Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > RUGBY > SCARLETS GENERAL
  New Posts New Posts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


Crys 16 Statement (Wednesday)

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Message
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 14478
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 March 2019 at 1:02pm
Originally posted by reesytheexile reesytheexile wrote:

Heads of Terms's (HOT's) are normally the end product of extensive negotiations and enshrine the key legal and financial contents of a deal with other points of detail to be worked through over time as often timescales are very tight for such deals to be struck (which seems the case here ). Over the years I have been involved legally in many HOT's being negotiated and I am struggling to think of cases where the HOT's didn't lead to a full deal except where both parties later felt it wasn't going to work ie HOT's are pretty much an agreement to agree! You also make sure the decision takers are in the room!

I cannot comment on what happened with this deal but the reaction of the Ospreys was pretty hysterical and almost as if their representative/s had agreed them but then someone back in the Ospreys then stepped in and spat his/her dummy when the HOT's content was known to them. I think many of us suspect internal conflict at the Ospreys.

Anyway, its finished as far as I am concerned. We need to focus on the rest of the season. I just hope the WRU will quickly agree payment splits so the Scarlets Board can sort out our players for next season and beyond which is far more important.

Thank you for what I assume is a knowledgeable post on this topic - like many (I suspect) I had never even heard of a HOT  before now...

From what we do know, it does indeed appear that this broke down as a result of disagreements at the Os... and as you say, we (Scarlets) should try to insist on clarity re funding from the WRU for next season, so that contracts can be rolled out pronto.
I share no-one's ideas. I have my own.
(Ivan Turgenev)
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Once a monkey View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Pull !!!

Joined: 30 December 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 15004
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Once a monkey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 March 2019 at 1:23pm
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by reesytheexile reesytheexile wrote:

Heads of Terms's (HOT's) are normally the end product of extensive negotiations and enshrine the key legal and financial contents of a deal with other points of detail to be worked through over time as often timescales are very tight for such deals to be struck (which seems the case here ). Over the years I have been involved legally in many HOT's being negotiated and I am struggling to think of cases where the HOT's didn't lead to a full deal except where both parties later felt it wasn't going to work ie HOT's are pretty much an agreement to agree! You also make sure the decision takers are in the room!

I cannot comment on what happened with this deal but the reaction of the Ospreys was pretty hysterical and almost as if their representative/s had agreed them but then someone back in the Ospreys then stepped in and spat his/her dummy when the HOT's content was known to them. I think many of us suspect internal conflict at the Ospreys.

Anyway, its finished as far as I am concerned. We need to focus on the rest of the season. I just hope the WRU will quickly agree payment splits so the Scarlets Board can sort out our players for next season and beyond which is far more important.

Thank you for what I assume is a knowledgeable post on this topic - like many (I suspect) I had never even heard of a HOT  before now...

From what we do know, it does indeed appear that this broke down as a result of disagreements at the Os... and as you say, we (Scarlets) should try to insist on clarity re funding from the WRU for next season, so that contracts can be rolled out pronto.
A couple of points to remember with Hots, which may explain why we we got nowhere:

1. HoTs are simply mechanism which evidences the serious intent of the parties. They have moral force, allegedly, but do not legally compel the parties to conclude the deal on those terms or even at all. As was the case here. However, provisions relating to confidentiality and costs may be binding on the parties, and the former may be the reason why we will never have a full answer.
2. HoTs are commonly entered into at the beginning of a transaction, once preliminary terms have been agreed and before commencement of detailed due diligence. I suspect this is the point where it went wrong, prior to the drafting of definitive agreements. Was a takeover rather than a merger the issue?
#George
Back to Top
reesytheexile View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 11 August 2012
Location: Machynys
Status: Online
Points: 12419
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote reesytheexile Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 March 2019 at 4:53pm
Originally posted by Once a monkey Once a monkey wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by reesytheexile reesytheexile wrote:

Heads of Terms's (HOT's) are normally the end product of extensive negotiations and enshrine the key legal and financial contents of a deal with other points of detail to be worked through over time as often timescales are very tight for such deals to be struck (which seems the case here ). Over the years I have been involved legally in many HOT's being negotiated and I am struggling to think of cases where the HOT's didn't lead to a full deal except where both parties later felt it wasn't going to work ie HOT's are pretty much an agreement to agree! You also make sure the decision takers are in the room!

I cannot comment on what happened with this deal but the reaction of the Ospreys was pretty hysterical and almost as if their representative/s had agreed them but then someone back in the Ospreys then stepped in and spat his/her dummy when the HOT's content was known to them. I think many of us suspect internal conflict at the Ospreys.

Anyway, its finished as far as I am concerned. We need to focus on the rest of the season. I just hope the WRU will quickly agree payment splits so the Scarlets Board can sort out our players for next season and beyond which is far more important.

Thank you for what I assume is a knowledgeable post on this topic - like many (I suspect) I had never even heard of a HOT  before now...

From what we do know, it does indeed appear that this broke down as a result of disagreements at the Os... and as you say, we (Scarlets) should try to insist on clarity re funding from the WRU for next season, so that contracts can be rolled out pronto.
A couple of points to remember with Hots, which may explain why we we got nowhere:

1. HoTs are simply mechanism which evidences the serious intent of the parties. They have moral force, allegedly, but do not legally compel the parties to conclude the deal on those terms or even at all. As was the case here. However, provisions relating to confidentiality and costs may be binding on the parties, and the former may be the reason why we will never have a full answer.
2. HoTs are commonly entered into at the beginning of a transaction, once preliminary terms have been agreed and before commencement of detailed due diligence. I suspect this is the point where it went wrong, prior to the drafting of definitive agreements. Was a takeover rather than a merger the issue?

Thumbs Up  Steve . I just also wonder if the decision taker/s in the room lacked the backing of one or two other big hitters on the O's Board or the penny hadn't dropped on the HOT's until he spoke to them back at the Liberty (I suspect not and hence the dramatic resignation at the start of the meeting). I haven't known things fall apart like that tbh in such drama and conflict but then a lot of my clients were English not 'hot headed' passionate Welsh !! Wink Time to move on anyway I feel -the arranged marriage is over!
"I'd rather have been a judge than a miner.Being a miner,as soon as you are too old and tired and sick and stupid to do the job properly,you have to go.The very opposite applies with judges!"P.Cook
Back to Top
Speedy View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 04 September 2004
Location: Gelendzhik
Status: Offline
Points: 13979
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Speedy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 March 2019 at 5:26pm
My take on this is that the early discussions were highly confidencial, and our board couldnt risk any leak from general fans whilst those talks were taking place, further more they couldnt have come to present those discussions to us until they had reached a certain stage.

The fact is that the Os management and board went public on this like a loose cannon. coaches and ex coaches making pleas to the media and then 40 mins later retracting them live on national tv.

It seems we have been dragged into their pwpfest here.
Back to Top
Speedy View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 04 September 2004
Location: Gelendzhik
Status: Offline
Points: 13979
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Speedy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 March 2019 at 5:31pm
Originally posted by reesytheexile reesytheexile wrote:

Originally posted by Once a monkey Once a monkey wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by reesytheexile reesytheexile wrote:

Heads of Terms's (HOT's) are normally the end product of extensive negotiations and enshrine the key legal and financial contents of a deal with other points of detail to be worked through over time as often timescales are very tight for such deals to be struck (which seems the case here ). Over the years I have been involved legally in many HOT's being negotiated and I am struggling to think of cases where the HOT's didn't lead to a full deal except where both parties later felt it wasn't going to work ie HOT's are pretty much an agreement to agree! You also make sure the decision takers are in the room!

I cannot comment on what happened with this deal but the reaction of the Ospreys was pretty hysterical and almost as if their representative/s had agreed them but then someone back in the Ospreys then stepped in and spat his/her dummy when the HOT's content was known to them. I think many of us suspect internal conflict at the Ospreys.

Anyway, its finished as far as I am concerned. We need to focus on the rest of the season. I just hope the WRU will quickly agree payment splits so the Scarlets Board can sort out our players for next season and beyond which is far more important.

Thank you for what I assume is a knowledgeable post on this topic - like many (I suspect) I had never even heard of a HOT  before now...

From what we do know, it does indeed appear that this broke down as a result of disagreements at the Os... and as you say, we (Scarlets) should try to insist on clarity re funding from the WRU for next season, so that contracts can be rolled out pronto.
A couple of points to remember with Hots, which may explain why we we got nowhere:

1. HoTs are simply mechanism which evidences the serious intent of the parties. They have moral force, allegedly, but do not legally compel the parties to conclude the deal on those terms or even at all. As was the case here. However, provisions relating to confidentiality and costs may be binding on the parties, and the former may be the reason why we will never have a full answer.
2. HoTs are commonly entered into at the beginning of a transaction, once preliminary terms have been agreed and before commencement of detailed due diligence. I suspect this is the point where it went wrong, prior to the drafting of definitive agreements. Was a takeover rather than a merger the issue?

Thumbs Up  Steve . I just also wonder if the decision taker/s in the room lacked the backing of one or two other big hitters on the O's Board or the penny hadn't dropped on the HOT's until he spoke to them back at the Liberty (I suspect not and hence the dramatic resignation at the start of the meeting). I haven't known things fall apart like that tbh in such drama and conflict but then a lot of my clients were English not 'hot headed' passionate Welsh !! Wink Time to move on anyway I feel -the arranged marriage is over!

You have to wonder wtf is going on there dont you? Also what is the reason for all this if they are not skint, seeing as they happily entered a bidding war for2 of Wales' most expensive backs.

If they are not skint why are they frantically asking people to merge with them.

If they are skint then why blow money last season? 
Back to Top
henry_winkler View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Don’t believe a word......

Joined: 12 January 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2154
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote henry_winkler Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 March 2019 at 5:44pm
Why didn't they ask to share pys with us, we could have given them a way better deal than the Swans. Even if it was a short term deal for a couple of years.
Back to Top
ap sior View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 08 May 2005
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 7855
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ap sior Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 March 2019 at 6:01pm
Originally posted by henry_winkler henry_winkler wrote:

Why didn't they ask to share pys with us, we could have given them a way better deal than the Swans. Even if it was a short term deal for a couple of years.

I don't honestly think that O's fans would come to PyS to watch their team any more than we would go to the Liberty to watch the Scarlets. However I agree that the question could have been asked/discussed.

Another stumbling block there could be that the O's have, according to Paul Rees the rugby writer, signed an agreement with the Swans to play at the Liberty for 1million per season for the next 6 years. That's  60k per match based on 11 league, 3 European matches, and say 2 ko matches. Can they renege on that agreement without incurring a penalty ?


Edited by ap sior - 07 March 2019 at 6:07pm
Back to Top
henry_winkler View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Don’t believe a word......

Joined: 12 January 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2154
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote henry_winkler Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 March 2019 at 6:31pm
Originally posted by ap sior ap sior wrote:

Originally posted by henry_winkler henry_winkler wrote:

Why didn't they ask to share pys with us, we could have given them a way better deal than the Swans. Even if it was a short term deal for a couple of years.


I don't honestly think that O's fans would come to PyS to watch their team any more than we would go to the Liberty to watch the Scarlets. However I agree that the question could have been asked/discussed.

Another stumbling block there could be that the O's have, according to Paul Rees the rugby writer, signed an agreement with the Swans to play at the Liberty for 1million per season for the next 6 years. That's  60k per match based on 11 league, 3 European matches, and say 2 ko matches. Can they renege on that agreement without incurring a penalty ?




If the Swans want them out they may leave them off the hook with that deal.


If pys was being refurbed I'm sure our fans would go to the Liberty


The money they save could go towards renovating the Gnoll
Back to Top
Speedy View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 04 September 2004
Location: Gelendzhik
Status: Offline
Points: 13979
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Speedy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 March 2019 at 7:48pm
Originally posted by henry_winkler henry_winkler wrote:

Originally posted by ap sior ap sior wrote:

Originally posted by henry_winkler henry_winkler wrote:

Why didn't they ask to share pys with us, we could have given them a way better deal than the Swans. Even if it was a short term deal for a couple of years.


I don't honestly think that O's fans would come to PyS to watch their team any more than we would go to the Liberty to watch the Scarlets. However I agree that the question could have been asked/discussed.

Another stumbling block there could be that the O's have, according to Paul Rees the rugby writer, signed an agreement with the Swans to play at the Liberty for 1million per season for the next 6 years. That's  60k per match based on 11 league, 3 European matches, and say 2 ko matches. Can they renege on that agreement without incurring a penalty ?




If the Swans want them out they may leave them off the hook with that deal.


If pys was being refurbed I'm sure our fans would go to the Liberty


The money they save could go towards renovating the Gnoll

Phil Bennett lounge, Quinnell lounge? Delme thomas barn? yeah, like moths to a flame.LOLWink
Back to Top
henry_winkler View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Don’t believe a word......

Joined: 12 January 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2154
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote henry_winkler Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 March 2019 at 7:56pm
Originally posted by Speedy Speedy wrote:

Originally posted by henry_winkler henry_winkler wrote:

Originally posted by ap sior ap sior wrote:

Originally posted by henry_winkler henry_winkler wrote:

Why didn't they ask to share pys with us, we could have given them a way better deal than the Swans. Even if it was a short term deal for a couple of years.


I don't honestly think that O's fans would come to PyS to watch their team any more than we would go to the Liberty to watch the Scarlets. However I agree that the question could have been asked/discussed.

Another stumbling block there could be that the O's have, according to Paul Rees the rugby writer, signed an agreement with the Swans to play at the Liberty for 1million per season for the next 6 years. That's  60k per match based on 11 league, 3 European matches, and say 2 ko matches. Can they renege on that agreement without incurring a penalty ?




If the Swans want them out they may leave them off the hook with that deal.


If pys was being refurbed I'm sure our fans would go to the Liberty


The money they save could go towards renovating the Gnoll


Phil Bennett lounge, Quinnell lounge? Delme thomas barn? yeah, like moths to a flame.LOLWink



The question is, would they rather see their team go bust than watch them at pys for a couple of seasons? I know what I'd do.
Back to Top
salmidach View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 15 August 2004
Location: I Love Llanelli
Status: Offline
Points: 12428
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote salmidach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 March 2019 at 9:44pm
Don't the Ospreys own the Brewery field?

I agree with Henry, god this pains me. If the role was reversed for a couple of seasons, whilst it would be horrible and I'd feel very dirty I'd do it if it meant saving our club.
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance - Terry Pratchett
Back to Top
ap sior View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 08 May 2005
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 7855
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ap sior Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 March 2019 at 10:01pm
Originally posted by salmidach salmidach wrote:

Don't the Ospreys own the Brewery field?

I agree with Henry, god this pains me. If the role was reversed for a couple of seasons, whilst it would be horrible and I'd feel very dirty I'd do it if it meant saving our club.

Apparently owned by Bridgend Ravens. It has a capacity of 8,000.
Back to Top
Bryn@man View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 16 March 2006
Location: Y Gwter Fawr
Status: Offline
Points: 4462
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bryn@man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 March 2019 at 10:07pm
Originally posted by ap sior ap sior wrote:

Originally posted by salmidach salmidach wrote:

Don't the Ospreys own the Brewery field?

I agree with Henry, god this pains me. If the role was reversed for a couple of seasons, whilst it would be horrible and I'd feel very dirty I'd do it if it meant saving our club.

Apparently owned by Bridgend Ravens. It has a capacity of 8,000.

You'll find some familiar names amongst the directors of Bridgend Ravens Rugby Club Ltd
Back to Top
henry_winkler View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Don’t believe a word......

Joined: 12 January 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2154
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote henry_winkler Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 March 2019 at 10:21pm
We should offer it to them, if the figures that are being banded around are correct then they pay the Swans approx. £60k per game we could charge a fraction of that and it would be enough to fund a big name player.

On the plus side for them I know a load of os fans that live in Gowerton / Gorseinon area that don't go to the Library very often but would go to pys just out of convenience.


But.. Their management seem absolutely bonkers so I'm not sure we'd get much sense from them.

Back to Top
henry_winkler View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Don’t believe a word......

Joined: 12 January 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2154
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote henry_winkler Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 March 2019 at 10:24pm
Originally posted by salmidach salmidach wrote:

Don't the Ospreys own the Brewery field?

I agree with Henry, god this pains me. If the role was reversed for a couple of seasons, whilst it would be horrible and I'd feel very dirty I'd do it if it meant saving our club.



It pains you to agree with me or to let the os play in pys?

Or both
Back to Top
salmidach View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 15 August 2004
Location: I Love Llanelli
Status: Offline
Points: 12428
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote salmidach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 March 2019 at 10:44pm
Originally posted by henry_winkler henry_winkler wrote:

Originally posted by salmidach salmidach wrote:

Don't the Ospreys own the Brewery field?

I agree with Henry, god this pains me. If the role was reversed for a couple of seasons, whilst it would be horrible and I'd feel very dirty I'd do it if it meant saving our club.



It pains you to agree with me or to let the os play in pys?

Or both

both lol, but the first one the most Wink
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance - Terry Pratchett
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.