Current Page: 1 of 3
A Legal View
Posted by: Darraghgirl (IP Logged)
Date: 20 January, 2020 21:17

Found this on Sarries Fans Forum on FB
Makes interesting reading
here

Re: A Legal View
Posted by: mrangry (IP Logged)
Date: 20 January, 2020 22:09

Very interesting, and reinforcing what I have said all along. In not publishing the findings PRL have acted in a way that brings them into disrepute. The confidentiality agreement should have been disregarded if what we did was so heinous.
Yet they behave in away that shows their contempt for open truth by breaking their own laws. We are publicly reviled and have opprobrium heaped upon us for reasons we are not allowed to know, and hounded by a group that cannot act legally itself. We must have full open public debate of all aspects to enable the truth to be revealed, and the matter properly settled.

Re: A Legal View
Posted by: Innings (IP Logged)
Date: 20 January, 2020 22:46

+1



Innings

Points win matches: tries win hearts and minds.

Re: A Legal View
Posted by: AylesburySarrie (IP Logged)
Date: 21 January, 2020 00:13

Interesting read.

Re: A Legal View
Posted by: The Substandard Biscuit (IP Logged)
Date: 21 January, 2020 01:24

Fascinating.

The governing bodies code analysis about communication which should be: "transparent and accountable, engaging effectively with stakeholders and nurturing internal democracy." is particularly interesting.

While Sarries have undoubtedly acted under-handedly (for the trolls, I'm not arguing that), but two wrongs do not make a right. This article, which deals largely in known facts and the regulations, implies a wholly incompetent EPL, and secondly we may be witnessing some form of stitch-up. Which is what Dr. V. implied. (= listen to BBC RUW interview)

With the lack of transparency I'm currently starting to envision:
1. A bunch of bullying club chairmen coercing a weak, indecisive EPL to ride rough-shod over their regulations and into knee-jerk actions, to sate their general sense of envy and jealously;
2. A classic Johnsonian/Trumpian diversionary tactic (which the media devour) to make as much emotional noise about Saracens ("The lady doth protest too much, methinks"), to move attention away from some of their activities, and any real facts, which are still being suppressed by EPL, and I suspect may be in Dyson's analysis.
It looks like EPL and the club Chairmen can't manage one scandal at all well, a second one for them might mean some of the incompetents (including possibly some club Chairmen) face the axe and vilification as well!


As an aside - I'll repeat a question in a previous thread. Why has the relatively expensive Jamie Roberts suddenly and almost overnight disappeared to play for the Stormers in S.Africa ? Maybe someone in the W.Country also can't use a spreadsheet ? I'm sure the L.I. chairman would like to know, as he's had so many players lured away.

Re: A Legal View
Posted by: ukms (IP Logged)
Date: 21 January, 2020 03:51

Itís interesting how last weeks article written by the same guy on the same blog was largely rubbished on this forum because it didnít make good reading (for Sarries ) !

Re: A Legal View
Posted by: AlexInSouthville (IP Logged)
Date: 21 January, 2020 08:21

Quote:
The Substandard Biscuit
Why has the relatively expensive Jamie Roberts suddenly and almost overnight disappeared to play for the Stormers in S.Africa ? Maybe someone in the W.Country also can't use a spreadsheet ? I'm sure the L.I. chairman would like to know, as he's had so many players lured away.

I am happy to be corrected, but I am sure i read somewhere that a player is captured by the Salary Cap once they have made 4 appearances in a season.

That being the case, Roberts' salary is already captured, in its annual entirety...so him leaving earlier is no more than a cost-saving decision, and will have zero impact on Bath's cap numbers.

Re: A Legal View
Posted by: PhillFez (IP Logged)
Date: 21 January, 2020 08:43

The stench from the PRL stables gets worse and yes, is matched by that from Sarries management. I look back to the days of Bramley Road and Enfield when doubts were raised over professionalism and the future of the game. Properly managed by both the parties above there should have been no problems. Failures all round on administration are likely to lead to many turning their backs the game.
The shambles of overpricing and shifting core support had already started the season with a sour taste. It has not improved.

Re: A Legal View
Posted by: Duncan96 (IP Logged)
Date: 21 January, 2020 08:57

What a breath of fresh air to read something on the subject by someone who knows what heís talking about. (and Iíve been as guilty as anyone else!)

Re: A Legal View
Posted by: Roderick Flashheart (IP Logged)
Date: 21 January, 2020 09:10

+ 1 Duncan96 . It is a very good read.

Re: A Legal View
Posted by: Brown Bottle (IP Logged)
Date: 21 January, 2020 09:23

Waste of time reading that - the author doesn't understand what he's talking about.

For a start, transparency doesn't mean making things public, according to the code. It just means engaging with and being open with stakeholders. The general public, rugby fans or not, aren't stakeholders.

What matters is that Saracens and any other stakeholders understand what's happened. Well, they've seen the full judgement. We know they have lawyers.

Lord Dyson encouraging the report to be made public is a quite different affair.



BB

Re: A Legal View
Posted by: TonyTaff (IP Logged)
Date: 21 January, 2020 09:51

It's unfortunate that the author refers to Nigel Wray as CEO. Otherwise, it's a persuasive piece of prose.



£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: A Legal View
Posted by: Chops3 (IP Logged)
Date: 21 January, 2020 10:02

Reference the above post from Brown Bottle - "For a start, transparency doesn't mean making things public, according to the code. It just means engaging with and being open with stakeholders. The general public, rugby fans or not, aren't stakeholders."

The problem with this statement is that we do not know whether stakeholders is specifically defined as the shareholders in the clubs. If not, then the majority of texts on the subject have a much wider definition of stakeholder (as opposed to shareholder). The following from the internet is a typical definition.

"In business, a stakeholder is any individual, group, or party that has an interest in an organisation and the outcomes of its actions. Common examples of stakeholders include employees, customers, shareholders, suppliers, communities, and governments"

Re: A Legal View
Posted by: Chris1850 (IP Logged)
Date: 21 January, 2020 10:11

Agreed. The term 'stakeholder' does not necessarily imply a financial I interest, merely an interest.

Re: A Legal View
Posted by: Brown Bottle (IP Logged)
Date: 21 January, 2020 10:38

The term "stakeholder" is loosely defined in 3.4.

Another point, the code is a "...mandatory set of Requirements for those organisations seeking public funding...". What's that got to do with PRL?



BB

Re: A Legal View
Posted by: Chops3 (IP Logged)
Date: 21 January, 2020 11:13

Quote:
Brown Bottle
The term "stakeholder" is loosely defined in 3.4.
I don't think that 3.4 can be called a definition (even loosely) of the term stakeholder "3.4 - Each organisation shall develop a strategy for engaging with, and listening to, its stakeholders (including elite athletes where appropriate) which the Board shall contribute to and review at least annually."

The third guiding principle in the document on Communication states "Organisations shall be transparent and accountable, engaging effectively with stakeholders and nurturing internal democracy." Scanning through the document I would say that the term stakeholder is actually referring to the wider definition that I mentioned previously.

Another point, the code is a "...mandatory set of Requirements for those organisations seeking public funding...". What's that got to do with PRL?

On this point you are totally correct. PRL have no legal obligation whatsoever to follow the Code for Sports governance, and clearly do not. The Code is just a guide for good governance and compliance is not mandatory.

Re: A Legal View
Posted by: derbyshire fan (IP Logged)
Date: 21 January, 2020 11:29

The Code is indeed mandatory if you receive any government funding; but clearly represents best practice in all sporting organisations. The article is highlighting the fact that PRL has zero transparency - let alone getting anywhere near to what the Code recommends

Re: A Legal View
Posted by: Roger G (IP Logged)
Date: 21 January, 2020 11:36

Quote:
Brown Bottle
The term "stakeholder" is loosely defined in 3.4.
Another point, the code is a "...mandatory set of Requirements for those organisations seeking public funding...". What's that got to do with PRL?

I note the word "loosely". Also, are you referring to 3.4 of the SC regulations, or the governing bodies code of conduct? In terms of the context of the code of conduct the latter is the important definition.

Re: A Legal View
Posted by: Brown Bottle (IP Logged)
Date: 21 January, 2020 11:54

Roger G - the code of conduct.

Look, I was just picking a few things out to make the point that calling that article "A Legal View" was stretching the point somewhat. It's not legal. It's clearly written with an agenda. It has no new facts. It uses a quasi-legal approach in order to appear authoritative.

Read, enjoy and take what comfort you want from it. It's not "A Legal View", though.



BB

Re: A Legal View
Posted by: Roger G (IP Logged)
Date: 21 January, 2020 12:02

Fair enough BB. The report not being published still stinks....whatever it contains.

Current Page: 1 of 3
This Thread has been closed
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