1
Statement: Gloucester Rugby issue response to London Irish legal threat
By Online Editors
Gloucester Rugby have responded to last night's statement by London Irish in which the club threatened to sue the Cherry and Whites over the signing of new head coach George Skivington.
The statement released by London Irish following the public unveiling of Skivington by Gloucester read: “London Irish Chief Executive Brian Facer says that the club will reserve the right to consider all its options following Gloucester’s announcement regarding the appointment of George Skivington as their new Head Coach.
“The news from Kingsholm comes despite Skivington being under contract with London Irish until summer 2021 and there having been no approach – whether informal or formal – from Gloucester’s management to London Irish’s management requesting permission to talk to the former England Saxon."
It went on to express disappointment at the rival club. You can read the full statement here.
Now Gloucester have responded in kind, explaining their position and the circumstances by which Skivington came into the role. "Gloucester Rugby has seen the statement from London Irish of 27 June 2020.
"In light of the comments made in that statement, Gloucester Rugby wishes to clarify the position:
"Gloucester Rugby openly advertised its Head Coach role in the usual way. George Skivington ("GS") was the stand out candidate following that process.
"Gloucester Rugby understood that GS was not restricted contractually from joining the club. Gloucester Rugby, nevertheless, directly and straightforwardly sought clarification of London Irish’s position. That clarification has not been forthcoming.
"Gloucester Rugby is therefore surprised and disappointed by both the contents of statement from London Irish, and the forum in which it was released, not least in view of the proactive efforts made by Gloucester Rugby during the course of this week.
"Gloucester Rugby will continue to seek to engage with London Irish, through the appropriate channels. Gloucester Rugby urges London Irish to do the same.
"Gloucester Rugby will make no further comment."
London Irish could seek a transfer fee from Gloucester for the signing, in what could be an amicable end to the debacle for both parties.
Trending on RugbyPass
2
Jake White: Ireland, Australia and Wales have the same problem
3
David Campese names his Springbok world player of the year winner
4
Let's be real about these All Blacks
5
Latest Comments
GB is England, Scotland, Wales. They are the 3 constituent countries in Great Britain. Ergo playing only those three countries is a tour of GB. The difference between GB and the UK is Northern Ireland. It's not a huge deal to be accurate and call places by their correct name. But please refrain from your idiotic attempts to BS that GB=UK. It doesn't.
Go to commentsThe 2023 draw was only criticized when it became apparent that the top 5 sides in the world were on the same side of the draw. Nowhere did they discuss the decision to backtrack to 2019 rankings which ensured that England and Wales (ranked #12 in 2023) were ranked top4.
The parties who trashed out the schedule were England Rugby, NZ Rugby and ITV. It is bordering on corrupt that a Rugby nation has the power to schedule its opponents to play a major match the week before facing them in a QF.
You won't find commentary by members of the relevant committees because a committee did not make the scheduling decision. I have never heard members of World Rugby speak out on the draw or scheduling issues.
For example in 2015 Japan were hammered by Scotland 4 days after beating SA. The criticism only happens after a cock up.
A fair pool schedule is pretty straightforward: The lowest two tanked teams must play on last pool day but not against each other. That means that TV can focus on promoting big matches with a Tier2 involved for that Friday.
Why does NZ Always get its preferred slot playing the hardest pool match on day 1?
Why do other teams eg France, Ireland, Scotland get so often scheduled to play a hard match the week before the QFs?
If you believe the rules around scheduling are transparent then please point me in the right direction?
Go to comments