Reports coming in that Smurph has done his hamstring in training, although they reckon he will be fit for the next match.
From that can we assume that Keirney isn't fit, and they will risk Smurph at 80% fitness, probably sending him back in 2wks broken :(
Smurph injured at RWC
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
Smurph injured at RWC
JGriffin - "The outright winner was the ref who blew himself inside out."
http://incoherenttwaddle.blogspot.com/
http://incoherenttwaddle.blogspot.com/
Re: Smurph injured at RWC
Sadly - you could very well be right! 
Let's hope the World Cup will not have a heavy toll on the rest of the Tigers players as well, or this season could be a washout.
Let's hope the World Cup will not have a heavy toll on the rest of the Tigers players as well, or this season could be a washout.
-
salcombe bob
- Super User
- Posts: 2077
- Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 12:14 pm
- Location: salcombe
Re: Smurph injured at RWC
i may be a bit pessimisitic but I think by the time we get going when the top boys come back, we will too far adrift. Then there is the 6 Nations!! 
Re: Smurph injured at RWC
No reason being cross about it, we all know it happens every four years and we pay slightly for our success, but its a small price to play. I personally wouldnt give up the international matches to make things abit easier for the club. I know some people disagree and I have no problem with that.
Re: Smurph injured at RWC
How does international compensation work?
Both for supplying players and for those broekn by international teams?
Both for supplying players and for those broekn by international teams?
-
POSTIGER
- Super User
- Posts: 2988
- Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:48 am
- Location: In the office pretending to work
Re: Smurph injured at RWC
I've always thought that. Why not just miss it in a World Cup season? It's too much strain on the 'elite' players IMHO. Then there's the summer tours as well.salcombe bob wrote:i may be a bit pessimisitic but I think by the time we get going when the top boys come back, we will too far adrift. Then there is the 6 Nations!!
I saw Marika Vunibaka play
Re: Smurph injured at RWC
1. None directly to supplying clubsPAW wrote:How does international compensation work?
Both for (1.) supplying players and (2.) for those broken by international teams?
(but RFU = 30k per elite player onto salary cap, I think. IRFU probably nothing to salary cap
)2. None
Re: Smurph injured at RWC
Not quite Jay.
1. Not directly to supplying clubs. RFU = £30k per elite player to PRL who then divide it all up evenly to the 12 Premiership clubs. None of this additional money goes to increase the salary cap though.
2. If a player is injured playing for his country then usually the national union compensates the club for the player's wages while they are injured etc. However, this depends on the union & what insurance they have. Eg, RFU, IRFU & other big unions DO compensate. Samoa, Tonga & other poorer unions often can't. Players for these smaller countries often need to take out their own insurance when they are playing for their country.
1. Not directly to supplying clubs. RFU = £30k per elite player to PRL who then divide it all up evenly to the 12 Premiership clubs. None of this additional money goes to increase the salary cap though.
2. If a player is injured playing for his country then usually the national union compensates the club for the player's wages while they are injured etc. However, this depends on the union & what insurance they have. Eg, RFU, IRFU & other big unions DO compensate. Samoa, Tonga & other poorer unions often can't. Players for these smaller countries often need to take out their own insurance when they are playing for their country.
Re: Smurph injured at RWC
Somewhat unfair I think:
Clubs that produce no England players:
Get to share in the money the RFU pay for using the players.
Get to benefit from playing against weakened sides when England are playing.
Get to benefit from playing against weakened sides that are compulsarily resting England players.
Get to benefit from playing against weakened sides that have their players injured on England duty.
How many players were Exeter missing because of England duty?
What if we miss out on Europe next season?
Clubs that produce no England players:
Get to share in the money the RFU pay for using the players.
Get to benefit from playing against weakened sides when England are playing.
Get to benefit from playing against weakened sides that are compulsarily resting England players.
Get to benefit from playing against weakened sides that have their players injured on England duty.
How many players were Exeter missing because of England duty?
What if we miss out on Europe next season?
-
mightymouse
- Super User
- Posts: 3620
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:30 pm
Re: Smurph injured at RWC
I have been saying this for years and have to agree 100%
actually I would go further - I cannot see England seriously challenging again for the World Cup until they REWARD the clubs who porduce the top England players.
That should not only be in the form of the lions share of the money but even more important than that, a relaxing of the wage cap for every player they provide.
No such provision should of course be available those who play for other non English international teams thereby encouraging the production of English players and discouraging helping out other nations with their production line.
and I am a scot, by the way, who would like english clubs to give our players exposure at the highest level .................... but as far as England goes it is nonsense.
Worcester for example for all the years they were in the prem only produced Sanderson (AND HE WAS RUBBISH) - and arguabely now Kitchener- in spite of having the same cash from England as Tigers have - it is the economics of the madhouse.
It would be like a system of widget production allowing the major retailer to pay a widget manaufacturer who produced inferior widgets the same money as the best selling, brand leading widget manufacturer! I think they tried that system in the Soviet Union and that was not wholly successful!!
actually I would go further - I cannot see England seriously challenging again for the World Cup until they REWARD the clubs who porduce the top England players.
That should not only be in the form of the lions share of the money but even more important than that, a relaxing of the wage cap for every player they provide.
No such provision should of course be available those who play for other non English international teams thereby encouraging the production of English players and discouraging helping out other nations with their production line.
and I am a scot, by the way, who would like english clubs to give our players exposure at the highest level .................... but as far as England goes it is nonsense.
Worcester for example for all the years they were in the prem only produced Sanderson (AND HE WAS RUBBISH) - and arguabely now Kitchener- in spite of having the same cash from England as Tigers have - it is the economics of the madhouse.
It would be like a system of widget production allowing the major retailer to pay a widget manaufacturer who produced inferior widgets the same money as the best selling, brand leading widget manufacturer! I think they tried that system in the Soviet Union and that was not wholly successful!!
Re: Smurph injured at RWC
[quote="mightymouse"]
Worcester for example for all the years they were in the prem only produced Sanderson (AND HE WAS RUBBISH) - and arguabely now Kitchener- in spite of having the same cash from England as Tigers have - it is the economics of the madhouse.
quote]
To be fair to England RFU I think they do give more money to clubs that provide players to the England Team. I think the problem is the PRL then even the money out by paying the clubs that provide more of the Elite players less. Just to even things up so as not to upset all the sensitive clubs.
Apart from that I agree with you mightymouse, The clubs should not lose out because they develop the players for the national team and the long term development of England needs the clubs.
Worcester for example for all the years they were in the prem only produced Sanderson (AND HE WAS RUBBISH) - and arguabely now Kitchener- in spite of having the same cash from England as Tigers have - it is the economics of the madhouse.
quote]
To be fair to England RFU I think they do give more money to clubs that provide players to the England Team. I think the problem is the PRL then even the money out by paying the clubs that provide more of the Elite players less. Just to even things up so as not to upset all the sensitive clubs.
Apart from that I agree with you mightymouse, The clubs should not lose out because they develop the players for the national team and the long term development of England needs the clubs.
-
Hot_Charlie
- Super User
- Posts: 4059
- Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:30 pm
- Location: Lincoln
Re: Smurph injured at RWC
If you include Kitchener, you have to include Matt Mullen too - he's got more caps (1!) than Kitchener. As for Sanderson, he was already an international when he went there too.mightymouse wrote: Worcester for example for all the years they were in the prem only produced Sanderson (AND HE WAS RUBBISH) - and arguabely now Kitchener- in spite of having the same cash from England as Tigers have - it is the economics of the madhouse.
Re: Smurph injured at RWC
According to cockers tonight on the radio - Tigers get £330,000 to 'compensate' 11 players that take 'almost half' the salary cap - "how's that supposed to work"?
cheers
Rich
Rich
Re: Smurph injured at RWC
It "works" because Unions are not required by the IRB to compensate players called up for international duty. The RFU do provide some compensation to the clubs though, under the current agreement. Other unions (including IRFU) do not provide Tigers with any compensation for the players they call up.
Re: Smurph injured at RWC
Am I right in thinking that England have said that any players based in France will not be selected after the world cup?
I would have thought this went against EU employment but if those rules can be ignored, could we tell Engalnd they need to 'rent' our players? Or they can only have three at a time? Or if they break any, they have to buy us a knew one?
Not entirely serious suggestions but it does seem illogical that succesful teams like or Saints can have their assets used by a non contributing third party but team like sarries or Worcester benefit on the playing field.
I would have thought this went against EU employment but if those rules can be ignored, could we tell Engalnd they need to 'rent' our players? Or they can only have three at a time? Or if they break any, they have to buy us a knew one?
Not entirely serious suggestions but it does seem illogical that succesful teams like or Saints can have their assets used by a non contributing third party but team like sarries or Worcester benefit on the playing field.