Toonie losing it?

[Uncle fester]

Not that I like the rules but they have been in place long enough.

[Tichtheid]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but does the premiership always take a break during the 6N?

The story I read yesterday was that clubs such as Bath were quite happy to release Russell to train with Scotland, they are effectively in preseason training due to the length of the break, so will be at a different stage to Russell.

England have their players available to them due to an arrangement between the RFU and EPL.

Scotland had two training sessions with Russell there in the run up to the Calcutta Cup whereas England had all their players for four sessions.

[Big D]

Not that I like the rules but they have been in place long enough.

I think the "issue" is that typically there'd be games and clubs have rightfully wanted them available. In this instance Bath are happy to release the players but PRL are blocking it.

Seems a bit backwards for clubs be happy to release them but not be allowed to but this is a known issue and GT will be speaking out to try and force some resolution between the SRU and PRL.

[SaintK]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but does the premiership always take a break during the 6N?

The story I read yesterday was that clubs such as Bath were quite happy to release Russell to train with Scotland, they are effectively in preseason training due to the length of the break, so will be at a different stage to Russell.

England have their players available to them due to an arrangement between the RFU and EPL.

Scotland had two training sessions with Russell there in the run up to the Calcutta Cup whereas England had all their players for four sessions.

There was never usually a break during the 6N, however with the demise of 3 clubs there is now headroom in the fixture lists to do so. I don't particularly like it though the break and player availibility has allowed England to resurrect the A team which is a plua.

Not sure why Townsend is whining about player release now? It has been exactly the same since he took over as Scotland coach. Russell's availibility is also the same as it was when he was playing in FRance

[Tichtheid]

One man’s “whining” is another man’s raising legitimate concerns over an advantage given to one team in the six nations.

The “suck it up, it’s always been this way” is not a serious answer to anything, it’s hiding.

I can understand the situation in France where there are games being played, but, again from the source I read yesterday, Bath are happy to let Russell train with Scotland, he will be training with Redpath separately from the rest of the team because they are at a completely different stage in their preparations to the guys who didn’t go on international duty.

Calling out an absurdity is not whining

[Paddington Bear]

It’s hardly absurd. If you want access, pay for it. That’s what England do

[I like neeps]

One man’s “whining” is another man’s raising legitimate concerns over an advantage given to one team in the six nations.

The “suck it up, it’s always been this way” is not a serious answer to anything, it’s hiding.

I can understand the situation in France where there are games being played, but, again from the source I read yesterday, Bath are happy to let Russell train with Scotland, he will be training with Redpath separately from the rest of the team because they are at a completely different stage in their preparations to the guys who didn’t go on international duty.

Calling out an absurdity is not whining

It's due to employment contracts though.

[Biffer]

It’s hardly absurd. If you want access, pay for it. That’s what England do

But the people who pay them (the clubs) are happy to release them.

It’s the PRL blocking it.

[sockwithaticket]

Not that I like the rules but they have been in place long enough.

I think the "issue" is that typically there'd be games and clubs have rightfully wanted them available. In this instance Bath are happy to release the players but PRL are blocking it.

Seems a bit backwards for clubs be happy to release them but not be allowed to but this is a known issue and GT will be speaking out to try and force some resolution between the SRU and PRL.

It's literally a simple as the RFU pay for the extra access, PRL as an entity aren't going to give it to the SRU without being paid, not least because it would annoy the RFU and jeopardise the professional game agreement. Bath might be happy to do it, but they can't act unilaterally.

And it's not just about whether or not there are games. The current deal with the RFU includes mandatory rest weeks for England players during the Prem season, so that's enshrining in the agreement that rest weeks are important, the RFU are paying to ensure that they occur when it's most convenient for England. Clubs can rightfully argue that it's in their interest as the primary employer to have their players actually rest during the fallow weeks of an intense international tournament.


This could all change, though. The professional game agreement is about to expire and the next one is being negotiated. Obviously things in the Premiership are different from when the current one was hammered out

[sockwithaticket]

It’s hardly absurd. If you want access, pay for it. That’s what England do

But the people who pay them (the clubs) are happy to release them.

It’s the PRL blocking it.

Who do you think comprises PRL? It's a collection of representatives from the clubs. Northampton used to be happy to release George North, the collective wasn't and so they paid a fine and promised not to do it again. Unilateral action on this isn't possible.

[Margin__Walker]

It’s hardly absurd. If you want access, pay for it. That’s what England do

But the people who pay them (the clubs) are happy to release them.

It’s the PRL blocking it.

The PRL are the clubs. It's a collective agreement.

Bath probably are fine with it here, but the agreement in place (which will have likely been agreed by Bath at the time) presumably specifies no releases outside the window

[Raggs]

It’s hardly absurd. If you want access, pay for it. That’s what England do

But the people who pay them (the clubs) are happy to release them.

It’s the PRL blocking it.

The few clubs that say they have no issue, will rapidly change their tune once the PRL points out that the RFU will no longer pay a good sum for player release, if they're releasing them to other nations for free.

Don't moan at the PRL/clubs for following world rugby laws, moan at world rugby.

[sockwithaticket]

One man’s “whining” is another man’s raising legitimate concerns over an advantage given to one team in the six nations.

The “suck it up, it’s always been this way” is not a serious answer to anything, it’s hiding.

I can understand the situation in France where there are games being played, but, again from the source I read yesterday, Bath are happy to let Russell train with Scotland, he will be training with Redpath separately from the rest of the team because they are at a completely different stage in their preparations to the guys who didn’t go on international duty.

Calling out an absurdity is not whining

It's not absurd, though. Gatland has periodically mentioned this issue in the past too, yet at no point have Gatland or Toonie mentioned that the only reason England get the extra player access is because the RFU pay handsomely for it. Perhaps he should look at hashing out a similar deal rather than expect players to be made available when the regulations don't stipulate that they have to be.

[SaintK]

One man’s “whining” is another man’s raising legitimate concerns over an advantage given to one team in the six nations.

The “suck it up, it’s always been this way” is not a serious answer to anything, it’s hiding.

I can understand the situation in France where there are games being played, but, again from the source I read yesterday, Bath are happy to let Russell train with Scotland, he will be training with Redpath separately from the rest of the team because they are at a completely different stage in their preparations to the guys who didn’t go on international duty.

Calling out an absurdity is not whining

It's not absurd, though. Gatland has periodically mentioned this issue in the past too, yet at no point have Gatland or Toonie mentioned that the only reason England get the extra player access is because the RFU pay handsomely for it. Perhaps he should look at hashing out a similar deal rather than expect players to be made available when the regulations don't stipulate that they have to be.

Ironicall if Russell were still in France he'd likely be playing a T14 match this weekend.

[Tichtheid]

One man’s “whining” is another man’s raising legitimate concerns over an advantage given to one team in the six nations.

The “suck it up, it’s always been this way” is not a serious answer to anything, it’s hiding.

I can understand the situation in France where there are games being played, but, again from the source I read yesterday, Bath are happy to let Russell train with Scotland, he will be training with Redpath separately from the rest of the team because they are at a completely different stage in their preparations to the guys who didn’t go on international duty.

Calling out an absurdity is not whining

It's not absurd, though. Gatland has periodically mentioned this issue in the past too, yet at no point have Gatland or Toonie mentioned that the only reason England get the extra player access is because the RFU pay handsomely for it. Perhaps he should look at hashing out a similar deal rather than expect players to be made available when the regulations don't stipulate that they have to be.

Ironicall if Russell were still in France he'd likely be playing a T14 match this weekend.

Townsend hasn’t mentioned Ben White or Blair Kinghorn who will be with Toulon and Toulouse respectively.


The absurdity is that Redpath and Russell will be kicking a ball to each other while the rest of the Bath squad will be doing beep tests

The Gatland reference isn’t appropriate here as the current gap in GP fixtures is new

[Paddington Bear]

It’s hardly absurd. If you want access, pay for it. That’s what England do

But the people who pay them (the clubs) are happy to release them.

It’s the PRL blocking it.

Because PRL want to be paid. This is a commercial negotiation, find a price and get your players

[inactionman]

Welcome to the wonderful world of privately owned clubs.

[sockwithaticket]

It's not absurd, though. Gatland has periodically mentioned this issue in the past too, yet at no point have Gatland or Toonie mentioned that the only reason England get the extra player access is because the RFU pay handsomely for it. Perhaps he should look at hashing out a similar deal rather than expect players to be made available when the regulations don't stipulate that they have to be.

Ironicall if Russell were still in France he'd likely be playing a T14 match this weekend.

Townsend hasn’t mentioned Ben White or Blair Kinghorn who will be with Toulon and Toulouse respectively.


The absurdity is that Redpath and Russell will be kicking a ball to each other while the rest of the Bath squad will be doing beep tests

The Gatland reference isn’t appropriate here as the current gap in GP fixtures is new

It's not entirely new, over the last few seasons the Premiership Cup was generally timed so that as few proper Premiership fixtures as possible overlapped the international window and many of the players recalled by clubs would not be playing Prem Cup games.

Equally, whether or not a game is taking place is entirely irrelevant. The fallow weeks are not covered by regulation 9, so the players go back to their employers. How the employers decide to use that time for those players is entirely up to them and resting them is a valid choice. Players who've just taken part in intense international rugby games are probably better suited, from the club's perspective, to have rest to ensure they're not over-burdened and worn out when the Premiership fixture list resumes compared to the rest of the squad who haven't had an actual game in weeks unless they're one of the handful arranging friendlies in this time.

Player management that suits the employer is not an absurdity.

Fundamentally, if the SRU want to only fund two pro teams and have many of your players playing in the Premiership, that's fine, but it does mean that ownership of their time in weeks not governed by the international release regulations is surrendered. The way to reclaim it is to follow the existing precedent of paying PRL to get it back. Anything other than an attempt to negotiate a deal with PRL is just noise.

[JM2K6]

Welcome to the wonderful world of privately owned clubs.

If the RFU owned and operated the clubs do you think they'd be releasing foreign players outside of the window out of the goodness of their hearts or what

[Big D]

Not that I like the rules but they have been in place long enough.

I think the "issue" is that typically there'd be games and clubs have rightfully wanted them available. In this instance Bath are happy to release the players but PRL are blocking it.

Seems a bit backwards for clubs be happy to release them but not be allowed to but this is a known issue and GT will be speaking out to try and force some resolution between the SRU and PRL.

It's literally a simple as the RFU pay for the extra access, PRL as an entity aren't going to give it to the SRU without being paid, not least because it would annoy the RFU and jeopardise the professional game agreement. Bath might be happy to do it, but they can't act unilaterally.

And it's not just about whether or not there are games. The current deal with the RFU includes mandatory rest weeks for England players during the Prem season, so that's enshrining in the agreement that rest weeks are important, the RFU are paying to ensure that they occur when it's most convenient for England. Clubs can rightfully argue that it's in their interest as the primary employer to have their players actually rest during the fallow weeks of an intense international tournament.


This could all change, though. The professional game agreement is about to expire and the next one is being negotiated. Obviously things in the Premiership are different from when the current one was hammered out

GT is likely trying to force a resolution, which could be the SRU paying some money if required. The World Rugby regs are what they are and Scotland just need to deal with it.

I do think it's backwards that a club paying a player a lot of money has no autonomy over who that player can train with and when. Especially as it is unlikely to be a heavy week of training this week.

Finn is going to have a very full workload over the next two seasons up to the Lions in 2025. The PRL is stopping the two parties paying him money discussing and agreeing a tailored plan which could be better for the player. E.g let us have him these next couple of weeks and we won't take him on tour next in the summer or start him in all three. It becomes more adversarial, needlessly so.

Would be interested to see what is in the contracts of the players. If Finn truly "resting" this week then what's to stop him being in and around the Scotland squad this week even if not on the training pitch.

[inactionman]

Welcome to the wonderful world of privately owned clubs.

If the RFU owned and operated the clubs do you think they'd be releasing foreign players outside of the window out of the goodness of their hearts or what

I was in two minds whether to post my comment, as I intended it to mean that we have two competing bodies controlling player availability and it would be much cleaner and efficient with one single body, but then I remembered this is the RFU we're talking about.

[SomersetJock]

Imagine the spanking we’d have given England at the weekend had we had our English based players available for full training

Maybe it would benefit the England team if the RFU put a rule in to say that Borthwick and co don’t get to train their players on fallow weeks as well

[inactionman]

Imagine the spanking we’d have given England at the weekend had we had our English based players available for full training

Maybe it would benefit the England team if the RFU put a rule in to say that Borthwick and co don’t get to train their players on fallow weeks as well

The one tangible improvement over Eddie is that Borthwick doesn't break all the players in training.

Under Eddie, I'd have gladly limited player access.

[Uncle fester]

It’s hardly absurd. If you want access, pay for it. That’s what England do

Alternatively pay them enough to keep them at home

[Tichtheid]

It’s hardly absurd. If you want access, pay for it. That’s what England do

Alternatively pay them enough to keep them at home

Scotland does pay very well, it's only the big marquee guys who leave. It doesn't exactly hurt our system too much as it brings others on, until we can afford a third pro team we are always going to have to let players go.

on the OP, apparently the SRU have been in negotiation with PRL for weeks, to no avail.

[Paddington Bear]

It’s hardly absurd. If you want access, pay for it. That’s what England do

Alternatively pay them enough to keep them at home

Scotland does pay very well, it's only the big marquee guys who leave. It doesn't exactly hurt our system too much as it brings others on, until we can afford a third pro team we are always going to have to let players go.

on the OP, apparently the SRU have been in negotiation with PRL for weeks, to no avail.

This is exactly why other countries have some sort of restriction on playing for the national team if you play abroad. PRL drove a hard bargain with England, a team they have a vested interest in. They’re going to drive a hard one with Scotland, a team they don’t.

As for Bath’s ‘we want to release Finn’, it has much the same energy as an ‘if it was up to me you’d be getting a bonus’ chat with middle management. Totally cost free man management of their star player.

[Tichtheid]

Alternatively pay them enough to keep them at home

Scotland does pay very well, it's only the big marquee guys who leave. It doesn't exactly hurt our system too much as it brings others on, until we can afford a third pro team we are always going to have to let players go.

on the OP, apparently the SRU have been in negotiation with PRL for weeks, to no avail.

This is exactly why other countries have some sort of restriction on playing for the national team if you play abroad. PRL drove a hard bargain with England, a team they have a vested interest in. They’re going to drive a hard one with Scotland, a team they don’t.

As for Bath’s ‘we want to release Finn’, it has much the same energy as an ‘if it was up to me you’d be getting a bonus’ chat with middle management. Totally cost free man management of their star player.

Bath and the other sides are on an eight week break, to repeat a point from earlier, Bath will find Russell and Redpath more of a pain in the arse than anything as they are on a completely different point in their prep, they are at peak match fitness, they are returning to a camp which is at the equivalent point where they'd be a month before the start of the season.


This isn't about England or Scotland, forget the money side of it regarding PRL, from a rugby playing point of view, does this make any sense? Players returning from international duty will be at a far higher level than they would be doing prep for the re-start of the season.

[inactionman]

Alternatively pay them enough to keep them at home

Scotland does pay very well, it's only the big marquee guys who leave. It doesn't exactly hurt our system too much as it brings others on, until we can afford a third pro team we are always going to have to let players go.

on the OP, apparently the SRU have been in negotiation with PRL for weeks, to no avail.

This is exactly why other countries have some sort of restriction on playing for the national team if you play abroad. PRL drove a hard bargain with England, a team they have a vested interest in. They’re going to drive a hard one with Scotland, a team they don’t.

As for Bath’s ‘we want to release Finn’, it has much the same energy as an ‘if it was up to me you’d be getting a bonus’ chat with middle management. Totally cost free man management of their star player.

Yep - it's easy for Bath to say the right things but it's meaningless if there's no contractual means.

Just to refer back to the George North situation, I believe he had it entered into contract that Saints would release him for Wales matches/camps, but these fell outside of the agreed IRB windows. This led to a bit of a sticky situation and Saints getting fined.

[Tichtheid]

Scotland does pay very well, it's only the big marquee guys who leave. It doesn't exactly hurt our system too much as it brings others on, until we can afford a third pro team we are always going to have to let players go.

on the OP, apparently the SRU have been in negotiation with PRL for weeks, to no avail.

This is exactly why other countries have some sort of restriction on playing for the national team if you play abroad. PRL drove a hard bargain with England, a team they have a vested interest in. They’re going to drive a hard one with Scotland, a team they don’t.

As for Bath’s ‘we want to release Finn’, it has much the same energy as an ‘if it was up to me you’d be getting a bonus’ chat with middle management. Totally cost free man management of their star player.

Yep - it's easy for Bath to say the right things but it's meaningless if there's no contractual means.

Just to refer back to the George North situation, I believe he had it entered into contract that Saints would release him for Wales matches/camps, but these fell outside of the agreed IRB windows. This led to a bit of a sticky situation and Saints getting fined.

Yeah, it's funny how private companies go to collective bargaining when it suits them

[inactionman]

This is exactly why other countries have some sort of restriction on playing for the national team if you play abroad. PRL drove a hard bargain with England, a team they have a vested interest in. They’re going to drive a hard one with Scotland, a team they don’t.

As for Bath’s ‘we want to release Finn’, it has much the same energy as an ‘if it was up to me you’d be getting a bonus’ chat with middle management. Totally cost free man management of their star player.

Yep - it's easy for Bath to say the right things but it's meaningless if there's no contractual means.

Just to refer back to the George North situation, I believe he had it entered into contract that Saints would release him for Wales matches/camps, but these fell outside of the agreed IRB windows. This led to a bit of a sticky situation and Saints getting fined.

Yeah, it's funny how private companies go to collective bargaining when it suits them

I think it's more that they've come to a commercial arrangement and expect it to be honoured.

[Tichtheid]

Yep - it's easy for Bath to say the right things but it's meaningless if there's no contractual means.

Just to refer back to the George North situation, I believe he had it entered into contract that Saints would release him for Wales matches/camps, but these fell outside of the agreed IRB windows. This led to a bit of a sticky situation and Saints getting fined.

Yeah, it's funny how private companies go to collective bargaining when it suits them

I think it's more that they've come to a commercial arrangement and expect it to be honoured.

I really don't see a difference, but it was meant as a joke to be honest.

[Biffer]

WRT the question in the thread title, I’d say no, he’s not losing it.

He’s sticking the boot in after beating England four times on the bounce.

Along the lines of - ‘Even with you getting access to all your players and restricting my access to ours, we’re still fucking you over. Repeatedly’.

[SaintK]

WRT the question in the thread title, I’d say no, he’s not losing it.

He’s sticking the boot in after beating England four times on the bounce.

Along the lines of - ‘Even with you getting access to all your players and restricting my access to ours, we’re still fucking you over. Repeatedly’.

You really come over as a needy twat at times

[Uncle fester]

It’s hardly absurd. If you want access, pay for it. That’s what England do

Alternatively pay them enough to keep them at home

Scotland does pay very well, it's only the big marquee guys who leave. It doesn't exactly hurt our system too much as it brings others on, until we can afford a third pro team we are always going to have to let players go.

on the OP, apparently the SRU have been in negotiation with PRL for weeks, to no avail.

The English clubs are such bad faith actors that it should be a point of principle to have as little to do with them as possible.

[inactionman]

WRT the question in the thread title, I’d say no, he’s not losing it.

He’s sticking the boot in after beating England four times on the bounce.

Along the lines of - ‘Even with you getting access to all your players and restricting my access to ours, we’re still fucking you over. Repeatedly’.

Win a few matches and start acting like the swarm.

For shame.

[Paddington Bear]

WRT the question in the thread title, I’d say no, he’s not losing it.

He’s sticking the boot in after beating England four times on the bounce.

Along the lines of - ‘Even with you getting access to all your players and restricting my access to ours, we’re still fucking you over. Repeatedly’.

Win a few matches and start acting like the swarm.

For shame.

Spending a lot of time up there, after a couple of drinks the ‘I don’t actually hate England, but…’ conversation comes up a lot. ‘How you lot behave after you win’ being probably the most common follow up…

[Slick]

WRT the question in the thread title, I’d say no, he’s not losing it.

He’s sticking the boot in after beating England four times on the bounce.

Along the lines of - ‘Even with you getting access to all your players and restricting my access to ours, we’re still fucking you over. Repeatedly’.

Win a few matches and start acting like the swarm.

For shame.

Spending a lot of time up there, after a couple of drinks the ‘I don’t actually hate England, but…’ conversation comes up a lot. ‘How you lot behave after you win’ being probably the most common follow up…

That's why we've on to a new attack line

[Jock42]

WRT the question in the thread title, I’d say no, he’s not losing it.

He’s sticking the boot in after beating England four times on the bounce.

Along the lines of - ‘Even with you getting access to all your players and restricting my access to ours, we’re still fucking you over. Repeatedly’.

Win a few matches and start acting like the swarm.

For shame.

Spending a lot of time up there, after a couple of drinks the ‘I don’t actually hate England, but…’ conversation comes up a lot. ‘How you lot behave after you win’ being probably the most common follow up…

Aye anybody coming away with that shite is a belter pure and simple.

I mean, who can remember how you lot act when you win?

[pjm1]

Win a few matches and start acting like the swarm.

For shame.

Spending a lot of time up there, after a couple of drinks the ‘I don’t actually hate England, but…’ conversation comes up a lot. ‘How you lot behave after you win’ being probably the most common follow up…

Aye anybody coming away with that shite is a belter pure and simple.

I mean, who can remember how you lot act when you win?

Oi. The better version of England just beat Portugal B, I'll have you know...

[SaintK]

Win a few matches and start acting like the swarm.

For shame.

Spending a lot of time up there, after a couple of drinks the ‘I don’t actually hate England, but…’ conversation comes up a lot. ‘How you lot behave after you win’ being probably the most common follow up…

Aye anybody coming away with that shite is a belter pure and simple.

I mean, who can remember how you lot act when you win?

Most of us just put on the flat cap of humility, thought it doesn't happen quite as often as it should do due to our playing record