World Rugby issues statement after Carl Hayman joins legal action

They really should back their first fives who have their first season under their belt

Erm, I only had one statement - as in 'only one full stop' so not sure where the 'irrelevance' comes in?

It's another not-so-subtle dig from the old dynasty at any achievements Razor may be credited for.

Roigard in particular was a mind-baffling omission from the finals of the WC. After being the AB's best player against SA in the pre-WC match, he was not sighted in the big games that followed. Roigard is the type of guy who can win a game with a moment of brilliance, yet the established but uninspiring Christie was preferred to close out a close WC final.

So please, Fozzie, spare us the barely veiled laments about your unfair treatment and unseen achievements. The fact you feel you have to point them out is telling in itself. And it shows that despite saying you've moved on, you and your mate Hansen most definitely haven't.

He will be welcomed back and was a good performer at the World Cup and in the quarterfinal

Then was dropped for the final!

He is a little slow to turn and in midfield that could be an issue

Defence is one of Rieko and Jordies strong points and at this level as long as the backs are scoring tries and the midfield lets in little that’s good for me

I’m still a little meh about our midfield attacking threats though and LF would provide a good attacking threat with his carries like Aki

Proctor looks good but hardly a line breaker

My concern - and as illustrated against Leinster, is how the Bristol approach will hold up through the wet and windy winter months when fast, free-flowing, 15-man rugby becomes harder to execute.

Squad depth - again, illustrated by the capitulation to Leinster when McGinty went off, is also something that might see performances drop over the second half of the season.

All that being said, If they can hold firm’ish then you expect them to be in the top 4 come the Spring.

Not my idea of a topic to generate positivity, .... though it should be Nick.

The very reason that this issue unleashes the troglodyte community that forever keeps Rugby Union in the background is the same reason that the coach should come from OS.

How pathetic and narrow minded it is for the 4th ranked football code in the country to be forced to hire an Australian coach.

With the exception of Kiss, local coaches know SFA.

McKenna and Larkham aren't terrible, they just aren't top shelf. They have been moved on by top class outfits after minimal success.

We should be aiming for the very best available if Schmidt moves on.

If the gains made by Schmidt just trickle away, Rugby Union will drop back to being the laughing stock it was under Aussie Eddie, and potentially never recover.

You can't have repeated last chances with a sporting community that is used to excellence in the other sports they follow.

Kepping Schmidt one way or another has to be the only solution. "Coaching Director ", Attack Coach, anything, but keep him.

If he isn't head coach, but still there somehow then the new guy has to the very best available, irrespective of where he comes from.