The war on international rugby begins...

by Fanster Fri 28 Oct 2016, 5:44 pm

I recently read an article in which the PRL are threatening to refuse the SRU their Scottish players due to 'hundreds of thousands of pounds' worth of perceived insurance costs that have been chased but have gone unpaid...

The PRL now have club rugby where it wants it, yet this pesky international game is the next thing that must go!

The RFU, RPA, and players unoin are uspposedly all backing the PRL's claim for the money lost for the last few seasons of injuries from international rugby, otherwise Scotland will not be allowed the 5/6 international players they have named.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 28 Oct 2016, 6:05 pm

Really? You don't think that the Unions should abide by the rules? Why not may I ask? It's wider than Scotland as well; Italian and a couple of others I'm struggling to remember. Pretty sure the Unions will pay what they agreed and players will be released.

by 123456789 Fri 28 Oct 2016, 6:27 pm

I imagine Scotland will come up with some kind of compromise, probably Italy too but the other countries are Pacific Nations who simply may not be able to afford it, given the players of Pacific Island heritage England have gained and make money from perhaps a bit of leeway should be given to poorer nations.

by Poorfour Fri 28 Oct 2016, 6:32 pm

Rather than snidely referring to "perceived insurance costs" it might be worth checking a few facts before you jump to conclusions. For instance, it might be worth reading the BBC's Q&A, which includes the PRL's own statement of the issue:

PRL wrote:World Rugby Regulations make the Union responsible for losses and expenses incurred as a result of injury sustained when a player is on International Duty. However a number of players (not all) have returned injured to our clubs from Test duty in recent seasons, and the clubs have been left to the pay the bills that are the responsibility of those Unions.

In all cases Premiership Rugby clubs have paid the medical bills and the salary of their players who have been injured on Test duty, to ensure those players did not suffer any hardship.

Some of those bills were incurred more than 12 months ago and we have repeatedly asked those unions to settle the bills. "Our only option - to protect our players - is to withdraw them from Test matches until adequate provision to cover them on Test duty is guaranteed.

We have the support of the RFU and The Players Union, The Rugby Players Association (RPA) in pursuing these claims.

We understand that many of the Tier Two nations suffer financial hardship which is why we believe the solution to this problem lies with World Rugby.

We believe a Fund could be set up from the Rugby World Cup surplus to help Unions settle these insurance claims, which can run into hundreds and thousands of pounds.

Clearly our clubs can't continue to pay these bills.

BBC Q&A

Even the IRB agrees that the PRL are complying with the current regulatory framework, which requires that players are released 5 days before test matches - but the SRU wants early release:

IRB wrote:PRL have got no problem releasing players five days before Test matches. It's slightly different now that Scotland want release for squad sessions.

IRB Press release

The SRU seem to be adopting a "can't pay, won't pay" attitude to injuries incurred on international duty - in breach of IRB regulations - and the PRL, having stumped up the cash in previous seasons, is a bit sick of subsidising Scottish rugby and now being asked to release players outside of IRB regulations, and so is sticking to the letter of the regulations.

Only one side of this argument is in breach of regulations, and it's not the PRL.

It's also worth noting that the PRL have reached agreements with both the RFU and now WRU over early player release.

If they were blocking all the unions, or even all the unions bar the RFU you might have a point, but the fact that they have released Welsh players suggests that they've got a genuine issue with the SRU and others where they've blocked early release.

by stub Fri 28 Oct 2016, 6:57 pm

Come on Poorfour - don't spoil it with evidence. PRL are evil etc etc Wink

by Poorfour Fri 28 Oct 2016, 6:59 pm

stub wrote:Come on Poorfour - don't spoil it with evidence. PRL are evil etc etc

You know how Google's mission statement starts with "Don't be evil"? The PRL's doesn't. Proof positive.

by SecretFly Fri 28 Oct 2016, 8:33 pm

Come on lads, admit it - they got the SRU by the b-alls and love an old squeeze to make a pig squeal. Wink

They're laughing - as all evil geniuses do.

But then again, I have no sympathy with any Scottish player who now has to wait patiently for his new owners to allow him be excused 'Club' class. "You may go, MacTaggard, but look here you, you better not come back without your homework done OR with any silly sick note from your parents!"

BTW, do International players get paid to play for their Nations? Hmmm.... maybe Unions should look for money from Clubs when they have to take over medical duty with Club inflicted niggles and injuries to chosen players for a few weeks?

by mckay1402 Fri 28 Oct 2016, 9:21 pm

I'm so bored of these stories every season. it's not a war on international rugby. it's a business protecting it's interests. all the unions know any the window and the prl rules so if they arrange matches outside the window they've got nobody else to blame.

by Poorfour Fri 28 Oct 2016, 9:37 pm

SecretFly wrote:BTW, do International players get paid to play for their Nations? Hmmm.... maybe Unions should look for money from Clubs when they have to take over medical duty with Club inflicted niggles and injuries to chosen players for a few weeks?

I am assuming you know that they do. But unions don't usually have to deal with injuries incurred by players on club duty. They just pick someone else. The relationship is one sided in that respect.

by SecretFly Fri 28 Oct 2016, 10:03 pm

Poorfour wrote:
SecretFly wrote:BTW, do International players get paid to play for their Nations? Hmmm.... maybe Unions should look for money from Clubs when they have to take over medical duty with Club inflicted niggles and injuries to chosen players for a few weeks?

I am assuming you know that they do. But unions don't usually have to deal with injuries incurred by players on club duty. They just pick someone else. The relationship is one sided in that respect.

Yeah, I'm addicted to the old rhetorical questions Wink

. But come now, there is no rugby player walking the face of the planet that doesn't need some kind of treatment from week to week to keep him ticking over. The bills are on their way. Cool

by maestegmafia Fri 28 Oct 2016, 10:56 pm

mckay1402 wrote:I'm so bored of these stories every season. it's not a war on international rugby. it's a business protecting it's interests. all the unions know any the window and the prl rules so if they arrange matches outside the window they've got nobody else to blame.

International rugby is business, its bigger business than club rugby.

Why don't the unions challenge the clubs for payments when their star players are injured from club rugby...?

The PRL are once again trying to bully other nations out of cash.

by SecretFly Fri 28 Oct 2016, 10:59 pm

Bullying someone out of cash: Extortion.

by BamBam Sat 29 Oct 2016, 12:21 am

maestegmafia wrote:
mckay1402 wrote:I'm so bored of these stories every season. it's not a war on international rugby. it's a business protecting it's interests. all the unions know any the window and the prl rules so if they arrange matches outside the window they've got nobody else to blame.

International rugby is business, its bigger business than club rugby.

Why don't the unions challenge the clubs for payments when their star players are injured from club rugby...?

The PRL are once again trying to bully other nations out of cash.

Who are the players contracted to? Who pays their wages?

by 123456789 Sat 29 Oct 2016, 12:28 am

In the grand scheme of things, considering international rugby is a multi-million pound business, how much do these medical bills amount to. In a week or so the SRU will issue a press release with Mark Dodson pulling that awful cheesy grin of his shaking his hand with an English club owner, probably the unbearable Bath one, wearing a navy blue suit with a white shirt with two buttons undone and no tie announcing that they've released a ground breaking new deal to sell the naming rights to the Calcutta Cup and to Hadrian's wall to BT and that money will go toward Scottish players medical bill.

by maestegmafia Sat 29 Oct 2016, 6:33 am

BamBam wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
mckay1402 wrote:I'm so bored of these stories every season. it's not a war on international rugby. it's a business protecting it's interests. all the unions know any the window and the prl rules so if they arrange matches outside the window they've got nobody else to blame.

International rugby is business, its bigger business than club rugby.

Why don't the unions challenge the clubs for payments when their star players are injured from club rugby...?

The PRL are once again trying to bully other nations out of cash.

Who are the players contracted to? Who pays their wages?

The Union pays for international appearances, the club plays for league appearances.

Surely one is as culpable as the other for their players safety and availability.

by Poorfour Sat 29 Oct 2016, 9:35 am

maestegmafia wrote:
The Union pays for international appearances, the club plays for league appearances.

Surely one is as culpable as the other for their players safety and availability.

Culpable is an odd choice of word, since it means "deserving blame" but yes, unions and clubs are each responsible for their players' welfare and treatment. The current IRB regs seem to follow a "you break it, you fix it" policy, ie if a player is injured on club duty, the club pays wages and medical bills, if they are injured on international duty, the union does.

The issue comes because players are only with their unions for a few weeks of each season, whereas they are essentially paid for all year by their clubs. So if a player is injured on international duty but the union shirks its responsibilities, as the SRU appears to have done, the club ends up having to sort it out, because they need that player back playing and don't want to get a reputation for ditching injured players.

When the union then asks for more than the IRB regulation level of access to its players, the clubs are well within their rights to refuse that. It's the only bargaining chip they have available.

by No 7&1/2 Sat 29 Oct 2016, 9:52 am

The PRL are saying all tests which they're obviously not allowed to do but regs say the unions need to pick up costs which they haven't been (according to BBC).

by Guest Sat 29 Oct 2016, 10:21 am

Does the RFU pay its players money for playing tests and if so does anyone know how much?

by maestegmafia Sat 29 Oct 2016, 10:43 am

ebop wrote:Does the RFU pay its players money for playing tests and if so does anyone know how much?

£15,000 per match (£7,000 for match fee, £7,000 image rights, £1,000 for training free) plus performance bonuses for example if England win Six Nations 2016 whole squad will share £600,000.

Plus the RFU pay the PRL for the RFU to use players to represent England.

by Guest Sat 29 Oct 2016, 10:56 am

Thanks maestegmafia

£150,000+ from the RFU

Clubs pay England squad players around £400,000, or more?

by Poorfour Sat 29 Oct 2016, 11:56 am

ebop wrote:Thanks maestegmafia

£150,000+ from the RFU

Clubs pay England squad players around £400,000, or more?

I doubt it's that much. I would have thought that established senior internationals might be on £150-200k from their clubs, with a few superstars on more. There are a few players on £300k plus, but they will mostly be overseas marquee players.

Club salaries are renegotiated every couple of years. A player will generally get more money with each contract, and will get a boost for being an international and more for being a Lion.

If I had to guess, I'd say the highest paid English player could well be Dan Cole. Tightheads are among the best paid positions, along with fly halves, and Cole has been an international for a long time so will have been able to negotiate up his salary through several contracts.

Haskell might be next, given that his time in Japan would have allowed Wasps to treat him as a marquee player. I'd guess that the other senior players such as Hartley, Robshaw, Youngs and Brown would be not far behind.

by yappysnap Sat 29 Oct 2016, 12:10 pm

Weren't Robshaw and Care meant to be on 200k+ each?

Average squad player maybe 50-100

by Poorfour Sat 29 Oct 2016, 2:27 pm

yappysnap wrote:Weren't Robshaw and Care meant to be on 200k+ each?

Average squad player maybe 50-100

They may be by now. I think I worked out under the old salary cap rules that a typical squad player was probably on £60-80k, rising to £180k or so for an international tighthead. But the new rules will probably have seen a hike in salary for most players who've renegotiated.

by aucklandlaurie Sat 29 Oct 2016, 2:52 pm

Rugby players get injured its a fact of life.

Clubs get "Possession" of the player for the majority of the year, and they pay for that right, but most injuries occur when the players are not playing Internationals.

by Poorfour Sat 29 Oct 2016, 3:55 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Rugby players get injured its a fact of life.

Clubs get "Possession" of the player for the majority of the year, and they pay for that right, but most injuries occur when the players are not playing Internationals.

Thanks for that statement of the bleedin' obvious, but that's not what's causing the problem. At issue here is that when players get injured on international duty, the IRB regulations say that the union pays their medical bills and salary until they're fit. The SRU haven't been doing that, according to the PRL.

by aucklandlaurie Sat 29 Oct 2016, 4:17 pm

Poorfour wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Rugby players get injured its a fact of life.

Clubs get "Possession" of the player for the majority of the year, and they pay for that right, but most injuries occur when the players are not playing Internationals.

Thanks for that statement of the bleedin' obvious, but that's not what's causing the problem. At issue here is that when players get injured on international duty, the IRB regulations say that the union pays their medical bills and salary until they're fit. The SRU haven't been doing that, according to the PRL.

its ok you dont have to thank me, anyway surely Scotland could get out of it by just not selecting players from the PRL.

by Exiledinborders Sat 29 Oct 2016, 4:37 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Rugby players get injured its a fact of life.

Clubs get "Possession" of the player for the majority of the year, and they pay for that right, but most injuries occur when the players are not playing Internationals.

Clubs contract players for the entire year and pay them for the entire year. If they are injured on club duty the clubs pay the medical bills and continues to pay their wages. That is reasonable. What is not reasonable is to expect the clubs to pay the medical bills and to pay their wages when they have been injured on international duty.

In any event, right or wrong the SRU should obey the rules of the game.

by Exiledinborders Sat 29 Oct 2016, 4:39 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Poorfour wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Rugby players get injured its a fact of life.

Clubs get "Possession" of the player for the majority of the year, and they pay for that right, but most injuries occur when the players are not playing Internationals.

Thanks for that statement of the bleedin' obvious, but that's not what's causing the problem. At issue here is that when players get injured on international duty, the IRB regulations say that the union pays their medical bills and salary until they're fit. The SRU haven't been doing that, according to the PRL.

its ok you dont have to thank me, anyway surely Scotland could get out of it by just not selecting players from the PRL.

Of course they could. Do they want to pick a international team from just two teams one of which is not that good?

by stub Sat 29 Oct 2016, 4:40 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Rugby players get injured its a fact of life.

Clubs get "Possession" of the player for the majority of the year, and they pay for that right, but most injuries occur when the players are not playing Internationals.
Clubs contract players for the entire year and pay them for the entire year. If they are injured on club duty the clubs pay the medical bills and continues to pay their wages. That is reasonable. What is not reasonable is to expect the clubs to pay the medical bills and to pay their wages when they have been injured on international duty.

In any event, right or wrong the SRU should obey the rules of the game.

Spot on Exiled.

Everyone should meet their legal obligations.

by aucklandlaurie Sat 29 Oct 2016, 4:51 pm

Surely this can only apply to real serious injuries ie a broken leg etc. if it was for every niggle, hamstring, strain the issue should then be "Prove it" for any historic injury.

I wouldnt want to see the Scots getting "Ripped off" because the clubs took advantage of an ambiguous rule that gives unfair opportunity.

by No 7&1/2 Sat 29 Oct 2016, 5:05 pm

Rule is correct laurie. You wouldn't support the idea of unions not givinhg a stuff about the players and ignore the rules would you? At least finally from this we see the prl putting the players first.

by TJ Sat 29 Oct 2016, 7:06 pm

The joke is withholding the players would put the clubs in breach of IRB rules - as this is an international window.
PRL are not putting players first - this is about exerting power only. Its a marker that the PRL want to call the shots over international competitions and as usual the RFU are supine

by No 7&1/2 Sat 29 Oct 2016, 7:22 pm

Again, really? Have a think about what you're writing there TJ. Your union hasn't paid the costs for players injured under their care as WR regulations state they should.

by yappysnap Sat 29 Oct 2016, 7:39 pm

So a union gets players for international duty.

Those players get injured playing for that union in an international game

The union then sends them back to their club injured and unable to work and so unable to make their living

The union chooses to NOT pay for those players medical treatments, it pays nothing towards their wages, it gives them nothing to get back to work or to pay the bills, even though it is meant to

The players clubs do this instead, for all injured players from any union, for over a year

After that year they go to the union asking about the money that was meant to be paid to them

And the union couldn't care less, about their own players welfare and recovery

AND THE CLUBS ARE THE BAD GUYS?

by TJ Sat 29 Oct 2016, 8:03 pm

Yes - the PRL are tyhe bad guys. Its all about power to them. The PRL want to control the game and the RFU are letting them do this sort of thing.

We have not heard the other side of the story at all on this.

Get used to it - the PRL are going to be throwing their weight around a lot more in the future.

This is what the RFU reap for letting the PRL have control of the pro game in England

by No 7&1/2 Sat 29 Oct 2016, 8:15 pm

So you're happy the Scottish Union don't give a stuff about players then as long as you can pretend they haven't ignored World Rugby regulations and the PRL are evil for being ripped off? The RFU by the way have obeyed the rules unlike their friends north of the border.

by yappysnap Sat 29 Oct 2016, 8:22 pm

Bloody hell there's some wilful ignorance here.

The unions in question have left their own players out in the cold injured, luckily the clubs have picked up the tab or those players would be paying their own medical bills without wages either.

by No 7&1/2 Sat 29 Oct 2016, 8:27 pm

Some people can't see past the colour of the shirt etc. I remember being called out almost as a traitor for taking the view Marler should have been banned for his outburst at Lee, whereas whether people agree or not I take a view based on actions etc.

by stub Sat 29 Oct 2016, 8:45 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Some people can't see past the colour of the shirt etc. I remember being called out almost as a traitor for taking the view Marler should have been banned for his outburst at Lee, whereas whether people agree or not I take a view based on actions etc.

Yes it's unfortunate that some have preconceived ideas that no amount of reason or logic will ever change. I find that topics relating to RFU, PRL or England tend to bring some of these ideas and opinions readily to the fore. That said, this is a place for the sharing of opinion and ideas and it can make for entertaining reading at times!

by lostinwales Sat 29 Oct 2016, 9:01 pm

TJ really is full of it on occasion.

The PRL cannot hold onto international players during the international window. They can refuse to release them outside of the window and this is what they are doing. It seems more obvious as to why they have released the Welsh players this time around so as to show themselves as being reasonable when unions play ball on this issue.

It's worth repeating that unions only pick fit players to play for them (OK there is some wiggle room and they want particular players involved etc.) But in general they are not responsible for the long term health of their players in the same way as the clubs are.

by No 7&1/2 Sat 29 Oct 2016, 9:07 pm

The PRL are saying no release at all lost.

by Poorfour Sat 29 Oct 2016, 9:22 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:The PRL are saying no release at all lost.

Got a link for that? Because everything I have read suggests they are withholding them from early release for training camps but won't block the mandatory release for the international window.

by No 7&1/2 Sat 29 Oct 2016, 9:47 pm

Can't post the think but it's on the BBC Q&A you mentioned earlier. Talks about withdrawing players from tests. The way it's worded I can only read it as all tests rather than the 4th and the WRresponse re window suggests the same, to me?

by stub Sat 29 Oct 2016, 10:04 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3865434/English-clubs-threaten-withhold-Scotland-players-autumn-Tests.html

I've found this article which does suggest the PRL voted unanimously to withhold its players from the whole test period rather than the extended training period.

It may not be the most reliable source though. It is pretty upbeat about a resolution being found though and it seems that the IRB havent given their input yet. Interesting that the smaller unions will probably need help to pay the requisite bills and there is a suggestion the IRB use surplus funds to help them

by TJ Sat 29 Oct 2016, 10:18 pm

stub wrote:
Yes it's unfortunate that some have preconceived ideas that no amount of reason or logic will ever change. I find that topics relating to RFU, PRL or England tend to bring some of these ideas and opinions readily to the fore. That said, this is a place for the sharing of opinion and ideas and it can make for entertaining reading at times!

Yup - I find it amazing the wilful blindness of some to what the PRL are doing.

by No 7&1/2 Sat 29 Oct 2016, 10:20 pm

Demanding the agreed payments?

by stub Sat 29 Oct 2016, 10:47 pm

TJ wrote:
stub wrote:
Yes it's unfortunate that some have preconceived ideas that no amount of reason or logic will ever change. I find that topics relating to RFU, PRL or England tend to bring some of these ideas and opinions readily to the fore. That said, this is a place for the sharing of opinion and ideas and it can make for entertaining reading at times!

Yup - I find it amazing the wilful blindness of some to what the PRL are doing.

If you are referring to me TJ, I can see they want compensation for medical costs etc as per IRB rules but beyond that I am struggling to ascertain their "plan." This is not a wilful act on my part.

by nathan Sat 29 Oct 2016, 10:58 pm

This is hilarious, the SRU are breaking world rugbys own regulations and yet some on here think it's a power grab by the PRL.

i would bet £1 million that if it was the RFU withholding payments from Scottish club sides a few on here would change there tune.

Seriously some need to grow up from their bigoted stance

by nathan Sat 29 Oct 2016, 10:58 pm

TJ wrote:
stub wrote:
Yes it's unfortunate that some have preconceived ideas that no amount of reason or logic will ever change. I find that topics relating to RFU, PRL or England tend to bring some of these ideas and opinions readily to the fore. That said, this is a place for the sharing of opinion and ideas and it can make for entertaining reading at times!

Yup - I find it amazing the wilful blindness of some to what the PRL are doing.

Adhering to world rugby regulations which the SRU are not

Laugh

You couldn't make this up lol

by TJ Sat 29 Oct 2016, 11:03 pm

lets see some evidence for the SRU breaking regulations. I'll bet there is none that will stand up.

Of course this is all about furthering the power of the PRL. The SRU have not paid extra to them for player release in the way the welsh and rfu have - thats why the PRL are going after them. they just want more money and to show their power

The IRB are looking at the player release issue right now. This is why the PRL have started this at this point. They could have had this discussion ages ago but do it right befoere the AIs to give themmaximum, leverage.

by Sponsored content