergoggles (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 12:59
Quote:
Woodpecker
when does it get announced what the penalty is

I assume when the prem have finished reading this thread to gauge popular opinion. (Sm100)

Cue hoards of Glaws fans on this forum to put the boot in ?

 
Trawling
Trawling (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 19:02
I am disappointed, I thought this thread was an invitation for feedback. IE:

How do you rate my contributions to the forum?

A: Insightful
B: Fine
C: Worse
D: Box of frogs

 
Trawling
Trawling (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
08 December, 2017 19:02
On a more serious note I am sure the club must have known the consequences when they signed TF and if Tarquin says it's a fine then it would be shocking were it to be anything more. Not for the first time the tone of self-flagellation from some posters is seriously odd.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2017 19:08 by Trawling.

 
Yorkie
Yorkie (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
10 December, 2017 10:54
Whatever the punishment might be, PRL will no doubt ask Bruce what he will allow them to do before they do it in case he threatens to sue again!

Bath breached their contract with PRL. They didn't have to allow a release clause to be placed in Toby's contract. They did this knowing that they would be breaching the terms of an existing contract.

Fine is likely. Size of fine will/must be around that levied on Saints. Should it be more and levied for every breach? Probably but it won't be as it wasn't to Saints. Precident set.

As has been said above, inconsequential fine no deterrent. But, as we know, PRL has got no spine or teeth nowadays. And to think, once upon a time, they deducted a point from Tigers for playing their own contracted player who had returned very quickly from a loan elsewhere to cover an injury as we hadn't sent them a piece of paper telling them so!

Apart from International players not signing for you, wonder what would happen if any club refused to release a player during a world rugby release window. (Rather than forcing a player to announce his retirement from international rugby of course!)

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
10 December, 2017 12:14
This wasn't in the window Yorkie. No club is allowed to refuse release during an approved window.

 
MESSAGES->author
Which Tyler (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
10 December, 2017 12:36
@Yorkie I sincerely hope that that would result in a points deduction; but I suspect it's be impossible to prove.



A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything
http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/download/file.php?id=377
RAEBURN SHIELD

 
Bath Hammer
Bath Hammer (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
10 December, 2017 15:32
Quote:
Beergoggles
Quote:
Woodpecker
when does it get announced what the penalty is

I assume when the prem have finished reading this thread to gauge popular opinion. (Sm100)

Cue hoards of Glaws fans on this forum to put the boot in ?

The strange thing is that some of our own supporters seem to want us severely punished as it is the right thing to do. I’m afraid I don’t have such an egalitarian approach, admirable as it is.

 
Yorkie
Yorkie (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
10 December, 2017 17:00
Quote:
hasta
This wasn't in the window Yorkie. No club is allowed to refuse release during an approved window.

I do realise that.

And who says a club can't refuse release? Was speculating what might happen if they do. If the player is an Islander then they are usually told to announce their international retirement. Told or bullied as their nation can't afford to pay them? But that is a different discussion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2017 17:02 by Yorkie.

 
MESSAGES->author
woodpecker (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
12 December, 2017 15:25
I cant find anything recent on line about this, when's the judgement?

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
12 December, 2017 16:21
Good question - I think the deadline for the club to respond has passed.

 
MESSAGES->author
woodpecker (IP Logged)

Re: Fine or worse?
12 December, 2017 17:14
Quote:
hasta
Good question - I think the deadline for the club to respond has passed.

Hmm does that meand they didnt respond, there was talk of 7 days which I think was prior to December.

Response: Yes it was in his contract, sorry about that.


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?