Broken Time Payment Question

Are there any explanation why broken time payments was an issue in the working class clubs of the  North but such was not the case for working class clubs of the Midlands and South?

Or is it that such clubs were non-existent? 

Or it was, but the travelling difficulties to the North from made clubs in the Midlands and South not able to join? 

If so are there examples?

Apologies for the many questions.

Thank you.

Just now, SouthBedfordshireFan said:

Are there any explanation why broken time payments was an issue in the working class clubs of the  North but such was not the case for working class clubs of the Midlands and South?

Or is it that such clubs were non-existent? 

Or it was, but the travelling difficulties to the North from made clubs in the Midlands and South not able to join? 

If so are there examples?

Apologies for the many questions.

Thank you.

 

The crucial phrase here is 'broken time'. The forefathers of RL abhorred professionalism just as much as the RFU claimed to up until 1995. The difference between the North and the south was that northern workers would typically have to work when matches were played in contrast to their southern counterparts. The NRFU's demands were for workers to be paid their wages when they had to miss work to play.

Southern players typically wouldn't have had broken time because they're working hours would have fitted around the leisure activity they chose to pursue outside of work.

1 minute ago, sam4731 said:

The crucial phrase here is 'broken time'. The forefathers of RL abhorred professionalism just as much as the RFU claimed to up until 1995. The difference between the North and the south was that northern workers would typically have to work when matches were played in contrast to their southern counterparts. The NRFU's demands were for workers to be paid their wages when they had to miss work to play.

Southern players typically wouldn't have had broken time because they're working hours would have fitted around the leisure activity they chose to pursue outside of work.

I was more thinking with regards to industrial working class Midlanders and Southerners in Birmingham, Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, Luton, Reading, the working class areas of London and so on who worked in relatively similar industries than say the others in the South. Hope I made more sense. Apologies if not and let me know too.

The people in pre-split Rugby who detested any kind of payment were the ones who didn't need it themselves. The taint of "trade" was bad enough when it came to opponents, but indulging in it themselves was out of the question.

Their descendants were the people who prosecuted the life ban on any taint of Rugby League (professional or amateur), but of course never turned down any suspiciously generous boot money or creatively-calculated expenses that was on offer to them.

The ones caught in between? Some wavered briefly, like a few Welsh and Midlands clubs, but the threats from Twickenham were backed up with real societal and business influence, plus the kind of spite you only get from people who know they're hypocrites.

Plus, the waverers knew that the old regime was seriously moneyed, while the new breakaway code was not yet proven to be a going concern.

28 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

The people in pre-split Rugby who detested any kind of payment were the ones who didn't need it themselves. The taint of "trade" was bad enough when it came to opponents, but indulging in it themselves was out of the question.

Their descendants were the people who prosecuted the life ban on any taint of Rugby League (professional or amateur), but of course never turned down any suspiciously generous boot money or creatively-calculated expenses that was on offer to them.

The ones caught in between? Some wavered briefly, like a few Welsh and Midlands clubs, but the threats from Twickenham were backed up with real societal and business influence, plus the kind of spite you only get from people who know they're hypocrites.

Plus, the waverers knew that the old regime was seriously moneyed, while the new breakaway code was not yet proven to be a going concern.

Any details on the ones who wavered briefly?

Like names of clubs that wavered.

21 minutes ago, SouthBedfordshireFan said:

Any details on the ones who wavered briefly?

Like names of clubs that wavered.

Ebbw Vale and Merthyr Tydfil played in the 1907 Northern Union. Following on from that, there was a 6-team Welsh League that lasted for a couple of years. They were hit by hostility from rugby union, the usual class prejudice and the rapid rise of another "professional" code, Association Football. The latter came to dominate Wales as it did the other Home Nations.

Naturally, they received little support from the Northern Union, setting the pattern of myopic self-harm that Rugby League has made a speciality.

But the majority who were tempted never got as far as actually making the switch. They'd have been the clubs whose squads were made up of people from the old labouring class who were treated with contempt by the moneyed gatekeepers of the code. But there was still enough broad interest that, when the All Golds made their historic 1907-1908 tour, tests were played in Aberdare, London (Chelsea) and Cheltenham as well as the more obvious Leeds.

I have read, Tony Collins I think, that the split was far more complex than broken time. The Lancashire and Yorkshire leagues wanted to form and arrange their own cup and league competitions. However, broken time payments were an issue. I think, again from Tony Collins, that they saw how professionalism had transformed association football. It's a while since I've read his books.

9 minutes ago, The Art of Hand and Foot said:

I have read, Tony Collins I think, that the split was far more complex than broken time. The Lancashire and Yorkshire leagues wanted to form and arrange their own cup and league competitions. However, broken time payments were an issue. I think, again from Tony Collins, that they saw how professionalism had transformed association football. It's a while since I've read his books.

There was a dislike from the Twickenham tendency of league tables. They saw the game as a series of one-offs, organised according to convenience, and they far preferred to play their own kind than a bunch of scary dockers/miners/mill-workers who'd enjoy giving the stockbrokers and coppers a bashing.

Cricket had it's "gentlemen and players" snobbery, but at least they agreed to play alongside each other in meaningful competitions.

The Calcutta Cup was donated with the intention that it be Rugby's equivalent of the FA Cup. Twickenham ignored the donors' wishes and it became just another Home/Five/Six Nations trinket, while Association Football got on with forming leagues and cup competitions, thus conquering the world.

There was clubs in the south that joined the Northern Union. Coventry for one and some Welsh clubs. Typically they experienced the same problems clubs that are outside the heartlands now.

2 hours ago, SouthBedfordshireFan said:

Apologies for the many questions.

Never apologise for asking questions . Its how you learn things you dont know

6 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Never apologise for asking questions . Its how you learn things you dont know

Thank you. 

I believe the fact that Yorkshire won 7 out of the first 8 of the Rugby Union County championship that began in 1889 (Lancashire won the other one) also influenced the decision to be extra harsh/seek to exclude to those from the north who were seeking broken time payments.

33 minutes ago, Hopie said:

I believe the fact that Yorkshire won 7 out of 8 of the Ruby Union County championship that began in 1889 (Lancashire won the other one) also influenced the decision to be extra harsh/seek to exclude to those from the north who were seeking broken time payments.

They have never liked it up 'em.

4 hours ago, SouthBedfordshireFan said:

Any details on the ones who wavered briefly?

Like names of clubs that wavered.

Fascinating article from Tony Collins about Leicester Tigers. From page 33. Follow the links.

https://tony-collins.squarespace.com/rugbyreloaded/2021/5/24/rugby-reloaded-167-how-leicester-tigers-saved-english-rugby-union

I thought that RU didn't want working class people playing their sport. The wealthier types didn't need to be paid any compensation for playing RU so by insisting on no broken time payments, it became the sport for the more affluent and Football the working class game. In the North of England they weren't going to put up with not being able to play Rugby so they formed a breakaway Northern Rugby so that broken time could be paid. 

I could be wrong but I'm sure I've read that explanation somewhere. 

13 hours ago, SouthBedfordshireFan said:

Are there any explanation why broken time payments was an issue in the working class clubs of the  North but such was not the case for working class clubs of the Midlands and South?

Or is it that such clubs were non-existent? 

Or it was, but the travelling difficulties to the North from made clubs in the Midlands and South not able to join? 

If so are there examples?

Apologies for the many questions.

Thank you.

 

Ask or read Tony Collins, who I believe is now emeritus professor of history at De Montfort University.

12 hours ago, SouthBedfordshireFan said:

Are there any explanation why broken time payments was an issue in the working class clubs of the  North but such was not the case for working class clubs of the Midlands and South?

Or is it that such clubs were non-existent? 

Or it was, but the travelling difficulties to the North from made clubs in the Midlands and South not able to join? 

If so are there examples?

Apologies for the many questions.

Thank you.

 

There is literally books that can and have been written on it, there is always complexity to these types of issues which make it fascinating.. 

In short, he says before writing a post that could end up anything but short, its a tale as old as time and its about power. The Middle/upper classes running the sport in London and the home counties did not want to lose the power. They had seen it happen in Football with the professionalism that lead to the breakaway northern centric league. The clubs causing the wrangling for these broken time payments were northern for the most part and there was an ability by the RFU to say to, what was seen as, a small number of clubs in the north to "do one" without it being a big thing and that the clubs in the north didnt have the power to actually cause as much trouble as they did. Even when the northern club broke away the general feeling in the northern clubs was that it was temporary, they really didnt think they were setting up a new sport. 

From then it carried on with the power struggle, teams having a blind eye turned becuase it was dangerous for the RFU to not. If they had expelled the welsh for paying players, and there is a long history of it in wales just like the north and for similar reasons, then the whole game would just have "gone north". Following them would have been a number of "border clubs" and then potentially more in the south west who were also paying broken time to miners and farmers.

The "powers that be" knew what would happen if they didnt turn a blind eye to payments and it was as simple as the clubs would "go north", especially early on when the games were still so similar. You ask about travelling difficulties but the worry was that if one power house club in a region went then so did the region so the travelling wouldnt have been too much of a problem. 

In the end power and control, as always, was the motivator. The northern teams were strongest, the players (arguably) were the best, now you added to this money and those clubs were going to start to wrestle control from the old southern establishment and they couldnt have that. Its a tale as old as time and we can see it play out now with the RFL, SL etc and also you can see it in club RU and club Football and cricket.. why does the hundered exist? becuase the ECB wanted control over the potential money spinning format of T20 and the counties didnt want to give it to them and worked in their own interests (simplified but its the crux of it)

1 hour ago, RayCee said:

I thought that RU didn't want working class people playing their sport. The wealthier types didn't need to be paid any compensation for playing RU so by insisting on no broken time payments, it became the sport for the more affluent and Football the working class game. In the North of England they weren't going to put up with not being able to play Rugby so they formed a breakaway Northern Rugby so that broken time could be paid. 

I could be wrong but I'm sure I've read that explanation somewhere. 

The working class played rugby in the south west and in the midlands etc.. they had no issue with it at all.. but they could control that better and they werent so much the "dirty industrialists of the north"..and as @hoppie said the county championship up until the great split had only been won by Yorkshire and Lancashire.. to then let them dictate that you could pay players... thats just handing them the game..

Accusations of making broken time payments may have been primarily made against northern RFU members, but not exclusively so.  As I recall, other rugby clubs that faced investigation - albeit they were cleared in each instance - included Leicester, Gloucester and, perhaps from today's perspective a little implausibly, Torquay and Weston-super-Mare.

Two reasons for the predominance of such accusations in the industrial north were probably the zealousness of the Yorkshire RFU, and especially the Revd Frank Marshall, one of its leading figures, and the fact that many of the accusations were almost certainly true!

If, like me, you find this element of social history very interesting, South Beds Fan, you should work your way through the many excellent books by Prof Tony Collins, of which, in this particular context, Rugby's great split is the most relevant.

I'm pretty sure that I've read Tony Collins stating that Coventry were the last RU club to threaten to cross over to RL over payments, in the 1920's. The RFU took a very soft approach to Coventry's payments in this case, and brushed it under the carpet. 

2 hours ago, RP London said:

The working class played rugby in the south west and in the midlands etc.. they had no issue with it at all.. but they could control that better and they werent so much the "dirty industrialists of the north"..and as @hoppie said the county championship up until the great split had only been won by Yorkshire and Lancashire.. to then let them dictate that you could pay players... thats just handing them the game..

I was under the impression that only the Yorkshire and Lancashire clubs, with a sprinkling from Cheshire, took sufficiently large gates to support paying players.  

1 hour ago, RBKnight said:

I'm pretty sure that I've read Tony Collins stating that Coventry were the last RU club to threaten to cross over to RL over payments, in the 1920's. The RFU took a very soft approach to Coventry's payments in this case, and brushed it under the carpet. 

Coventry joined the Northern Union in the early 1900s. The current Coventry rugby union club claims to have been going since 1874 but was actually formed after Coventry became a Northern Union team. The Northern Union team played at Butt's Park Arena where Coventry Bears also played. The club folded following the onset of WW1

10 minutes ago, Griff said:

I was under the impression that only the Yorkshire and Lancashire clubs, with a sprinkling from Cheshire, took sufficiently large gates to support paying players.  

Its hard to really assess that as accurate numbers were never really available. However, its also not just a straight "gates pay wages" equation either, neither is it about paying all the players etc, some didn't need it. 

11 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

Coventry joined the Northern Union in the early 1900s. The current Coventry rugby union club claims to have been going since 1874 but was actually formed after Coventry became a Northern Union team. The Northern Union team played at Butt's Park Arena where Coventry Bears also played. The club folded following the onset of WW1

joined in 1910 IIRC.. Do they not just claim that its a continuation of the same club and it just "went back to the fold"? Its been a long time since i really looked at the website and "history" etc but they certainly glossed over it when I was researching things.

1 hour ago, RP London said:

joined in 1910 IIRC.. Do they not just claim that its a continuation of the same club and it just "went back to the fold"? Its been a long time since i really looked at the website and "history" etc but they certainly glossed over it when I was researching things.

They certainly do gloss over it. This is what it says on their website:

'Early in the century, the Butts was lost when the professional Northern Union game took a brief hold in the city. By the end of World War I, the Butts had been taken over by a local firm and a temporary home was found at the Coventry and North Warwickshire Cricket Ground in Binley Road. '