IRB powerless to punish the English clubs in release row

SCOTLAND'S hopes of forcing English clubs to release internationalists two weeks before the autumn Tests appear to be futile, with concerns growing that Scottish players may in future have to decide between big contracts in the Guinness Premiership and Scotland careers.

That is the verdict emerging from the latest battle between the Scottish Rugby Union and English clubs group, Premier Rugby Limited (PRL), which has again shown the IRB to be powerless to enforce its thorny 'regulation 9'.

English clubs refused to release ten players on Monday for Scotland's first national squad session of the season, sparking a complaint from the SRU to the IRB, leading world rugby's governing body to ask the Rugby Football Union (RFU) for their interpretation of the protocol on player release. The RFU do have the power to react to the PRL's withdrawal of the players by effectively banning those players from the next ten days – which could rule some out of three matches – but there was no suggestion last night that they were even considering such a move.

The debate surrounds an increasingly wobbly IRB regulation. It has long insisted that international rugby takes precedence in the sport to the extent that whenever an international side requests players from other unions, providing there is a good notice period, they should receive them. In the amateur days, when unions controlled international players they would mostly follow that agreement, but since 1995, clubs have become the big players in England and France and the wealthy benefactors who own them have fought release outside the international windows in November, spring and end-of-season tours.

The rugby unions who make up the IRB were due to reach agreement on a new regulation in May, but there were serious concerns over the new draft – which stipulated only five days preparation for Test matches – and the working group was sent away to construct a new proposal for the next council meeting, to be held in November.

Meanwhile, the RFU had struck their own eight-year deal with English clubs for a 13-14 day release period before the autumn Tests and RBS Six Nations Championship which cost the RFU £110million. This works out at around £1million per club, with bonuses depending on how many English-qualified players were named in matchday squads.

English clubs and the PRL, their umbrella organisation, yesterday made it clear to The Scotsman that they believed there was no agreement to release players outside the autumn and spring periods and, without any money coming from the Celtic nations for player release, they would not release any other nationalities until the week of the first autumn and Six Nations Test match.

The SRU simply cannot afford to pay for player release if it wished to. They shut a third pro team in the Borders due to lack of funds and have been unable to compete with many salary offers from England and France, some four times that offered in Scotland, to keep their top players.

In contrast, the significantly richer Irish and Welsh unions have paid out large sums to keep their best players out of the clutches of English and French clubs and funded four teams each – the Welsh are launching a fifth – to give them somewhere to play.

The issue has plagued English rugby, however, since they won the Rugby World Cup in 2003. So strong was the issue that Sir Clive Woodward walked out of the English job in 2004 over it and Andy Robinson, his successor now at Edinburgh and a Scotland selector, claimed it stopped him from doing his job.

Robinson admitted yesterday that he was glad to be out of the politics, but insisted that the IRB had to take the bull by the horns and create a level playing field.

"There is a bit of deja vu in this for me," he said. "There are definitely things here that need to be sorted out quickly. Any international player and any international team needs to have the right preparation time to be successful. It's a key part of the sport because you can't just turn up and play anymore.

"Going into the Six Nations, if England have two weeks to prepare, the opposition should as well, and two weeks is the right time to prepare to go into an autumn Test series or Six Nations Championship.

"It's very, very frustrating when you invite players to move your team forward and they are not there.

It has to be set down, what the release period is, because you want your international players to be at their best in the best games, and the international game is the best game we've got."

With the next IRB council meeting not until November, it seems likely that Hadden will have just five days to prepare for the autumn Test match with New Zealand. Robinson remains hopeful of some kind of deal being agreed in the short-term.

He added:

"I'd like to think that common sense will prevail and the players will be made available for the two weeks, but I can't comment on whether that will be before the autumn Tests as I'm out of that. What I do know is that we all need clarity from the IRB and soon."

• Edinburgh scrum-half Mike Blair has been rested for his side's match against Newport Gwent Dragons at Rodney Parade on Friday, with understudy Greig Laidlaw his replacement. Jim Hamilton also gets his first start since joining from Leicester in the summer in place of Ben Gissing, who is on the bench.

Edinburgh: (team vs Newport Gwent Dragons): C Paterson; A Turnbull, H Southwell, N De Luca, M Robertson; P Godman, G Laidlaw; A Jacobsen, R Ford, G Cross, C Hamilton, J Hamilton, M Mustchin, A MacDonald, A Hogg (captain). Replacements: A Kelly, G Kerr, B Gissing, S Newlands, B Meyer, D Blair, J Thompson.

Bates claims Borders demise is root cause of access issue

STEVE Bates yesterday defended English clubs' right to withhold players from this week's Scotland squad session and claimed that the issue was at least in part a result of the SRU scrapping the Borders team.

Bates was out of a job when the SRU decided to cut the Border Reivers for a second time, in 2007. He had also coached a successful Scotland A team, but then returned to Newcastle to take charge as director of rugby.

He had only one player requested by Scotland on Monday, the versatile back Steve Jones, but he was still stopped from travelling to Edinburgh.

Bates told The Scotsman: "The key as I see it is that the IRB have to decide on regulation 9. Once that has been decided and is in place then everybody knows where they stand and have to abide by the rules.

"There was an expectation from Scotland this week, outside the current rules as I understand them, at what is an incredibly pressurised time for English clubs. We have just come back from playing Saracens in London; we play Worcester on Friday, then Gloucester next Tuesday and then the Dragons in Wales in the EDF Cup next Friday.

"And at the same time we're trying to come to terms with new laws and so need as much training and coaching time as we can get, which isn't much with that schedule. We also have people going down with injuries every week because the game is so physical now, and we're fighting all the time in the Premiership to establish ourselves.

"I want to support the international sides because that's where we ultimately want our players to play, and I know the difficulties in Scotland having worked there and with England with my involvement with England Saxons.

"I didn't have a problem per se with one player who wasn't in our 22 at the weekend going to Edinburgh for a day, but as a member of the PRL (Premier Rugby Limited] I am in full support of the clubs' stance. I don't want to go back over old ground, but this is a consequence of having just two professional teams in Scotland. If the SRU can't afford more, many good players are forced to go to clubs outside Scotland, and a consequence of that is that you have to abide by the rules in other unions.

"I fear, having gone to two teams, Scotland just has to take the rough with the smooth, but it would help us all if the IRB clarified the regulations quickly."

PRL: We just implement club chiefs' decisions

"THE PRL (Premier Rugby Limited] is owned by the clubs, our board is made up of club chief executives and it is that board that makes the decisions; we simply implement them.

There was an International Rugby Board conference last November when it was agreed there would be windows for 11 Test matches – three in the autumn, three in June and five in the Six Nations – where players would be released five days before each game.

We have this separate deal with England which allows for more access to the English-qualified international players at English clubs (13/14 days and two pre-season training days], but that is a voluntary agreement between the Guinness Premiership clubs and the RFU which does not affect players qualified for other countries.

The English clubs have a very difficult period to manage with so many games at this time in the season and so giving up players is difficult for most of them.

There are no demands from the RFU for players until 13/14 days before the autumn Tests. The only fair way to manage the whole process when a request came in from the SRU was to ensure no release for any players outside the five-day period before international matches.

IRB: New regulation 9 is the obvious answer

"WE are currently working under an old regulation in which customary practise has worked with negotiation between unions. The SRU raised an issue this week and we are talking to the RFU, and requesting evidence on how customary practise has worked between them in the past, in the hope of reaching a solution in the interim. There should be scope for a national team to organise a training day and have their players made available with the right notice, but it is a very complex market now and we have been stumbling along finding solutions up to now which clearly has to change.

The answer is a new 'regulation 9'. We have been working with all the unions for some time trying to re-draft the regulation, which is no longer suitable for modern rugby because it related to unions dealing with players rather than clubs, and the IRB can only discuss such issues with its member unions and then rely on them to deal with whatever domestic arrangements they have concerning players in their own country.

We are now working on a new accord of 11 Test matches a year, looking at the required number of squad sessions and their length, the time-frame coaches and unions believe they need to prepare.

SRU: Suitable preparation for squad is essential

"WE provided the clubs with ample notice of this short training camp and usual custom and practice has resulted in the past in our England-based players being made available for Scotland training camps.

We are obviously concerned that our tried and tested relationship with these English clubs has been upset by the sudden intervention of Premier Rugby Limited and as a result of today's non-appearance of so many players, we have made formal representation to the IRB, the world's governing body, to resolve this matter.

With the IRB having decided to determine the Rugby World Cup 2011 draw based upon world rankings at 30 November, it is absolutely imperative that this matter is clarified quickly and well before our final preparations begin for the critical matches against New Zealand, South Africa and Canada.

It is essential that our national squad players are suitably prepared for these games and we will be seeking further information from the IRB to ensure that Scotland has a clear understanding of the IRB's regulations governing player release for international matches and preparation.

The IRB's first port of call is the Rugby Football Union, the governing body of the game in England, and we await the outcome of their discussions with interest.

WHO'S WHO

PRL

Premier Rugby Limited, the umbrella organisation of the 12 top league English rugby clubs. An ever-more powerful body.

IRB

International Rugby Board, the global governing body of rugby union. Influence has diminished since rugby went professional.

RFU

Rugby Football Union, the game's governing body in England but not the force it once was since club owners began to demand control.

SRU

Governing body in Scotland, which unlike its southern counterpart retains players on central contracts.

Q & A

Q: Why are the English clubs not releasing their Scottish players?

A: Although international regulations demand that players should be released for Test matches, the English sides argue that they are under no obligation to provide the players for training sessions outside the international 'windows'.

Q: Does this mean that leading Scotland players will not be available for international matches such as the autumn tests and the RBS Six Nations Championship?

A: No. Players will always be released to represent their countries in recognised international fixtures.

Q: Why does this dispute not affect English players?

A: It has in the past, but the RFU and the leading English clubs have now agreed a deal – at a cost of around £110million over eight years – which means that leading England players will be released for international squad duty more often and for longer periods.

Q: IRB Regulation 9 seems to say that rugby governing bodies should have unfettered access to players at all times.

A: It does, but there is a consensus throughout the game that the regulation would not stand up to a legal challenge, because the players are now owned by their clubs. Unions have no hold over players any longer. If the authorities took on the clubs and lost then their position would be even weaker than it is now.

Q: Will the English clubs be punished for their stance?

A: On the basis that even the IRB does not believe in it's own regulation, then the answer has to be 'no'.

Q: Why is Scotland especially vulnerable to cross-border problems? Why not Ireland and Wales?

A: With four Magners League sides apiece, Ireland and Wales can offer jobs to all their top players. Since the demise of the Borders last year, leaving only two professional rugby teams in Scotland, some Scottish players have had to go south to guarantee regular rugby.

Q: Why don't these problems don't seem to arise in the southern hemisphere?

A: They do, especially in South Africa, but we don't hear so much about them. That said, there is less scope for problems where players' contracts are held by their national unions such as in New Zealand. Also, their domestic seasons tend not to clash with Test periods.

Q: Would this sort of situation ever happen in football?

A: Yes, football clubs can refuse to release players for international duty if a squad session is called outside the agreed Fifa slots in the international football calendar. But just like rugby clubs, football clubs are obliged to release players on recognised international dates.