Players to strike?

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

Dave J
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 457
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:47 pm
Location: Pinner

Players to strike?

Post by Dave J »

Tom Youngs doesn't like the new season proposals and Christian Day doesn't rule out strike action, oh joy! more turmoil in the club game :smt009 .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39567024
A citizen of hope and glory
ellis9
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4187
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Players to strike?

Post by ellis9 »

More turmoil? Not really. Fair play to the players for standing up for themselves if they do strike. Why these people make these sort of decisions without discussing it with the players first is beyond me. If Premiership Rugby and other governing bodies really had player welfare at heart, they would speak with players first. After all, no one knows the players bodies than the players themselves!
tigerburnie
Super User
Super User
Posts: 8317
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:46 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Players to strike?

Post by tigerburnie »

https://therpa.co.uk/about-us/what-we-do/

Hopefully some common sense will prevail and these guys can put the players view over.
"If you want entertainment, go to the theatre," says Edinburgh head coach Richard Cockerill. "Rugby players play the game to win.15/1/21.
Tiglon
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:54 pm

Re: Players to strike?

Post by Tiglon »

What we really need, and I haven't seen or heard yet, is the view of medical and conditioning/fitness experts. What's better, one long break per year or more shorter breaks?

I'm sure they will pop up on both sides of the argument. The game has to be very careful how it proceeds with this!
upandunder
Top Cat
Top Cat
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: Players to strike?

Post by upandunder »

Spot on ellis9. I have always believed this was a problem. In the "modern" game there has to be an opportunity for recovery in both its immediate and broader sense. Given the number of league matches, cup matches and internationals surely common sense should prevail on this matter. As proposal for discussion would it be helpful to run the league in two conferences, This could have some benefits.
Reduction in the number of matches whilst at the same time allowing limited number of extra teams from the championship. Conferences could be 8 teams per conference with a meaningful playoff process at the end. This could significantly reduce the number of matches plus allow a window of opportunity for internationals and an appropriate rest period and a pre season. If action is not taken now we are going to end up with both player burn out and an increasing number of retirements through injury. Quality not quantity. Thoughts?
Tigerbeat
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7249
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:14 pm
Location: The big wide world

Re: Players to strike?

Post by Tigerbeat »

Less matches means less income for the clubs so I doubt whether this would go down well with the clubs. Players welfare needs to be managed and this should be achievabke without a significant reduction in games.
The TV companies have put a lot of money into the game and they would possibly reduce the input if the games were to reduce.
SUPPORT THE MATT HAMPSON TRUST
www.matthampson.co.uk
Roly
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2351
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:02 pm

Re: Players to strike?

Post by Roly »

And yet it appears to be perfectly alright to add a brutal tour of the SH into the schedule once every four years.

A tour that has no relevance to the professional rugby era, but injures and exhausts players just in time to return to their clubs.

Surely that this is one instance where the need to play the matches should be weighed against the welfare of the Players, whether they like it or not.

I suppose its alright in the name of sentimental nostalgia though.
“It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.” Sir Winston Churchill.
wellstiger
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 896
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:56 am

Re: Players to strike?

Post by wellstiger »

Watch out - The argument I see coming is for Salary caps to go allowing bigger squads therefore negating player welfare due to rotation :smt015
Tigers Tiger
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 10:34 am
Location: 'Ashby-de-la-Zouch'

Re: Players to strike?

Post by Tigers Tiger »

Although the players will not play more games, but play the same number over more weeks, and so have more opportunity for rest and recovery.
It might not be all bad ?
ourla
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4019
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: Players to strike?

Post by ourla »

And the title of this post is misleading. The article says "Senior figures in the club game, such as Northampton forward Christian Day, have not ruled out the option of players going on strike" but there is plenty of time for discussion between now and it's introduction. But I guess "Players to have long drawn out discussions before coming to a compromise?" doesn't have the same effect.
upandunder
Top Cat
Top Cat
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: Players to strike?

Post by upandunder »

Less players, less stars, less interest. So if we don't take action TV.s cos may not think it is value for money any more. Surely it is hard to argue with player welfare being given a higher priority. They seem to be last in the queue in this debate when they are really the ones that deliver the product. So do we want an inferior product or maintain the quality by giving welfare a higher priority. This issue has been dodged for years and only given lip service.
Noddy555
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2823
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:32 pm

Re: Players to strike?

Post by Noddy555 »

I agree with Tom Youngs and the players will have the support of Medical staff everywhere. Playing 32 or 33 matches a year is just not condusive to long term physical Health. Every player must play a maximum of 26 games per season, This would allow then the development of younger players quicker into the premier squad environment. Some Doctors think that even 26 games are too much and if they had their way the maximum would be about 20. But don't expect Aviva or the Rugby authorities to push this as these greedy people have only one aim i.e. making as much money as they can. I would fully support strike action if no heed is paid to players opinions.
Cagey Tiger
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2304
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: South Lincolnshire

Re: Players to strike?

Post by Cagey Tiger »

Roly wrote:And yet it appears to be perfectly alright to add a brutal tour of the SH into the schedule once every four years.

A tour that has no relevance to the professional rugby era, but injures and exhausts players just in time to return to their clubs.

Surely that this is one instance where the need to play the matches should be weighed against the welfare of the Players, whether they like it or not.

I suppose its alright in the name of sentimental nostalgia though.
Ah, floating your old prejudice against the Lions again I see Roly :smt023
Cagey Tiger
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2304
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: South Lincolnshire

Re: Players to strike?

Post by Cagey Tiger »

Tigerbeat wrote:Less matches means less income for the clubs so I doubt whether this would go down well with the clubs. Players welfare needs to be managed and this should be achievabke without a significant reduction in games.
The TV companies have put a lot of money into the game and they would possibly reduce the input if the games were to reduce.
While up and under's suggestion would be intended to reduce the number of matches played by individual clubs, by increasing the number of clubs involved, the TV companies could end up with a similar number of games. Also, there would probably be a bigger overall audience pool and possibly more geographical spread, making it more attractive, not less. But yes, individual clubs would probably lose out.
tigerburnie
Super User
Super User
Posts: 8317
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:46 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Players to strike?

Post by tigerburnie »

For a lot of players this will have no effect as they'll be on pointless summer tours with national sides, far more damaging and prolonged. England then insist that the players can't play for their clubs at the start of the season, weakening the sides and reducing the pre season build up. The clubs should resist this and apart from World Cup build ups the year before the games, cancel the Autumn Internationals as well.
"If you want entertainment, go to the theatre," says Edinburgh head coach Richard Cockerill. "Rugby players play the game to win.15/1/21.
Post Reply