 RFU chief Francis Baron is at the sharp end of the dispute |
The latest outbreak of infighting between England's leading clubs and the Rugby Football Union shows little sign of being resolved. BBC Sport attempts to make sense of what's going on, and assess how it all might end.
Who is the row between?
The Rugby Football Union (RFU) and the 12 Premiership clubs, whose representatives constitute Premier Rugby Ltd (PRL).
What is it all about?
Access to, and control over, the best English players.
The RFU wants greater control, while the clubs, who develop them and pay their wages, feel they are already stripped of their stars for long enough as it is.
Neither side is currently prepared to compromise on what they see as the key issue in the game today.
Why is it such a big deal?
RFU chief executive Francis Baron - echoing former England coach Sir Clive Woodward - says England's chances of retaining the World Cup are doomed unless the clubs back down. Woodward summed up the England position when he resigned a year ago: "It's no good having great systems if you haven't got any players. It's like trying to run a business without a workforce.
"Control of players is everything. You can't control players through 12 directors of rugby, half of whom aren't English."
As far as the clubs, financed in the main by private investors, are concerned, being without their England stars for longer periods will affect attendances, income and sponsorship.
It will also force them to recruit more foreign players given the consequences of relegation, thus reducing the number of players available to England in the long term.
Who are the main protagonists?
On the RFU side, chief executive Francis Baron is the key negotiator, with performance director Chris Spice overseeing match limits for elite players.
Chairman of Premier Rugby Ltd is Gloucester chairman Tom Walkinshaw, the former Formula One team owner. PRL's chief executive is Mark McCafferty. Northampton owner Keith Barwell is also a vocal RFU critic.
Isn't there an agreement in place already?
Yes. The Long Form Agreement between the two sides was signed as far back as 2001. And in June 2004, both sides agreed that players in England's Elite Player Squad should be released for 16 training days a year, plus one week before Tests, for the three seasons leading up to 2007 World Cup.
England players were supposed to be limited to no more than 32 'full matches' for club and country per year, and to have an 11-week rest period.
Clubs receive �30,000 per year for each player they provide to the EPS and �10,000 for each National Academy Player.
Seems simple. But as Woodward said: "Agreements have taken place between the RFU and clubs that on paper look great. In reality, they're not."
What do the RFU want now?
The union is reportedly pushing for England players to be freed for a fortnight before Tests, rather than just a week.
That means access to international players for five weeks over the autumn and eight weeks over the Six Nations.
During those periods a group of 30 elite players would be under the sole control of the England coaches.
Why? So coach Andy Robinson can work with players who are fresh and fit, rather than tired and injured from a weekend game.
Is that it?
No. The union also wants to reduce the match limit for elite players to 28, a figure that could include up to 10 Tests.
There has also been talk of central contracts, of the sort used by the English Cricket Board for Test players like Michael Vaughan and Andrew Flintoff.
The RFU prefers to call them "tripartite contracts", under which leading players would be jointly employed by the union and the clubs.
The clubs have already voiced their opposition to such a move, fearing the consequences of losing their best players for even bigger chunks of the season.
"Such contracts are unacceptable," says Northampton owner Keith Barwell.
"All the clubs have an agreement that any players signing a central contract will not be employed by any of the Premiership teams. We need a punch-up - it's got to that stage."
Haven't we been here before?
Yes - in most years, in some form or other, since the sport went professional in 1995.
Millionaire club owners who financed the game's switch to professionalism have never wanted to lose players whose salaries they pay.
The RFU's primary concern has always been the England team. Plus ca change.
What happens next?
It depends on the two sides. An interim agreement has been reached for training days covering the autumn internationals, but nothing is in place beyond 30 November.
The situation is complicated by a writ the RFU has received from the clubs in respect of �135,000 withheld from Leicester, Wasps and Sale for playing their Lions players before the end of the 11-week rest period.
Baron wants a new agreement in place in the next "three to four weeks", but Walkinshaw is away on business in Australia and McCafferty is currently on holiday.
What are the chances of peace breaking out?
Don't hold your breath. There is still room for a negotiated settlement, but a long-term agreement covering the period up until the next World Cup appears a forlorn hope.
A compromise deal may well be the best either side can hope for. Then again, a court case is also on the cards unless someone bangs some heads together.
MMIX
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
