Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
Premiership Rugby / Premiership Cup
Salary Cap Investigations
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Leonormous Boozer" data-source="post: 984853" data-attributes="member: 45598"><p>Away from all the real technical stuff stupid opinions like the following mess this up worse and fan flames to misplaced outrage. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Bernard Jackman:</strong> "From Saracens' point of view, Premiership Rugby aren't exactly neutral in this: they've got 12 stakeholders — 11 'others' in whose best interests it is that Saracens fail and Saracens get relegated. You can imagine Wasps, London Irish, Worcester, Bath this season, Bristol aren't too far away, Leicester — they have been given a reprieve, because Saracens were coming. Saracens were going to stay up despite starting 35 points down, and now they (the other clubs) have been given five or six months to get their houses in order and plan for the future.</p><p></p><p></p><p>"If you look at it from Saracens' point of view — and I'm not here to fight their case or whatever — but they had legal advice that the payments they were making to players fell within the rules of the cap, okay? Now, obviously, Premiership Rugby's legal team have decided that's not the case. But it's not clear-cut.</p><p></p><p>"Tax laws and business and sport — there'll always be varying points of view. Saracens' legal team could have been right.</p><p></p><p></p><p>"I just feel the relegation is probably too much. The relegation is too much." </p><p></p><p></p><p>Now, I must stress that I know for a fact that Bernard Jackman wears dirty underwear on his head and oughtn't be listened to. But it's hilarious how badly formed his opinion is, they should get reprieve from extensive rule breaking on account of potentially receiving bad advice? What's the point in having rules if you can just pass the buck. It was the same with the Olding/Jackson trial, ex rugby players offering opinions about stuff they're nowhere near well versed enough to do so only makes the game and these controversies look worse.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Leonormous Boozer, post: 984853, member: 45598"] Away from all the real technical stuff stupid opinions like the following mess this up worse and fan flames to misplaced outrage. [B]Bernard Jackman:[/B] “From Saracens’ point of view, Premiership Rugby aren’t exactly neutral in this: they’ve got 12 stakeholders — 11 ‘others’ in whose best interests it is that Saracens fail and Saracens get relegated. You can imagine Wasps, London Irish, Worcester, Bath this season, Bristol aren’t too far away, Leicester — they have been given a reprieve, because Saracens were coming. Saracens were going to stay up despite starting 35 points down, and now they (the other clubs) have been given five or six months to get their houses in order and plan for the future. “If you look at it from Saracens’ point of view — and I’m not here to fight their case or whatever — but they had legal advice that the payments they were making to players fell within the rules of the cap, okay? Now, obviously, Premiership Rugby’s legal team have decided that’s not the case. But it’s not clear-cut. “Tax laws and business and sport — there’ll always be varying points of view. Saracens’ legal team could have been right. “I just feel the relegation is probably too much. The relegation is too much." Now, I must stress that I know for a fact that Bernard Jackman wears dirty underwear on his head and oughtn't be listened to. But it's hilarious how badly formed his opinion is, they should get reprieve from extensive rule breaking on account of potentially receiving bad advice? What's the point in having rules if you can just pass the buck. It was the same with the Olding/Jackson trial, ex rugby players offering opinions about stuff they're nowhere near well versed enough to do so only makes the game and these controversies look worse. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Premiership Rugby / Premiership Cup
Salary Cap Investigations
Top