James falls out of window

by Scratch Tue 19 Nov 2013, 6:47 am

So PJ is now no longer available for the Aus game due to PRL intervention in a private agreement between Bath and Wales to release him for sunday's game and then allow him to play next week v Australia.

If the PRL insist on doing this are we to expect that George North will be recalled by Northampton next week, or does his contract derogate the PRL clause compelling English clubs to refuse their players availability outside the intentional window.

This uncertainty contributes to the debate about the WRU taking over the elite players contracts and the call to keep Welsh players in Wales and it needs to be resolved. If George has been smart enough to negotiate a contract that allows him to be available for any Welsh game, as i believe is the case, then perhaps the WRU needs to test the PRL resolve in a test case in court.

Wales cannot plan for success with this constant thorn in their side and the WRU needs to take the PRL on.

by doctor_grey Tue 19 Nov 2013, 7:51 am

I think the exact opposite, mate: Internationals should only be played in IRB established International windows. Then there is no problem and no debate. Rules are then clear for clubs and countries to follow. Clubs must release players during the specified times. When the windows are closed, the players return to their clubs.
This is not a PRL issue.

by Portnoy's Complaint Tue 19 Nov 2013, 7:52 am

What's the issue? Either the player has agreed a contract which allows him to play outside of the IWs or he hasn't. If he hasn't but the club accedes to dispensation to a request to play, then that's a matter for the club.

Where do the courts come into this?

by doctor_grey Tue 19 Nov 2013, 7:59 am

Courts shouldn't come into this Port. One player's contract may not be written the same as another's.

I don't like these contracts which state some players are exempt from IRB rules governing player release. It should be followed rigidly, and with no contractual exceptions. Having everyone following the same rules makes life simpler for the players as they are not torn between club and country. Also makes it easier for club and national teams to make their plans. Finally, no Internationals outside the windows............

by Portnoy's Complaint Tue 19 Nov 2013, 8:06 am

doctor_grey wrote:Courts shouldn't come into this Port. One player's contract may not be written the same as another's.

I don't like these contracts which state some players are exempt from IRB rules governing player release. It should be followed rigidly, and with no contractual exceptions. Having everyone following the same rules makes life simpler for the players as they are not torn between club and country. Also makes it easier for club and national teams to make their plans. Finally, no Internationals outside the windows............

I was responding to the OP, Doc.

Scratch wrote: If George has been smart enough to negotiate a contract that allows him to be available for any Welsh game, as i believe is the case, then perhaps the WRU needs to test the PRL resolve in a test case in court.

by doctor_grey Tue 19 Nov 2013, 8:12 am

Sorry, Port. Missed that. A bit early for me.

Lordy, if we are going that route, the IRB should challenge every contract which allows players to contravene the International windows.

by doctor_grey Tue 19 Nov 2013, 8:12 am

Sorry, Port. Missed that. A bit early for me.

Lordy, if we are going that route, the IRB should challenge every contract which allows players to contravene the International windows.

by rainbow-warrior Tue 19 Nov 2013, 8:13 am

I would imagine that most players who want to play for their country in circumstances where there may be a problem would have the clauses placed in their contract.

Defies me why Wales (WRU) continue to do this to themselves greed I imagine, greed that led to them being a Tier III team come the world cup draw. Yup total greed.

by jimmyinthewell68 Tue 19 Nov 2013, 8:41 am

George north written in his contract he can play every Welsh international . i think outside the window it effects hook and James the most .

by formerly known as Sam Tue 19 Nov 2013, 8:58 am

The WRU refuse to negotiate release of players based outside Wales and then schedule internationals outside of the designated window. Perhaps they should be less thick and change one of the two stances. The Welsh national team is only the be all and end all of rugby in Wales. Why should Bath or Saints care? They have employees tied to contracts and expect those employees to adhere to those contracts. If the employee has a release clause then he has probably taken a slight pay cut in order to get such clause and good for him, if he hasn't then he's prioritized cash and now has to do his job.

by **Biltong** Tue 19 Nov 2013, 9:03 am

It seems the contracts signed by players at clubs have no consideration for what the IRB's intention is, look at Fourie du Preez, he cannot play for the Boks this weekend, because of his Japanese club.

It is utterly confusing for fans to know how this works, and which type of contract each individual player had signed.

some are available, others are not and when you consider this coming weekend is still in the test window, why some players can't play is purely due to the contracts they signed.

by rainbow-warrior Tue 19 Nov 2013, 9:07 am

formerly known as Sam wrote:The WRU refuse to negotiate release of players based outside Wales and then schedule internationals outside of the designated window. Perhaps they should be less thick and change one of the two stances. The Welsh national team is only the be all and end all of rugby in Wales. Why should Bath or Saints care? They have employees tied to contracts and expect those employees to adhere to those contracts. If the employee has a release clause then he has probably taken a slight pay cut in order to get such clause and good for him, if he hasn't then he's prioritized cash and now has to do his job.

Don't talk crap mate. Pop over the border if you really think that and gather the evidence. Most pathetic statement ever by a dumb englshboy ever. Laugh

by fa0019 Tue 19 Nov 2013, 9:12 am

In the end clubs pay the salary of the player, not the union.

Initial request from unions - I want you to pay player x for 1 month, but he won't be available to you and may get injured costing you more money.

Taking another game is just taking the mick. No wonder the AP and Top14 buy in loads of foreigners from the PIs and 3Ns.... they generally don't play test rugby, are available for all matches and therefore won't run risk of injury outside of their watch.

If its agreed by the club in the contract then fine... if not, expect to go back to the clubs. Unless they get financial reimbursement then they should return.

by **Biltong** Tue 19 Nov 2013, 9:16 am

rainbow-warrior wrote:
formerly known as Sam wrote:The WRU refuse to negotiate release of players based outside Wales and then schedule internationals outside of the designated window. Perhaps they should be less thick and change one of the two stances. The Welsh national team is only the be all and end all of rugby in Wales. Why should Bath or Saints care? They have employees tied to contracts and expect those employees to adhere to those contracts. If the employee has a release clause then he has probably taken a slight pay cut in order to get such clause and good for him, if he hasn't then he's prioritized cash and now has to do his job.
Don't talk crap mate. Pop over the border if you really think that and gather the evidence. Most pathetic statement ever by a dumb englshboy ever.

Warrior, I suggest you pull it in a bit. no need for derogatory statements.

by aucklandlaurie Tue 19 Nov 2013, 9:19 am

Who is PJ?

by Cyril Tue 19 Nov 2013, 9:24 am

I don't see how this is an issue at all.

Don't arrange tests outside the international windows if you wants to guarantee all your players are available (or negotiate release clauses or financial reimbursement if you do).

by rainbow-warrior Tue 19 Nov 2013, 9:26 am

OK Just don't talk crap mate. thats better huh

by fa0019 Tue 19 Nov 2013, 9:38 am

The WRU did this for money... they always do. They need an extra fixture to make ends meet. AUS who themselves are always a little cash strapped are more then happy to get another pay day (outside the window they can negotiate payment and they got 750k GBP, will the AUS players see any of that outside of usual match fee, not a chance).

But they are using assets owned and paid by someone else... the clubs, and they don't fund clubs like Bath, Northampton, Racing Metro etc so they shouldn't have a say in whether these clubs should release or not outside of the international window agreed by the IRB.

by Bathman_in_London Tue 19 Nov 2013, 9:42 am

I think what happened here is that Paul James and Bath had agreed that despite the Oz game being arranged outside the allotted international period (and therefore when he was allowed to play for Wales), Bath said he could play, as long as he instead played for Bath this weekend, rather than against Tonga.

Seems fair to me, a gentleman's agreement if you will to work around his contract.

However the prl have said no to this, presumably it sets a bad precedent in terms of the agreed player release.

I don't understand why Wales (or anyone) can't just stick to the internationally agreed window? Greed I know. But surely with more players leaving Wales the sensible thing to do (if a fourth game is needed) is to play Tonga first so the team can be full of young Rabo players and then the big guns can play in the other 3 games with no problems.

There we are, problem solved for next year.

by aucklandlaurie Tue 19 Nov 2013, 9:47 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Who is PJ?

Pearl Jam,
Peach John,
P.J.Proby,
Petroleum Jelly or Pocket jerker?

by fa0019 Tue 19 Nov 2013, 9:54 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Who is PJ?
Pearl Jam,
Peach John,
P.J.Proby,
Petroleum Jelly or Pocket jerker?

Never watched disney's robin hood??? its prince john. Come on AL...

by aucklandlaurie Tue 19 Nov 2013, 9:59 am

Man you guys are hard to understand, Who is prince John? I thought they called him George.

by fa0019 Tue 19 Nov 2013, 10:01 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Man you guys are hard to understand, Who is prince John? I thought they called him George.

The lion who sucked his thumb... I have a wee lad so you get to remember these sorts of things.

by aucklandlaurie Tue 19 Nov 2013, 10:03 am

Dont read him that rubbish, get him on to "Hairy Mclary", from Donaldsons dairy.

by Scrumpy Tue 19 Nov 2013, 10:06 am

Good on the PRL for getting involved and protecting the clubs interests.

Why is the WRU so greedy and playing extra games?

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 19 Nov 2013, 10:10 am

Biltong wrote:It seems the contracts signed by players at clubs have no consideration for what the IRB's intention is, look at Fourie du Preez, he cannot play for the Boks this weekend, because of his Japanese club.

I often hear this but I thought the official IRB position is that all players must be released for Tests which fall inside the international window. That's one of the reasons why Argentinian players became less attractive to PRL clubs once the rugby championship started.

Is du Preez choosing to stay in Japan for the dough or is he actively being prevented from playing, in contravention of the regulations?

by munkian Tue 19 Nov 2013, 10:15 am

Scrumpy wrote:Good on the PRL for getting involved and protecting the clubs interests.

Why is the WRU so greedy and playing extra games?

Just discussing this with my Bath season ticket holding mate, and once again you are ill informed and talking danglies.

The WRU talked to Bath and Bath were happy for Paul James to play against Aus if they could keep him for the Tonga game (Bath playing away against Wasps possibly ?)

This was an ammicable agreement betweent the two but now the PRL have stamped all over it,

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 19 Nov 2013, 10:17 am

Bathman_in_London wrote:I think what happened here is that Paul James and Bath had agreed that despite the Oz game being arranged outside the allotted international period (and therefore when he was allowed to play for Wales), Bath said he could play, as long as he instead played for Bath this weekend, rather than against Tonga.

Seems fair to me, a gentleman's agreement if you will to work around his contract.

However the prl have said no to this, presumably it sets a bad precedent in terms of the agreed player release.

That's exactly it. The PRL stance is that they don't want any club, in the absence of a formal agreement, being put under pressure to release a player outside the window with the "How can you possible deny someone the chance to represent his country?" tactic.

Their position is that the RFU pays for access outside the windows (for training sessions) so the WRU should do the same.

It may suit Bath to let James go but, from the PRL's perspective, that makes it more difficult for other clubs to hold players to their contracts.

by **Biltong** Tue 19 Nov 2013, 10:19 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
Biltong wrote:It seems the contracts signed by players at clubs have no consideration for what the IRB's intention is, look at Fourie du Preez, he cannot play for the Boks this weekend, because of his Japanese club.
I often hear this but I thought the official IRB position is that all players must be released for Tests which fall inside the international window. That's one of the reasons why Argentinian players became less attractive to PRL clubs once the rugby championship started.

Is du Preez choosing to stay in Japan for the dough or is he actively being prevented from playing, in contravention of the regulations?

It is what Heyneke Meyer refers to as keeping on the good side of Santori.

Japan only wants him to play a certain times for the Boks, so the boks now have to keep I the good books of Santori and therefor release him when they say BOO!

by Scrumpy Tue 19 Nov 2013, 10:21 am

But its part PRL responsibility to protect the clubs interests, they're just doing there job. thumbsup

Don't forget if the WRU stuck to the agreed international window then there wouldn't be a problem.

But what do you think Munkian? Headscratch

Yesterday we heard what your Dad and his mates thought, today its your Bath season ticket holder mates views.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 19 Nov 2013, 10:22 am

Biltong wrote:Japan only wants him to play a certain times for the Boks, so the boks now have to keep I the good books of Santori and therefor release him when they say BOO!

Why do you think the Boks feel the need to give concessions to a Japanese club? That seems to be the polar opposite of the Paul James case. The international side could insist on release but chooses not to.

by **Biltong** Tue 19 Nov 2013, 10:23 am

I don't understand it Rugbyfan, that is how it was explained in the media by Meyer.

by Bathite Tue 19 Nov 2013, 10:40 am

"James falls out of window"

Most misleading topic name ever! There's me panicking that we will be missing our best prop due to injury, whilst actually we are getting him for an extra game!

Naughty

by **Notch** Tue 19 Nov 2013, 10:47 am

Biltong wrote:It seems the contracts signed by players at clubs have no consideration for what the IRB's intention is, look at Fourie du Preez, he cannot play for the Boks this weekend, because of his Japanese club.

That is worse, because this weekend is still part of the international window. It's Fourie Du Preezs decision to leave the Springboks not his clubs, who are obliged to release him.

As good as Du Preez is, not sure why the SARU are letting him pick and choose what games he wants to play in.

by maestegmafia Tue 19 Nov 2013, 12:53 pm

Bathman_in_London wrote:I think what happened here is that Paul James and Bath had agreed that despite the Oz game being arranged outside the allotted international period (and therefore when he was allowed to play for Wales), Bath said he could play, as long as he instead played for Bath this weekend, rather than against Tonga.

Seems fair to me, a gentleman's agreement if you will to work around his contract.

However the prl have said no to this, presumably it sets a bad precedent in terms of the agreed player release.

I don't understand why Wales (or anyone) can't just stick to the internationally agreed window? Greed I know. But surely with more players leaving Wales the sensible thing to do (if a fourth game is needed) is to play Tonga first so the team can be full of young Rabo players and then the big guns can play in the other 3 games with no problems.

There we are, problem solved for next year.

Exactly right.

The issue here is between the PRL and the RFU not with the WRU.

Agreements have been made by clubs between the clubs and players for release. These agreements are important parts of players contracts.

The Paul James example seems like a well negotiated gentlemans agreement, as you say, and as this is unfortunately liable to be broken by the PRLs politically motivated intervention.

George North has written into his contract with Saints that he has full release for all internationals and this is in contradiction to a PRL agreement with the clubs they represent. If the PRL act against Norths release they will contravene a contract they signed with the player and this will get Saints and the PRL into disagreement.

Hopefully this will break the PRLs agreement with clubs and teams will get full access to their players.

The match vs Australia outside of the international window was arranged before North signed a contract with full international release with Northampton RFC. Saints were in full understanding that North will not be available on the 30th of November. If that contravenes what they had already agreed with the PRL then this will cause Saints issues.

Regarding Wales and Paul James it is very unfortunate that again the PRL choose to impede foreign internationals release agreements between players, their clubs and their international union.

It is very hard to comment on the PRLS behavior impartially when they have done so much to impede rugby.

by quinsforever Tue 19 Nov 2013, 1:05 pm

given the flood of welsh and other players across the sea to France, i would be very surprised if they are all able to negotiate release outside of the international window with the French clubs. with so many players wanting the bumper payday of a french club, those clubs are not going to offer contracts with ex-window release.

the WRU is going to have to stop organising a 4th international as it is soon going to be without most of its first choice players once they play in France.

on the plus side, at least we wont have to have this discussion any more.

by Scrumpy Tue 19 Nov 2013, 1:11 pm

You're beginning to sound like a Broken Record

Maesteg, Gentlemen’s agreements mean little or nothing in Pro Sport, I'm a firm believer once you agree to play in another countries then you go by there rules, if you don’t like it then tough.

We're beginning to have the same problems/moaning every year, maybe the WRU should stick to the international window or pay the clubs to have access to these guys outside of the window.

by Casartelli Tue 19 Nov 2013, 1:16 pm

Nobody comes out of these squabbles looking very good. It's shambolic on all sides.

The PRL trying to over-rule player/club agreements, though, is trawling new depths of unpleasantness.

by Scrumpy Tue 19 Nov 2013, 1:23 pm

But it wouldn't be an issue if the WRU weren't being Greedy.

by kingjohn7 Tue 19 Nov 2013, 1:27 pm

HaHaHa, WRU are greedy for trying to make money (since we are already struggling to keep up financially with Eng and Fra) but the PRL are just doing their job. I wont even go into the future greedy/doing job in European rugby. Yes, some of us Welsh posters do post a bit of one eyed pap, but it seems so do you.
Batman I do agree with that, dont see why they havnt do that.

by Cardiff Dave Tue 19 Nov 2013, 1:30 pm

Scrumpy wrote:But it wouldn't be an issue if the WRU weren't being Greedy.

Not greedy mun, more like "envy of the world".
Here's Rog in March 2012;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/17251795

by Casartelli Tue 19 Nov 2013, 1:34 pm

Scrumpy wrote:But it wouldn't be an issue if the WRU weren't being Greedy.

It wouldn't be an issue if player/club agreements were honoured.

The WRU are greedy (small g) and often clueless, but there's something about the way that a couple of the PRL 'execs' operate that is deeply unsettling - and unlikely to be suited, long term, to the game of rugby. Too much management speak, boardroom strutting and stretching of the red braces etc.

by Scrumpy Tue 19 Nov 2013, 1:34 pm

But PRL are being judged by many here for the on going issue with the HC (They have done nothing wrong there either imo), this is a separate issue and one that they are 100% correct on.

Thank god PRL are looking after the interest of the clubs they represent on this issue.

The WRU took the decision to have an extra game in an already congested fixture calendar therefore they have to make do with the players that are available.

by maestegmafia Tue 19 Nov 2013, 1:34 pm

Scrumpy wrote:You're beginning to sound like a :brokenrecord:Maesteg, Gentlemen’s agreements mean little or nothing in Pro Sport, I'm a firm believer once you agree to play in another countries then you go by there rules, if you don’t like it then tough.

We're beginning to have the same problems/moaning every year, maybe the WRU should stick to the international window or pay the clubs to have access to these guys outside of the window.

Both Bath and Saints have agreed to release players against the will of the PRL. Both clubs knew that Wales were playing a fourth international outside the IRB designated window when they agreed to release the players for that game, (same as England and Wales did last year, Wales are not the only nation to play outside the window to make extra cash).

Bath and Saints agreed to release players whilst knowing that this contravenes what the PRL stipulate, the clubs are the ones who will have to go back on their word.

If the PRL intervene with George Norths pre-agreed release next week there is going to be a huge issue.

I can't see why you consider that the PRL are acting in the clubs favours if it is the clubs that have so willingly agreed the release of their players. Surely that is the PRL acting against the clubs wishes again...?

by Scrumpy Tue 19 Nov 2013, 1:37 pm

maestegmafia wrote:If the PRL intervene with George Norths pre-agreed release next week there is going to be a huge issue.

Like what?

George will get angry and storm PRL headoffice?

by Cardiff Dave Tue 19 Nov 2013, 1:38 pm

quinsforever wrote:given the flood of welsh and other players across the sea to France, i would be very surprised if they are all able to negotiate release outside of the international window with the French clubs. with so many players wanting the bumper payday of a french club, those clubs are not going to offer contracts with ex-window release.

the WRU is going to have to stop organising a 4th international as it is soon going to be without most of its first choice players once they play in France.

on the plus side, at least we wont have to have this discussion any more.

Hope so.

by maestegmafia Tue 19 Nov 2013, 1:42 pm

Casartelli wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:But it wouldn't be an issue if the WRU weren't being Greedy.
It wouldn't be an issue if player/club agreements were honoured.

The WRU are greedy (small g) and often clueless, but there's something about the way that a couple of the PRL 'execs' operate that is deeply unsettling - and unlikely to be suited, long term, to the game of rugby. Too much management speak, boardroom strutting and stretching of the red braces etc.

You are correct, it is amazing that the PRL always wait until a politically opportune moment to make a case when it would have been much better to act when the situation arose.

Wales announced that they will be playing Australia outside the IRB window in May this year from memory, in the intervening months it was made public knowledge that George North and Paul James would be released, yet the PRL choose to act the week before.

This situation was massively avoidable, it is pure politics by the PRL and pointlessly so it is also against the PRL Clubs involved's wishes.

by Cardiff Dave Tue 19 Nov 2013, 1:43 pm

Cyril wrote:I don't see how this is an issue at all.

Don't arrange tests outside the international windows if you wants to guarantee all your players are available (or negotiate release clauses or financial reimbursement if you do).

Yep.

by kingjohn7 Tue 19 Nov 2013, 1:43 pm

Yep fair enough Scrumpy, but if you dont think PRL are greedy then surely WRU arent either, both just doing their jobs.
The issue here isnt the non release of a player by a club(if they dont want to and ouside window-fair enough), but PRL stepping in unnecessarily, you say to protect the clubs. The club were fine with it- Wales were reciprocating anyway.
Maybe the IRB need to look at International window and rules, with the rise in power of some clubs.

by maestegmafia Tue 19 Nov 2013, 1:45 pm

Scrumpy wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:If the PRL intervene with George Norths pre-agreed release next week there is going to be a huge issue.
Like what?

George will get angry and storm PRL headoffice?

There is a very just case to take one party to court. I presume that Saints will take action against the PRL or vice versa. I can't see Wales releasing George North to Saints when he has it written in his contract that he has full international release.

by Sponsored content