RugbyRebels

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37758144

I didnt think the Prem clubs could block release even if bills are not paid, mind you even if i disagree with it, the players are paid for by the clubs and therefore the clubs should not be paying for players that cannot play

We don't have any AI's outside of the window do we? That's only for those playing a 4th.... Or am I wrong?

whatisthejava wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37758144

I didnt think the Prem clubs could block release even if bills are not paid, mind you even if i disagree with it, the players are paid for by the clubs and therefore the clubs should not be paying for players that cannot play

World Rugby say the unions need to pay for players injured on international duty so I would have thought they could withhold the player. This is brinksmanship I think as it shouldn't have reached this stage. Either pay it, or if we disagree and have reached an impasse get world rugby to arbitrate.

Tbf I think it's probably fair if they're injured on international duty that Scotland covers the bill.

surely it's just common sense that whoever a player is representing when that player gets injured should foot some sort of bill?

one day, soon, in less doctored times, someone will describe their course of action without including the utterly meaningless adjective "positive".

Would they not be insured by the SRU anyway?

It all seems very strange, perhaps the insurance companies are not insuring players due to the fact that at least 2 - 3 do get injured every game

A bit more info

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37759704

Im kinda sick of the professional clubs constantly looking for someone else to pay them every time something happens they dont like

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37759704

I think World Rugby need to sort this out as it could get to the point where the best players cannot be afforded by certain unions and that would be completly inappropriate.

I think a flat fee would be fair for injuries to make sure it is affordable for all unions.

whatisthejava wrote:A bit more info

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37759704

Im kinda sick of the professional clubs constantly looking for someone else to pay them every time something happens they dont like

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37759704

I think World Rugby need to sort this out as it could get to the point where the best players cannot be afforded by certain unions and that would be completly inappropriate.

I think a flat fee would be fair for injuries to make sure it is affordable for all unions.

Not sure I agree to be honest.

The clubs pay the wages of the players. Some get paid very well. When the PRL clubs release the players to Scotland etc then they don't get paid for it. So when say Taylor goes back to Sarries (he's the only player down south I can think of being injured on international duty recently?) why should Sarries be expected to pay for the injured players rehab and wage whilst injured?

Moving to a flat fee would see the smaller unions lose players to high paying clubs and would hurt international rugby.

The best solution that I can see is WR setting up a fund or insurance scheme. I am pretty surprised the unions don't have insurance to be honest.

Big D wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:A bit more info

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37759704

Im kinda sick of the professional clubs constantly looking for someone else to pay them every time something happens they dont like

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37759704

I think World Rugby need to sort this out as it could get to the point where the best players cannot be afforded by certain unions and that would be completly inappropriate.

I think a flat fee would be fair for injuries to make sure it is affordable for all unions.

Not sure I agree to be honest.

The clubs pay the wages of the players. Some get paid very well. When the PRL clubs release the players to Scotland etc then they don't get paid for it. So when say Taylor goes back to Sarries (he's the only player down south I can think of being injured on international duty recently?) why should Sarries be expected to pay for the injured players rehab and wage whilst injured?

Moving to a flat fee would see the smaller unions lose players to high paying clubs and would hurt international rugby.

The best solution that I can see is WR setting up a fund or insurance scheme. I am pretty surprised the unions don't have insurance to be honest.

I don't know. Surely when the clubs offer a contract they are well aware that the player might play internationals. I'm not saying there should be no payment for injured players but I don't like it when they act as if they get no benefit from international rugby

Cameo wrote:

Big D wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:A bit more info

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37759704

Im kinda sick of the professional clubs constantly looking for someone else to pay them every time something happens they dont like

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37759704

I think World Rugby need to sort this out as it could get to the point where the best players cannot be afforded by certain unions and that would be completly inappropriate.

I think a flat fee would be fair for injuries to make sure it is affordable for all unions.

Not sure I agree to be honest.

The clubs pay the wages of the players. Some get paid very well. When the PRL clubs release the players to Scotland etc then they don't get paid for it. So when say Taylor goes back to Sarries (he's the only player down south I can think of being injured on international duty recently?) why should Sarries be expected to pay for the injured players rehab and wage whilst injured?

Moving to a flat fee would see the smaller unions lose players to high paying clubs and would hurt international rugby.

The best solution that I can see is WR setting up a fund or insurance scheme. I am pretty surprised the unions don't have insurance to be honest.

I don't know. Surely when the clubs offer a contract they are well aware that the player might play internationals. I'm not saying there should be no payment for injured players but I don't like it when they act as if they get no benefit from international rugby

They will be aware of it, but World Rugby state the union should compensate the club.

Similarly we can't act like Scotland, and Scottish Rugby haven't benefitted from say Saracens bringing Taylor through, or will hopefully benefit from Hutchinson at Saints and Hastings at Bath etc. Scotland have literally done very little in the development of Taylor but are getting the benefits from the clubs hard work.

I can only assume they are arguing about how long the payments should cover, did the player suffer a set back in rehab? Who covers that etc.

So SRU only union not paid up apparently. But players released as it appears they are heading to some sort of arbitration.

Player was Euan murray

Argument over when he was injured

I wondered whether it might be worcs saying murray missed x games and the SRU saying no he doesn't play Sundays he missed y games.

Off the ball, but how about the players insure themselves and get paid a little more?