Wales will axe all overseas Welsh Players for 2012 Six Nations

Warren Gatland Wales Coach wrote:"If those exiled players can't get full release for the Six Nations then they won't be selected," said Gatland.

Looks like Wales will not be picking any players based outside of Wales for the Six Nations.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/15823268.stm

but he says if they can't get 'full release', so what does that mean?

Well, the French based players might get released if their clubs don't need them, the PRL wont let Welsh players be released from English clubs whether the players or the clubs want to train or not.

Apparently not a single Welsh player outside of Wales was allowed any more than a verbal guaranty that they would be available for all Wales duties

The French players might get release, the English ones definitely wont.

Gatland wants to take them back to Poland, so im guessing anyone who cant go, wont be selected.

Bye bye Powell...

I thought that Gatland brought this law in when he first took over Wales.

Or was it spoken about but not atcualy brought in due to injured players and the need to replace them.

No Madge, it was enforced mainly to keep wages down at the regions and little more, but foreign clubs are now offering such huge wages the WRU/regions can not compete.

Most annoying thing in the article is that Gatland asked every player to get their international release written into their contract and not a single player could do that...!

Very poor form by a variety of rugby clubs. Not the first time we have seen Clubs try their damnedest to finish an overseas players international career for their personal benefits...

The IRB should enforce that clubs are not allowed to do so much more stringently. They do very little though.

Gatland doesn't care about overseas he just wants the full training time.

The fitness levels reached in Poland were so impressive that Gatland will want to maintain these standards. If Wales can go up another level then they will be very difficult to beat.

I would expect to see Scott Williams shine. Hopefully Hook will be replaced by Henson as a backup in the centre.

Yes anyone have any news when Henson will start for the Blues.

Other options are Adam Warren, Ashley Beck and Adam Hughes...

Well you can't blame Gatland, how on earth is he supposed to get his squad prepared when these overseas players will miss out on vital training sessions?

Poor show by the players for still moving although they couldn't agree International time out.

It will do Wales good to reward the lads who stick with us.

When you are talking about earning reportedly twice as much cash, you can understand the move.

Reminds me of the old League days when we had all our best poached.

Still one man leaving opens a door for another.

Yes very tempting but look at the likes of Shane Williams and Adam Jones staying with in Wales, these two could command a massive wage,
but the level of respect they will always have is worth more than any wage packet,
I still feel annoyed with Jiffy for going North and that was years ago

So much for Gareth Llewellyn and his "Policy is over" claims

Gatland has sent out a clear message that Wales comes first as long as he's in charge. Those who have shown they're not fully focused by considering the size of their pay checks as more important and utterly failing to secure the ideal release conditions don't deserve to play in red imo.

Besides, the only exile that will be missed is Phillips on current form.

I dont think there was ever a realistic option of Welsh or any other foreign player getting an International clause written into an overseas contract.

Fair play to Gatland - I agree with him.

Gatland is in a very powerful position at the moment. and he knows it.
The re-iteration of his 'Policy' could only be made from a position of strength which he currently enjoys. He sees Preparation as key to a successful national side and with the trips to Poland and the unexpected success of the world cup he appears vindicated.

I find it interesting that he mocks the '1 or 2 players' that couldn't find an alternative Welsh Region.

maestegmafia wrote:Very poor form by a variety of rugby clubs. Not the first time we have seen Clubs try their damnedest to finish an overseas players international career for their personal benefits...

The IRB should enforce that clubs are not allowed to do so much more stringently. They do very little though.

The clubs do adhere to the IRB rules, the problem is when unions ask for more time with their players beyond the officially sanctioned windows (which the union representatives would have agreed to in the first place when the IRB set up the system).

I think it's completely fair that clubs who aren't being reimbursed by the player's union don't lose out on several additional weeks service from their key players. The onus is on the players not to chase the money, they know what the situation is if they go abroad and it's they who are finishing off their international career for their financial benefit, not the clubs.

Agree with Gelodge

but then you've got the case of some Pacific Islanders who were threatened with the sack by clubs in France if they went to the World Cup, and a few were sacked when they refused to be intimidated and went. So the clubs aren't always right.

Fairly sure they could sue for unfair dismissal.

The IRB has certain international windows where clubs HAVE to release players.

What club did that?

red_stag wrote:Fairly sure they could sue for unfair dismissal.

The IRB has certain international windows where clubs HAVE to release players.

What club did that?

Wasps did the same with Trevor Leota years ago...!

It's also getting to a point where there's more depth than in the past - this helps Gats cause.

If Preistland wentto France - would he really not pick him? No.

If i'm paying £65 for a ticket I want to see the inform players I don't care where they play. Remember that Mr Gats and WRU.

He wants them for full 13 days before 1st game which the Regions have agreed to.

French clubs might be more leneant but English clubs wont so Powell and Mitchell could well dip out.

Bhyrne, Phillips and Hook will have to sweat it out and see

It really doesn't seem like a huge deal does it Bedford.

Mitchell is the only player i really think we will miss.

Lets hope one of these youngsters pull through.

red_stag wrote:Fairly sure they could sue for unfair dismissal.

The IRB has certain international windows where clubs HAVE to release players.

What club did that?

It was Lyon, they sacked 2 Tongans for playing in the world cup, the link has 'Legion' I got it from another site and the French posters there said it was Lyon, not 'Legion'.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/5835961/Rich-Europe-squeezing-life-out-of-Pacific-rugby

maestegmafia wrote:It really doesn't seem like a huge deal does it Bedford.

Mitchell is the only player i really think we will miss.

Lets hope one of these youngsters pull through.

Going on WC form then only Phillips could be seen as possible 1st choice, back up to A Jones could be problem if Mitchell not free but then looks like Andrews may get his chance against Australia

maestegmafia wrote:It really doesn't seem like a huge deal does it Bedford.

If it involves missing an extra league match, how is it not a big deal to the clubs? The French clubs don't even release their own international players for the weekend prior to the 6N, and unlike clubs in the PRO12, the French clubs certainly won't be getting paid any money from the WRU for the pleasure. A quick look at the fixture list shows that Hook's Perpignan will be battling Brive, a club currently one place below them, and Philip's Bayonne will have a tough clash against Toulon, who are several places above them. The players took the shilling and have an obligation, they certainly shouldn't get special treatment over the French players.

ni,

Think maesteg meant not a big deal if they not available

Fair enough, my mistake.

yep i did...!

sorry for the confusion.

No, all on me.

Okay so we miss out on powell...he is done anyway so no loss, Philipps, well we know what he can do and it is lloydie's time so bring on another with Lloyd starting. Hook, yes ok so all of a sudden he can kick but again what do we lose, he is nowhere at the moment and although a great super sub he just doesn't deserve it at the moment. Peel seems to have played his last game for Wales. Mitchell, yes he is a loss but his choice.

Good call by Gatland, but the main problem we have is when you combine these absentees with injury list

This is the same problem all the poor countries face.
Many players are chasing the dollar/pound etc so internationals suffer as consquence.
NZ is always under pressure to find a few more dollars to pay for top players to stay in NZ when other not so good players can go overseas and earn much more.
Luckily the AB shirt means more than $ to some.

I think this is more of Gatts postering - he knows he's in a position of strength at the moment, with a good WC giving credence to his training regime and Polish camp. He also knows that almost all of the players who have gone abroad have either played themselves out of the team (Byrne, Hook) or are only on the fringes of the squad (Mitchell, Peel, Powell) and anyway all can be replaced by the on-form youngsters that have come through during the WC.

How likely would Gatts be to say this if these players had moved last season (particularly Hook who most people/press loved back then) - also if next season we have a raft of injuries or some of our key players loose form (such as Priestland or halfpenny) and Hook/Byrne are playing well in France, how long do you think this rule will last before they are called up to the squad?

It's up to the players to agree the 13 days release in their contracts when they sign. The problem is that often they don't and then when they try to leave the club tells them they can't and things kick off. The PRL are insistent on the players writing the release into their contracts and not being allowed to be gifted time off by the club. The RFU pays the PRL good money for access to the English players and the PRL are protecting their interests and the clubs as the WRFU and other unions refuse to pay the players injury insurance for the additional time away from the club.

This situation - as with many others in rugby - is a complete mess, I don't see why the IRB can't put a rule in place to say that all Rugby Unions have to stick to the International Window and NO nation can have access to their players before that date - that would then stop this petty fighting over players, would level the playing field for the smaller nations and ensure that all nations have their players for the same amount of time, and would ensure that more of the unions money went into grass roots and developing the game instead of paying organisations like the PRL or the Welsh Regions Umbrella organisation (soz can't remember what it's called but Stuart Gallagher is in charge of it)

Smirnoffpriest wrote:This situation - as with many others in rugby - is a complete mess, I don't see why the IRB can't put a rule in place to say that all Rugby Unions have to stick to the International Window and NO nation can have access to their players before that date - that would then stop this petty fighting over players, would level the playing field for the smaller nations and ensure that all nations have their players for the same amount of time, and would ensure that more of the unions money went into grass roots and developing the game instead of paying organisations like the PRL or the Welsh Regions Umbrella organisation (soz can't remember what it's called but Stuart Gallagher is in charge of it)

Who do you think the PRL are? They're the premiership clubs. the money goes directly to the clubs to fund the salaries of the extra players needed to cover the missed games due to international duty and rest periods. Of course the fact these still come under the salary cap is daft. You're effectively paying double for the best English players.

Yes but they are an umbrella organisation made up of the premiership clubs - but the PRL organisation has a raison d-etre which is above and beyond the clubs individual objectives - one of these is to get the best deal and most money out of the ERFU for their member clubs.

But it still doesn't change my point - if every Union/Nation was forced to stick to the International windows then there would be no need to fund the salaries of extra players to cover the extra international games and there would be better use of resources, and maybe less foreigners in each home nations league.

The money saved could then go into increased funding for academies or grass roots clubs or to promote the game in areas it's needed.

The IRB states the release time for all players, no matter which union.

The clubs, French, English or whatever, adhere to this and why shouldn't they? They are paying the bills so to speak.

The WRU always complains about this and wants more time than it is entitled to. It can do as it pleases with it's own contracted players but cannot force other nations clubs to do the same.

Yes the clubs adhere to it -except when they are paid by the unions to release them - and why shouldn't they?

My point was that if the IRB said that none of the nations could demand extra time/releases with the players outside of the international windows then it would level the playing field from the 'poorer' Tier 1 teams (maybe Scotland) to the Tier 2 teams. And it shouldn't really disadvantage nations like England and Wales because all of their opposition would be in the same boat.
It would protect the players as they wouldn't have as much intensive training periods in the middle of busy fixture congestion.
And the clubs would benefit from not needing huge squads or expensive foreingers to cover for their internationals.

Note - I wasn't having a go at either the PRL or the English RFU or trying to defend the WRU, I was just saying that if the IRB put a rule in across the board then it would benefit almost everyone, from the majority of countries, to all the players, to all the clubs.

This has got nothing to do with where a player plays, it's about access. There never was a "Gatland rule" and there isn't one now. If clubs release players when he wants them he'll pick them. Trouble is, clubs don't have to release outside the IRB window and evidently players have failed to get release written into their contracts. That's the players fault and they should have considered not being available for Wales when they moved.

What coach is going to pick any player that can only turn up on the day!

Smirnoff - I agree with the level playing field approach.

What coach is going to pick any player that can only turn up on the day!

Or 6 days before as the IRB regs state. Normally the clubs release earlier if they've played their last game before the 6 days.

Ahh but (and not picking on the PRL, just using it to show the flaws of current regs) the PRL don't release players even if the club hasn't got a game, as it would weaken their bargaining position with the ERFU. Fair enough from the PRL perspective, and you can understand the ERFU being annoyed if they shell out loads of money for exclusive rights to EQP's and then other nations get their players released for free.

But it does annoy other fans...

formerly known as Sam wrote:

What coach is going to pick any player that can only turn up on the day!

Or 6 days before as the IRB regs state. Normally the clubs release earlier if they've played their last game before the 6 days.

As pointed out above, it is not 6 days before a game for everyone is it.

It is only 6 days before for those who pay for the advantage. I think it is only the RFU who pay England for the privilege?

If we had the system you are talking about Smirnoff, governed by the IRB, then we wouldn't have the autocracy we have now.

I like your thinking.

What about Central Contracts? Would you ban Irish players from getting together outside of the windows? OK but you can't force the provinces to play those players.

The RFU agreement isn't just about release of players. It's also control over medical and training issues throughout the year and limiting the number of games that are played

It would protect the players as they wouldn't have as much intensive training periods in the middle of busy fixture congestion.

What's harder on the players, the current system where the players train in the 6 nations off weekends or the proposed system where they go back to playing games for their clubs in the off weekend?

The poorer unions generally don't have enough money to get together even in current window. Does that mean it should be reduced for everyone?

Maybe it should be extended then, all national teams would enjoy getting the time they want, the amount of games they want etc.

Four Autumn internationals as long as two are against developing second tier nations to help promote the game in the larger world.

You make good points Thundor - and I did think central contract countries like Ireland could be difficult to apply to. There would have to be some lieway with respect to these countries. But I don't have all the answers, it was just an idea to stop all this horse trading between clubs and unions.

But my point about players not playing as much, I meant that if a player was called up for the 6N then all players would join up with the squad at the same time and would stay with the squad for the entirity of the competition, not go back to their clubs to play in the meantime. But if there were standard release times across the board then maybe the IRB could introduce rest periods for internationals at set times, so that the internationals aren't over played - of course the details would have to be set out.
And even if the poorer nations haven't got enough money to spend the whole time with their players at least they'd have the opportunity to train them if they wanted (much the same as they do now with the current Int. window), and if they didn't want/couldn't afford to train them, then the players would just stay with their respective clubs.

You could also customise the release agreement to run parallel with an agreement for Medical/training issues where the unions pay to have a say in the care of their players.

Metal Tiger wrote:The IRB states the release time for all players, no matter which union.

The clubs, French, English or whatever, adhere to this and why shouldn't they? They are paying the bills so to speak.

The WRU always complains about this and wants more time than it is entitled to. It can do as it pleases with it's own contracted players but cannot force other nations clubs to do the same.

Metal,

I dont think the WRU are complaining now, they know the score as do the players, if anyone playing outside Wales then at your own risk be it so to speak.

The WRU compensate the Regions financially for getting the players for longer but if they refused to take the money then the could also refuse to release players other than for nominated time scales.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:The IRB states the release time for all players, no matter which union.

The clubs, French, English or whatever, adhere to this and why shouldn't they? They are paying the bills so to speak.

The WRU always complains about this and wants more time than it is entitled to. It can do as it pleases with it's own contracted players but cannot force other nations clubs to do the same.

Metal,

I dont think the WRU are complaining now, they know the score as do the players, if anyone playing outside Wales then at your own risk be it so to speak.

The WRU compensate the Regions financially for getting the players for longer but if they refused to take the money then the could also refuse to release players other than for nominated time scales.

MT is wrong

The RFU pay the PRL to get their players for more time than the IRB window, not the IRB window time.