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.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I've yet to read 1 without it tainted by bias.

Your defending an organisation threatening to withold players from a struggling union because of a 3 yr old disputed injury on a player. I get your biased too, however I am happy to discuss why I think you're wrong, why aren't you?

ebop wrote:

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

Cheers See you at the club house!

No real point with you though is there as the PRL by getting money owed to them are trying to stop international rugby. When you're (not your) jumping to frankly silly conclusions like that which are to start boobie for tat arguments like the majority of this thread it's obvious you don't want a proper discussion. You could have made this thread witthout that but you chose not to to get the type of response you crave.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I've yet to read 1 without it tainted by bias.

Your defending an organisation threatening to withold players from a struggling union because of a 3 yr old disputed injury on a player. I get your biased too, however I am happy to discuss why I think you're wrong, why aren't you?

The fact that the dispute is three years old shows that the club and the PRL have been extraordinarily patient.

By the way, how are the SRU struggling? Dodson is always telling everyone how brilliantly the SRU are doing.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

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.

It does come across as posturing and bullying in the lead up to the international window though

Especially if the below rumour is accurate

Fanster wrote:"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)"

And for what purpose?

A disputed £30-40k bill

PRL are just cynically flexing their muscles when they should just pipe down for a bit while the main show is about to be on

Why should the PRL 'pipe down'?

If you're owed money, you're owed money. The 'main show' (I assume you mean the AIs?) would be another good time to raise the fact that 'some' unions are not meeting their requirements.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No real point with you though is there as the PRL by getting money owed to them are trying to stop international rugby. When you're (not your) jumping to frankly silly conclusions like that which are to start boobie for tat arguments like the majority of this thread it's obvious you don't want a proper discussion. You could have made this thread witthout that but you chose not to to get the type of response you crave.

You think the PRL are owed money? It's a dispute, in which both sides are claiming different things, I know from reading facts it's a dispute about money, you are convinced the PRL are clearly owed money. Thats the difference, fanboys will take every PRL word as fact.

So I list a large amount of facts, including statements from both sides, and opinion based off that, you attack me for bias, and i'm the one who doesn't want discussion?

I have no reason to hide my dislike of the PRL's actions, as it's clear to those with 2 eyes what the intent is here.


PS before you give me a spelling education, please learn to construct a sentence, I have no wishes to get into a nitpicking grammar contest, but...

'No real point with you though is there as the PRL by getting money owed to them are trying to stop international rugby.'

Cyril wrote:

ebop wrote:

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

Cheers See you at the club house!

Ha, ok. I'll pick up all your lost balls you hit astray

Exiledinborders wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I've yet to read 1 without it tainted by bias.

Your defending an organisation threatening to withold players from a struggling union because of a 3 yr old disputed injury on a player. I get your biased too, however I am happy to discuss why I think you're wrong, why aren't you?

The fact that the dispute is three years old shows that the club and the PRL have been extraordinarily patient.

By the way, how are the SRU struggling? Dodson is always telling everyone how brilliantly the SRU are doing.

According to the SRU they have stated why they won't pay, they have offered independent review as proof, and the PRL aren't interested, so I say the SRU are being just as patient as the PRL, especially as we don't know who is in the wrong (As I said before, I tend to side with the world renown and respected doctor over a spokesman).

If you want to know why the SRU are struggling review their results for the last 6/7/8 seasons. Their player base is small, and without 5 key players including their captain they'd very much struggle.

Cyril wrote:Why should the PRL 'pipe down'?

If you're owed money, you're owed money. The 'main show' (I assume you mean the AIs?) would be another good time to raise the fact that 'some' unions are not meeting their requirements.

Because the timing is cynical and it sounds like there is a dispute about what is owed

I'm sure SRU will pay what they are rightfully required to but they dispute the bill by the sounds

Have you ever disputed a bill Cyril?

Maybe for one of your haircuts you weren't happy with?

Cyril wrote:Why should the PRL 'pipe down'?

If you're owed money, you're owed money. (Unless you're not owed money) The 'main show' (I assume you mean the AIs?) would be another good time to raise the fact that 'some' unions are not meeting their requirements. (Especially 3 years later, that old 3 year delay always rams home how serious you are)

Fanster wrote:

Cyril wrote:Why should the PRL 'pipe down'?

If you're owed money, you're owed money. (Unless you're not owed money) The 'main show' (I assume you mean the AIs?) would be another good time to raise the fact that 'some' unions are not meeting their requirements. (Especially 3 years later, that old 3 year delay always rams home how serious you are)

Mis-quoting a poster is the way of a cad and a bounder.

Fanster wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I've yet to read 1 without it tainted by bias.

Your defending an organisation threatening to withold players from a struggling union because of a 3 yr old disputed injury on a player. I get your biased too, however I am happy to discuss why I think you're wrong, why aren't you?

The fact that the dispute is three years old shows that the club and the PRL have been extraordinarily patient.

By the way, how are the SRU struggling? Dodson is always telling everyone how brilliantly the SRU are doing.

According to the SRU they have stated why they won't pay, they have offered independent review as proof, and the PRL aren't interested, so I say the SRU are being just as patient as the PRL, especially as we don't know who is in the wrong (As I said before, I tend to side with the world renown and respected doctor over a spokesman).

If you want to know why the SRU are struggling review their results for the last 6/7/8 seasons. Their player base is small, and without 5 key players including their captain they'd very much struggle.

To say the SRU have been patient makes no sense. A creditor can be said to be patient but not a debtor.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I've yet to read 1 without it tainted by bias.

Your defending an organisation threatening to withold players from a struggling union because of a 3 yr old disputed injury on a player. I get your biased too, however I am happy to discuss why I think you're wrong, why aren't you?

The fact that the dispute is three years old shows that the club and the PRL have been extraordinarily patient.

By the way, how are the SRU struggling? Dodson is always telling everyone how brilliantly the SRU are doing.

According to the SRU they have stated why they won't pay, they have offered independent review as proof, and the PRL aren't interested, so I say the SRU are being just as patient as the PRL, especially as we don't know who is in the wrong (As I said before, I tend to side with the world renown and respected doctor over a spokesman).

If you want to know why the SRU are struggling review their results for the last 6/7/8 seasons. Their player base is small, and without 5 key players including their captain they'd very much struggle.

To say the SRU have been patient makes no sense. A creditor can be said to be patient but not a debtor.

Potential creditor, and claimed creditor. You don't seem to understand, I could claim you owe me a million squid, doesn't mean you owe it, it's just a statement by me at this point, as the dispute is currently just that, however it could be said that according to the SRU they have tried to have an independent assessor review the situation, and the PRL won't have it, so it could be patience on behalf of the SRU as the PRL are the ones not wanting it sorted.

Cyril wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Cyril wrote:Why should the PRL 'pipe down'?

If you're owed money, you're owed money. (Unless you're not owed money) The 'main show' (I assume you mean the AIs?) would be another good time to raise the fact that 'some' unions are not meeting their requirements. (Especially 3 years later, that old 3 year delay always rams home how serious you are)

Mis-quoting a poster is the way of a cad and a bounder.

Then just try to be a bit more accurate in future

Fanster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Cyril wrote:Why should the PRL 'pipe down'?

If you're owed money, you're owed money. (Unless you're not owed money) The 'main show' (I assume you mean the AIs?) would be another good time to raise the fact that 'some' unions are not meeting their requirements. (Especially 3 years later, that old 3 year delay always rams home how serious you are)

Mis-quoting a poster is the way of a cad and a bounder.

Then just try to be a bit more accurate in future

Just be honest with your posting or get banned (again).

Cyril wrote:Why should the PRL 'pipe down'?

If you're owed money, you're owed money. The 'main show' (I assume you mean the AIs?) would be another good time to raise the fact that 'some' unions are not meeting their requirements.

I dont think you can use the word "owed" when the matter is in dispute.

If it was just a simple case of the SRU not paying their bills then the PRL have many civil law remedies available to them that would have bought this matter to a conclusion a couple of years ago. The Scottish Rugby Union is an entity in law that can be sued, but in doing so they also have the capacity to sue you back in reply.

Cyril

You're officially a waste of time, you don't want to discuss rugby, you want to attack.

I won't respond again.

Auckland

It's not rocket science is it, nothing is owed in dispute!

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No real point with you though is there as the PRL by getting money owed to them are trying to stop international rugby. When you're (not your) jumping to frankly silly conclusions like that which are to start boobie for tat arguments like the majority of this thread it's obvious you don't want a proper discussion. You could have made this thread witthout that but you chose not to to get the type of response you crave.

You think the PRL are owed money? It's a dispute, in which both sides are claiming different things, I know from reading facts it's a dispute about money, you are convinced the PRL are clearly owed money. Thats the difference, fanboys will take every PRL word as fact.

So I list a large amount of facts, including statements from both sides, and opinion based off that, you attack me for bias, and i'm the one who doesn't want discussion?

I have no reason to hide my dislike of the PRL's actions, as it's clear to those with 2 eyes what the intent is here.


PS before you give me a spelling education, please learn to construct a sentence, I have no wishes to get into a nitpicking grammar contest, but...

'No real point with you though is there as the PRL by getting money owed to them are trying to stop international rugby.'

You appear to be avoiding that question still. PRL are trying to stop international rugby how? And it's not a spelling exercise we all make mistakes you just don't know about your and you're.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You appear to be avoiding that question still.

OMG. People in glass houses should not throw stones.

Fanster has made some very accurate, and well informed posts on this, but the usual suspects are on here trying to defend the organisation that runs their club rugby.

It is quite obvious what is going on here, the PRL are pushing their luck, they are seeing how far they can go before everything kicks off, it's a power grab, they will not be happy until they are running WR.

I want to see repercussions for the threats they have made. They had no right to threaten the SRU with the non release of players, they had no right to, so I will ask 7&1/2 and his mates again, like I did all day yesterday, why would they do it ?

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You appear to be avoiding that question still.

OMG. People in glass houses should not throw stones.

Which question haven't I answered, and I will do so now.

Cyril wrote:Why should the PRL 'pipe down'?

If you're owed money, you're owed money. The 'main show' (I assume you mean the AIs?) would be another good time to raise the fact that 'some' unions are not meeting their requirements.

So if someone showed up at your door and said you hit my car now pay for the damage you would hand them over the money?

Sorry see from your 2nd post. Why would the PRL make the threat to withhold players; to place as much pressure as possible on the unions involved to try and get the money owed. As BamBam stated they believe that the unions broke the rules and so are willing to break the rules themselves.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which question haven't I answered, and I will do so now.

OK, I will do this slowly. NO organisation is allowed to refuse access to players during an international window, I know this, you know this and we can all bet our last quid, the PRL know this.

If they felt that they were owed money, then there are other numerous legal avenues they could have gone down to settle the dispute, but they chose not to use any avenues that would have been all above board, they chose to use leverage with something they had no right to use, of they are going to do that, then they must know there will be repercussions.

So, for hopefully, the final time, why would they do this ?

I answered above.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sorry see from your 2nd post. Why would the PRL make the threat to withhold players; to place as much pressure as possible on the unions involved to try and get the money owed. As BamBam stated they believe that the unions broke the rules and so are willing to break the rules themselves.

But the unions have not broken any rules. OMG. Please take your rose tinted glasses off. Show me the evidence where it says the unions have broken any rules on this, I can show you evidence of a dispute, but the only rule breaking I can see is from the PRL.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I answered above.

No you have not, you have skirted around the question with your biased views, trying to justify what has happened by using the, they did it, so we did it analogy. This is a trait of yours on here.

If you want to back your point up, give me evidence of the unions breaking any rules/laws.

Tell me, why did the PLR use this illegal strategy when there were so many other legal avenues they could have gone down ?

Change the wording if it bothers you, the PRL believe that the unions have broken the agreeg regs and thus are prepared, or were, to break them as well.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Change the wording if it bothers you, the PRL believe that the unions have broken the agreeg regs and thus are prepared, or were, to break them as well.

Prove it.

Why wouldn't the PRL take it to court or WR ? Why did they chose to hold players back when they are not allowed to ?

Why do I need to prove it? I've changed the wording slightly to siut the way you want it. You're now asking why an organisation I'm not part of went the way they did. I can only guess that after so long they were fed up with the unions behaviour and decided to use this set of AIs to place a lot more pressure on them. Looks to have worked with 3 out of the 4 now settled and the SRU now in negotiations for November.

The funny thing is, LD/Fanster etc seem to be under the illusion that 7.5 and Cyril are big fans of the PRL and supporting them blindly

If you read the Saracens salary cap threads, I doubt you'll find two bigger critics of the way that whole affair was handled, and the useless way that PRL gave some mealy mouthed explanation!

No 7&1/2, I suggest you leave this debate as you are making yourself look more foolish than you normally would.

You are ignoring all the facts that other members have put to you, and you would rather side with here say.

BamBam wrote:The funny thing is, LD/Fanster etc seem to be under the illusion that 7.5 and Cyril are big fans of the PRL and supporting them blindly

If you read the Saracens salary cap threads, I doubt you'll find two bigger critics of the way that whole affair was handled, and the useless way that PRL gave some mealy mouthed explanation!

No, I am going by the articles I have read on this matter, and the facts posted on this thread, all of which is being ignored and countered with what ifs.

LordDowlais wrote:No 7&1/2, I suggest you leave this debate as you are making yourself look more foolish than you normally would.

You are ignoring all the facts that other members have put to you, and you would rather side with here say.

I have answered your question quite clearly, the fact you don't like the answer is not my problem.

LordDowlais wrote:No 7&1/2, I suggest you leave this debate as you are making yourself look more foolish than you normally would.

You are ignoring all the facts that other members have put to you, and you would rather side with here say.

Oh the irony

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Change the wording if it bothers you, the PRL believe that the unions have broken the agreeg regs and thus are prepared, or were, to break them as well.

Prove it.

Why wouldn't the PRL take it to court or WR ? Why did they chose to hold players back when they are not allowed to ?

Why would an organisation take an action that costs them nothing but exerts a great amount of pressure on the other party to extract money from them? That's a tough one

marty, I do not agree with you often on here, but this must be one of those planets alignment situations, once in a blue moon. We can both see, and agree, the real agenda that is going on here.

The real agenda being?

No 7&1/2 wrote:The real agenda being?

Thats for you to give an honest answer on.

No it's not; it's a direct question to you LD. You've stated you believe there is an agenda. What do you believe that to be? Similar to fanster ie stopping international rugby?

I side with HearSay!  He's the best poster on here and is always kinda right at least some of the time ..... occasionally..... possibly.... if the planets align.... in a leap year.....

LordDowlais wrote:marty, I do not agree with you often on here, but this must be one of those planets alignment situations, once in a blue moon.  We can both see, and agree, the real agenda that is going on here.

I think you've missed the point (most out of character for you )

No 7&1/2 wrote:No it's not; it's a direct question to you LD. You've stated you believe there is an agenda. What do you believe that to be? Similar to fanster ie stopping international rugby?

First the oil fields. Then take control of the world media by kidnapping Murdock...then banning petrol driven cars and Gossip magazines. Then and only then, the ending of all International rugby on the planet through a sequence of strategic nuclear strikes on certain areas of population throughout the world.

LordDowlais wrote:marty, I do not agree with you often on here, but this must be one of those planets alignment situations, once in a blue moon.  We can both see, and agree, the real agenda that is going on here.

Where in my post did I say there was an agenda?

You asked why not go down the legal route, the simple answer is why pay money to a legal team when you can get the same result by forcing the SRUs hand

For all we know this could be a club or doctor having missed an injury and PRL backing their guy or the something similar with the SRU

At the end of the day, the PRL own the player contracts and for all the bluster on here, both World Rugby and the Union's know their own internal membership of their cosy club rules will not stand scrutiny against legal employment contracts.

The AP clubs organise around 150 fixtures per season, the Unions about a dozen Test fixtures (and that is too many). The priority for any rugby fan should be their club fixtures that provide access and variety to all fans.
For all the jingoists out there, we will eventually get to Euro and World Cups which will be distinct events in the calendar and folk can wave their nationalist flags to their hearts content. Hopefully the players can then target their fitness levels accordingly rather than the current haphazard mash up.

Unions trying to dictate, any terms, with an amateur out of date top down structure will not have a long term future in a professional sport.

Recwatcher16 wrote:At the end of the day, the PRL own the player contracts and for all the bluster on here, both World Rugby and the Union's know their own internal membership of their cosy club rules will not stand scrutiny against legal employment contracts.

The AP clubs organise around 150 fixtures per season, the Unions about a dozen Test fixtures (and that is too many). The priority for any rugby fan should be their club fixtures that provide access and variety to all fans.
For all the jingoists out there, we will eventually get to Euro and World Cups which will be distinct events in the calendar and folk can wave their nationalist flags to their hearts content. Hopefully the players can then target their fitness levels accordingly rather than the current haphazard mash up.

Unions trying to dictate, any terms, with an amateur out of date top down structure will not have a long term future in a professional sport.

Its not like those fixtures have propped the game up or anything

Recwatcher16 wrote:At the end of the day, the PRL own the player contracts and for all the bluster on here, both World Rugby and the Union's know their own internal membership of their cosy club rules will not stand scrutiny against legal employment contracts.

The AP clubs organise around 150 fixtures per season, the Unions about a dozen Test fixtures (and that is too many). The priority for any rugby fan should be their club fixtures that provide access and variety to all fans.
For all the jingoists out there, we will eventually get to Euro and World Cups which will be distinct events in the calendar and folk can wave their nationalist flags to their hearts content. Hopefully the players can then target their fitness levels accordingly rather than the current haphazard mash up.

Unions trying to dictate, any terms, with an amateur out of date top down structure will not have a long term future in a professional sport.

Rec lets the cat out of the bag! Thanks Rec. It's the End of Days for the amateur top-down structure of the Unions and the Dawn of top-down PRL modulated Regulations.

World Rugby needs to be a professional organisation. Leagues will have no interest in Tests and will sit alongside in an organised manner unless it impacts them negatively and then they will respond. Like in any other professional activity.

That's the euphemistic version, Rec. What about the guy in the taxi?