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.

Wow you really are so biased TJ.

TJ wrote: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.

Of course, everyone else has to provide evidence where you'll happily slander the PRL at every opportunity painting them as the pantomime villains without evidence.

I think you are missing the point of this thread, it's not about player release. It's about the SRU (and other countries) not paying injury bills owed (Some owed from 12 months ago Totalling £400,000) which is against world rugby regulations. The PRL have threatened to with hold players, which they can do outside of a international window.

The SRU are currently having on going discussion.

There is no way in hell the money I put into the game (from tickets, to watching on tv) going to subsidise the SRU

Open both eyes will you.

No 7&1/2 wrote: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?

There are three different phrasings used, with three different interpretations.

From the BBC article there's:

BBC wrote:English Premiership clubs have voted to withhold players from Scotland duty ahead of this year's autumn Test series against Australia, Argentina and Georgia.

Which could be taken to mean they are withdrawing the players only for the period ahead of the games, and not the games themselves, but it's ambiguous.

And there's:

PRL via BBC wrote: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.

Which is stronger and would imply they are holding them back from Test duty. Though the tone is one of "we are not prepared to cover the bills for injuries incurred on international duty any more, and we, the PRA and the RFU are not happy allowing players to risk themselves in that arena until it's clear how any bills will be paid."

The IRB, on the other hand, are very clear that the PRL are not blocking release in the official international window:

IRB via Planet Rugby 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.

Nathan - I am not missing the point at all.  Given how untrustworthy the PRL have proved them selves to be I want to see some evidence of the truth of this.

Its obvious its about the PRL attempting to wrest more control of the game.  Its been obvious that this is so for years.

So PRL apologists.  Lets hear a couple of things.  Why bring this up now just before the AIs not months ago?  How about some actual evidence of the SRU not paying when it should have?

Bring it up as they have more bargaining power. You're happy the SRU doesn't care about it's players?

Right - so you understand its about power not truth then? If there is an issue and I doubt there really is then why not deal with it months ago rather than just before the A!s

I want to see some evidence of the SRU not caring about its players.

TJ wrote:...I want to see some evidence of the SRU not caring about its players.  

What did you make of Rory Lamont's allegations?

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby-union/rory-lamont-i-was-forced-to-play-whilst-injured-1-3017716

Nothing to do with this allegation.  But yes - bad show that

Any evidence for this allegation? Any specifics?

So you think that the PRL have openly libelled themselves TJ? Seriously open your other eye. Unions can do no wrong even if they are putting their own players health and careers at stake, personally find the unions behaviour here reprehensible.

NO - what I think has happened is this is disputed pyments not missed payments - and the PRL have done this now to exert maximum pressure not to reach a resolution.

We who can see thru the PRL have been saying for years they will continue to grab power by any means possible. they want to control the game and this is simply a part of this.

Does anyone actually know what players / incidents are being reffered to?

Its all about the fact they have extorted money from the RFU and the WRU but the SRU wont be dictated to by the PRL

7 1/2 - have you actually any knowledge of what players and incidents are being reffered to or are you simply taking the PRLs word?

You admit the timing is all about exerting power not reaching a resolution

Would it not be fraud if the Prem Clubs are claiming for medical/wage costs that they aren't entitled to? Just to be clear - I don't believe for a second that they are behaving fraudulently at all but rather that they are desperately trying to recover what they are owed.

Did I? I thought it was about time pressure to get the money they are owed. But like you said it'll be a lie and since this only broke 6 days ago the unions will be suing when exactly. You seem to not care about your players; why?

The myopic views of some people never fail to amaze me. We have heard one side of the argument yet a lot of people on here seem to have created this magical back story where everything is the fault of the SRU.

We've heard from both parties cake. I really do suggest people read whats happened rather than guess.

No 7&1/2 wrote:We've heard from both parties cake. I really do suggest people read whats happened rather than guess.

Can you provide a link where the SRU say that they have been stiffing the clubs and they are at fault. As everyone on here seems to think. Or have they simply said they are working with the clubs to resolve. My point is there is no real context provided as to the reason the payments are missing, if at all.

No I can't but they did respond...and it wasn't a denial or threat of legal action. Sorry but its the unions at fault here but as TJ said he's taking his view purely as its the PRL.

The details are a bit vague to be fair

"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".

Who?

What injuries?

Or were the players just a little tired and needed a rest?

No 7&1/2 wrote:No I can't but they did respond...and it wasn't a denial or threat of legal action. Sorry but its the unions at fault here but as TJ said he's taking his view purely as its the PRL.

And I could make the argument that you are taking the exact opposite view. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

cakeordeath wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No I can't but they did respond...and it wasn't a denial or threat of legal action. Sorry but its the unions at fault here but as TJ said he's taking his view purely as its the PRL.

And I could make the argument that you are taking the exact opposite view. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

How could you? Look through my posting history and you'll see highly critical posts on the PRL, however I don't go into any situation thinking well the PRL messed up the cap breach allegation so how can I juggle this for them to be in the wrong again.

And just like last week when the PRL we're trying NH to stop Welsh internationals representing their country the PRL have backed down and will release the Scottish internationals


http://m.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/37811107

No 7&1/2 wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No I can't but they did respond...and it wasn't a denial or threat of legal action. Sorry but its the unions at fault here but as TJ said he's taking his view purely as its the PRL.

And I could make the argument that you are taking the exact opposite view. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

How could you? Look through my posting history and you'll see highly critical posts on the PRL, however I don't go into any situation thinking well the PRL messed up the cap breach allegation so how can I juggle this for them to be in the wrong again.

I am talking about this particular issue.

I came to it cake that the prl made a public statement using the imminent AIs as pressure point. The unions lack of denial under the accusation they're ignoring player safety is deafening, 6 days and counting. TJ has admitted to taking a view purely down to one side being the prl. And maes if you struggle to understand pipe down!

No 7&1/2 wrote:I came to it cake that the prl made a public statement using the imminent AIs as pressure point. The unions lack of denial under the accusation they're ignoring player safety is deafening, 6 days and counting. TJ has admitted to taking a view purely down to one side being the prl. And maes if you struggle to understand pipe down!

Struggle to understand?

The PRL just backed down, again.

The RFU really need to start controlling them better.

As long as they're winding you up maes, I think they should carry on doing the grand job they're doing

Shh maes. It'll be better soon.

TJ wrote:Nathan - I am not missing the point at all.  Given how untrustworthy the PRL have proved them selves to be I want to see some evidence of the truth of this.

Its obvious its about the PRL attempting to wrest more control of the game.  Its been obvious that this is so for years.

So PRL apologists.  Lets hear a couple of things.  Why bring this up now just before the AIs not months ago?  How about some actual evidence of the SRU not paying when it should have?

Bring this up now? They've been trying to get the SRU (amongst others) to pay for the last 12 months. I would imagine it's come out in the media now because the SRU want there players for training sessions.

maestegmafia wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I came to it cake that the prl made a public statement using the imminent AIs as pressure point. The unions lack of denial under the accusation they're ignoring player safety is deafening, 6 days and counting. TJ has admitted to taking a view purely down to one side being the prl. And maes if you struggle to understand pipe down!

Struggle to understand?

The PRL just backed down, again.

The RFU really need to start controlling them better.

Maes is around to have another dig at something English, shock horror. 

Backed down? The rfu need to control them better.... lol

Or they agreed to let world rugby decide and release the players to help the world game. See I can twist and event to try and make it evidence for my point of view.

I've read the BBC story and we will find out next month what the outcome is as the IRB will make a ruling then.

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."

Seems like the best result for everyone for now.

The Premiership feels it's being stiffed by the SRU and forces the issue so the union can no longer ignore them. Either the Scots don't want to pay, or don't believe they have to pay, and World Rugby has now agreed to make a ruling. Meanwhile, everyone gets on with playing.

We don't know that anyone party should be painted as a villain. It's perfectly possible that the disagreement has arisen because the rules are too vague, and there's no formal means available to settle such disputes.

Still, if the PRL's position turns out to be vindicated, then it's hard to see how else they could have dealt with the impasse.

However, many clubs and unions have shown a disregard for player welfare in the past, so no-one has the natural moral high ground on that score.

According to The Times the dispute is centred around one player who hasn't played for Scotland for over a year. The SRU offered to take it to adjudication 2 years ago

Cake - found this extra bit of PRL quote which does seem to back up the Times' claim that this relates to a single player: “The dispute with the SRU over unpaid medical and salary bills caused when a Premiership Rugby player was injured while on Test duty has not been settled." (Herald Scotland)

Let's hope this gets sorted out once and for all next month.

They haven't changed the player but it must be Kelly Brown

It's hard to view the PRL's actions as anything but forcing themselves on the international game.

They have previous for a Hitler esque takeover of club rugby, using media propoganda to cause public outrage for the wrong doings of others.

It's a very similar strategy here, they are being trampled on by the 'powers of int rugby' and as the victim must be compensated or else...

The player in question is very likely Brown, and if there are 4 unions in the dispute, it would seem that at most the SRU are 'in negotiation' over the 100k costs that the PRL are claiming are owed. What the dispute is about none of us know, non payment, over charging, or any other number of issues. It's curious that 4 nations have the same issue with the PRL, are all 4 unions in the wrong? Or are the PRL just pushing too far beyond unions means?

At very best the PRL are whipping up a media storm (s per their usual 4 per year) to keep the AP relevant in November, at worst they are in the early stages of forcing international rugby to work around whats best for them, which would include less games, or pay per play deals with them.

If we stay neutral however, does this latest instant require the discussion of transfer fees?

With unions funding academies, the grass roots game, and developing top class players, not to mention giving them access to the best development tool there is (international game time), what do they get in return when leagues like the AP prise them away with bigger money offers?

Also final point, clubs don't pay players for the entire year, they pay players based on what they offer the club in the 25+ games, including world cup year negotiations to 2nd tier players not to play int rugby, Euan Murrays reduced contract for no Sunday matches etc. Yes they pay on an annual basis, but they very much add international caps, and the downside that brings combined with the financial upside they bring into account pre offer.

It needs to be said and agreed it's the unions at fault for not obeying WR regulations; you know, if you're being neutral.

Fanster wrote:It's hard to view the PRL's actions as anything but forcing themselves on the international game.

They have previous for a Hitler esque takeover of club rugby, using media propoganda to cause public outrage for the wrong doings of others.

It's a very similar strategy here, they are being trampled on by the 'powers of int rugby' and as the victim must be compensated or else...

The player in question is very likely Brown, and if there are 4 unions in the dispute, it would seem that at most the SRU are 'in negotiation' over the 100k costs that the PRL are claiming are owed. What the dispute is about none of us know, non payment, over charging, or any other number of issues. It's curious that 4 nations have the same issue with the PRL, are all 4 unions in the wrong? Or are the PRL just pushing too far beyond unions means?

At very best the PRL are whipping up a media storm (s per their usual 4 per year) to keep the AP relevant in November, at worst they are in the early stages of forcing international rugby to work around whats best for them, which would include less games, or pay per play deals with them.

If we stay neutral however, does this latest instant require the discussion of transfer fees?

With unions funding academies, the grass roots game, and developing top class players, not to mention giving them access to the best development tool there is (international game time), what do they get in return when leagues like the AP prise them away with bigger money offers?

Also final point, clubs don't pay players for the entire year, they pay players based on what they offer the club in the 25+ games, including world cup year negotiations to 2nd tier players not to play int rugby, Euan Murrays reduced contract for no Sunday matches etc. Yes they pay on an annual basis, but they very much add international caps, and the downside that brings combined with the financial upside they bring into account pre offer.

From what's been said the dispute is over medical and wage costs incurred due an injury suffered whilst on test duty.

Fanster wrote:It's hard to view the PRL's actions as anything but forcing themselves on the international game.

They have previous for a Hitler esque takeover of club rugby, using media propoganda to cause public outrage for the wrong doings of others.

It's a very similar strategy here, they are being trampled on by the 'powers of int rugby' and as the victim must be compensated or else...

The player in question is very likely Brown, and if there are 4 unions in the dispute, it would seem that at most the SRU are 'in negotiation' over the 100k costs that the PRL are claiming are owed. What the dispute is about none of us know, non payment, over charging, or any other number of issues. It's curious that 4 nations have the same issue with the PRL, are all 4 unions in the wrong? Or are the PRL just pushing too far beyond unions means?

At very best the PRL are whipping up a media storm (s per their usual 4 per year) to keep the AP relevant in November, at worst they are in the early stages of forcing international rugby to work around whats best for them, which would include less games, or pay per play deals with them.

If we stay neutral however, does this latest instant require the discussion of transfer fees?


With unions funding academies, the grass roots game, and developing top class players, not to mention giving them access to the best development tool there is (international game time), what do they get in return when leagues like the AP prise them away with bigger money offers?

Also final point, clubs don't pay players for the entire year, they pay players based on what they offer the club in the 25+ games, including world cup year negotiations to 2nd tier players not to play int rugby, Euan Murrays reduced contract for no Sunday matches etc. Yes they pay on an annual basis, but they very much add international caps, and the downside that brings combined with the financial upside they bring into account pre offer.

You've lost me here but is this one of those internet things where eventually hitler or the nazis are mentioned? Forget the phenomenon's name..

Edit Godwin's law

Neutrality was for the transfer fee idea, not the comment pre that.

The dispute is over medical costs, the dispute itself you have no idea about. Maybe Scotland felt the initial figure of say 100k for 1/2 missed games was unfair? There are a hundred reasons why this hasn't been payed.

All of which the IRB will hopefully sort out objectively next month.

Good result all round I hope.

Yes again why would people want to be neutral when they can just jump in against thte evil prl who looked after players as unions turned their backs.

Realistically, how many Scottish internationals are we talking about here - Laidlaw, Scott, Denton (injured), R.Jackson (injured).  

I am new to this debate and I realise that its largely been resolved by PRL and the clubs allowing the release of their Scots internationals.  

However, my sympathies generally lay with the clubs.  Its the clubs in England that pay the salaries of these internationals and its the clubs that pay their salaries if they are injured and cant play 'sometimes for a whole season'.  If injured on international duty - in a unions setup, using a unions medics and training facilities then there is a duty of care to the player from that union.  
It is quite likely that rehab and long term treatment would happen back at the clubs so if the clubs have to pay for that then I see no reason why that shouldn't be paid for by the union or at least contributed to by the union.  

Scots internationals that play for Glasgow or Edinburgh - both currently SRU funded clubs.  Rehab for injured players then is paid for by the SRU funds.....in my thinking.  Why should it be different for those Scots internationals based outside of SRU?  

Another point....SRU wants Glasgow and Edinburgh to be privately funded in the next few years.  How will new investors feel about paying for rehab of players injured on international duty?

Sorry - seen the listed players - Greig Laidlaw, Moray Low, Duncan Taylor, Sean Maitland and Tim Visser

If you change the context and forget the is the "horrible English" PRL stopping the "poor (in both senses) SRU" fro having access to there players but instead think of it as general employment. The Clubs (PRL) are the Employers and the players are the employees and the National Team is the bit of extra they do on the odd week end to make ends meet. If I am off on a week-end job and I get hurt, and my week-end employers fails to pay to get me back on my feet/ cover illness and recuperation, is it reasonable to expect my main employer to cover the cost of me not being able to do my job.

The fact is that the PRL clubs could have a pay to play contract, and if the players return from an international injured say sorry no money until you are fit again.

But if there was an agreement which meant that compensation would be paid to the main employer should ou be injured or take ill on your weekend job you wouldn't expect them to refuse to do so or expect your main employer to continue to let you take on a second job.

I thought ALL players HAD to be released during the international windows, by World Rugby law. Or am I wrong ?

You're right and depending on the wording of statements they are or aren't threatening withholding from all tests (or were). I read it as all.

I haven't bothered reading all the articles - but I thought they weren't preventing the players from representing.....but as with the WRU there are training camps and perhaps fixtures outside of the international windows

From what I can see, Scotland have 3 AI's. Looking at the dates they all fall under the international window. So there is absolutely nowt all the PRL can do.

So the question begs, why are they acting like schoolyard bullies ?

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.

LordDowlais wrote:From what I can see, Scotland have 3 AI's. Looking at the dates they all fall under the international window. So there is absolutely nowt all the PRL can do.

So the question begs, why are they acting like schoolyard bullies ?

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