James falls out of window

First topic message reminder :

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.

It's a complicted case but Losshead is one area where we actually have strngth in depth so i'm not too worries.
Oaul is a great srummager an iwll start this week. And Gethin will start next week, nothing to worry about.
We also have Ryan who hasn't had the best of a season so he would need to proves himself in training. We have Rob as well who i know might just be anther 'maybe' but I would say he is in the same boat as Rhodri.
In all honest;y Phil John should be ahead of Bevington, Gill and Rob and i for one though i would never say that in a million year. I was his harshest critic last year and now he's what 33, this has by a country mile been the best season he has ever had. I don't understand how his scrummaging has come along so well, but i;m not complaining he is taring all the tight heads in the Rabo apart

I don't know why the WRU insist on playing games outside of the window, but I wish people would grow up and stop calling them 'greedy'. They are a business.
They are doing it to fund the game in Wales, and the finances look good.
We probably do care more about our national team than our regions in Wales, hence the ability to make the autumn a money spinner.
Maybe an extra game wouldn't do the other home nations any harm. He added.

  clubs are a business too. at least everyone's now being honest its about the money.

the "unions looking after the soul of the game" argument made me want to puke.

Quick question, which wasn't answered elsewhere: was England v Australia outside international window? If so, why did they go for it? If not, then why didn't everyone else from the NH play that weekend???

quinsforever wrote:  clubs are a business too. at least everyone's now being honest its about the money.

the "unions looking after the soul of the game" argument made me want to puke.

Well I wouldnt word it like that but its true, so keep on  

Griff wrote:Quick question, which wasn't answered elsewhere: was England v Australia outside international window? If so, why did they go for it? If not, then why didn't everyone else from the NH play that weekend???

There weren't enough games to go around.

Of the big 3, only Australia decided to fill their calendar with as many games as possible in Europe. New Zealand decided to skip the additional game in Europe usually offered by Wales outside the window, and started their tour with a warm-up in Japan, so that left only three fixtures up here. The Boks didn't start early but also have just the three.

England are free next weekend, however all the southern hemisphere sides have fixtures and even Japan, Canada and the USA are busy.

November is the window but, since there are five weekends, the last one is outside the international season, so only Wales and Australia are playing.

Cheers Rugby Fan, but I'm still a bit unsure: Eng v Aus was in November so was it within the window? If it was then I don't know why Wales didn't move theirs forward a week so all games were all within the window?!

If outside the window, how did England get the agreement with the clubs?

Griff,

I think (not sure) that the RFU pay the clubs for player release.

Yes, bedfordwelsh is right. The English have that agreement with the clubs so they can play four games, as they did in 2012. Last year, the match outside the window was against New Zealand. Arguably, that loss is the reason why the All Blacks turned down another match this year and topped up the coffers in Japan instead.

According to IRB regulation 9, the November window is the 2nd, 3rd and 4th weeks of the month unless otherwise specified.

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/27/42327_pdf.pdf

So why all the fuss over Wales playing a game outside the window when England are doing it too???

Not trying to start another Eng v Wales fight, but it seems like both nations are doing the same thing just at different ends of the window.  

It's the cross border issue griff. Wru WRR works, rfu prl works. Wru prl falls no agreement in place. Same for rfu WRR.

Griff wrote:So why all the fuss over Wales playing a game outside the window when England are doing it too???

Not trying to start another Eng v Wales fight, but it seems like both nations are doing the same thing just at different ends of the window.  

Wales can play their matches when they like. However outside of the window they are not entitled to player release. In the same way England are not entitled to player release from any players playing outside England. They pay PRL for release of players for one extra week. I suppose in theory there is nothing to stop WRU paying the PRL for the same right.

Griff wrote:So why all the fuss over Wales playing a game outside the window when England are doing it too???

Not trying to start another Eng v Wales fight, but it seems like both nations are doing the same thing just at different ends of the window.  

The RFU have player release agreements, with compensation for the clubs, so there's no conflict. Also, England don't routinely look to schedule four games. They did in 2010 and 2012, when the big 3 wanted matches, but not, for instance, in 2009.

There are welfare issues too. What, for example, was the point of that game between Wales and Australia a few weeks after the World Cup? No-one else had any fixtures, and the players had already been away from their clubs for an age.

Another reason it might be better to have a lighter workload this year is because the top players went away on a Lions tour. Wales scheduled four matches in 2009 and have done the same again now. It might have been better to drop a match.

[quote="Rugby Fan"][quote="Griff

What, for example, was the point of that game between Wales and Australia a few weeks after the World Cup?

None what so ever other than the money grabbing bar stewards at the WRU trying to get the coffers full again off our backs.

Just a question please - as the posts appear to about the compensation and insurance due when a player is on international duty, can someone with the knowledge plese clarify, does the compensation payment go to the club or to PRL?
If it's to the club directly then fair enough the national Union have taken your player and you should be compensated for that but why should it go to PRL?
I can understand that the RFU could make a payment to PRL as England players (or at least squad members) are likely to come from across the entire Jeff but in the case of the Welsh or other foreign players surely the agreement should be between player, club and union?

You don't HAVE to go to a live international game. Justsayin...

maestegmafia wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Is that an assumption or do you have proof of your claim?

You're one to talk about making assumptions!

Cut out the pathetic accusations. You will get reported, you have already recently been warned by the mods of your actions, probably wise to heed their advice mate...!

 

Did you or did you not assume that PRL are only doing this for political reasons, based on what?

No need to get nasty or make threats Mae!

Wales' deal with Bath over the availability of prop Paul James for their clash against Australia on 30 November has been called off.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24995684
 
Please take note!
 
The four Welsh  Pro12 teams - Ospreys, Cardiff, Scarlets and Newport - are contractually obliged to release players for all Wales games and training sessions.
 
*****But English and French clubs are under no such obligation.*****
 

Scrumpy wrote:Wales' deal with Bath over the availability of prop Paul James for their clash against Australia on 30 November has been called off.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24995684
 
Please take note!
 
The four Welsh  Pro12 teams - Ospreys, Cardiff, Scarlets and Newport - are contractually obliged to release players for all Wales games and training sessions.
 
*****But English and French clubs are under no such obligation.*****
 

Scrumpy,

Most of us are well aware but its more a question of who has the final say which this weeks looks like its the PRL.

Bath (and Sale in the past) were happy to release James next week meaning he would miss the home game to Exeter in exchange for him being available for this weeks away trip to Wasps but then the PRL stepped in and stopped it.

What damage would be done by a little cross border co-operation?

I agree with you, but English and French clubs are under no such obligation, so that’s the end of it imo, maybe the WRU should stick to the agreed international window seeing as many of their first choice players play overseas.

PRL begins it's war with the international game a little earlier than I thought they would, today it's foreign players being withheld, tomorrow it'll be the RFU fighting for their own players...

Irish Londoner wrote:Just a question please - as the posts appear to about the compensation and insurance due when a player is on international duty, can someone with the knowledge plese clarify, does the compensation payment go to the club or to PRL?
If it's to the club directly then fair enough the national Union have taken your player and you should be compensated for that but why should it go to PRL?
I can understand that the RFU could make a payment to PRL as England players (or at least squad members) are likely to come from across the entire Jeff but in the case of the Welsh or other foreign players surely the agreement should be between player, club and union?

i would be really surprised if any payments went to the PRL from foreign unions. but the PRL is tasked by the AP clubs with trying to get agreements in place and represent their best interests, so would be the one to negotiate a standard template. this particular mess has arisen because there are no real agreements in place between foreign unions and another nation's clubs overall. i think it would be a great thing for everyone if PRL, LNR, WRR all had consistent terms for foreign unions getting player release, and the timings and compensation involved. as it is, the PRL have stepped in (whether invited or off their own back who knows) to enforce the IRB standards on this issue.

Scrumpy wrote:I agree with you, but English and French clubs are under no such obligation, so that’s the end of it imo, maybe the WRU should stick to the agreed international window seeing as many of their first choice players play overseas.

Maybe every foreign player should give up the hope of playing international rugby if signed by an AP team, is that what your saying?

The PRL are under no obligation to aid cross border interests, as the rugby world has no official obligation to grow the game to lower tier countries, it's thinking like this that keep the PI's dow for so many years.

butterfingers wrote:PRL begins it's war with the international game a little earlier than I thought they would, today it's foreign players being withheld, tomorrow it'll be the RFU fighting for their own players...

PRL are positively accommodating compared to LNR

butterfingers wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:I agree with you, but English and French clubs are under no such obligation, so that’s the end of it imo, maybe the WRU should stick to the agreed international window seeing as many of their first choice players play overseas.

Maybe every foreign player should give up the hope of playing international rugby if signed by an AP team, is that what your saying?

The PRL are under no obligation to aid cross border interests, as the rugby world has no official obligation to grow the game to lower tier countries, it's thinking like this that keep the PI's dow for so many years.

indeed, that's why the IRB makes the rules in this area, which the PRL are trying to enforce.

Scrumpy wrote:maybe the WRU should stick to the agreed international window seeing as many of their first choice players play overseas.

    That's one area you will get absolutely NO argument whatsoever of me, the 4th game is just a money grabbing scheme by the money grabbers at the WRU.

butterfingers wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:I agree with you, but English and French clubs are under no such obligation, so that’s the end of it imo, maybe the WRU should stick to the agreed international window seeing as many of their first choice players play overseas.

Maybe every foreign player should give up the hope of playing international rugby if signed by an AP team, is that what your saying?

No.
 
There is an agreed international window when all players are released without question.
If you organise a fixture outside of that window as the WRU have then the clubs are well within their rights to say no.

IF Bath had decided to ignore the PRL and honoured the pervious deal over James could the PRL have done anything about it such as sanctions or the like?

Scrumpy wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:I agree with you, but English and French clubs are under no such obligation, so that’s the end of it imo, maybe the WRU should stick to the agreed international window seeing as many of their first choice players play overseas.

Maybe every foreign player should give up the hope of playing international rugby if signed by an AP team, is that what your saying?

The PRL are under no obligation to aid cross border interests, as the rugby world has no official obligation to grow the game to lower tier countries, it's thinking like this that keep the PI's dow for so many years.

No.

There is an agreed international window when all players are released without question.
If you organise a fixture outside of that window as the WRU have then the clubs are well within their rights to say no.

Similarly there is nothing in place to enforce NZ to go and play on say Fijian soil, despite the huge boost to economy and the game/infrastructure in the country if theres noone to say they should then theyre within their rights and good not to right?

Didn't Bath already agree to release James, for a fee and a release the week before, seems win win for Bath, which is why they agree'd no?

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:PRL begins it's war with the international game a little earlier than I thought they would, today it's foreign players being withheld, tomorrow it'll be the RFU fighting for their own players...

PRL are positively accommodating compared to LNR

Not sure what planet that quote is on, but the LNR havn't once failed to release a Welsh player has it? Infact any country who is willing to pay can get their players released can they not. This would make the LNR far more reasonable would it not?

You all defend the PRL so preciously, when will you learn they only have so many obstacles to dominate euro rugby, and the RFU is one of them, it may not be the immediate one in front of them, but it soon will be!

Yes they did before the PRL stepped in which made me ask how much power influence do they have and could the impose any sort of punishment if they failed to comply.

Not sure what the relationship between the LNR and other Unions is like but the WRU have always had a good relationship with them and players in the past have been released.

For next weeks game only Hook out of the French players isn't available, firstly that's down to his contract and secondly it doesn't look like the WRU have asked for him to be released in any deal of sorts.

This has nothing to do with NZ or Fiji and don't pretend the WRU are playing Tonga to help them out, they will pocket most of the cash themselfs.

I think its worth saying again

English and French clubs are under no obligation to release Welsh players outside of the international window.

bedfordwelsh wrote:IF Bath had decided to ignore the PRL and honoured the pervious deal over James could the PRL have done anything about it such as sanctions or the like?

No idea fella, maybe Bruce would have a word in their ear and smooth it over.  

bedfordwelsh wrote:Yes they did before the PRL stepped in which made me ask how much power influence do they have and could the impose any sort of punishment if they failed to comply.

None whatsoever, the clubs own the PRL, if Bath wanted to stick to the agreement the PRL couldn't punish them in any way, they are a stakeholder.

The worry for me is that it just looks petty, again like a numerous other actions before it. Everything the PRL has done in the last 6 months is resort to bully tactics, they want a better deal from the HC, can't get it so they run off and start their own cup, they try to get the celtic teams to join, can't do it so refuse release of Welsh players...

It's a cold place to be if the FRU decide they are going to put the LNR in their place and stay with the HC, cold place that we'll find ouselves in indeed, no european rugby, less money, and very bitter taste from the rest of europe. None of that scares me as much as if the PRL get their way though, England might as well sell off the RWC now.

lets imagine how this conversation went:

Bath change their mind on releasing James, so Bath owner Bruce puts a call in to PRL Deputy Chairman Bruce and asks him to intervene. Bruce thinks about it for a bit, checks the IRB rules, then calls himself back to say he has to follow the IRB guidelines and stick two fingers up at the WRU.

 

Scrumpy wrote:This has nothing to do with NZ or Fiji and don't pretend the WRU are playing Tonga to help them out, they will pocket most of the cash themselfs.

I think its worth saying again

English and French clubs are under no obligation to release Welsh players outside of the international window.

But French teams always do, and Bath had already agree'd to. Lets be clear, hiding behind the 'well the rule book says so so technically they havn't done anything wrong' argument makes it clear you know the PRL are being petty as much as everyone else does!

My point re NZ and Fiji is that a world powerhouse are witholding the development of smaller nations because they have no obligation to help out, it is similar in this case but to a much lesser degree! I have in no way said that Wales is doing anyone a favour, the WRU are the money grabbers of the NH, and again I could liken them to the NZ Fiji analogy!

There are a few PRL apologists on here who don't seem to see the woods for the trees.

English and French clubs are under no obligation.

Scrumpy wrote:English and French clubs are under no obligation.

And there you have it  

It's not all about Wales, PRL are doing the correct thing.

butterfingers wrote:But French teams always do, and Bath had already agree'd to. Lets be clear, hiding behind the 'well the rule book says so so technically they havn't done anything wrong' argument makes it clear you know the PRL are being petty as much as everyone else does!

They dont always. Last year's much trumpeted release of Charteris outside of the IW was based on him playing in france for one weekend in the IW (like the original Bath/James deal). The PRL are not evil bad guys out for world domination. They do get a shed load of money for the clubs through a deal over player access with the RFU. Why should they do the same thing for nothing for someone else?

Correct, the WRU should pay up or shut up.

butterfingers wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:English and French clubs are under no obligation.

And there you have it  

anyway, i thought you were a glaws fan?

I agree that if the WRU want they players outside of the window then its either upto players to arrange their contracts accordingly or for the WRU to pay the clubs extra.

My problem is that a deal was done Bath was happy the WRU was happy and I am sure James would have rather been involved against Australia than Tonga but the PRL step in and it does make them look petty.

bedfordwelsh wrote:I agree that if the WRU want they players outside of the window then its either upto players to arrange their contracts accordingly or for the WRU to pay the clubs extra.

My problem is that a deal was done Bath was happy the WRU was happy and I am sure James would have rather been involved against Australia than Tonga but the PRL step in and it does make them look petty.

Cant disagree with any of that

lostinwales wrote:

butterfingers wrote:But French teams always do, and Bath had already agree'd to. Lets be clear, hiding behind the 'well the rule book says so so technically they havn't done anything wrong' argument makes it clear you know the PRL are being petty as much as everyone else does!

They dont always. Last year's much trumpeted release of Charteris outside of the IW was based on him playing in france for one weekend in the IW (like the original Bath/James deal). The PRL are not evil bad guys out for world domination. They do get a shed load of money for the clubs through a deal over player access with the RFU. Why should they do the same thing for nothing for someone else?

The James deal had a fee attached for release, and included him returning for a game in the window...

Kinda puts the whole 'PRL are not petty' thing behind us doesnt it?

maybe PRL are trying to force WRU to come to a standardised agreement? that is their job after all.

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:English and French clubs are under no obligation.

And there you have it  

anyway, i thought you were a glaws fan?

Whats that got to do with the way the PRL are condicting themselves?

Quins you seem to be one of the PRL cheerleaders, has your club every dealt with the PRL? Or should I say have you had any dealings with the PRL personally through your club? I suspect you havn't, otherwise you wouldn't be soooo precious about them.

As I said earlier, I'm not defending the money grabbing the WRU are doing with the 4th game, I am however squarely focused on the PRL's actions and how it represents us.

There is a reason that everyone loves to play and beat us, there is a reason we get so much flak from nations in close proximity to us, and things like this do not help.

First and foremost I am a rugby fan btw, then it's all about Glaws and England (not on these boards though, theres nowhere near enough sensible conversation to dip my toes regularly into threads about something I actually care about)

Its also worth mentioning that as far as I know no other unions appear to have the same problems with access to AP players, PRL or no. Then as has oft been said its the WRU who like to have the fourth AI.

lostinwales wrote:Its also worth mentioning that as far as I know no other unions appear to have the same problems with access to AP players, PRL or no. Then as has oft been said its the WRU who like to have the fourth AI.

Well except tier 2 nations and below...

The WRU have made a decision to play the game, nothing wrong with that, if they cannot secure release of their players with the players clubs then thats fair too, Bath do not have to hand James over. However the WRU struck a deal with Bath, and Bath agreed, so why now, with all the pressure the PRL are putting on the Welsh regions to join a breakaway tournament would the PRL stick 2 fingers up to the regions governing body and minority owners???

I'm not demonising the PRL for no reason, they have backed themselves out of the ERC discussions and NEED support, this could seriously harm English rugby at every level if they don't p[lay the game correctly, pi$$ing off those they need support from isn't doing so!