Should the top two English leagues be merged?

First topic message reminder :

Ruck.co.uk have put together a rather pie in the sky piece about league reform in England.

https://www.ruck.co.uk/what-would-the-premiership-look-like-if-it-was-split-into-conferences-like-the-nfl/

It suggests splitting the top two divisions into 5 NFL style conferences. 

NORTHERN DIVISION
Doncaster Knights
Newcastle Falcons
Sale Sharks
Yorkshire Carnegie

LONDON DIVISION
Ealing Trailfinders
Harlequins
London Irish
Saracens

MIDLANDS 1
Bedford Blues
Leicester Tigers
Northampton Saints
Nottingham

MIDLANDS 2
Bristol Bears
Gloucester
Wasps
Worcester Warriors

SOUTHERN DIVISION
Bath
Cornish Pirates
Exeter Chiefs
Jersey

The issues emerge immediately as outraged Bristol fans want to know why they are a Midlands team and Bath are a Southern one. Midlands 2 would be much better re-badged as West.

Yorkshire/Leeds or whatever their name is this week obviously aren't fit to enter and Coventry would probably be annoyed by being overlooked after finishing last season on 4th. Not sure the Prem teams would be keen on sharing the television coverage pie but more games should mean more coverage options and maybe some shared coverage.

The West Country teams would probably want to be in the same group for derby game purposes but this would make their conference extremely harsh.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:After all that, are you sure Phil that the 80% paid for by the WRU is included in the wage bill of the teams affected?

So you don't understand the point about who contracts them.

As I thought.

It doesn't matter who they are contracted to, it matters where the money comes from.

Irish Londoner wrote:

Isn't that semantics at best - if the WRU give the clubs money with the specific condition that it has to be used for player wages then it's the WRU that are effectively paying 80% of the wages.

Like your child with the book - if you get £10 to spend on what you want it's your money - if you get £10 to spend but have to spend £3 on a book or you don't get the money, you haven't been given £10 you've been given £7 and a book.

No, it's a very important definition and the reason it is very important is shown by the less clued up asking whose salary spend those wages are shown in.

Your analogy on the book is wrong, too, because there's internal competition to sign the players on the 38. So the Scarlets, for example, would get a £1.50 book whilst the Ospreys got only a £0.75 to spend on a book.

The reaction on here is amazing. None has picked up on the 225,000,000 over 8 years and how that is made up as though, somehow, the similarities are too difficult to spot.

Soul Requiem wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:After all that, are you sure Phil that the 80% paid for by the WRU is included in the wage bill of the teams affected?

So you don't understand the point about who contracts them.

As I thought.

It doesn't matter who they are contracted to, it matters where the money comes from.

You see, that's a remarkably naive comment.

Who the individual is contracted to is who is their employer, who controls their employment and who carries the risk.

It's as though nobody here has considered multi year contracts - just like the EPS stuff.

Just to be crystal clear would the 80% show up on the clubs wage bill or not?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just to be crystal clear would the 80% show up on the clubs wage bill or not?

Why do you need to be clear? You've told me that you know how contracts work

So you can tell the board whether the "80%" would show up on the club's wage bill.

Go on, you tell me.

PhilBB wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:After all that, are you sure Phil that the 80% paid for by the WRU is included in the wage bill of the teams affected?

So you don't understand the point about who contracts them.

As I thought.

It doesn't matter who they are contracted to, it matters where the money comes from.

You see, that's a remarkably naive comment.

Who the individual is contracted to is who is their employer, who controls their employment and who carries the risk.

It's as though nobody here has considered multi year contracts - just like the EPS stuff.

It's naive because it doesn't suit your opinion, the Welsh clubs will budget yearly based on the subsidies they'll be receiving from the WRU so the risk is reduced because of that.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just to be crystal clear would the 80% show up on the clubs wage bill or not?

Why do you need to be clear? You've told me that you know how contracts work

So you can tell the board whether the "80%" would show up on the club's wage bill.

Go on, you tell me.

I've asked because I don't know. Its a different part to the puzzle and googling doesn't bring up any easy articles to show whether it is or not.

Soul Requiem wrote:
It's naive because it doesn't suit your opinion, the Welsh clubs will budget yearly based on the subsidies they'll be receiving from the WRU so the risk is reduced because of that.

No, no, no.

It's not a subsidy. It's a payment. And part of that payment must be used in this fashion.

It's not a reduction of risk because its their money they have to use in that fashion. It's not additional money.

And you've ignored the risk of multi term contracts.

So you couldn't be more wrong.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just to be crystal clear would the 80% show up on the clubs wage bill or not?

Why do you need to be clear? You've told me that you know how contracts work

So you can tell the board whether the "80%" would show up on the club's wage bill.

Go on, you tell me.

I've asked because I don't know. Its a different part to the puzzle and googling doesn't bring up any easy articles to show whether it is or not.

But you told me that you knew how contracts work??

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So as I've said you believe both the BBC, this and at least 1 earlier article, and Walesonline are reporting incorrectly that the WRU pay 80% of wages. To me this seems very odd as you'd imagine a mistake as big as that would have been challenged and corrected. if that's the case fair enough but you can hardly accuse me of deliberately attempting to rile you if 2 media organisations as big as them have got it wrong and not corrected themselves.

From that WalesOnline article: "they remain contracted to the regions"

Do you understand what that means?

I do. Do you know what the WRU pays 80% of wages means?

So it turns out that you lied and that you don't know what that means.

It means their employer pays their wages. So that means their wages are paid by their employer.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just to be crystal clear would the 80% show up on the clubs wage bill or not?

Why do you need to be clear? You've told me that you know how contracts work

So you can tell the board whether the "80%" would show up on the club's wage bill.

Go on, you tell me.

I've asked because I don't know. Its a different part to the puzzle and googling doesn't bring up any easy articles to show whether it is or not.

But you told me that you knew how contracts work??

Hey if you really don't know that's fine, as I said I don't know. May be another problem then.

PhilBB wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:

Isn't that semantics at best - if the WRU give the clubs money with the specific condition that it has to be used for player wages then it's the WRU that are effectively paying 80% of the wages.

Like your child with the book - if you get £10 to spend on what you want it's your money - if you get £10 to spend but have to spend £3 on a book or you don't get the money, you haven't been given £10 you've been given £7 and a book.

No, it's a very important definition and the reason it is very important is shown by the less clued up asking whose salary spend those wages are shown in.

Your analogy on the book is wrong, too, because there's internal competition to sign the players on the 38. So the Scarlets, for example, would get a £1.50 book whilst the Ospreys got only a £0.75 to spend on a book.

The reaction on here is amazing. None has picked up on the 225,000,000 over 8 years and how that is made up as though, somehow, the similarities are too difficult to spot.

But do Scarlets and Ospreys still get £10 each to start with ? Or if they only buy a £1.50 book instead of a £3 one are they only given £5 ?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just to be crystal clear would the 80% show up on the clubs wage bill or not?

Why do you need to be clear? You've told me that you know how contracts work

So you can tell the board whether the "80%" would show up on the club's wage bill.

Go on, you tell me.

I've asked because I don't know. Its a different part to the puzzle and googling doesn't bring up any easy articles to show whether it is or not.

But you told me that you knew how contracts work??

Hey if you really don't know that's fine, as I said I don't know. May be another problem then.

I just told you, above. It's really, really basic stuff.

PhilBB wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:
It's naive because it doesn't suit your opinion, the Welsh clubs will budget yearly based on the subsidies they'll be receiving from the WRU so the risk is reduced because of that.

No, no, no.

It's not a subsidy. It's a payment. And part of that payment must be used in this fashion.

It's not a reduction of risk because its their money they have to use in that fashion. It's not additional money.

And you've ignored the risk of multi term contracts.

So you couldn't be more wrong.

You can keep repeating the same line ad nauseam but it's not making you any less wrong. The WRU subsidise the clubs for use of their players and yes it is additional money to club, how on earth can you think it's not

Irish Londoner wrote:

But do Scarlets and Ospreys still get £10 each to start with ? Or if they only buy a £1.50 book instead of a £3 one are they only given £5 ?

As noted previously, in the last annual report the WRU paid £16.4m to its supply chain of three independent clubs - Cardiff, Ospreys, Scarlets.

That's why I worked through the example earlier in the thread.

To recap the example, let's say that the top 38 cost £9.5m in wages based on £250k each.

80% of that is £7.6m

So £16.4m - £7.6m is what the three can spend as they see fit.

The £7.6m has to be spent on the 38. As the make of the 38 isn't equal, there's no equal share.

Again, as noted, the Dragons complicate the situation as each Dragons player is WRU employee but some of them are also in the 38 - but the principle is pretty clear from the example above

Soul Requiem wrote:
You can keep repeating the same line ad nauseam but it's not making you any less wrong. The WRU subsidise the clubs for use of their players and yes it is additional money to club, how on earth can you think it's not

Because it's not additional to the £16.4m. It's included within that sum.

So, you know, by knowing the facts. That's how I know its not additional money.

Is this too complicated for you? I can't make it any more simple to understand, sorry.

PhilBB wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:
You can keep repeating the same line ad nauseam but it's not making you any less wrong. The WRU subsidise the clubs for use of their players and yes it is additional money to club, how on earth can you think it's not

Because it's not additional to the £16.4m. It's included within that sum.

So, you know, by knowing the facts. That's how I know its not additional money.

Is this too complicated for you? I can't make it any more simple to understand, sorry.

Are you being for real?

The £16.4mil just miraculously ends up in the accounts of the clubs then... right.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just to be crystal clear would the 80% show up on the clubs wage bill or not?

Why do you need to be clear? You've told me that you know how contracts work

So you can tell the board whether the "80%" would show up on the club's wage bill.

Go on, you tell me.

I've asked because I don't know. Its a different part to the puzzle and googling doesn't bring up any easy articles to show whether it is or not.

But you told me that you knew how contracts work??

Hey if you really don't know that's fine, as I said I don't know. May be another problem then.

I just told you, above. It's really, really basic stuff.

Not really that clearly. You can read your responses 1 of 2 ways ie the employers pay so its reported but the players are paid by the wru and the club so still none the wiser. If you could just state in simple terms yes the 80% is in the clubs reported wage or no it's not that would be great please.

Soul Requiem wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:
You can keep repeating the same line ad nauseam but it's not making you any less wrong. The WRU subsidise the clubs for use of their players and yes it is additional money to club, how on earth can you think it's not

Because it's not additional to the £16.4m. It's included within that sum.

So, you know, by knowing the facts. That's how I know its not additional money.

Is this too complicated for you? I can't make it any more simple to understand, sorry.

Are you being for real?

The £16.4mil just miraculously ends up in the accounts of the clubs then... right.

Maybe you know more than me, that's certainly a possibility.

After all, I got the £16.4m figure wrong. It's £16.5m.

And I got that figure from page 53 of the WRU Annual Report. Now, you may wish to claim that the WRU are lying in their legal document registered at Companies House but you'd need to be a pretty brave and pretty wealthy bloke to make that kind of challenge.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just to be crystal clear would the 80% show up on the clubs wage bill or not?

Why do you need to be clear? You've told me that you know how contracts work

So you can tell the board whether the "80%" would show up on the club's wage bill.

Go on, you tell me.

I've asked because I don't know. Its a different part to the puzzle and googling doesn't bring up any easy articles to show whether it is or not.

But you told me that you knew how contracts work??

Hey if you really don't know that's fine, as I said I don't know. May be another problem then.

I just told you, above. It's really, really basic stuff.

Not really that clearly. You can read your responses 1 of 2 ways ie the employers pay so its reported but the players are paid by the wru and the club so still none the wiser. If you could just state in simple terms yes the 80% is in the clubs reported wage or no it's not that would be great please.

I have already. Multiple times.

You havent. Is it a yes or no?

No 7&1/2 wrote:You havent. Is it a yes or no?

I have. Their employers pay them. I've made this crystal clear from the start. I even provided you with the wording from the Wales Online article when pointing out your analysis was flawed. I can't make this any clearer, sorry. If you don't understand it now, you'll need to get somebody else to explain it to you.

Yes the wording from walesonline said that 80% of the players wages come from the wru. So are you saying that is included with the clubs wage bill? Yes or a no would be great if you do know the answer.

I mean to get beyond this, if it's not included again that would be problematic in relation to any wage bill. Not insurmountable I suppose as they'd need to get past the Irish pay issues as well in agreeing how they looks, and across currency. All difficult discussions.

To make it simple Phill if I were to be in the Sarries squad English (qualified through parent) instead of Farrell Sarries would get the same from the EPS payment.  Regardless of them paying me 1k a year.

If my brother Wales qualified (birth) being paid 1k a year in the Ospreys squad instead of North would Ospreys get the same payment from the WRU or would they be down 80% of North's wage

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You havent. Is it a yes or no?

I have. Their employers pay them. I've made this crystal clear from the start. I even provided you with the wording from the Wales Online article when pointing out your analysis was flawed. I can't make this any clearer, sorry. If you don't understand it now, you'll need to get somebody else to explain it to you.

You can't make something clearer when you're wrong from the start, sorry.

Brendan wrote:To make it simple Phill if I were to be in the Sarries squad English (qualified through parent) instead of Farrell Sarries would get the same from the EPS payment.  Regardless of them paying me 1k a year.

If my brother Wales qualified (birth) being paid 1k a year in the Ospreys squad instead of North would Ospreys get the same payment from the WRU or would they be down 80% of North's wage

Wow PhillBB for some one as knowledgeable on how the 80% is funded you seem to have gone very quiet.

In Ireland we have central contracts which are between the player and the IRFU.  The province can add onto that wage if they want/need to.  Does this mean that they wouldn't be included because it's way less then the EPS and the province is only paying the player to play for them while the central contract is a contract to play for Ireland so is an international wage.

Brendan wrote:To make it simple Phill if I were to be in the Sarries squad English (qualified through parent) instead of Farrell Sarries would get the same from the EPS payment.  Regardless of them paying me 1k a year.

If my brother Wales qualified (birth) being paid 1k a year in the Ospreys squad instead of North would Ospreys get the same payment from the WRU or would they be down 80% of North's wage

You've conflated EPS with EQS payments.

https://www.ruck.co.uk/rfu-premiership-rugby-sign-new-professional-game-agreement/

"PARTNERSHIP IS WORTH OVER £200M

The partnership is worth over £200 million, with the first four-year payment fixed at £112 million. The second four-year payment could potentially be higher than £112 million subject to financial performance under the rugby revenue share partnership approach. The funding model for the clubs is based on the English Qualified Player (EQP) threshold being met, the Elite Player Squads (EPS) and standards for club academies being achieved.

The Professional Game Agreement will see the England Elite Player Squad (EPS) increase from 33 to 45 players and greater flexibility during core international periods so 36 players can be selected for the camp instead of 33. The England Head Coach will now also be able to make the final selection of 45 squad members in the first week of October. A reduced number of 20 players will be selected as part of a Next EPS squad for training camps and possible Saxon fixtures."

Soul Requiem wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You havent. Is it a yes or no?

I have. Their employers pay them. I've made this crystal clear from the start. I even provided you with the wording from the Wales Online article when pointing out your analysis was flawed. I can't make this any clearer, sorry. If you don't understand it now, you'll need to get somebody else to explain it to you.

You can't make something clearer when you're wrong from the start, sorry.

To you, probably not. But, then again, I've pointed out where the actual information is legally recorded but you were too dim to accept that.

Brendan wrote:

Brendan wrote:To make it simple Phill if I were to be in the Sarries squad English (qualified through parent) instead of Farrell Sarries would get the same from the EPS payment.  Regardless of them paying me 1k a year.

If my brother Wales qualified (birth) being paid 1k a year in the Ospreys squad instead of North would Ospreys get the same payment from the WRU or would they be down 80% of North's wage

Wow PhillBB for some one as knowledgeable on how the 80% is funded you seem to have gone very quiet.

In Ireland we have central contracts which are between the player and the IRFU.  The province can add onto that wage if they want/need to.  Does this mean that they wouldn't be included because it's way less then the EPS and the province is only paying the player to play for them while the central contract is a contract to play for Ireland so is an international wage.

In Ireland, all players are centrally contracted.

The IRFU employs all Irish qualified players.

And I logged off, Brendan, hence my tardiness in replying. Apologies for getting you a little over excited.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes the wording from walesonline said that 80% of the players wages come from the wru. So are you saying that is included with the clubs wage bill? Yes or a no would be great if you do know the answer.

I mean to get beyond this, if it's not included again that would be problematic in relation to any wage bill. Not insurmountable I suppose as they'd need to get past the Irish pay issues as well in agreeing how they looks, and across currency. All difficult discussions.

Who pays your salary, mate?

And, therefore, where would your salary be recorded?

It's very simple. Their employers pay their salaries. 100% of their salaries. As I've told you before. That's why I pointed out who holds their contracts to you, in the article that you've hung your hat on to.

Here's a nice and easy Twitter conversation to spell it out:

https://twitter.com/c_kirwan/status/1263744112731271168?s=20

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes the wording from walesonline said that 80% of the players wages come from the wru. So are you saying that is included with the clubs wage bill? Yes or a no would be great if you do know the answer.

I mean to get beyond this, if it's not included again that would be problematic in relation to any wage bill. Not insurmountable I suppose as they'd need to get past the Irish pay issues as well in agreeing how they looks, and across currency. All difficult discussions.

Who pays your salary, mate?

And, therefore, where would your salary be recorded?

It's very simple. Their employers pay their salaries. 100% of their salaries. As I've told you before. That's why I pointed out who holds their contracts to you, in the article that you've hung your hat on to.

So from that, my understanding is that you're saying the 80% is included within the clubs wage bill and cap. I don't work under multiple organisations and I honestly didnt know if it was recorded under the wru. Thanks for clarifying.

Soul Requiem wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You havent. Is it a yes or no?

I have. Their employers pay them. I've made this crystal clear from the start. I even provided you with the wording from the Wales Online article when pointing out your analysis was flawed. I can't make this any clearer, sorry. If you don't understand it now, you'll need to get somebody else to explain it to you.

You can't make something clearer when you're wrong from the start, sorry.

To you, probably not. But, then again, I've pointed out where the actual information is legally recorded but you were too dim to accept that.

Resorting to childish insults because you've been shown to be wrong.

Or, in reality, resorting to calling it as it is because of your lying. I think I prefer my version. If you want to have it underlined, who pays the salaries of the WRU Elite 38 players playing for the Ospreys? From which bank account does the money come?

This thread is not great, but it has made me wonder about the Welsh and Irish contracts, so maybe someone can help.

For Ireland, do the players on non-central contracts get paid match-day fees for playing for Ireland? If not, what is the difference of the central contract system apart from the subsidiary (effectively) not having the wage on their books?

Similar for Wales, if you're not in this 38 (e.g like Biggar or Faletau) do you get paid match-day fees for playing for Wales?

MichaelT wrote:This thread is not great, but it has made me wonder about the Welsh and Irish contracts, so maybe someone can help.

For Ireland, do the players on non-central contracts get paid match-day fees for playing for Ireland? If not, what is the difference of the central contract system apart from the subsidiary (effectively) not having the wage on their books?

Similar for Wales, if you're not in this 38 (e.g like Biggar or Faletau) do you get paid match-day fees for playing for Wales?

Just to repeat - all players in Ireland are centrally contracted. They are paid by the IRFU.

Everybody gets match day fees for representing their countries.

I still don't think the English leagues should be merged and no amount of off-topic rambling about who pays what in Wales is changing that.

Maybe someone should make a separate thread for Phil & friends to continue their discussion elsewhere?

MichaelT wrote:This thread is not great, but it has made me wonder about the Welsh and Irish contracts, so maybe someone can help.

For Ireland, do the players on non-central contracts get paid match-day fees for playing for Ireland? If not, what is the difference of the central contract system apart from the subsidiary (effectively) not having the wage on their books?

Similar for Wales, if you're not in this 38 (e.g like Biggar or Faletau) do you get paid match-day fees for playing for Wales?

For Ireland as far as I am aware each person getting an international cap would get match fees.  The top players regardless of team are on a central contract which they receive regardless if they were to swap provinces.  If Sexton decieded he was fed up with Leinster because he was being dropped to much he could probably move.  He would however lose out on the top up he receives for Leinster.  So all players on central contracts aren't on the same wage. Zebo moved because the IRFU didn't give him a central contract and so Munster could afford him. If Zebo had of got a central contract Munster could have topped it up by 200k and would have kept him.

All provical players are paid by their provinces.  They are paid by the IRFU in the same way all Apple employees are paid by Apple but just as Apple Ireland pays Irish workers and Apple China pays China workers and both have different t&c.  To the best of my knowledge people paid by Ulster Rugby as they are not in the Republic don't get the sportsman tax back so anyone who plays for Ulster like Jack McGrath can't claim the tax back for his time in Ulster.

Brendan wrote:

MichaelT wrote:This thread is not great, but it has made me wonder about the Welsh and Irish contracts, so maybe someone can help.

For Ireland, do the players on non-central contracts get paid match-day fees for playing for Ireland? If not, what is the difference of the central contract system apart from the subsidiary (effectively) not having the wage on their books?

Similar for Wales, if you're not in this 38 (e.g like Biggar or Faletau) do you get paid match-day fees for playing for Wales?

For Ireland as far as I am aware each person getting an international cap would get match fees.  The top players regardless of team are on a central contract which they receive regardless if they were to swap provinces.  If Sexton decieded he was fed up with Leinster because he was being dropped to much he could probably move.  He would however lose out on the top up he receives for Leinster.  So all players on central contracts aren't on the same wage.  Zebo moved because the IRFU didn't give him a central contract and so Munster could afford him.  If Zebo had of got a central contract Munster could have topped it up by 200k and would have kept him.

All provical players are paid by their provinces.  They are paid by the IRFU in the same way all Apple employees are paid by Apple but just as Apple Ireland pays Irish workers and Apple China pays China workers and both have different t&c.  To the best of my knowledge people paid by Ulster Rugby as they are not in the Republic don't get the sportsman tax back so anyone who plays for Ulster like Jack McGrath can't claim the tax back for his time in Ulster.

You're right about the tax.

Not quite so right about the Apple analogy as each Apple Company you mention there is a separate company in its own right. The IRFU branches are not. Ts&Cs (or at least the major ones) are the same as that's how the IRFU negotiated an across the board pay cut because of Covid.

rugby racing and beer wrote:I still don't think the English leagues should be merged and no amount of off-topic rambling about who pays what in Wales is changing that.

Maybe someone should make a separate thread for Phil & friends to continue their discussion elsewhere?

I think the leagues should be merged and all of the topic of conversation around that subject in this thread has been relevant, useful and entertaining.

Maybe you should start a separate thread to tell us which NFL franchises have gone 'broke'?

MichaelT wrote:This thread is not great, but it has made me wonder about the Welsh and Irish contracts, so maybe someone can help.

For Ireland, do the players on non-central contracts get paid match-day fees for playing for Ireland? If not, what is the difference of the central contract system apart from the subsidiary (effectively) not having the wage on their books?

Similar for Wales, if you're not in this 38 (e.g like Biggar or Faletau) do you get paid match-day fees for playing for Wales?

All countries separately pay their players for playing in internationals, this is distinct from their club wages.

England: You get paid directly by your club as per your contract agreed rate. The English RFU under the funding agreement with PRL pay the clubs an amount per club based on how many English qualified players they have and if they are full internationals etc. The club can use this money anyway they want to - to pay players (English or otherwise), buy new tackle bags, whatever. The RFU has a certain amount of sway with the clubs in terms of resting players and player release but it's the clubs decision.

Ireland: You are an employee of the IRFU for the duration of your contract as the IRFU own the clubs via the "branch" system. The teams can top up that pay from their own funds if they wish - top ups can be more along the lines of housing, cars, etc. than actual cash. The IRFU has a much tighter say on player release and protection than any union other than possibly NZRFU. Players are protected and rotated to suit the demands of the national side (which in Ireland is paramount) and the clubs European's competition, this means that star players are more likely to not play in the PRO14 to protect their game time. Some people think this is "unfair" or "disrespectful" however, the IRFU and the Provinces point to the fact that their teams still win the PRO14 or finish in at worst the top three very consistently as well as competing in Europe.

Scotland: Players are employees of the club, however Scottish internationals are I believe also contracted to the SRU. The clubs are effectively owned, funded and managed by the SRU.

Wales: You get paid by your club as per your agreed contract rate. The WRU pay the clubs an amount per season based on various performance targets, including how many Welsh internationals are in your squad. Part of the funding given by the WRU is ringfenced and the clubs have to use it for paying the wages of Welsh internationals in the squad. This ringfenced money is 80% of those players wages. It is therefore true that the WRU does not pay Welsh players directly, as the clubs pass the ringfenced money from the WRU to the players through their club wage.
The WRU do this to encourage Welsh players to stay within the Welsh teams rather than move out of Wales for more pay, without the WRU money the Welsh clubs couldn't pay them these sort of wages.
This payment also gives the WRU control over when the players are released for Welsh games - for example the WRU play an extra test in the autumn which is outside the international release window - having the players at Welsh clubs means that they can still call them up.

rugby racing and beer wrote:I still don't think the English leagues should be merged and no amount of off-topic rambling about who pays what in Wales is changing that.

Maybe someone should make a separate thread for Phil & friends to continue their discussion elsewhere?

What friends?

mikey_dragon wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:I still don't think the English leagues should be merged and no amount of off-topic rambling about who pays what in Wales is changing that.

Maybe someone should make a separate thread for Phil & friends to continue their discussion elsewhere?

What friends?

You have 92 followers on twitter, Gaz, so wind your neck in.

Irish Londoner wrote:

MichaelT wrote:This thread is not great, but it has made me wonder about the Welsh and Irish contracts, so maybe someone can help.

For Ireland, do the players on non-central contracts get paid match-day fees for playing for Ireland? If not, what is the difference of the central contract system apart from the subsidiary (effectively) not having the wage on their books?

Similar for Wales, if you're not in this 38 (e.g like Biggar or Faletau) do you get paid match-day fees for playing for Wales?

All countries separately pay their players for playing in internationals, this is distinct from their club wages.

England: You get paid directly by your club as per your contract agreed rate. The English RFU under the funding agreement with PRL pay the clubs an amount per club based on how many English qualified players they have and if they are full internationals etc. The club can use this money anyway they want to - to pay players (English or otherwise), buy new tackle bags, whatever. The RFU has a certain amount of sway with the clubs in terms of resting players and player release but it's the clubs decision.

Ireland: You are an employee of the IRFU for the duration of your contract as the IRFU own the clubs via the "branch" system. The teams can top up that pay from their own funds if they wish - top ups can be more along the lines of housing, cars, etc. than actual cash. The IRFU has a much tighter say on player release and protection than any union other than possibly NZRFU. Players are protected and rotated to suit the demands of the national side (which in Ireland is paramount) and the clubs European's competition, this means that star players are more likely to not play in the PRO14 to protect their game time. Some people think this is "unfair" or "disrespectful" however, the IRFU and the Provinces point to the fact that their teams still win the PRO14 or finish in at worst the top three very consistently as well as competing in Europe.

Scotland: Players are employees of the club, however Scottish internationals are I believe also contracted to the SRU. The clubs are effectively owned, funded and managed by the SRU.

Wales: You get paid by your club as per your agreed contract rate. The WRU pay the clubs an amount per season based on various performance targets, including how many Welsh internationals are in your squad. Part of the funding given by the WRU is ringfenced and the clubs have to use it for paying the wages of Welsh internationals in the squad. This ringfenced money is 80% of those players wages. It is therefore true that the WRU does not pay Welsh players directly, as the clubs pass the ringfenced money from the WRU to the players through their club wage.
The WRU do this to encourage Welsh players to stay within the Welsh teams rather than move out of Wales for more pay, without the WRU money the Welsh clubs couldn't pay them these sort of wages.
This payment also gives the WRU control over when the players are released for Welsh games - for example the WRU play an extra test in the autumn which is outside the international release window - having the players at Welsh clubs means that they can still call them up.

That's a pretty good summary.

Thanks anyone who replied. I did think that the Irish central contract amount would include playing for the national team. Didn't realise they would get extra. So for the 12 games or so that Sexton or Furlong play for Leinster per season he gets his central contract amount, and then for their 10 games for Ireland he gets a match fee per appearance? Is that right?

I'm not very active on Twitter, however if you want my facebook and insta then DM me. I'm a lot more popular on there.

MichaelT wrote:Thanks anyone who replied. I did think that the Irish central contract amount would include playing for the national team. Didn't realise they would get extra. So for the 12 games or so that Sexton or Furlong play for Leinster per season he gets his central contract amount, and then for their 10 games for Ireland he gets a match fee per appearance? Is that right?

Yes.

MichaelT wrote:Thanks anyone who replied. I did think that the Irish central contract amount would include playing for the national team. Didn't realise they would get extra. So for the 12 games or so that Sexton or Furlong play for Leinster per season he gets his central contract amount, and then for their 10 games for Ireland he gets a match fee per appearance? Is that right?

Yes that's right. The payments are separate because players can be in and out of the squad, out injured, etc. So e.g. Sexton gets X euro a year from IRFU/Leinster and another Y euro a game when he's in the green shirt.

MichaelT wrote:Thanks anyone who replied. I did think that the Irish central contract amount would include playing for the national team. Didn't realise they would get extra. So for the 12 games or so that Sexton or Furlong play for Leinster per season he gets his central contract amount, and then for their 10 games for Ireland he gets a match fee per appearance? Is that right?

Yes, although the Irish receive small (if any) match fee payments:

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/international-rugby/revealed-the-bonus-payment-irish-players-will-receive-if-they-retain-the-grand-slam-37739696.html

They used to (https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/players-and-irfu-headed-for-fees-clash-1.1166936) but are now much more heavily paid regardless of playing for Ireland or not.

The IRFU spent €1,420,221 on "National tours, camps and squads" in 2018/19 and €3,602,851 on "National match costs" in that same period.

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:I still don't think the English leagues should be merged and no amount of off-topic rambling about who pays what in Wales is changing that.

Maybe someone should make a separate thread for Phil & friends to continue their discussion elsewhere?

I think the leagues should be merged and all of the topic of conversation around that subject in this thread has been relevant, useful and entertaining.

Yes - to you. And seemingly only you.

That does tend to be why individuals 'hijack' online discussions: for their own amusement...sorry, own sense of "relevance, use, and entertainment".