Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

RPA statement: 'It's a sad day in the history of rugby'

(Photo by Harry Trump/Getty Images)

The increasingly worrying standoff between Premiership clubs and the Rugby Players’ Association took a turn for the worse on Friday with the RPA accusing clubs of making factually incorrect comments regarding the row over the 25 per cent salary cut for players and other allegations.

ADVERTISEMENT

Fears about the game’s finances accelerated earlier this week when the top-flight’s clubs agreed to cut the league’s salary cap on senior wage bills from £6.4million to £5m from the start of the 2021/22 season without consulting the RPA. This happened amid concerns that the temporary 25 per cent salary cut agreed at the start of the pandemic will now be made permanent.

In a statement released on Friday, which was not circulated through the usual Premiership Rugby channels, the clubs accused the RPA of sowing division and creating uncertainty by allegedly threatening strike action in midweek. 

Video Spacer

Northampton assistant Sam Vesty guests on The Lockdown, the RugbyPass pandemic interview series

Video Spacer

Northampton assistant Sam Vesty guests on The Lockdown, the RugbyPass pandemic interview series

“We are disappointed by the position taken by the Rugby Players’ Association at a time when a mutual understanding of the challenges ahead is required,” read the clubs’ statement. “Player welfare is of high priority to the clubs, and our growing concern is that individuals are not receiving appropriate advice at this current time.

“For example, the RPA urging players not to negotiate a compromise, privately threatening strike action and publicly opposing reductions without offering any feasible solutions has resulted in a predicament that suits nobody – not the league, the clubs, the players’ union or the players themselves. Rather than provide support for their members, the RPA have served to sow division and create uncertainty during a critical period that could define the future of professional rugby in the UK.”

This statement prompted the RPA to later issue a stinging rebuke of the allegations. “In relation to the statement released by the Premiership clubs earlier today, the RPA is compelled to address the factually incorrect comments contained within and ensure that our members and all the game’s stakeholders, including supporters, are clear on the facts.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Our response to the specific issues are below: It is a sad day in the history of rugby that the game finds itself in this position. PRL and the clubs have decided to publicly criticise the RPA and, by doing so, personally attack players and their representatives. Throughout this crisis, both the RPA and players have been open to a collaborative and positive solution to address the long-term financial viability of the game.

“Our players’ board met on May 26 to receive a formal proposal from PRL regarding the future of the game. In reality, the proposal was singularly for immediate and permanent pay cuts. Our board voted unanimously against that proposal. To suggest there have been any other agreements in relation to permanent pay cuts is a complete fabrication.

“On April 22, a non-disclosure agreement was sent to the RPA but categorically did not include any financial information and no deadline for response. To reiterate, at no point has the RPA been provided with any detailed financial information from PRL or the clubs. This NDA was not signed and could never be without RPA players board approval. As already stated above, our board voted unanimously against immediate and permanent pay cuts.

“PRL and their member clubs are fully aware that, at the same meeting, the players board unanimously voted for a counter-proposal of independent mediation, chaired by a leading QC through Sports Resolutions. This counter proposal remains unanswered and is a resounding example of the players being open to a professional, collaborative and constructive dialogue to help address the future of the game. The offer remains on the table.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The changes to the salary cap, as announced on Wednesday, and the arbitrary June 18 deadline for contracts to be ‘existing’ were passed with no consultation of players. That has led to a significant number of our members faced with immediate contractual decisions to make about their long-term futures in order to facilitate this change for the clubs. This approach exposes the lack of governance within the Premiership, as recently highlighted by Lord Myners’ independent review.

“The RPA have never threatened strike action and would not recommend this as an appropriate course of action. Regarding the welfare of players, PRL states that there is no intention to reduce academy salaries of those players at the low end of the spectrum. However, there is evidence that this has already happened at some clubs. The RPA have acted – and will continue to act – in the best interests of our player membership and support their legal rights.

“The players are a vital part of the game and deserve to be treated with respect, which is a key value of rugby. The current unreasonable approach that the clubs are taking will continue to cause substantial long-term damage to player and club relations going forward. The clubs’ statement ends with a call for mutual understanding and respect, both require reciprocation. Our offer of mediation remains open.”

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

G
GrahamVF 17 minutes ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

"has SA actually EVER helped to develop another union to maturity like NZ has with Japan," yes - Argentina. You obviously don't know the history of Argentinian rugby. SA were touring there on long development tours in the 1950's

We continued the Junior Bok tours to the Argentine through to the early 70's

My coach at Grey High was Giepie Wentzel who toured Argentine as a fly half. He told me about how every Argentinian rugby club has pictures of Van Heerden and Danie Craven on prominent display. Yes we have developed a nation far more than NZ has done for Japan. And BTW Sa players were playing and coaching in Japan long before the Kiwis arrived. Fourie du Preez and many others were playing there 15 years ago.


"Isaac Van Heerden's reputation as an innovative coach had spread to Argentina, and he was invited to Buenos Aires to help the Pumas prepare for their first visit to South Africa in 1965.[1][2] Despite Argentina faring badly in this tour,[2] it was the start of a long and happy relationship between Van Heerden and the Pumas. Izak van Heerden took leave from his teaching post in Durban, relocated to Argentina, learnt fluent Spanish, and would revolutionise Argentine play in the late 1960s, laying the way open for great players such as Hugo Porta.[1][2] Van Heerden virtually invented the "tight loose" form of play, an area in which the Argentines would come to excel, and which would become a hallmark of their playing style. The Pumas repaid the initial debt, by beating the Junior Springboks at Ellis Park, and emerged as one of the better modern rugby nations, thanks largely to the talents of this Durban schoolmaster.[1]"


After the promise made by Junior Springbok manager JF Louw at the end of a 12-game tour to Argentina in 1959 – ‘I will do everything to ensure we invite you to tour our country’ – there were concerns about the strength of Argentinian rugby. South African Rugby Board president Danie Craven sent coach Izak van Heerden to help the Pumas prepare and they repaid the favour by beating the Junior Springboks at Ellis Park.

147 Go to comments
J
JW 6 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

147 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Leinster player ratings vs Connacht | 2024/25 URC Leinster player ratings vs Connacht | 2024/25 URC
Search