PRO12 has new Managing Director and he isn't Irish :D :yahoo:

by ScarletSpiderman Wed 14 Oct 2015, 9:08 am

First topic message reminder :

Munchkin wrote:
ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
ScarletSpiderman wrote:Marty, your not interested in his comment regarding Australian involvement in the process or neutrality then...?
Hines seems to be saying that he is neutral,....
I read it pretty much the opposite......
Hmmmm... The headline yesterday was something like 'Scotland Pour Cold Water on Claim of bias'. Think that's the why it should be read.

But I'm an arrogant gimp, so don't take my word for it

(note just cut all the quotes down for space)

If there were no Claims Of Bias, then the SRU would not have needed to poor cold water on them, no??

note: almost at that magic number of posts when the mods come and lock down the thread Yahoo

by Guest Fri 30 Oct 2015, 5:08 pm

No, I only started watching towards the end of the first half. Can't really comment on it until I see it, but I would be amazed, after having watched it, that I would conclude that Lacey cheated. I have never accused any ref of cheating, although have thought it in a red mist moment. Never on calm reflection.

by VinceWLB Fri 30 Oct 2015, 5:13 pm

That's not cheating imo, just plain incompetence coupled with bias towards the bigger team. Tell you what for instance Japan wouldn't have beaten SA had Lacey been the ref, i'm pretty sure of it.

by Guest Fri 30 Oct 2015, 5:20 pm

I Know I've only watched it for 20 minutes or so, but it really doesn't look that way to me. Seems fairly even handed.

by Chunky Norwich Fri 30 Oct 2015, 5:38 pm

Munchkin wrote:No, I only started watching towards the end of the first half. Can't really comment on it until I see it, but I would be amazed, after having watched it, that I would conclude that Lacey cheated. I have never accused any ref of cheating, although have thought it in a red mist moment. Never on calm reflection.

Would Lacey have given a yellow against an All Black for that?

by Guest Fri 30 Oct 2015, 5:41 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Munchkin wrote:No, I only started watching towards the end of the first half. Can't really comment on it until I see it, but I would be amazed, after having watched it, that I would conclude that Lacey cheated. I have never accused any ref of cheating, although have thought it in a red mist moment. Never on calm reflection.

Would Lacey have given a yellow against an All Black for that?

I haven't seen it. I don't know, Chunky. As much as any ref, I suppose.

by Chunky Norwich Fri 30 Oct 2015, 5:43 pm

He's ruined this game. I feel sorry for him. His level is barely pro.

by Guest Fri 30 Oct 2015, 5:47 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:He's ruined this game. I feel sorry for him. His level is barely pro.

I'm sure he would benefit from an expert like you, Chunky.

by SecretFly Fri 30 Oct 2015, 6:00 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:He's ruined this game. I feel sorry for him. His level is barely pro.

Unadulterated crap.

The anger is strong in this one..

by Chunky Norwich Wed 11 Nov 2015, 6:16 pm

Interesting snippet from Ulster wikipedia page:

The IRFU also insisted on International squad training sessions taking precedence over Celtic League matches. A consequence of this was that Irish provinces (especially Munster and Leinster) occasionally fielded virtual second teams for Celtic League games. Some claimed this had the effect of devaluing the competition.

by Guest Wed 11 Nov 2015, 6:32 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:Interesting snippet from Ulster wikipedia page:

The IRFU also insisted on International squad training sessions taking precedence over Celtic League matches. A consequence of this was that Irish provinces (especially Munster and Leinster) occasionally fielded virtual second teams for Celtic League games. Some claimed this had the effect of devaluing the competition.

It's really not interesting. I would think training with any national side would take precedence over league matches. With Union owned sides it's a no brainer. With privately owned clubs I'm sure it's in the contracts.

by Chunky Norwich Wed 11 Nov 2015, 6:35 pm

Munchkin wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:Interesting snippet from Ulster wikipedia page:

The IRFU also insisted on International squad training sessions taking precedence over Celtic League matches. A consequence of this was that Irish provinces (especially Munster and Leinster) occasionally fielded virtual second teams for Celtic League games. Some claimed this had the effect of devaluing the competition.

It's really not interesting. I would think training with any national side would take precedence over league matches. With Union owned sides it's a no brainer. With privately owned clubs I'm sure it's in the contracts.

As ever, you miss the point.

The interesting point (and this is a fact) is that on Ulster's official wiki page, it mentions the possibility of the Pro12 being devalued due to the behaviour of the Irish provincial sides.

by Guest Wed 11 Nov 2015, 6:40 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:Interesting snippet from Ulster wikipedia page:

The IRFU also insisted on International squad training sessions taking precedence over Celtic League matches. A consequence of this was that Irish provinces (especially Munster and Leinster) occasionally fielded virtual second teams for Celtic League games. Some claimed this had the effect of devaluing the competition.

It's really not interesting. I would think training with any national side would take precedence over league matches. With Union owned sides it's a no brainer. With privately owned clubs I'm sure it's in the contracts.

As ever, you miss the point.

The interesting point (and this is a fact) is that on Ulster's official wiki page, it mentions the possibility of the Pro12 being devalued due to the behaviour of the Irish provincial sides.

When have I ever missed any point you made? Post it here, or admit you're a waffle.

You missed my point. My point is that it's something that happens with possibly all national sides. No point moaning about. Unless moaning is something that just comes naturally to you...

by Chunky Norwich Wed 11 Nov 2015, 6:49 pm

Ulster Official wiki wrote:"devaluing the competition"

by Guest Wed 11 Nov 2015, 6:57 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Ulster Official wiki wrote:"devaluing the competition"

So what? Are all professional leagues devalued then. Is this what you're saying?

by Pot Hale Wed 11 Nov 2015, 11:10 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:Interesting snippet from Ulster wikipedia page:

The IRFU also insisted on International squad training sessions taking precedence over Celtic League matches. A consequence of this was that Irish provinces (especially Munster and Leinster) occasionally fielded virtual second teams for Celtic League games. Some claimed this had the effect of devaluing the competition.

It's really not interesting. I would think training with any national side would take precedence over league matches. With Union owned sides it's a no brainer. With privately owned clubs I'm sure it's in the contracts.

As ever, you miss the point.

The interesting point (and this is a fact) is that on Ulster's official wiki page, it mentions the possibility of the Pro12 being devalued due to the behaviour of the Irish provincial sides.

That is an interesting point that you quote as fact. Interesting because it's not true, is deliberately selective, and is not current - since the original comment dates from 2004/5.

What also makes interesting is that it's not on Ulster's official Wikipedia page.

Some comments:

1. There is no such thing as an official page of an entity on Wikipedia. There is just a topic or heading - generally written by an uninvolved party that does not have COI. And in this instance, it's clear that it was not written by someone from the IRFU or Ulster rugby.

2. The quote you have provided actually comes from the Wikipedia entry on the PRO12 which was first written in 2004, and has been amended and updated many times over the years, including the quote you have provided.

3. In addition, providing "snippets" as you call them is inevitably selective - as you have been in this instance. The full quote comes from a summary of the 2004-2005 season on the PRO12.
The full paragraph as currently written by a couple of people submitting to Wikipedia reads:

"The 2004–05 season was the first season that Ireland agreed to use the Celtic League standings to determine which provinces would enter the Heineken Cup. The IRFU had previously classed Connacht as a "development" team and so nominated Leinster, Munster and Ulster over Connacht – fearing the loss of revenue from one of the "big three" teams failing to qualify for the Heineken European Cup.[citation needed]

The IRFU also insisted on International squad training sessions taking precedence over Celtic League matches. A consequence of this was that Irish provinces (especially Munster and Leinster) occasionally fielded virtual second teams for Celtic League games. Some claimed this had the effect of devaluing the competition. However, despite this alleged half-hearted approach, Munster finished second and Leinster third with Munster going on to win the Celtic Cup. The Ospreys topped the league table, making it two in a row for Welsh regional sides.[36]"

A fuller and fairer quote would provide the counterpoint to the "some claimed this had effect of devaluing" point in that Munster and Leinster still finished second and third in the league. And the fact that Munster then went on to contest the Celtic Cup and win it in that season.

4. Lastly, it puts the claim in context and history - the original comment was written on 10 April 2005 - the day that Ospreys won the league - by a senior Wikipedia editor in which he wrote:

"The 2004/5 season was the first season that Ireland agreed to use the Celtic League standings to determine which provinces would enter the [[Heineken Cup]]. The [[IRFU]] favoured Leinster and Munster over Ulster and Connacht since they contributed the bulk of the Ireland national team. A consequence of this was that Irish provinces often fielded virtual second teams for Celtic league games and put their first team out only for [[Heineken Cup]] games as the results did not really matter. This had a knock-on effect of devaluing the competition."

It's fair comment by him at the time in that two of the Irish provinces may well have fielded weaker teams for the Celtic League, and put priority on the Heineken Cup. Nonetheless, they were still good enough to get into the top league placings and win silverware. But the Celtic Cup wasn't played until the following month after he wrote his original comment.

by marty2086 Thu 12 Nov 2015, 7:54 am

Munchkin wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:Interesting snippet from Ulster wikipedia page:

The IRFU also insisted on International squad training sessions taking precedence over Celtic League matches. A consequence of this was that Irish provinces (especially Munster and Leinster) occasionally fielded virtual second teams for Celtic League games. Some claimed this had the effect of devaluing the competition.

It's really not interesting. I would think training with any national side would take precedence over league matches. With Union owned sides it's a no brainer. With privately owned clubs I'm sure it's in the contracts.

The 'snippet' doesn't make clear what international training they are talking about also. During international windows clubs have to release players as per the IRB/World Rugby, I could be mistaken but I don't recall players being made unavailable by the IRFU for training with the Irish squad outside of the windows

by Guest Thu 12 Nov 2015, 9:19 am

That was my point, taking Chunky's little snippet as read.

Ulster fans have griped in the past about players being taken for training when those players are not going to make selection. Like Cave Very Happy

I have thought it myself at times, when Ulster have been down to the bare bones of a squad. But I have always accepted that it is the way it has to be, and IRFU are no different from most other Unions in that regard. It was up to us to develop a stronger squad.

As usual, Chunky is just clutching at straws, and sinking.

by LordDowlais Thu 12 Nov 2015, 9:21 am

Chunky Norwich wrote:Interesting snippet from Ulster wikipedia page:

The IRFU also insisted on International squad training sessions taking precedence over Celtic League matches. A consequence of this was that Irish provinces (especially Munster and Leinster) occasionally fielded virtual second teams for Celtic League games. Some claimed this had the effect of devaluing the competition.

BUt the IRFU have never done anything the devalue our league. It is all down to the Welsh and their infighting and inability to keep their best players. The IRFU have never seen the Pro12 as their bread and butter, their priority has always been the European competition, and still is, and to think, somebody on here had the cheeck to say the Welsh were the lapdogs of the PRL.

picard

by marty2086 Thu 12 Nov 2015, 9:32 am

LordDowlais wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:Interesting snippet from Ulster wikipedia page:

The IRFU also insisted on International squad training sessions taking precedence over Celtic League matches. A consequence of this was that Irish provinces (especially Munster and Leinster) occasionally fielded virtual second teams for Celtic League games. Some claimed this had the effect of devaluing the competition.

BUt the IRFU have never done anything the devalue our league. It is all down to the Welsh and their infighting and inability to keep their best players. The IRFU have never seen the Pro12 as their bread and butter, their priority has always been the European competition, and still is, and to think, somebody on here had the cheeck to say the Welsh were the lapdogs of the PRL.

LD, while you criticise the Irish for prioritising the HC/ERCC over the Pro12 didn't Celtic League games not used to have to be rearranged to make way for Powergen/EDF/LV Cup games?

And it was me who called the RRW the PRLs lapdogs but I fail to see how that is relevant

by Guest Thu 12 Nov 2015, 9:33 am

LordDowlais wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:Interesting snippet from Ulster wikipedia page:

The IRFU also insisted on International squad training sessions taking precedence over Celtic League matches. A consequence of this was that Irish provinces (especially Munster and Leinster) occasionally fielded virtual second teams for Celtic League games. Some claimed this had the effect of devaluing the competition.

BUt the IRFU have never done anything the devalue our league. It is all down to the Welsh and their infighting and inability to keep their best players. The IRFU have never seen the Pro12 as their bread and butter, their priority has always been the European competition, and still is, and to think, somebody on here had the cheeck to say the Welsh were the lapdogs of the PRL.

It isn't true that IRFU don't see the Pro12 as the bread and butter. The rest I can agree with. I would add that all Unions, and all teams, would view entry into the ERCC as a main objective, as well as relative success in the Pro12.

by LordDowlais Thu 12 Nov 2015, 9:48 am

marty2086 wrote: Powergen/EDF/LV Cup games

The Powergen perhaps. But the LV= cup we used to put out academy players, so I do not think it would have been the case.

by Guest Thu 12 Nov 2015, 9:55 am

LordDowlais wrote:
marty2086 wrote: Powergen/EDF/LV Cup games

The Powergen perhaps. But the LV= cup we used to put out academy players, so I do not think it would have been the case.

It wasn't always that way with the LV though, was it?

by Chunky Norwich Thu 07 Jan 2016, 9:20 am

Interesting development.

http://gwladrugby.com/?p=2309

I certainly had no idea that s4c were pushed into having nthe Sunday Pro12 broadcasting slot, and that they seem far from keen about this arrangement. As I'm sure I read on here that they wanted it to be their slot.

Looks like the Sunday (or at least the S4C) spot is in jeapordy.

by marty2086 Thu 07 Jan 2016, 9:51 am

Chunky Norwich wrote:Interesting development.

http://gwladrugby.com/?p=2309

I certainly had no idea that s4c were pushed into having nthe Sunday Pro12 broadcasting slot, and that they seem far from keen about this arrangement. As I'm sure I read on here that they wanted it to be their slot.

Looks like the Sunday (or at least the S4C) spot is in jeapordy.

Again misrepresenting Chunks, they were forced out of the Saturday evening slot not forced into the Sunday slot

by LordDowlais Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:11 am

marty2086 wrote:Again misrepresenting Chunks, they were forced out of the Saturday evening slot not forced into the Sunday slot

Whats the difference ?

by No 7&1/2 Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:14 am

They didn't have to bid for those rights.

by LordDowlais Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:16 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:They didn't have to bid for those rights.

You do realise that the rugby union is one of S4C's biggest audience pullers don't you ? Why would they give up their best chance of viewing figures.

It sounds to me that S4C were shat on from a great hight to keep Sky happy.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:18 am

I realise I was just explaining they were apparently outbid for the Saturaday slot ie forced out but they didn't have to put in any other bid so were not forced into anything. Sorry thought you were asking a genuine question.

by LordDowlais Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:28 am

Sorry 7&/12.

Anyway, there is no way S4C would settle for NO rugby.

by Chunky Norwich Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:31 am

marty2086 wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:Interesting development.

http://gwladrugby.com/?p=2309

I certainly had no idea that s4c were pushed into having nthe Sunday Pro12 broadcasting slot, and that they seem far from keen about this arrangement. As I'm sure I read on here that they wanted it to be their slot.

Looks like the Sunday (or at least the S4C) spot is in jeapordy.

Again misrepresenting Chunks, they were forced out of the Saturday evening slot not forced into the Sunday slot

Where else would they have gone?

by No 7&1/2 Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:33 am

LordDowlais wrote:Sorry 7&/12.

Anyway, there is no way S4C would settle for NO rugby.

I agree, so they chose the other option.

by **Notch** Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:33 am

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:Interesting snippet from Ulster wikipedia page:

The IRFU also insisted on International squad training sessions taking precedence over Celtic League matches. A consequence of this was that Irish provinces (especially Munster and Leinster) occasionally fielded virtual second teams for Celtic League games. Some claimed this had the effect of devaluing the competition.

It's really not interesting. I would think training with any national side would take precedence over league matches. With Union owned sides it's a no brainer. With privately owned clubs I'm sure it's in the contracts.

As ever, you miss the point.

The interesting point (and this is a fact) is that on Ulster's official wiki page, it mentions the possibility of the Pro12 being devalued due to the behaviour of the Irish provincial sides.

That has as much relevance as someone saying it on here. Adding the word 'official' doesn't mean anything here- none of the provinces have an 'official' wiki, in the sense they have official fan pages and websites where they control all the content. Rather wikipedia editors who are independent of the organisations they're talking about are reporting/recording a commonly held opinion for posterity. It's not even written in a way that endorses that opinion, and thats intentional. It just notes that people did think that.

For the record I support the practice of prioritising national training over Pro12 games, which is a direct consequence of having too many Pro12 games.

by LordDowlais Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:35 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:Sorry 7&/12.

Anyway, there is no way S4C would settle for NO rugby.

I agree, so they chose the other option.

Which they are not too happy about it would seem.

by Chunky Norwich Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:36 am

Notch wrote:

For the record I support the practice of prioritising national training over Pro12 games, which is a direct consequence of having too many Pro12 games.

Incorrect. It's the direct consequence of a having a Union run league where the Union run teams can get away with devaluing the league and using the Pro12 as a training excercise for test matches. Other leagues have just as many fixtures.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:39 am

Yeah they won't be happy about losing viewers LD.

Chunky any chance of more details on the Londons Welsh and Scottish on the other thread?

by marty2086 Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:41 am

LordDowlais wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Again misrepresenting Chunks, they were forced out of the Saturday evening slot not forced into the Sunday slot

Whats the difference ?

Being forced out of the Saturday slot gives them options, being forced into the Sunday doesn't.

by Chunky Norwich Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:44 am

marty2086 wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Again misrepresenting Chunks, they were forced out of the Saturday evening slot not forced into the Sunday slot

Whats the difference ?

Being forced out of the Saturday slot gives them options, being forced into the Sunday doesn't.

So you are actually refuting S4C's annual report statement, which states "We had to move sport to Sundays" ?

by No 7&1/2 Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:47 am

They didn't have to though did they. It's semantics.

by Chunky Norwich Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:52 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:They didn't have to though did they. It's semantics.

What other regular slot could they have had?

by marty2086 Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:53 am

Chunky Norwich wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Again misrepresenting Chunks, they were forced out of the Saturday evening slot not forced into the Sunday slot

Whats the difference ?

Being forced out of the Saturday slot gives them options, being forced into the Sunday doesn't.

So you are actually refuting S4C's annual report statement, which states "We had to move sport to Sundays" ?

No they had to move that's the point, you inference is that they could only move to Sundays whereas as the article does not even come close to making that point

by No 7&1/2 Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:56 am

Chunky Norwich wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:They didn't have to though did they. It's semantics.

What other regular slot could they have had?

No company is forced to bid, hence they could have had no slot.

by Chunky Norwich Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:57 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:They didn't have to though did they. It's semantics.

What other regular slot could they have had?

No company is forced to bid, hence they could have had no slot.

Oh.

by LordDowlais Thu 07 Jan 2016, 10:59 am

marty2086 wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Again misrepresenting Chunks, they were forced out of the Saturday evening slot not forced into the Sunday slot

Whats the difference ?

Being forced out of the Saturday slot gives them options, being forced into the Sunday doesn't.

So you are actually refuting S4C's annual report statement, which states "We had to move sport to Sundays" ?

No they had to move that's the point, you inference is that they could only move to Sundays whereas as the article does not even come close to making that point

Ok so the teams should reorganise their fixtures to play during the working week then should they ? Come on, stop playing silly buggers, we all know what has happened here, Sky wanted exclusive Saturday afternoon slots, so S4C had to move to the only other slot they could, and as a result the teams that get the tele money had to follow suit as well.

by **Notch** Thu 07 Jan 2016, 11:00 am

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Notch wrote:

For the record I support the practice of prioritising national training over Pro12 games, which is a direct consequence of having too many Pro12 games.

Incorrect. It's the direct consequence of a having a Union run league where the Union run teams can get away with devaluing the league and using the Pro12 as a training excercise for test matches. Other leagues have just as many fixtures.

My opinion is incorrect? If it could be termed as being correct or incorrect it wouldn't be an opinion now would it?

I also believe that the other leagues have too many fixtures.

by LordDowlais Thu 07 Jan 2016, 11:01 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:They didn't have to though did they. It's semantics.

What other regular slot could they have had?

No company is forced to bid, hence they could have had no slot.

What and lose out on a massive Welsh viewing numbers, yeah right'o. I can see S4C jeopardising their very existence by doing that. Rolling Eyes

by Chunky Norwich Thu 07 Jan 2016, 11:04 am

Notch wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:
Notch wrote:

For the record I support the practice of prioritising national training over Pro12 games, which is a direct consequence of having too many Pro12 games.

Incorrect. It's the direct consequence of a having a Union run league where the Union run teams can get away with devaluing the league and using the Pro12 as a training excercise for test matches. Other leagues have just as many fixtures.

My opinion is incorrect? If it could be termed as being correct or incorrect it wouldn't be an opinion now would it?

I also believe that the other leagues have too many fixtures.

Yes your opinion is incorrect.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 07 Jan 2016, 11:04 am

And yet as I've said they had a choice. Semantics but there we are.

by LordDowlais Thu 07 Jan 2016, 11:06 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:And yet as I've said they had a choice. Semantics but there we are.

I'm sorry it's not a choice, without the rugby S4C would lose hundreds of thousands of viewers over a year. It was make up, or go bust. That is not a choice.

by Chunky Norwich Thu 07 Jan 2016, 11:07 am

LordDowlais wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:And yet as I've said they had a choice. Semantics but there we are.

I'm sorry it's not a choice, without the rugby S4C would lose hundreds of thousands of viewers over a year. It was make up, or go bust. That is not a choice.

He/she just wants to win an argument. It's a pathetic viewpoint to put across and he/she knows it.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 07 Jan 2016, 11:11 am

He Chunky. I've ackonwledged it's semantics but a decision was made. They weren't forced to pay money. They didn't have. There's no real argument against that, but it's a pretty hollow point as I've said.

by Sponsored content