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.

propdavid_london wrote: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.

Nothing in the articles I have read alludes to time outside the international windows, Scotland have only got 3 fixtures, all inside the window, and all the articles I read was alluding to players being released for those fixtures.

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

I guess they do have a point over players getting injured on the SRU's watch. But I also think they were seeing how far they could push the bounderies as well.

Poorfour wrote: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?

Except we do, PRL have said its insurance costs and related to medical bills

Its been made clear they will be released 5 days before games but not outside the windows as had been done previously

World Rugby can't order them to release the players outside the window

By the way, as far as I am aware clubs do not insure their players. The risk of injury in the professional game is sufficiently high that the premium would probably be higher than the cost of just treating the injuries (because the premium includes a profit margin).

There may be some insurance against catastrophic injury, but most injuries, even serious ones, are covered through the operating budget of the clubs. In effect, they self-insure.

Now, clubs could try to mitigate the risk of injury costs by offering a pay-for-play contract, but then you have to put yourself in the player's shoes. If you were a professional rugby player and a club offered you a contract that said "if you get injured outside our care, we won't pay you until you're fit", would you sign it?

And if you did have a contract like that, would you go and play for a union that had a track record of not covering the wages and medical bills of its injured players?

Poorfour wrote:By the way, as far as I am aware clubs do not insure their players. The risk of injury in the professional game is sufficiently high that the premium would probably be higher than the cost of just treating the injuries (because the premium includes a profit margin).

There may be some insurance against catastrophic injury, but most injuries, even serious ones, are covered through the operating budget of the clubs. In effect, they self-insure.

Now, clubs could try to mitigate the risk of injury costs by offering a pay-for-play contract, but then you have to put yourself in the player's shoes. If you were a professional rugby player and a club offered you a contract that said "if you get injured outside our care, we won't pay you until you're fit", would you sign it?

And if you did have a contract like that, would you go and play for a union that had a track record of not covering the wages and medical bills of its injured players?

Except by law an employer has to have insurance, you really are on a roll here

I'm sure if this was such a big deal to the clubs then they wouldn't contract players who might get called up for International duties, yet they still sign them up.

marty2086 wrote:

Poorfour wrote: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?

Except we do, PRL have said its insurance costs and related to medical bills

Its been made clear they will be released 5 days before games but not outside the windows as had been done previously

World Rugby can't order them to release the players outside the window

We don't, unless you've got sources I haven't seen. If so, please post.

I just searched and couldn't find anything newer than 6 days ago, apart from a far from unbiased piece in the Scottish Daily Record which added detail that the SRU has admitted that the case is unresolved but that it relates to a single player from 2013 who is no longer an international and is now based in France, but not about the other aspects.

I have not seen insurance mentioned anywhere in the media. The clearest statements so far has been from the PRL:

PRL via Beeb wrote:The dispute with the SRU over unpaid medical and salary bills caused when a Premiership Rugby player was injured on Test duty has not been settled.

I am still not clear about whether the PRL was threatening to hold players back from the AIs or just early release from training - their own statement is open to interpretation (I've quoted bits of it above). Given the players have now been released, we may never know.

As you say, World Rugby can't mandate anything outside release for the International window - but that doesn't tell us whether the PRL were actually threatening to hold them back for the window (which would have been a breach of the regulations) or just for early release (which wouldn't have been). I'm prepared to believe that the PRL (and RPA, who were onside with the PRL) were threatening to hold back players on the basis that "if you get injured, we can't afford to pay your salary and medical bills, and the SRU might not pay them either" - but I don't have anything to suggest conclusively that's what they were saying. If I were a player facing that situation, I might opt not to play regardless.

Poorfour wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Poorfour wrote: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?

Except we do, PRL have said its insurance costs and related to medical bills

Its been made clear they will be released 5 days before games but not outside the windows as had been done previously

World Rugby can't order them to release the players outside the window

We don't, unless you've got sources I haven't seen. If so, please post.

I just searched and couldn't find anything newer than 6 days ago, apart from a far from unbiased piece in the Scottish Daily Record which added detail that the SRU has admitted that the case is unresolved but that it relates to a single player from 2013 who is no longer an international and is now based in France, but not about the other aspects.

I have not seen insurance mentioned anywhere in the media. The clearest statements so far has been from the PRL:

PRL via Beeb wrote:The dispute with the SRU over unpaid medical and salary bills caused when a Premiership Rugby player was injured on Test duty has not been settled.

I am still not clear about whether the PRL was threatening to hold players back from the AIs or just early release from training - their own statement is open to interpretation (I've quoted bits of it above). Given the players have now been released, we may never know.

As you say, World Rugby can't mandate anything outside release for the International window - but that doesn't tell us whether the PRL were actually threatening to hold them back for the window (which would have been a breach of the regulations) or just for early release (which wouldn't have been). I'm prepared to believe that the PRL (and RPA, who were onside with the PRL) were threatening to hold back players on the basis that "if you get injured, we can't afford to pay your salary and medical bills, and the SRU might not pay them either" - but I don't have anything to suggest conclusively that's what they were saying. If I were a player facing that situation, I might opt not to play regardless.

Insurance costs was maybe the wrong phrase to use but we don't know what its in regards to yet you have posted the quote telling us what it refers to

World Rugby in their statement state that PRL were still adhering to the 5 day rule

aucklandlaurie wrote: I'm sure if this was such a big deal to the clubs then they wouldn't contract players who might get called up for International duties, yet they still sign them up.

The big deal is not that players might get called up. Clubs want that to happen, because it means they're good players and more likely to win things and draw the crowds.

The big deal is that the agreement between clubs and unions is that if a player gets injured on international duty, the union is required by regulation to pay the salary and medical bills of that player, and the SRU admits that in at least one instance it has disputed that for over 3 years.

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.

Surely you're not suggesting the SRU received the money but didn't pass it on, that would be fraud?

aucklandlaurie wrote: I'm sure if this was such a big deal to the clubs then they wouldn't contract players who might get called up for International duties, yet they still sign them up.

PRL clubs want all the benefits of having an international player but don't want to pay for it by taking on the added risk of injury and associated costs. Maybe unions can start sending bills to the PRL to cover some of the costs spent on enhancing the quality of players because at the moment they're doing this free of charge.

You know it's WR regs which say unions should cover the costs ebop so I'd agree why would the PRL go against that.

Is it £100,000 for one player?

Seems a lot

Would have thought it would vary widely depending on a number of factors.

ebop wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: I'm sure if this was such a big deal to the clubs then they wouldn't contract players who might get called up for International duties, yet they still sign them up.

PRL clubs want all the benefits of having an international player but don't want to pay for it by taking on the added risk of injury and associated costs. Maybe unions can start sending bills to the PRL to cover some of the costs spent on enhancing the quality of players because at the moment they're doing this free of charge.

'Clubs' spend 9/10ths of the year improving the players (in some cases into potential internationals).

Both bodies aim to improve the players but the 'clubs' put in the most time, spend the most in terms of time and resources and shoulder the majority of the risk.

No 7&1/2 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.

Surely you're not suggesting the SRU received the money but didn't pass it on, that would be fraud?

Im suggesting that maybe theres more to it all

3 out of the 4 now settled so maybe it was as simple as reminding some unions of their responsibilities.

...or reminding them they now have to salute to clubs and say 'Sir!' before speaking?

There seems to be a huge amount of assumptions here, and I find myself playing a bit impartial (Not sure how)

Lets state the facts:

PRL aren't happy with an outstanding bill, from 4 nations, for players injured during international windows.

3 of those nations have had cases seen by World rugby, and resolvement has been at least partially made.

The PRL have threatened to not release Scottish players from the Aviva Prem for the Autumn internationals (for the entirity, not one mention of early release has been made by the PRL)

The SRU responded with:

– The Scottish player case raised by PRL is historic and relates to an unresolved medical assessment of the injury status of a player no longer involved in the Scotland squad.

– After his Premiership Club disputed the medical assessment Scottish Rugby offered on two occasions to resolve the matter through an independent medical arbitration process, and both times this offer was not followed up.

– Scottish Rugby has not withheld fees or insurance payments and the costs under dispute are in the tens of thousands, not the six figures quoted by PRL. If an independent arbitration rules that a payment is due, then Scottish Rugby will honour that ruling.

Worl rugby has intervened, the PRL has then become compliant with regards to player release and an independant review is on the books.

If the rumours are true, and Murray is the player, of which he reportedly turned up to a Scottish training camp with a pre existing injury, and the PRL has refused to acknowledge the initial injury report, or the reported numerous offers of 2 independant assesments of the player, and are using the 30/40k bill as a chance to have a crack at the weakest 1st tier nation, then the SRU might not want this to die down post review. (If these rumours are true).

I know for a fact that Dr Robson (The most well respected doctor in world rugby) is in constant contact with all exiled Scottish internationals, and runs a tight nit well organised team to ensure all exiled age grade players are constantly receiving the best practice. I would be amazed if a single team doctor would go head to head to disagree with someone who has spent over 25 years in the game, and call his opinion on an incoming player BS.

I suspect this is designed as a devisive threat, in order to build upon a platform for another battle.

The Scottish players residing in the prem have all been kept in the loop and none were worried they would not be released, with most club management rolling their eyes at the PRL antics on occasion, including David Humphreys who has form for not being a PRL supporter, and finding them a hinderance.

Cyril wrote:

ebop wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: I'm sure if this was such a big deal to the clubs then they wouldn't contract players who might get called up for International duties, yet they still sign them up.

PRL clubs want all the benefits of having an international player but don't want to pay for it by taking on the added risk of injury and associated costs. Maybe unions can start sending bills to the PRL to cover some of the costs spent on enhancing the quality of players because at the moment they're doing this free of charge.

'Clubs' spend 9/10ths of the year improving the players (in some cases into potential internationals).

Both bodies aim to improve the players but the 'clubs' put in the most time, spend the most in terms of time and resources and shoulder the majority of the risk.

Absolute BS in regards to exiled players!!!

Unions fund the academies, they risk the initial pro contracts, they embed them into pro rugby, then Aviva prem team cherry pick the polished finished article, complete with high profiles, international caps, and then when offering contracts take into account the 8/9 games per year (potentially added another 4-6 every other year (RWC/Lions)) that the polished international will be away on int duty. The rewards are financial with no risk whatsoever, and performance with a risk of missing further games.

This is why I mentioned transfer fees, to compensate for the Union developed product for being away from the Unions primary funding source events, without compensation, and on the whole detrimental to the unions goals.

Fanster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

ebop wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: I'm sure if this was such a big deal to the clubs then they wouldn't contract players who might get called up for International duties, yet they still sign them up.

PRL clubs want all the benefits of having an international player but don't want to pay for it by taking on the added risk of injury and associated costs. Maybe unions can start sending bills to the PRL to cover some of the costs spent on enhancing the quality of players because at the moment they're doing this free of charge.

'Clubs' spend 9/10ths of the year improving the players (in some cases into potential internationals).

Both bodies aim to improve the players but the 'clubs' put in the most time, spend the most in terms of time and resources and shoulder the majority of the risk.

Absolute BS in regards to exiled players!!!

Unions fund the academies, they risk the initial pro contracts, they embed them into pro rugby, then Aviva prem team cherry pick the polished finished article, complete with high profiles, international caps, and then when offering contracts take into account the 8/9 games per year (potentially added another 4-6 every other year (RWC/Lions)) that the polished international will be away on int duty. The rewards are financial with no risk whatsoever, and performance with a risk of missing further games.

This is why I mentioned transfer fees, to compensate for the Union developed product for being away from the Unions primary funding source events, without compensation, and on the whole detrimental to the unions goals.

You really have a serious agenda here.

I have an agenda?

How so, because I lied about Scotland funding their academies, producing professional and international players, and then English clubs offering contracts based on those players status's?

Taylor aside, who in all fairness has only just become a full Scottish member due to extensive injury and poor performances, all English based Scottish international players were signed as fully fledged and fully polished articles with an already comitment to international rugby.

Where is the risk from say Gloucester's POV when they sign Scotlands captain? Are they the victim in a 'what do you mean you want to play international rugby?' scenario?

PS you really think these Scottish lads spend 90% of the year being 'developed' by their English clubs? Maybe go gain an insight into the pro era, and come back with a more realistic number.

So coming full circle to the balanced OP how does wanting the agreed WR regs followed mean anyone wants to end international rugby?

SRU should stilll pay agreed payments. Did they?

Are you saying that players can't continue to improve when they become an international, especially when they play in an arguably superior league?

Clubs pay the players' wages (in English Premiership terms, much more than they would get playing for Glasgow or Edinburgh). This is an all-year-round payment not just when they get international payments.

I think you're a little naive Fanster, or just being obstructive.

Peoples don't be wanting to end International rugby but control it.  The PRL have already had a loose tongue guy a few years back in a ....was it a taxi?...boasting about one day controlling the World, *ahem* - sorry I always get into James Bond excesses when I think of the PRL .  But they had a guy a while back actively suggest controlling International was on the wish-list of ze PRL admin.

Now he might have been a back-of-the-taxi spoofer - and of course no better place for spoofing - but some of us have long memories for spoofs about world domination, after all, just look at where old Blatter took things when nobody was paying him no mind.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So coming full circle to the balanced OP how does wanting the agreed WR regs followed mean anyone wants to end international rugby?

How are they following WR regs, when chasing up a minor payment (SRU's claim) in a dispute that was offered independant ajudication on numerous occasions (again SRU's claim), by flat out threatening to break WR regs?

WR has thankfully mediated sense on the PRL's behalf, however it's interesting that a 3 year old dispute has come to the fore 5 minutes before the int window with a classic case of toys out of pram.

If the PRL were that worried about the money, and dispute it would have gone to review years ago, you can make a claim to WR without threatening to dismantle a struggling Unions international ambition!

Especially in an aea in which said nation employs the most respected doctor in world rugby, renowned for his attitude to every player to step onto the park.

PRL apologists are remarkedly similar to Trump supporters 'I know he's a *Insert adhominem* but it's for a reason'.

Just put your hands up and say the PRL have once again conducted themselves poorly, and not within the spirit of the game!

Cyril wrote:SRU should stilll pay agreed payments. Did they?

Are you saying that players can't continue to improve when they become an international, especially when they play in an arguably superior league?

Clubs pay the players' wages (in English Premiership terms, much more than they would get playing for Glasgow or Edinburgh). This is an all-year-round payment not just when they get international payments.

I think you're a little naive Fanster, or just being obstructive.

You are so poorly informed on all counts...

IT isn't an 'agreed payment', claim it all you like but both sides are calling it a 'dispute', which means the SRU have refused to make payment based upon disagreement of the PRL's assesment of the situation (One which they say they tried to prove independantly).

Secondly, of course international players improve, however you claimed that their development was 90% club based, despite the clubs being performance based at 1st team level, not playing 90% of their annual gametime at club rugby, and playing at a lower standard (Club level < Int level).

A club pays the player year round based on what that player can offer the first team in season. Which means if we take Laidlaw as an example, lets say he earns 200k per year at Glos. Before offering Laidlaw a contract they take into account his availablity, as Scotlands captain they have to offer a contract based on him being away for 8 int matches per season, and at RWC/Lion every other season. Meaning he will miss games, need resting, and based on the higher intensity of int rugby has a greater risk of injury than a non int 9. The down side to signing Laidlaw is countered by the quality of player, the exposure his name allows the club, the markets that open up with his name, and the experience he brings etc... Based on all the info and risks they put a £ figure on paper, they can't, knowingly having to share ownership of him with his union, claim they own him year round and try to withold him against the worlds governing bodies regulations.

If he is injured on int duty, then they enter into discussion with the union for compensation, and rightly so, however if there is a dispute on who injured the player, then a resolution needs to be come to between the 2, not public media hissy fits 3 years later.

Niaive lol.

Wow, just wow.

3 out of the 4 now settled and having to go to WR with the SRU. So same question how are you jumping to the end of internationals. Not very balanced.

You have to doubt his ability to be objective cyril after the opening post.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You have to doubt his ability to be objective cyril after the opening post.

Yep. Exactly. The letters PRL seems to bring some people out in hives.

No 7&1/2 wrote:3 out of the 4 now settled and having to go to WR with the SRU. So same question how are you jumping to the end of internationals. Not very balanced.

PRL's claim the other 3 are resolved, what those 3 incidents were who knows, are you claiming those 3 are identical 3 year old individual player disputes? Do you know what the resolution of those other 3 were? From paying up, to the union saying 'go f**k yourselves', noone knows. Use some sense!

If you can't dispute my points, just keep wowing

When did I say I was objective?

I've made certain impartial, and neutral comments stating facts, outside of that my opinion is very anti PRL in this instance, as it was in a previous large incident (The death of european rugby).

Your 1st post showed your bias, there was no cominng back from that.

So when confronted with facts, and opinions based on experience you guys revert to 'ah but he's not with us, he doesn't count'

Come on, we're all rugby fans, it's just in this instance you have taken the wrong side.

Fanster wrote:When did I say I was objective?

I've made certain impartial, and neutral comments stating facts, outside of that my opinion is very anti PRL in this instance, as it was in a previous large incident (The death of european rugby).

Nah you were never neutral, look at your very 1st post.

Why would I 'come back' from an anti PRL behaviour thread I started?!

I set my stall out in the title, and then description, the PRL are intentionally targetting the greatest threat tto their future ownership of the game, as we all knew they would now they own club rugby.

To be fair to Fanster he's got what he wanted from this thread and we all bit.

Shame on us all. It's 606v2 baiting.

Once again, your only response to the points I am making is that i am not objective, and therefore wrong?

Thats not a particularly strong standpoint, you know without acknowledging the points i'm making. Infact it's seeming like you're just trying to flood the thread to the next page in ourder to bury valid points you can't respond to.

Cyril wrote:To be fair to Fanster he's got what he wanted from this thread and we all bit.

Shame on us all. It's 606v2 baiting.

You need to be 'baited' into discussion? WTF did you come here for if not that?

So back to Laidlaw, are you guys really claiming Glos, and the PRL didn't asses risk / reward before offering him a contract?

Cyril wrote:To be fair to Fanster he's got what he wanted from this thread and we all bit.

Shame on us all. It's 606v2 baiting.

True, he's 1 of the worst.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:To be fair to Fanster he's got what he wanted from this thread and we all bit.

Shame on us all. It's 606v2 baiting.

True, he's 1 of the worst.

It's a shame neither of you want to discuss this.

I'll come back later when there are posters who actually will post usefull insights.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:To be fair to Fanster he's got what he wanted from this thread and we all bit.

Shame on us all. It's 606v2 baiting.

True, he's 1 of the worst.

Eh?

Fanster has made some very good points

I've yet to read 1 without it tainted by bias.

We all display bias 7.5, don't hide behind that argument

ebop wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:To be fair to Fanster he's got what he wanted from this thread and we all bit.

Shame on us all. It's 606v2 baiting.

True, he's 1 of the worst.

Eh?

Fanster has made some very good points

I'm not surprised you think so.

So Ebop acknowledges accuracy in points made and your instinct is to attack?

ebop wrote:We all display bias 7.5, don't hide behind that argument

There's no hiding when you start a topic that the PRL are after money owed to them so they can dispose of international rugby. Followed by several posters all ignoring anything but its the PRL so they're wrong.

Cyril wrote:

ebop wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:To be fair to Fanster he's got what he wanted from this thread and we all bit.

Shame on us all. It's 606v2 baiting.

True, he's 1 of the worst.

Eh?

Fanster has made some very good points

I'm not surprised you think so.

And you just hit par for the course yourself