Richmond article in Guardian

I guess if the match fee is fixed for all players, as stated in the article, then would-be recruits are simply told that figure on a 'take it or leave it' basis - that's not really negotiation as most people understand it. I can't answer your first question...

Richard Lowther wrote: islander wrote: I guess if the match fee is fixed for all players, as stated in the article, then would-be recruits are simply told that figure on a 'take it or leave it' basis - that's not really negotiation as most people understand it. I can't answer your first question... But when you talk to a player (and agent) you are negotiating with him, not just on fees, but on all the other stuff too, position, type of rugby etc. I'm sure Richmond also help find employment through their sponsors or contacts so throw that into the mix too.

With no inside knowledge, I wonder if the journalist has written what they want us to read as opposed to the actual statement?

My friends son played at Richmond two seasons ago and certainly had a contract stating the terms on which he would be paid and how much he would be paid. He was told everything goes through the books correctly and he paid tax on the match fees and win bonuses he received. Sounds more like another journalist not allowing the truth to get in the way of a good story!

The sloppy writing takes away from the main thrust of the article which is rugby at this level is not substantable as a full time, fully professional league and for clubs to survive they must 'revert' back to a semi-professional, part time structure, cutting their cloth accordingly.   I understand that and it makes complete sense. 

Steve Hill is quoted as saying "There are no contract negotiations"

islander wrote: Steve Hill is quoted as saying "There are no contract negotiations" He doesn't say there are no contracts, and as pointed out it seems highly unlikely that RFC wouldn't go by the book in respect of what the regs dictate. He also says he doesn't deal with agents, and can't see why he would say that if it wasn't true. I wonder how many p/t or semi-pro players use agents? Can't be many - as he says: "10 per cent of not very much is even less." Perhaps he's trying to dissuade agents from contacting him - based on those I've had contact with, I'd probably try to do the same in his position!

No 7 wrote: I have mentioned this in the past but when a player at Richmond is injured he does not receive any payment . I believe the contract / negotiation does not allow for weeks, months of not playing due to injury. It is critical that the players have other sources of income and do not rely on the money received for playing.  When I mentioned this before a Richmond contributor said "all the players receive the highest standard of medical care " . They must have a wonderful insurance scheme to cater for some of the horrendous injuries that occur and especially in the Championship. We all know the players are bigger, stronger, faster and more aggressive than the lower National leagues. The deal at Richmond is shrouded in mystery but they are all semi pro players and I have been told they all receive the same deal / money. In effect zero hours contract , you do not make the team no money !.

The highest standard of medical care may infer to the club physio, doctors and rehab programme, as opposed to hospital medical care - which I feel is a great benefit to players. I don't believe additional insurance is referred to in this case, but an individual player may have it personally or through their full time job.

Richard Lowther wrote: islander wrote: Steve Hill is quoted as saying "There are no contract negotiations" He doesn't say there are no contracts, and as pointed out it seems highly unlikely that RFC wouldn't go by the book in respect of what the regs dictate. He also says he doesn't deal with agents, and can't see why he would say that if it wasn't true. I wonder how many p/t or semi-pro players use agents? Can't be many - as he says: "10 per cent of not very much is even less." Perhaps he's trying to dissuade agents from contacting him - based on those I've had contact with, I'd probably try to do the same in his position! If you are talking to a player in the hope he will join your club, it is a negotiation. If you talk to a player about staying at your club it is a negotation.  A club saying we'll offer £x take it or leave it is still a negotation - as google defines it "discussion aimed at reaching an agreement." Negotations can be more than about money. It can be that the coach wants the player to play full back, but the player wants to play stand off. It could be around the style of play - is it going to be a style that suits that player or not.  Players - and their agents and there are those at this level will try to negotiate the best deal for themselves. It is a game that all clubs, players and agents take part in.   If a club has a fixed budget/structure, then the negotiations may be around medical or breaks or hours or types of training etc.  If club sponsors provide employment etc then throw these into the mix. It is plain silly to suggest that negotations don't take place.

islander wrote: Sorry for being silly Richard, I shall withdraw semi-gracefully after this final post. Still don't see what an agent stands to gain through 'negotiating' that his client plays in his preferred position (how do you enforce that?), what level of medical provision/cover exists (likely to be the same for all players, isn't it, given that they earn identical match fees?) or what arrangements might be made for employment through an introduction to a sponsor. But if you mean 'negotiation' as a discussion, then you're right. I was defining it as haggling, the absence of which I sense was what the subject of the interview meant in his quote, but that is, apparently, plain silly...