The war on international rugby begins...

First topic message reminder :

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.

Cyril wrote:The international window and (alleged) non-payment of insurance monies are two separate issues though aren't they?

yes I agree, two separate issues, the PRL cannot with hold players during international windows. Whether the SRU has paid what ever they are supposed to, or not, so why are they making such threats ?

PRL aren't allowed under the rules, but SRU and others have to pay compensation by the rules. Pretty simple use of a bargaining chip.

No 7&1/2 wrote:They're not and the threat was to refuse them access at all as the unions in question hadn't paid compensation/injury liabilities/whatever you want to call it as per WR regs.

The PRL have NO right to refuse access to players during the international window, so they were goading World Rugby whilst threatening the SRU. That sounds like a school yard bully to me. Why would they do this ?

LordDowlais wrote:

Cyril wrote:The international window and (alleged) non-payment of insurance monies are two separate issues though aren't they?

yes I agree, two separate issues, the PRL cannot with hold players during international windows. Whether the SRU has paid what ever they are supposed to, or not, so why are they making such threats ?

Surely (if it's true) unions can't be allowed to get away with not paying fees. If there's a disagreement that's why World Rugby get involved. I guess the PRL wanted to bring this to a head in order to resolve matters.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:They're not and the threat was to refuse them access at all as the unions in question hadn't paid compensation/injury liabilities/whatever you want to call it as per WR regs.

The PRL have NO right to refuse access to players during the international window, so they were goading World Rugby whilst threatening the SRU. That sounds like a school yard bully to me. Why would they do this ?

Yes and the unions have no right to refuse to pay the money. Whether you count the threat as all tests or just the 4th is still open to interpretation as well though I think it's all.

No 7&1/2 wrote:PRL aren't allowed under the rules, but SRU and others have to pay compensation by the rules. Pretty simple use of a bargaining chip.

There is no bargaining though. The PRL are not allowed to refuse access, so that is not a bargaining point, they are not allowed to interfere with it, so I will ask the question again, why would they do this ?

Look, the PRL could have just brought the non payment to the attention of World Rugby. They are not allowed to decide who can be released for international window and who cannot, so for the love of God, will one of you stop skirting around the question and answer it, why would they do this ?

They're not allowed yet are. Like the unions have to pay compensation. They are doing this to try and force the unions to pay what is owed.

PRL have a contractual obligation to allow access to their players

The Unions have a contractual obligation to make payments that are due in respect of those players

In the view of the PRL, the Unions have broken their contractual obligation, and in response, the PRL threatened to break their contractual obligation unless resolved

Is that clear enough?

BamBam wrote:PRL have a contractual obligation to allow access to their players

The Unions have a contractual obligation to make payments that are due in respect of those players

In the view of the PRL, the Unions have broken their contractual obligation, and in response, the PRL threatened to break their contractual obligation unless resolved

Is that clear enough?

Exactly

BamBam wrote:PRL have a contractual obligation to allow access to their players

The Unions have a contractual obligation to make payments that are due in respect of those players

In the view of the PRL, the Unions have broken their contractual obligation, and in response, the PRL threatened to break their contractual obligation unless resolved

Is that clear enough?

No, the fact that none of you can give a straight answer is proof enough for me though. Cue some arrogant insult to come from BamBam.

facts are, the PRL are again going beyond their boundaries to see what they can get away with. In no way what so ever should they be using player release during an international window as leverage, that is beyond their jurisdiction, so I will ask again, why would they do this ? It is akin to making a TV deal for a competition they were not in control over......

I'll give you a non arrogant insult if you prefer?

Which bit don't you undertsnad LD? You've been given the answer but don't seem to grasp it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which bit don't you undertsnad LD? You've been given the answer but don't seem to grasp it.

No I have not.

The PRL have no right to refuse access to players during an international window, no matter what the situation is, I know this, you know this, and we can all bet our bottom dollar the PRL know this.

So I will ask one last time, why would they do it ?

I've answered you didn't seem to understand although I thought mine was a simple answer and Bam Bams comprehensive; but here it is again, To try and force a resolution and make the unions pay the money they owe.

But I will say again that others have read the situation as only covering the 4th international outside of the window.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I've answered you didn't seem to understand although I thought mine was a simple answer and Bam Bams comprehensive; but here it is again,  To try and force a resolution and make the unions pay the money they owe.

No, that is not the answer though. They did not have to use the threat of not releasing players to get their money, because for a start, that decision is not they'rs to make. If the unions were doing something illegal then the PRL could have threatened in other ways, like taking the unions to court, or getting World rugby involved. But no, they used something as leverage that they were totally out of order to use, so again, I will ask,

WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS ?

No 7&1/2 wrote:But I will say again that others have read the situation as only covering the 4th international outside of the window.

No, the PRL used the situation to deny the release of players full stop. Stop skirting around the point. Scotland only have 3 fixtures this Autumn, so how can you use the 4th international as an answer ?

They didn't have but they have as to put more pressure on the unions to reach a conclusion is how I read the situtaion. Now that is the reason I see it, if you've got a bargaining chip why not play it. Again others have read it purely as relating to the 4th international.

No 7&1/2 wrote:They didn't have but they have as to put more pressure on the unions to reach a conclusion is how I read the situtaion. Now that is the reason I see it, if you've got a bargaining chip why not play it. Again others have read it purely as relating to the 4th international.

You are very trying on here aren't you ? Firstly, Scotland do not have a 4th international outside of the window.

Secondly, and this is a point you are not getting. Using the non release of players is a bargaining chip the PRL do not have, so why would they use it ? Hmmmmm....

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:But I will say again that others have read the situation as only covering the 4th international outside of the window.

No, the PRL used the situation to deny the release of players full stop. Stop skirting around the point. Scotland only have 3 fixtures this Autumn, so how can you use the 4th international as an answer ?

I'm sure I read they have a fixture outside the window, is that not right? Again not skirted at all but directly answered, you seem to be not understanding deliberately as I doubt you are stupid.

They do have it LD. They are doing it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:But I will say again that others have read the situation as only covering the 4th international outside of the window.

No, the PRL used the situation to deny the release of players full stop. Stop skirting around the point. Scotland only have 3 fixtures this Autumn, so how can you use the 4th international as an answer ?

I'm sure I read they have a fixture outside the window, is that not right? Again not skirted at all but directly answered, you seem to be not understanding deliberately as I doubt you are stupid.

No Scotland have three tests:-

http://www.scottishrugby.org/tournaments-events/autumn-tests-2016

So that is your theory blown out of the water. It is you who is not understanding, using the release of players when it is an international window is not a bargaining chip for anybody, as the players must be released, no matter what the situation is.

No 7&1/2 wrote:They do have it LD. They are doing it.

Yes, I know, but they should not be, so why would they do it ?

Give an honest answer. We can both see it is not all about this payment of money farce.

My reading was that it was all tests as I've stated several times with others saying it's a AI affected by being out of the window. And not being allowed to do it isn't the same as actaully following the rules. If you'd read and understood bam bams post above 'In the view of the PRL, the Unions have broken their contractual obligation, and in response, the PRL threatened to break their contractual obligation unless resolved'.

They would do it as the unions have broken the rules/regs first and are threatening another rule break.

So what you are saying is, the PRL would break the laws of the game to get what they wanted ?

That's what it looks like yes after a few unions broke the rules first.What's good for the goose seems to be their mantra; at least publically, but as you'll have read the thread you'll have seen 'Part or PRL statement is: "However, Premiership Rugby has been informed that World Rugby will convene a regulations committee panel in November to settle the case and, on that basis, we are prepared to show flexibility and allow for our players to join the Scotland squad.

"A similar dispute with the Italian, Samoan and Tongan unions was settled earlier in the week."'

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's what it looks like yes after a few unions broke the rules first.What's good for the goose seems to be their mantra; at least publically, but as you'll have read the thread you'll have seen 'Part or PRL statement is: "However, Premiership Rugby has been informed that World Rugby will convene a regulations committee panel in November to settle the case and, on that basis, we are prepared to show flexibility and allow for our players to join the Scotland squad.

"A similar dispute with the Italian, Samoan and Tongan unions was settled earlier in the week."'

I have read through this thread, and somebody who referenced the Hitler or Nazi's was not far off the mark. Although I would not have used that analogy. The PRL seem to be testing to see what they can get away with, seeing how far they can push before it all kicks off. Making threats like a bully.

Also two wrongs do not make a right. The argument was about the SRU picking up the tab for players injured on their watch, it was a strong point for the PRL to stand up for, but they should never be allowed to refuse access to players during an international window, and they need to be made aware of this by WR before they think they can do it again.

Surely it was the unions testing what they could get away with and their bluff was called? And fair enough if WR wanted to do that as well as warn the unions.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Surely it was the unions testing what they could get away with and their bluff was called? And fair enough if WR wanted to do that as well as warn the unions.

Do you know what has gone on with regards to these "payments" ? I very much doubt it. Perhaps the PRL were being extortionate. That is not hard to believe. They had no right to refuse access to players. They are getting too big for their boots. The PRL will be the death toll for all rugby outside of the English club game.

Well they won't, that's a silly thing to say. For a start in this case they're helping the players despite their unions turning their backs. In this instance the PRL did right by the player and are now looking for the unions to comply with the rules.

No 7&1/2 wrote:In this instance the PRL did right by the player and are now looking for the unions to comply with the rules.

So illegally stopping a player representing his country is doing right by the player ? Come on. that is a beauty, even for you.

Looking after the player even though they were denied money by the players union, is lookiung after the player. It's fortunate the clubs involved all have robust fianances and the players weren't left.

Like I said, the PRL will kill rugby outside of the Aviva before long.

I don't think anyone is being stopped from attending inside the international windows - to me this all sounds like its in relation to early access or access outside of the international window.

propdavid_london wrote:I don't think anyone is being stopped from attending inside the international windows - to me this all sounds like its in relation to early access or access outside of the international window.

Well, then that would be fair enough. Although Scotland do not have any fixtures outside the window, so I do not think that is the case.

LordDowlais wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:I don't think anyone is being stopped from attending inside the international windows - to me this all sounds like its in relation to early access or access outside of the international window.

Well, then that would be fair enough. Although Scotland do not have any fixtures outside the window, so I do not think that is the case.

They were looking for early release for training

What about requested training camps? Access to players?

None of this has been mentioned in any of the articles I have read, it has just been about the release of players for the AI's. I could have missed something though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Looking after the player even though they were denied money by the players union, is lookiung after the player. It's fortunate the clubs involved all have robust fianances and the players weren't left.

the PRL is very concerned about the Welfare of their players especially after some were released for an early English training session with Eddie Jones and one came back with a broken leg, might have been Sam Jones from Wasps.

So, denying early release and access when its outside the current agreement isn't the PRL or clubs being evil or nasty!
They are within their rights to hang on to players until 5 days before the 1st test - correct?

If the SRU doesn't have a separate deal with the Clubs/PRL for access to players outside the international window then that is their problem.

The RFU has that deal.
It seems like the WRU has some sort of a deal (or are in the process of sorting one)
So what makes the SRU think that they are special?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Looking after the player even though they were denied money by the players union, is lookiung after the player. It's fortunate the clubs involved all have robust fianances and the players weren't left.

The problem is though that the SRU would have insurance covering the whole thing so would not be out of pocket, its nothing but a money grab by PRL.

They fined Saints a few years ago for releasing George North outside the Test window because it goes against their rules but now they are allowing players to be released as long as they are 'compensated' even though the rule still exists.

propdavid_london wrote:So, denying early release and access when its outside the current agreement isn't the PRL or clubs being evil or nasty!
They are within their rights to hang on to players until 5 days before the 1st test - correct?  

If the SRU doesn't have a separate deal with the Clubs/PRL for access to players outside the international window then that is their problem.  

The RFU has that deal.
It seems like the WRU has some sort of a deal (or are in the process of sorting one)
So what makes the SRU think that they are special?

Maybe they think the amount they were being asked to pay was special?

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Looking after the player even though they were denied money by the players union, is lookiung after the player. It's fortunate the clubs involved all have robust fianances and the players weren't left.

The problem is though that the SRU would have insurance covering the whole thing so would not be out of pocket, its nothing but a money grab by PRL.

They fined Saints a few years ago for releasing George North outside the Test window because it goes against their rules but now they are allowing players to be released as long as they are 'compensated' even though the rule still exists.

What's the difference between good business sense, ensuring that you protect your assets (or are compensated accordingly) and a 'money grab'? Does it depend who is doing the 'grabbing'?

propdavid_london wrote:So, denying early release and access when its outside the current agreement isn't the PRL or clubs being evil or nasty!
They are within their rights to hang on to players until 5 days before the 1st test - correct?

Yes, that's correct. I have not said otherwise.

propdavid_london wrote:If the SRU doesn't have a separate deal with the Clubs/PRL for access to players outside the international window then that is their problem.

Yes again I agree, but that is not what is being discussed.

propdavid_london wrote:The RFU has that deal.
It seems like the WRU has some sort of a deal (or are in the process of sorting one)
So what makes the SRU think that they are special?

Nothing makes the SRU special, they are not doing anything to make them special either, they just want their players for the AI's. The PRL have threatened to block it. What makes then think they can do this ?

Cyril wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Looking after the player even though they were denied money by the players union, is lookiung after the player. It's fortunate the clubs involved all have robust fianances and the players weren't left.

The problem is though that the SRU would have insurance covering the whole thing so would not be out of pocket, its nothing but a money grab by PRL.

They fined Saints a few years ago for releasing George North outside the Test window because it goes against their rules but now they are allowing players to be released as long as they are 'compensated' even though the rule still exists.

What's the difference between good business sense, ensuring that you protect your assets (or are compensated accordingly) and a 'money grab'? Does it depend who is doing the 'grabbing'?

They aren't protecting their assets though, they are exploiting them. If it was about protecting their assets they wouldn't allow them to go but they are as long as the SRU and other unions cough up enough, that's what makes it a money grab.

I think there appears to be many crossed wires here.

Like lostinwales, I thought the denial of players was/is for attendance outside the international windows - I think we all agree that denying access to players for tests and the 5days prior rule is unacceptable - if that is what was being suggested.

If the request from SRU was for access outside the international window - without a deal with the clubs/prl then that too is unacceptable.

Irrelevant now as the players have been released to the SRU.

The incident has been referred up to World Rugby (hopefully a neutral body) and the findings of which - if made public would be very interesting to hear.

LordDowalis - I disagree, the lack of a deal over Prem player access with the SRU seems to be at the heart of this discussion/issue.
marty - any insurance claim would bump the premiums

propdavid_london wrote:marty - any insurance claim would bump the premiums

That's possible but I know some of the unions offset such risks and the premiums probably go up annually anyway for the regions claims

This thread is really sickening. It's the first thread I've ever seen on 606 that has tripped over Godwin's Law and the fact that there are people who are more than willing to support that rather than condemn it is very worrying.

We don't have full information here, so no, we don't know the exact nature of the debate or exactly what the PRL were planning to withhold. Equally, we don't know exactly what it is that the SRU should have paid and hadn't.

However, we do know one thing for definite: World Rugby haven't just ordered the PRL to release the players. They are instead convening a regulations committee to discuss the issue, and the PRL have agreed to release the players.

Why would they take that approach if the PRL didn't have a point?