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.

Optimistic perhaps, Secret.
However no central sporting bodies can afford the domestic and professional tier of team sports indefinitely. The current rugby union model is an anomaly.

Unions should go back to sorting a sensible Test schedule that reflects the pinnacle of the game rather than desperately scrabbling for cash to control players employment.
Saturdays game in Chicago is a case in point but there are many others.

If some loud mouth thinks domestic leagues can take over the Test schedule then that is purely because the Unions have made such a short term (20 years) complete hash of it with unsustainable priorities.

SecretFly wrote:

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.  

TBH Fly, that's the only way the Lions are going to beat NZ.

So any developments on this or have the PRL shut up having been caught out being totally unreasonable?

It's not unreasonable to expect an agreed payment to be made. It was announced days ago that 3 out of the 4 are sorted with a meeting with SRU, mediated by WR due in November.

Apart from it was not agreed and the "dispute" is over 3 years old. The PRL have been caught attempting to extort money. their credibility is shot

1. Not agreed
2. Dispute
3. 3 years old
4. Attempting to extort
5. Credibility is shot

Ah right TJ, so you acknowledge the union is 3 years behind paying its debts. Good to see you realising!

Explain points 1. and 2. before we move to 3.

Why? Read the previous posts if you're struggling to follow.

Why?

Because you jumped the gun

Really? WR don't have regulations stating that unions must pay costs following an player injury while on international duty? 4 unions didn't refuse to pay? 3 unions haven't now settled? There isn't a meeting between the SRU, WR and the PRL?

Look at the list again 7.5

1. Not agreed
2. Dispute

What the 3 other unions settled has nothing to do with the SRU

Those claims could have been legitimate claims

That were paid or settled

Ok, I'll accept that some unions dispute WR regs and the've now been called out and it looks as if the strong arm tactics from the PRL have worked. It's a shame it takes something like this to focus minds on the responsibilities that organisations have.

By the way moving forward the RFU are 20k per match to players, you were asking earlier and it was announced this week.

You don't get it 7.5

Dig deeper

I don't get your point.

Its disputed becaue the SRU position (IIRC) is that the player was not injured on international duty but turned up with an injury. the PRL have been caught out attempting to strong arm the SRU - its obvious what the agenda is - they extorted money from the RFU and the WRU to get access to players and want to do the same to the SRU.

Its not disputing the regs, its disputing that the injury occurred on international duty

The strong arm tactics were not needed and to attempt to disrupt Scotland preparation for the AIs shows just how shameless the PRL i their attempts to control the game. This will not be the last trumped up attempt to exert more control and extract more money from the unions.

So some English players will be paid more by the RFU than their clubs? Or have I got my sums wrong?

There may well be some players who get more, not sure as specific player wages aren't usually released. Though I wouldn't call it extortion as it's money they are owed due to WR regs not a payment they have just decided to impose by themselves.

TJ wrote:Its disputed becaue the SRU position (IIRC) is that the player was not injured on international duty but turned up with an injury.  the PRL have been caught out attempting to strong arm the SRU - its obvious what the agenda is - they extorted money from the RFU and the WRU to get access to players and want to do the same to the SRU.

Its not disputing the regs, its disputing that the injury occurred on international duty

The strong arm tactics were not needed and to attempt to disrupt Scotland preparation for the AIs shows just how shameless the PRL i their attempts to control the game.  This will not be the last trumped up attempt to exert more control and extract more money from the unions.

Don't be silly, next you'll be saying Glasgow are as good as Saracens! I do accept that the PRL have used the timing to maximum effect. Seems to have worked well for them, and ultimately the players.

Deflecting

Deflecting what exactly? You're asking for an answer on another topic, I answered.

Glasgow are not as good as Saracens

Oh that's just pointing out TJ gets a little biased every so often as he has already said on this thread.

You don't see any bias in yourself and your stance on this? Dig deep 7.5, you can do it buddy

No, like I said I came to this thread and made a judgement based on the situation not the organisations involved. The fact some have taken their stance because it's the PRL and have admitted that, does show bias.

Your judgement is

"If there is a dispute.....extort"

That's it right?

I think after the situation dragging on for 3 years in some cases this threat has had a powerful impact and we're now likely to see resolutions before the end of the year. Ideally you'd see all unions pay when they are supposed to without this.

A powerful impact

You said it mate

A powerful impact 'outside their jurisdiction'

The crux of the debate

Yes, as I acknowledged. Think it was Bam who summed it up well.

So you acknowledge PRL are encroaching on the international space for their own self-serving purposes

Great

You mean they made the threat after the union didn't pay? Yes of course, thats the point of the thread.

The point is the union dispute any payment needed. If you really cannot see how the PRL are attempting to extrort money and wrest control of the game from the unions than I am sorry for you.

I bet within the next year the PRL will have engineered another trumped up dispute with one or the other of the home unions

TJ wrote:The point is the union dispute any payment needed.  If you really cannot see how the PRL are attempting to extrort money and wrest control of the game from the unions than I am sorry for you.

I bet within the next year the PRL will have engineered another trumped up dispute with one or the other of the home unions

If there is a dispute on what basis are you asserting that the claim is "trumped up" or that the PRL are attempting to "extort money"?   How do you know that the player was not injured on international duty?

On the face of it, I would think it would be easy to prove. If the player turned up injured surely the SRU would have either sent him back to the club straight away or told him to stay but not take part in any training sessions. If so it seems that the club's case would be non existent and it is hard to believe they would pursue it. The SRU's statements talk about having offered to convene a medical panel. Why would a medical panel be required if the player had not trained or played?

If he was injured on arrival and trained and exacerbated the injury I would not think that is much of a defence for the SRU as it would indicate negligence. If the player did not tell the SRU about a pre-existing injury that might be a defence against a claim from the player but not the club. That is because the failure to report injury was a failure in the player's capacity as an employee of the SRU not of the club.

Whatever the truth of it I expect World Rugby to find in favour of the SRU anyway because as a group of national unions it is in their financial interest to limit the costs of running international teams.