Umbrella group offered SRU more training access but were ignored by Murrayfield

THE JOURNALISTS crowding around Frank Hadden posed the question a week ago last Tuesday as the national coach announced his 50-strong Scotland training squad for the autumn internationals. "Will everyone turn up?" they asked. "We'll have to wait and see," was Hadden's response. The question was posed a second time with exactly the same answer: "We'll have to wait and see."

The national coach had put great faith in the power of persuasion after doing the rounds of the English and French clubs last month but it was all to no avail as Premiership Rugby Limited (PRL), the umbrella group which represents the English clubs, kyboshed any deal Hadden had made. The Scotland coach could have saved himself a heap of time, effort and money by making one phone call to PRL boss, Mark McCafferty.

Essentially PRL knows what any street hooker does, you can't start giving it away for free or everyone will expect the same terms and, having just squeezed £110m pounds out of the RFU for eight years of player release, the PRL couldn't give Scotland the same rights gratis. Except that, according to McCafferty, that is exactly what they did offer the SRU in a recent letter.

"We knew this was coming because Hadden went around talking to all the clubs. We were aware of the problem so we sent a letter to the SRU offering nine training days in sessions of up to three days each over the course of the year, which is more than we needed to do.

"One session we'd expect to take place pre-season and the other two sessions we'd expect to take place during the season but not at a time that would prevent players from turning out for their clubs. Provided the players were back with their clubs by Wednesday evening I think that it would be manageable. I think we've gone quite a long way towards agreeing training days but some people always want more."

This offer is still on the table and Hadden is expected to take advantage of it ahead of the New Zealand game, but a Murrayfield mole suggested that these training days were just one part of a less palatable PRL package that had been dismissed out of hand by the IRB. Whatever the truth, there has been a lack of communication between the two parties in this dispute (see the SRU statement below) although exactly who is at fault is unclear.

McCafferty insists his attempts to extend an olive branch to Murrayfield met with no takers. "The chairman of the PRL Tom Walkinshaw and I offered to travel to Murrayfield to discuss the situation around a table and see if we could find some resolution but the offer was ignored," said McCafferty.

However, the SRU, working under advice from the International Rugby Board, is reluctant to even acknowledge the English clubs' umbrella group. When contacted by this paper yesterday, the Union released the following statement in response to McCafferty's claims:

"1. Under guidance from the IRB we are advised to conduct business union to union or union to club; therefore our discussion has to be with the IRB; RFU and individual clubs.

"2. Dates for international squad sessions are determined by Scotland's national management team, not by clubs or other bodies."

Clearly, there is no love lost between the parties and McCafferty was less than enamoured of the antics last week of the Murrayfield publicity machine.

"We were not happy with the content of the SRU's press release," said the Englishman, "and we have expressed our dismay to the IRB. We have tried not to react in the press and instead hoped to recall the spirit of the agreement that we reached at Woking."

McCafferty continually refers to the IRB-sponsored conference at Woking last year which was attended by many of rugby's stakeholders including Gordon McKie and Allan Munro from the SRU. The Conference agreed to an 11-weekend international season but did not talk specifically about player release and no deal was done on training days.

"The custom and practice of player release before international weekends has always been one week," McCafferty insists. "The player turns out for his club and then joins the international squad as soon as possible. There is no practice and custom with regard to training days, countries have wanted different times in different parts of the season and there was no agreement."

Nevertheless, the contentious IRB Regulation 9 on the availability of players is explicit in giving national teams priority for both matches and training. It reads: "A Union has first and last call upon the availability of a Player for selection and appearances for a National Representative Team or National Squad of that Union and all attendances associated therewith, including training sessions."

When it is put to McCafferty that, as it stands, Regulation 9 gives countries priority of access, the PRL boss quickly rubbishes its legality.

"You are telling me that a Union can demand that their players be paid by an English club who have to keep them well-conditioned just to play international rugby! That is what the regulation states if taken to its extreme limit. Scotland may not take their players for an entire season but they want them for an extra week before the Six Nations, they want them for the free weekends in the middle of the Six Nations and they want them for an extra week before the autumn tests. As things stand Scotland can demand their players at any time! When you take the regulation to its natural conclusion it is totally absurd."

Regulation 9 is the nub of the problem. It was written in, and for, the amateur era and it says all you need to know about the speed at which the IRB moves that it has taken the game's governing body a mere 12 years of professional rugby to even think about effecting changes. The IRB has promised to redraft Regulation 9 at a council meeting on the November 25.

One SRU official expressed exasperation with the IRB, claiming that Murrayfield had flagged the problem last spring, begging the IRB to show some leadership on the issue, but to no avail. Meanwhile neither the Rugby Football Union nor the IRB is going to enforce the regulation as it stands.

The real mystery in amongst all the Machiavellian politics was why did Hadden pick this particular fight at this particular time, just two months ahead of that promised November re-draft? The answer lies with the 2011 World Cup seedings. They rely upon the autumn results, with Scotland starting an agonising 0.26 points behind eighth-placed Ireland and that all-important spot in the second, rather than third, group of World Cup seeds. Hadden does not want to be the first Scotland coach to fail to make the World Cup quarter-finals, so Scotland's autumn schedule suddenly takes on a whole new significance.

The growing power of the English (and French) clubs provokes the natural worry that rugby is heading down the same route as football where the club game has all but usurped the international fixture calendar. The IRB needs to acknowledge this danger when they are re-drafting Regulation 9, although their hands are tied by the legal reality on the ground. The clubs have pumped huge amounts of money into the game, they have signed the players and they won't give up their key assets without a fight.

The IRB's regulatory council are meeting in the next few days to try and thrash out a temporary solution in time for the autumn Test schedule while lawyers are licking their lips in the wings, anticipating business. As things stand it's not clear whether or not Frank Hadden will get the quality time with his players that he insists he needs ahead of the New Zealand match. We'll have to wait and see.


THE PLAYERS HAVE THEIR SAY

Five of the English-based players prevented from joining up with the Scotland camp this week give their thoughts on the stand-off between the SRU and Premier Rugby Ltd, the English clubs' umbrella group.


They talk about being denied the chance to train with the national squad and respond to Scotland coach Frank Hadden's remark about not picking exiled players who were unavailable to train for 13 days leading up to a Test match.

RORY LAWSON (Gloucester)

"To be honest the players just want to play rugby, that's our main aim. I moved down to England to put myself in the shop window for national selection and I achieved that goal.

"I have a two-year contract here and I hope that if I play well enough then I'll get picked for Scotland. I'd like to think that it's how I'm playing not where I'm playing that will determine selection. Frank (Hadden] understands the position we're in."

EUAN MURRAY (Northampton)

"I just hope that things are sorted out soon and I think that they will be. It's a difficult thing because Northampton are my employers but the PRL are the ones making the decisions. If I'm honest I'm not too worried about it.

"I am trying to be diplomatic here and would rather not comment on too much."


GORDON ROSS (Saracens)

"It was great to be involved again, I always love being part of the Scotland set-up, and both Saracens and (coach] Eddie Jones were very supportive of me playing international rugby. They want you to take your chances and play well for your country. It was frustrating that the Premier Rugby Limited got involved.

"I haven't really thought through all the implications because my main focus is on getting game time with my club. I got 20 minutes off the bench against Newcastle recently and scored my first try in two and a half years. I'll be a marked man now."

SEAN LAMONT (Northampton)

"I guess it comes down to Frank and it's not for me to say. It's an argument between the English clubs and the SRU and they will have to sort it out amongst themselves. The players are caught in the middle and I am sitting firmly on the fence on this one. I haven't made any decision about my future so we'll have to wait and see what happens at the end of the year. I still think that the Six Nations is safe enough."

ALASDAIR STROKOSCH (Gloucester)

"As a player you just have to keep your head down; it's not something we can do much about. The authorities have to get together and sort something out amongst themselves. I take the view that I just have to play well enough that Frank can't ignore me. Two weeks, one week, it doesn't make that much difference because I have known Frank for a long time and I know his systems and his way of doing things. It does make you think a little bit but I'm here for the next two years regardless."

REGULATION 9

An extract from the IRB's Regulation 9 on the availability of players for international duty

9.1 A Union has first and last call upon the availability of a Player for selection and appearances for a National Representative Team or National Squad of that Union and all attendances associated therewith, including training sessions.

9.2 No Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club whether by contract or otherwise may inhibit, prevent or render unavailable any player from selection, attendance and appearance in a National Representative Team or National Squad, including training sessions, and any Player must be released upon request by his Union.

9.3 No Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club may require any payment or other benefit from or impose conditions relating to a Player's participation in a National Representative Team or National Squad.