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.

butterfingers wrote:

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!

Proof?

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

rather than trying to force them into something wouldn't they be better served trying to get a good working relationship based on trust especially if they (may) need their vote with the on going European battle.

butterfingers wrote:

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.................

He's being paid by them to write stuff on here!

get a grip everyone. wru's relationship with its own clubs, and the WRR that represents them, is far worse than with the PRL.

i was reading a petition only yesterday set up by the welsh rugby fans themselves to stop the 4th AI.

this english club bashing is pathetic. if the WRU are relying on favours rather than contracts then its just tough boobies if someone changes their mind. Bath could have refused the PRL's request.

casartelli, that's weak.

Same horse, different jockey;

"Wales lock Luke Charteris will miss Australia clash after being ordered to return to Perpignan"
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-lock-luke-charteris-miss-6322182

yet in March 2012;

"Luke Charteris says he will be available for all Wales commitments after he leaves Newport Gwent Dragons at the end of the season. Charteris insists his new employers will give him "full release" for Wales playing and training squad duties."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/17217346

To add, i'm yet to be convinced that North will be available for the Aussie fund raiser.

I was wondering that.

If the PRL have lent of Bath surly they will do the same to Saints?

We have been led to believe North has a full release clause in his contract as does Lydiate and Roberts (thought Charteris did to) guess we will soon see.

bedfordwelsh wrote:We have been led to believe North has a full release clause in his contract as does Lydiate and Roberts (thought Charteris did to) guess we will soon see.

...and, possibly, if 'full release' actually means 'full release (within the IRB window)'?

'Full release' sounds funny if you say it too many times too quickly.

Also "full release" does not seem to include the 2 intervals during the 6Ns. Something else to ponder.

Quins is an honest poster - deluded perhaps  but honest. we did have a PRL sockpuppet on here but he left again.

PRL have once again acted in their own narrow interest here. what harm does it to to allow bath and wales make their own deal over a player? a mutually good deal. It did reduce one of the PRLs bargaining positions tho so they stepped in - to protect the PRLs interest not baths or wales.

Why would PRL worry about Wales?  

TJ wrote:

PRL have once again acted in their own narrow interest here.  what harm does it to to allow bath and wales make their own deal over a player?  a mutually good deal.  It did reduce one of the PRLs bargaining positions tho so they stepped in - to protect the PRLs interest not baths or wales.

We all agree on that. If Bath RFC had thought releasing Paul James for the Australia match was not in their own interest then they wouldn't have been so willing to make arrangements to do so. Something I think all welsh fans are very grateful for.

The deal was Bath got james for a club match they wanted him for while he missed a welsh game. Wales wanted him for 3 out of 4 games but wanted him for the one outside the window.

TJ wrote:The deal was Bath got james for a club match they wanted him for while he missed a welsh game.  Wales wanted him for 3 out of 4 games but wanted him for the one outside the window.  

Aye TJ.

The welsh coaches have done similar deals with French clubs over the last few years. It has all been very amicable.

From what I have read the PRL wil not be able to prevent George North from playing for Wales instead of Saints next week because North's contract supercedes the PRLs agreement on not releasing foreign players unless within IRB governed parameters.

maestegmafia wrote:The welsh coaches have done similar deals with French clubs over the last few years. It has all been very amicable.

How sweet  

If foreign players re-negotiate to have FULL international release in their contract then the PRL will not be able to interfere.

It would be advisable for the England players to do the same considering they overlap the NZ tour with the Premiership final.

maestegmafia wrote:If foreign players re-negotiate to have FULL international release in their contract then the PRL will not be able to interfere.

It would be advisable for the England players to do the same considering they overlap the NZ tour with the Premiership final.

 
or the WRU could pay to have access like everyone else does to their international players!
 
Also maybe the England players involved with the AP final might want to play in it, as domestic rugby still means something in England.  

But thanks for the advice Maesteg I’m sure someone will pass it on to the England squad!

It would appear to me that PRL are endeavouring to protect the integrity of the Aviva and I assume that the sponsors and supporters (both home and away) expect all clubs to field their strongest line ups as often as possible. Can't see nowt wrong with that. Wish we did the same.

Cardiff - but ist was a simple swap - Bath got the player for a game they wanted him for in the international window in exchange for releasing him for a game outside the international window. It was a win win situation but the PRL scuppered it.

TJ wrote:Cardiff - but ist was a simple swap - Bath got the player for a game they wanted him for in the international window in exchange for releasing him for a game outside the international window.  It was a win win situation but the PRL scuppered it.

Aye, but a simple swap that has turned out to be not so simple.

TJ wrote:Cardiff - but ist was a simple swap - Bath got the player for a game they wanted him for in the international window in exchange for releasing him for a game outside the international window.  It was a win win situation but the PRL scuppered it.

But thats it isn't it, Bath were trying to keep the WRU happy, but at the end of the day why should they seeing as the WRU are being greedy and wanting more AI games.

PRL are right to step in and protect the clubs from the big bad Union.

I bet there are a few Worcester supporters looking forward to seeing George North in action at Sixways next weekend. Or will he be rested?

WALES have reached agreement with Perpignan for lock Luke Charteris to feature in their final autumn international against Australia.

The second-row joined the French club in the summer, and with Wales’ meeting with the Wallabies falling outside the IRB’s designated Test window, he looked set to miss the Millennium Stadium encounter on December 1 as Perpignan were not obliged to release him.

But Charteris will instead miss Wales’ Test with Argentina on November 10 to feature for Perpignan in their Top 14 fixture against Biarritz, freeing him up to face Australia.

“We are delighted to have come to an agreement with Perpignan which will allow Luke to be available to be considered for selection for the Wallabies game,” said interim head coach Rob Howley.

“This is a major step forward for us and shows that our trip out to France to talk face to face with the clubs has paid dividends."


Oops!

quinsforever wrote:get a grip everyone. wru's relationship with its own clubs, and the WRR that represents them, is far worse than with the PRL.

i was reading a petition only yesterday set up by the welsh rugby fans themselves to stop the 4th AI.

this english club bashing is pathetic. if the WRU are relying on favours rather than contracts then its just tough boobies if someone changes their mind. Bath could have refused the PRL's request.

casartelli, that's weak.

Bath couldn't. The prl have strong rules on this although they could have waived them but chose to enforce them. It was not asking for james to be released for an extra game - it was to play 3 out of the 4 games but to not play the third welsh game so he could play for Bath but play the 4th for wales outside of the window. It suited both Wales and Bath to do this but the PRL chose to strong arm Bath.

Scrumpy wrote:

TJ wrote:Cardiff - but ist was a simple swap - Bath got the player for a game they wanted him for in the international window in exchange for releasing him for a game outside the international window.  It was a win win situation but the PRL scuppered it.

But thats it isn't it, Bath were trying to keep the WRU happy, but at the end of the day why should they seeing as the WRU are being greedy and wanting more AI games.

PRL are right to step in and protect the clubs from the big bad Union.

Not at alll- Bath would have had James for a game they wanted him for but now don't have him as he is playing for wales. the deal was to Baths advantage as well

TJ wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

TJ wrote:Cardiff - but ist was a simple swap - Bath got the player for a game they wanted him for in the international window in exchange for releasing him for a game outside the international window.  It was a win win situation but the PRL scuppered it.

But thats it isn't it, Bath were trying to keep the WRU happy, but at the end of the day why should they seeing as the WRU are being greedy and wanting more AI games.

PRL are right to step in and protect the clubs from the big bad Union.

Not at alll- Bath would have had James for a game they wanted him for but now don't have him as he is playing for wales.  the deal was to Baths advantage as well

That may be but rules are rules, as a Bath fan I'm not cross with PRL over this matter.