'We are extremely disappointed' - RFU suspend Saracens' final regular season game
The RFU have taken the decision to postpone Saracens' final game of the regular Championship season with Hartpury.
A victory over Hartpury would have forced Ealing Trailfinders into second place in the RFU Championship table as they head into a two-leg play-off with their West London rivals.
A statement reads: "The interim decision to postpone the fixture has been taken by the Rugby Football Union after a number of Hartpury University players tested positive for COVID-19 and several other players are now isolating as close contacts.
"The decision follows the detailed medical protocols in place to ensure that the health and wellbeing of all players and support staff is protected.
"An RFU Disputes Committee will meet ASAP to determine next steps for the fixture.
"We will keep all supporters informed via the Saracens website and email."
Russell Marchant, the Vice-Chancellor of Hartpury University and the Chairman of the rugby club commented: “We are extremely disappointed that our young squad could miss the chance to play against some world class players, an experience that will provide them with special memories. We await the outcome of the Disputes Committee.
We regret the need for this decision, which is based upon a small number of positive cases within our squad. Unfortunately with a significant rise in local and national cases this week, this was always a risk. However we are pleased that our strong testing programme successfully detected these cases, preventing spread to the Saracens players and beyond.”
Latest Comments
I have heard it asked if RA is essentially one of the part owners and I suppose therefor should be on the other side of these two parties. If they purchased the rebels and guaranteed them, and are responsible enough they incur Rebels penalties, where is this line drawn? Seems rough to have to pay a penalty for something were your involvement sees you on the side of the conned party, the creditors. If the Rebels directors themselves have given the club their money, 6mil worth right, why aren’t they also listed as sitting with RA and the Tax office? And the legal threat was either way, new Rebels or defunct, I can’t see how RA assume the threat was less likely enough to warrant comment about it in this article. Surely RA ignore that and only worry about whether they can defend it or not, which they have reported as being comfortable with. So in effect wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is no further legal threat (or worry) in denying the deal. Unless the directors have reneged on that. > Returns of a Japanese team or even Argentinean side, the Jaguares, were said to be on the cards, as were the ideas of standing up brand new teams in Hawaii or even Los Angeles – crazy ideas that seemingly forgot the time zone issues often cited as a turn-off for viewers when the competition contained teams from South Africa. Those timezones are great for SR and are what will probably be needed to unlock its future (cant see it remaining without _atleast _help from Aus), day games here are night games on the West Coast of america, were potential viewers triple, win win. With one of the best and easiest ways to unlock that being to play games or a host a team there. Less good the further across Aus you get though. Jaguares wouldn’t be the same Jaguares, but I still would think it’s better having them than keeping the Rebels. The other options aren’t really realistic 25’ options, no. From reading this authors last article I think if the new board can get the investment they seem to be confident in, you keeping them simply for the amount of money they’ll be investing in the game. Then ditch them later if they’re not good enough without such a high budget. Use them to get Jaguares reintergration stronger, with more key players on board, and have success drive success.
Go to commentsYeah, and ours is waaay bigger than yours. Just as you's get a semi…oh hold on that never happens
Go to comments