Nick Fozzard getting dragged on Twitter

[Damien]

3 hours ago, DACS said:

Aside from a benevolent fund approach, how exactly is a cash-strapped sport like RL supposed to help ex-players if their lives have gone off the rails, and for how long would the game be liable (ten years, twenty years, fifty years)? Does anyone get this from any other industry, except maybe the military?

Nobody is suggesting the game should ignore these guys, but we (and the people looking to get compensation) also need to be realistic as to what it could possibly pay for. Even our biggest clubs are not much more than small businesses. Just for information the government definition of a small business is less than £10 M turnover and less than 50 employees - RL clubs might exceed the headcount number but not the revenue. On top of that most of our clubs will operate at a loss or very small level of profit. As an example Sts revenue in 2021 was £7M, and they made a loss that year. 

I was going to post this. Even for huge employers like the Civil Service support for former, as well as current, civil servants is run by a charity similar to RLCares.

I think its totally unrealistic for some to think the RFL should be doing this and it does not tally with what happens outside RL.

[gingerjon]

15 minutes ago, Damien said:

I was going to post this. Even for huge employers like the Civil Service support for former, as well as current, civil servants is run by a charity similar to RLCares.

I think its totally unrealistic for some to think the RFL should be doing this and it does not tally with what happens outside RL.

Yes. You can definitely compare a short rugby league career which could be ended any time with more regular work. That's definitely a thing that makes sense.

[gingerjon]

I'll be in work later.

I expect there to be 5,000 people watching, 200,000 on the TV, alongside media outlets, all hanging on what I type in my monthly report.

[Just Browny]

25 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I'll be in work later.

I expect there to be 5,000 people watching, 200,000 on the TV, alongside media outlets, all hanging on what I type in my monthly report.

Think you might be overestimating Crowhurst Rovers' social media footprint.

[Damien]

51 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Yes. You can definitely compare a short rugby league career which could be ended any time with more regular work. That's definitely a thing that makes sense.

Yes it does make sense and yes you can compare despite your condescending reply. Plenty of people go from employer to employer and may only stay with any employer for a couple of years at a time. 

There is support there for players along the lines of other organisations and its disingenuous to make out otherwise. 

Edited April 17, 2023 by Damien

[Dunbar]

35 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Yes. You can definitely compare a short rugby league career which could be ended any time with more regular work. That's definitely a thing that makes sense.

So you are saying the shorter the length of service, the more the individual should be supported post service?

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

So you are saying the shorter the length of service, the more the individual should be supported post service?

No.

I'm saying that playing rugby league is not the same as working in the civil service.

And one of the ways it is not the same is the length of the career.

There are, of course, other differences.

Because it's not remotely the same.

What with it being very different.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

No.

I'm saying that playing rugby league is not the same as working in the civil service.

And one of the ways it is not the same is the length of the career.

There are, of course, other differences.

Because it's not remotely the same.

What with it being very different.

So, let's compare a 5 to 10 year stint as a pro Rugby League player (maybe across multiple employers) with a PT instructor in a gym.

Does the sport of Rugby League have a bigger obligation to provide any post employment support to the player than the gym does after the PT has left?

I left a job in the private sector a few years ago after 19 years of service.  I will list below all of the things they put into place to support me post service.

1.

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

No.

I'm saying that playing rugby league is not the same as working in the civil service.

And one of the ways it is not the same is the length of the career.

There are, of course, other differences.

Because it's not remotely the same.

What with it being very different.

The Civil Service was an example of the way that a large organization with far more money at its disposal than the RFL provide support i.e through a charitable arm not to dissimilar to RLCares. Its easy to knock but the RFL does not have this money tree and it is certainly not their responsibility to look after tens of thousand of former RL players forever more. What people are berating the RFL not doing is literally the reason that RLCares exists:

Rugby League Cares is an independent charity that plays an important role in the field of player welfare: it supports players at the end of their careers when they make the transition to life after rugby, providing education and training grants that will equip them with the skills and qualifications they need for the next stage of their lives.

The charity is also there for current and former players who are enduring poor health or hardship by offering practical and financial support.

Of course many organizations simply provide no support whatsoever. 

[Harry Stottle]

On 14/04/2023 at 13:08, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Players knew as much as the governing body did at the time

But these player's were young fit men who had no interest or even any semblance of thought in what later life would bring with health issues, and like many people who develop whatever ailments that effects them further down lifes path they took the attitude of "It won't happen to me" like millions of smokers who just carried on regardless puffing away siting "Owd Bob" who's now in his 80's and has smoked 30 a day since he was 12.

[DACS]

The only difference with respect to the length of service in RL (and other sports) vs a "normal" job is that age catches up with athletes far earlier. Their professional career is often less than ten years, and most retire by their early 30s. Not because they are in some way handicapped by playing, but because they age out, or suffer injuries which do not prevent them earning money elsewhere but stop them being able to play pro sport. All players know this, and that they need to get themselves a job when they hang up their boots.

My whole point in mentioning just how financially tiny RL clubs are is exactly because of the pointless - in respect of this issue - size of crowds at games or TV audiences. Just because RL is on TV doesn't make clubs bigger than they are. SL in England is made up of a number of small businesses operating in a semi-cooperative manner to make an "industry". Below this tier are a number of even smaller clubs, many of which would be defined as "micro" businesses on the basis of revenue, and probably earn less than a busy corner shop. 

Just for comparisons sake, and I know its not the most reliable source, but annual revenue numbers for sports from Wiki include, NFL €17Bn, Premier League €6.1Bn, Premiership Rugby €251 M, NRL €343 M. Super League? Just €60 M. That's total revenue. Not profit.

Even those numbers don't tell the full story about the scale of any likely payouts from the game itself, because we also know that most RL clubs don't own their own grounds and make annual losses and are propped up by owners. The NFL paid out because unlike RL their clubs have actual assets and massive cashflows, which could be targeted regardless of insurance, particularly in the US legal system.

I had a look here https://www.rugby-league.com/get-involved/club-support/operations/insurance at the cover available in SL and it seems that the maximum payout is £250,000 for "Permanent total disablement from gainful employment from any and every kind" or for "Permanent total disablement from any gainful occupation for which they are fitted by way of training, education or experience". This seems to apply to all levels of play, and is arranged by the sport. Maybe clubs have additional cover, but the blurb seems to suggest this is a collective arrangement?

So theoretically a player injured today could get that for an injury sustained in their job as an RL player under the current insurance policy.

But would that insurance pay out to players who left the game 10, 20, or 30 years ago for injuries which eventuated years later? The answer is surely not. Today's cover is for current players - there is no way an insurer would or could accept unknown potential liabilities relating to thousands of former players.

You'd also have zero chance of getting a payout from policies that expired years ago - that's not how insurance companies operate. Policy ends, so does the cover. 

That's even assuming an open-and-shut case where all the issues are caused by playing pro RL, which covered up knowledge of the issue. Both of those are highly debateable, and no insurer will pay out just because some ex-pros have threatened to take them to court.

Again, I just don't see the magic money tree for ex-players, much as I or anyone else might want them to exist.

[Dave T]

In any industry, if I got an illness that could be directly attributed back to my job and in particular due to neglect by my employer wouldn't there be some liability there? Isn't it just as simple as that? 

If there is neglect then the RFL/Clubs should be liable. And nobody should be defending them. 

If not, the players should lose their case. 

[lucky 7]

Fozzard is suing for compensation, but has admitted in his own words attacking other players heads. He wants to be careful that them players don't sue him. I'm positive that the RFL lawyers will make Fozzard regret admitting his actions in print

[Dave T]

18 minutes ago, lucky 7 said:

Fozzard is suing for compensation, but has admitted in his own words attacking other players heads. He wants to be careful that them players don't sue him. I'm positive that the RFL lawyers will make Fozzard regret admitting his actions in print

They would be two separate things though. 

[lucky 7]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

They would be two separate things though. 

It would be true, but Fozzard admitting his thugish acts damages his own case in my opinion, and also how many time was Bobby Goulding suspended for high tackles.

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, lucky 7 said:

It would be true, but Fozzard admitting his thugish acts damages his own case in my opinion, and also how many time was Bobby Goulding suspended for high tackles.

Again though that isn't really linked to whether the governing body and clubs neglected their duty of care to their employees. 

[Tommygilf]

 

12 hours ago, gingerjon said:

No.

I'm saying that playing rugby league is not the same as working in the civil service.

And one of the ways it is not the same is the length of the career.

There are, of course, other differences.

Because it's not remotely the same.

What with it being very different.

Perhaps players need to wake up and smell the bacon that being a Super League player isn't the only career you are ever going to have. It will not pay you enough to retire and never do anything else aged 33-38.

[lucky 7]

23 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

 

Perhaps players need to wake up and smell the bacon that being a Super League player isn't the only career you are ever going to have. It will not pay you enough to retire and never do anything else aged 33-38.

Get a trade or profession so that when you can't play anymore you have something to fall back on

[lucky 7]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Again though that isn't really linked to whether the governing body and clubs neglected their duty of care to their employees. 

We are at different ends of the spectrum. I'm on about Fozzard admitting his thugish acts, It's in black and white. The RFL lawyers will destroy him.

[DACS]

Dave T - the liability may be there but not the money to do anything about it. Just because a court might award you a big payout doesn't mean the counterparty can ever pay it. If you sue a club you could force bankruptcy, but then these claims would have to join the queue of creditors, behind any secured loans, and jostling with non-secured loans and debt owed to suppliers, players wages etc. This is for businesses with in some cases no assets and which year after year lose money.

Any insurance payouts will be limited to whatever the cover pays for - which almost certainly entirely relates to players active during the period of cover whose injuries (or illnesses) also occur within that period. Insurers don't simply sign open-ended policies which pay out for unknown eventualities. There might be some partial coverage, but it would be very limited I expect.

If I were the RFL lawyers, I'd meet up with whichever firm(s) are running the suit and just run through the game's finances. Expectations need to be set, and I would think that if such lawyers genuinely had their clients' interests at heart they'd understand that the best they are likely to get is a commitment from RL to try to raise as much money as it can from fans on a voluntary basis to provide more funds to affected former players, or maybe even an ongoing ticket 'levy' or similar.

'Fairness' has nothing to do with it - financial reality is what it is.

In recent news a former AFL great, Gary Ablett, is suing a couple of clubs and the AFL. I reckon his lawyers have realised that even from that sport, which is much richer than RL in England (and the NRL), the likely payouts from a class action involving several hundred former players will be minimal. They've therefore targeted clubs and are hoping to get in first. Maybe in the case of AFL there's money to be had there, but not British RL. 

[gingerjon]

8 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

 

Perhaps players need to wake up and smell the bacon that being a Super League player isn't the only career you are ever going to have. It will not pay you enough to retire and never do anything else aged 33-38.

Perhaps they do.

Maybe the duty of care RL has always owed them is also about doing everything to ensure those players are in a fit state to do thar.

Now, and thinking just about the bit related to head injuries, do you think rugby league has always done the right thing by its players?

And whether you do it not, is the "we're too poor to be a responsible governing body", which has been out forward time and again on this thread, really such a great defence?

[Dave T]

8 hours ago, lucky 7 said:

We are at different ends of the spectrum. I'm on about Fozzard admitting his thugish acts, It's in black and white. The RFL lawyers will destroy him.

I bet they don't. 

[The Masked Poster]

@DACS is correct, the money simply isn't there. The small business analogy was a good one. 

You can still "win" a case in court against someone or something for say, neglect and the verdict will stand. But if the defendant has no money (or assets) then you will get nothing. Unless maybe the insurance company ends up paying out - and they are not stupid, any way they can avoid paying, they will. 

Maybe a couple of players might get some money and possibly bankrupt the game. Because regardless of any moral victory, that's the ultimate result. 

Edited April 18, 2023 by The Masked Poster

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Perhaps they do.

Maybe the duty of care RL has always owed them is also about doing everything to ensure those players are in a fit state to do thar.

Now, and thinking just about the bit related to head injuries, do you think rugby league has always done the right thing by its players?

And whether you do it not, is the "we're too poor to be a responsible governing body", which has been out forward time and again on this thread, really such a great defence?

I think some aspects currently take the mick, including the transition from junior to academy to first team squad. A big part of that is payment, or lack thereof. But on a physical front these young men are still looked after imo, and certainly better now than in previous years.

RL is a brutal physical sport. I don't see any way risk can be totally removed from that. And for some that will never be "enough".

You also seem to be shifting the argument somewhat onto whether the RFL ought to have known more, and therefore done more, on this issue; rather than whether they did actually know. That is an interesting tangent, I'm sure one that the lawyers will be exploring in both the cases against the RFL and RFU, but I'm not sure it is a very strong secondary argument either. 

[The Blues Ox]

9 hours ago, lucky 7 said:

Get a trade or profession so that when you can't play anymore you have something to fall back on

This has started to happen more now in that some clubs do help young players just in case they don't make it but go back 10 years or so and it was very rare.

9 hours ago, lucky 7 said:

We are at different ends of the spectrum. I'm on about Fozzard admitting his thugish acts, It's in black and white. The RFL lawyers will destroy him.

They won't. What if Fozzard has medical evidence of a longterm brain injury that contributed to how he acted on the field?