Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

PRO Rugby USA

Posts: 156
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: PRO Rugby USA

Postby TheStroBro » Fri, 10 Mar 2017, 20:39

I had to log out since I and about 80% of the fans were blocked.

Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: PRO Rugby USA

Postby 4N » Fri, 10 Mar 2017, 21:13

Image

Posts: 106
Joined: Tue, 08 Mar 2016, 17:29
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: PRO Rugby USA

Postby The Captain's Run » Fri, 10 Mar 2017, 21:26

I would probably tune in if something like that happened but I'm guessing Dan Payne would stick to the boilerplate responses that feign ignorance of all of PRO Rugby's issues and Doug Schoninger would avoid answering any tough questions by saying he isn't allowed to comment further.

Posts: 156
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: PRO Rugby USA

Postby TheStroBro » Fri, 10 Mar 2017, 21:57

Doug would say he gave permission to Dan to talk.

Posts: 335
Joined: Thu, 28 Jul 2016, 19:33
National Flag:
ScotlandScotland

Re: PRO Rugby USA

Postby Bruce_ma_goose » Fri, 10 Mar 2017, 22:25

The Captain's Run wrote:I would probably tune in if something like that happened but I'm guessing Dan Payne would stick to the boilerplate responses that feign ignorance of all of PRO Rugby's issues and Doug Schoninger would avoid answering any tough questions by saying he isn't allowed to comment further.


A bit harsh. He spoke at length to Rugby Wrapup about the publicised contractual disputes and addressed them individually. Admittedly, he seemed less happy to talk about stadium issues.

Posts: 106
Joined: Tue, 08 Mar 2016, 17:29
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: PRO Rugby USA

Postby The Captain's Run » Fri, 10 Mar 2017, 22:51

Bruce_ma_goose wrote:
The Captain's Run wrote:I would probably tune in if something like that happened but I'm guessing Dan Payne would stick to the boilerplate responses that feign ignorance of all of PRO Rugby's issues and Doug Schoninger would avoid answering any tough questions by saying he isn't allowed to comment further.


A bit harsh. He spoke at length to Rugby Wrapup about the publicised contractual disputes and addressed them individually. Admittedly, he seemed less happy to talk about stadium issues.


I read the same interview and that is part of where I got this idea that he's being dodgy about all of this. He was primarily using RWU as a venue to complain about the inconsistencies of working with USA Rugby and was quick to change the topic on a few occasions, usually in places where the real answer wouldn't suit what he was trying to say.

RWU: Getting back to the San Francisco Rush – a now disbanded team. The head coach, Paul Keeler says he’s owed approximately 14,000 in salaries and expenses and filed with the Labor Board in CA.
Schoninger: I haven’t seen that complaint so I can’t comment on it. When I get it, I guess I’ll know what it is...(turns conversation to complain about Pat Clifton)


RWU: Is (a change regarding national team members on PRO's payroll rather than USAR's) a problem as per the sanctioning agreement?
Schoninger: No. I just accepted that; understanding their limitations, working together as a partner. But partnerships have to mutual or they don’t exist and I’m not sure at this point what USA Rugby will do for us.
RWU: In what regard?
Schoninger: I can’t get into all the specifics. That will come out as it comes out. But there’s a lot. I think the real problem with USA Rugby is that it’s amateur. Probably not a well-bandwidthed organization. And I dealt with the CEO at the time [Nigel Melville] and Board members that were aware…


RWU: The agreement is 3 years. What’s it entail?
Schoninger: I can’t get much into it. They’re going to get angry. It is what it is, you know. Listen, there are venues to resolve disputes. Contracts are not for people who get along; they’re for when people don’t get along. Contracts are worse-case-scenario documents. Fortunately, I guess we’re getting to that point and we’ll just go through the process a lot of people go through, right? The good news is that I don’t think it affects our growth. Actually it might help our growth in a weird way… I don’t know. An exclusive sanction is most-desirable, but an exclusive sanction where there is no enforcement is the least desirable. So we have to figure out where on the spectrum this sits and that’s not in my control. You know, I’ve been requesting this since April with Nigel…

Posts: 335
Joined: Thu, 28 Jul 2016, 19:33
National Flag:
ScotlandScotland

Re: PRO Rugby USA

Postby Bruce_ma_goose » Fri, 10 Mar 2017, 23:08

I think that is Schoninger's effort to be discreet about the exclusivity issue as he doesn't want to call USAR a shower of swines for actively undermining the exclusivity agreement he had signed with Melville and for failing to confirm it publicly (which I think is still the case. Tony Rindell indicates on a later RWU indicates there is a line of thinking that the exclusivity agreement should be disregarded as it was made by a previous administration and regrettably I think there is a fair chance this has been the USAR's attitude too.)

The lack of response to Keeler's allegation is unfortunate. I find it hard to believe he was unaware of at lead the general nature of that complaint at the time of this interview. So fair point, although I'd have to check that the RWU interview with Keeler predated this interview to be sure.

When I describe him as being fairly open I am thinking of another RWU video where he spoke in detail around injury issues with Miles Muiliana and players breaching contract if they played games for other clubs (and that then impacting on their pay). Hard nosed, but incredibly direct and, apparently honest.

Strangely, I cannot find that video on YouTube now. I wonder if it has been pulled for legal reasons. Would have been about Sept or Oct I think.

Posts: 106
Joined: Tue, 08 Mar 2016, 17:29
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: PRO Rugby USA

Postby The Captain's Run » Sat, 11 Mar 2017, 00:48

Bruce_ma_goose wrote:I think that is Schoninger's effort to be discreet about the exclusivity issue as he doesn't want to call USAR a shower of swines for actively undermining the exclusivity agreement he had signed with Melville and for failing to confirm it publicly (which I think is still the case. Tony Rindell indicates on a later RWU indicates there is a line of thinking that the exclusivity agreement should be disregarded as it was made by a previous administration and regrettably I think there is a fair chance this has been the USAR's attitude too.)


To say that USA Rugby is "actively undermining the exclusivity agreement" is a huge stretch, if not outright false. They haven't signed anything sanctioning anyone else, and I'm fairly certain they haven't gone out of their way to approach anyone either. Unless the agreement bars USAR from hearing and discussing other approaches until the end of the contract, which would be ludicrous, they're in the clear as long as they aren't allowing other pro leagues to set up before next April. You could make the case that USAR is violating the "spirit" of the contract, but the same case could be made for PRO not acting in a fashion that is deserving of the current contract (let alone an extension).

The feeling I'm getting from USAR is that they are riding out this current agreement, not disregarding it, with no intention to extend it unless PRO makes serious changes. The current administration isn't violating the agreements made by Melville but they aren't bound to staying the course either if it no longer appears to be the right path forward.

-

And yes, Schoninger has been fairly open on some accounts. He might have some legitimate beef with the way Muliaina handled himself while he was here (although I don't think that excuses the missing payment) and has some fair points about his frustrations with dealing with USAR. He's also openly complained about how much he has to pay players and tried to deflect blame on a lot of issues. Just because he verbalizes an unfiltered stream of consciousness doesn't mean he's honest.

Posts: 156
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: PRO Rugby USA

Postby TheStroBro » Sat, 11 Mar 2017, 06:26

Schoninger still has not paid Life West and Plates. Life West has absorbed the cost, I'm wondering when they'll come a knocking. The bill he had at Plates was paid for by us, the Rugby Community.

Schoninger has not paid his employees, he has not paid his players. He still hasn't paid a lien from five years ago. Supposedly he had the money, and could have lost it all on this league for three years and still be a rich person. USAR has not violated the sanctioning agreement, USAR got nothing in returned. When Doug pays all of his debts, let me know.

Posts: 220
Joined: Fri, 01 Apr 2016, 09:24
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: PRO Rugby USA

Postby cardiffrcm » Sat, 11 Mar 2017, 09:59

PRO Rugby is obviously dead. It is a shame as the 2016 season was brilliant. They have 12 months left on their agreement, but with no players, no coaches and no financial credibility there is no chance they will have a second season. Furthermore one thing DS is not, is stupid; PRO would be likely to make a loss in any 2017 season( and as there is no chance that he will have his sanction extended or renewed why would he do that?

All the comments and statements emanating from them (PRO) is purely legal positioning.

We must look forward to MLR. The interesting thing will be how Cal Cup, ARP and Canadian teams integrate, if at all. It would be particularly disappointing if we don't see top class rugby in Sacramento and Obetz, they have venues and rugby communities that clearly deserve/can support the same.

Posts: 156
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: PRO Rugby USA

Postby TheStroBro » Mon, 20 Mar 2017, 16:35

Some commentary from the Pundit Arena: http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/north- ... pro-rugby/

Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: PRO Rugby USA

Postby 4N » Mon, 20 Mar 2017, 16:49

Three things:

Fairly boring for a piece boasting of exclusives. Did they even get a comment from Schoninger? Did they even try to?

Let's stop the "established clubs" narrative. Rugby Utah and Houston are clearly built from the top down franchises in all but name.

I haven't been following these recent friendlies or whatever involving the planned MLR clubs but it sounds like scores have been lopsided. Obviously parity will be a concern with talent spread across so many teams (10?).

Posts: 1691
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 19:00
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: PRO Rugby USA

Postby Coloradoan » Mon, 20 Mar 2017, 17:05

Rugby Utah is more of a rep side than a franchise. In fact, its model looks pretty much exactly like what you see with the provincial teams in NZ. Parity will be a huge concern for sure, at least for the first couple seasons.

Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: PRO Rugby USA

Postby 4N » Mon, 20 Mar 2017, 17:15

Yes, new rep side is correct. They don't have a dominant club out there so it works for them. Even Raptors are somewhat new, it's wrong to claim they have been part of USA Rugby "since the beginning."

Posts: 156
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: PRO Rugby USA

Postby TheStroBro » Mon, 20 Mar 2017, 17:56

If we were going to say since the beginning...we'd look for an Olympic Club. A lot of the MLR side are fairly old and have history, Strikers have their own history but nothing recent.

I posted before reading it, didn't really say much of anything other than that Rams was being very gracious in how he referred to Schoninger.

Previous

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], RugbyPUBtbilisi and 10 guests