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.

From what I have read here before there has seemed to be an existing issue with the WRU just not talking to AP clubs, just taking the high and mighty approach when anything like this happens. Insurance seems to be one of the biggest issues.

Having said that I am a little surprised the PRL did step in like this. I believe last year Charteris was able to negotiate the same kind of deal (swapping a weekend) with his French club.

But then international windows are international windows and trying to set up tests outside of those is always liable to generate plenty of problems.

Same arguments every year blah blah blah....

The WRU really need to get a grip and pay to keep their players in Wales if they want access to them all the time, no other union have these issues.

Good on PRL for stepping in.

qn - have all the tickets for the Wales v Australia game been sold?

i remember hearing there were 8,000 empty seats for Wales v South Africa.

maybe this is another reason not to have a 4th international in 4 weeks?

lostinwales wrote:From what I have read here before there has seemed to be an existing issue with the WRU just not talking to AP clubs, just taking the high and mighty approach when anything like this happens. Insurance seems to be one of the biggest issues.

Having said that I am a little surprised the PRL did step in like this. I believe last year Charteris was able to negotiate the same kind of deal (swapping a weekend) with his French club.

But then international windows are international windows and trying to set up tests outside of those is always liable to generate plenty of problems.

The biggest issues are:-

a). Why do the PRL only act so late they have had six months to act and have done nothing?

b). Why act at all? They are acting against the clubs they represent's wishes.

Scrumpy wrote:

Good on PRL for stepping in.

The PRL are acting against their clubs wishes. They have ordered Bath RFC to not release Paul James. How can that be good, they are meant to represent and look after their clubs. In this case they are doing the opposite.

I'm sure the clubs will be happy to have these players available.
 
Its not all about Wales.

maybe someone at Bath asked the PRL to step in and be the bad guy?

Maybe Quinsforever

The cheek of it, the WRU really need to start having better relationships with English and French clubs seeing as most of their players want out of Wales.

maestegmafia wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

Good on PRL for stepping in.

The PRL are acting against their clubs wishes. They have ordered Bath RFC to not release Paul James. How can that be good, they are meant to represent and look after their clubs. In this case they are doing the opposite.

Because they have the interests of all their clubs at heart and dont want to set a precedent? You could (and it has been) argued that letting a key player go off and potentially get injured outside of the IW, possibly with insufficient insurance, isnt good for the club either

The nature of Jame's contract with Bath is very interesting in this context, but not something that we can accurately debate without more information. It may be that it was insufficiently well worded. And no I don't know how North's situation fits in either. Whatever - its a matter for James, the club and the PRL and has little to do with the WRU.

the WRU really need to start having better relationships with their own clubs first  

Very true.

quinsforever wrote:qn - have all the tickets for the Wales v Australia game been sold?

i remember hearing there were 8,000 empty seats for Wales v South Africa.

maybe this is another reason not to have a 4th international in 4 weeks?

I think it is a widely agreed view with welsh fans that the fourth international is disliked, there is even a petition to boycott it on other forums.

Fact is that it is happening and there will be a full crowd and that all parties knew about this and the WRU asked for release for the players they wanted available publicly a long time ago.

The PRL have had a very long time to act and have only done so at the very last minute for what appear to be political reasons.

If they try to force Saints to act against their contract with George North next week then they will end up in very hot water.

maestegmafia wrote:...
If they try to force Saints to act against their contract with George North next week then they will end up in very hot water.

Why and who with?

As we well know its one thing the WRU making public pronouncements its another thing them actually talking to the PRL or the clubs concerned

But they wont have the player they wanted avaliable when they wanted him avaliable, thats hindering not helping no ?

maestegmafia wrote:
The PRL have had a very long time to act and have only done so at the very last minute for what appear to be political reasons.

If they try to force Saints to act against their contract with George North next week then they will end up in very hot water.

A bit like ERC then, they had lots of time to act and negotiate with English and French clubs but they allowed the contract to enter its final year, they then went ahead and signed a deal with Sky after the English and French clubs served notice that they were pulling out of the HC.

Mate you/we have no idea what is in North's Saints contract.

I'm pretty sure PRL are not doing this for as you say 'political reasons!'

munkian wrote:But they wont have the player they wanted avaliable when they wanted him avaliable, thats hindering not helping no ?

Who knows, what does your dad and mates think?  

Scrumpy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:
The PRL have had a very long time to act and have only done so at the very last minute for what appear to be political reasons.

If they try to force Saints to act against their contract with George North next week then they will end up in very hot water.

A bit like ERC then, they had lots of time to act and negotiate with English and French clubs but they allowed the contract to enter its final year, they then went ahead and signed a deal with Sky after the English and French clubs served notice that they were pulling out of the HC.

Mate you/we have no idea what is in North's Saints contract.

I'm pretty sure PRL are not doing this for as you say 'political reasons!'

All we know is the key fact, that George norths contract stipulates full international release for all internationals, if these are outside of the IRB window then that contravenes what the Saints have agreed with the PRL.

In the North case - if the player has a contract between himself and the rugby club which allows his release then it's none of the PRL's business when they choose to play or release him.
Although the PRL are the governing body of the league they would not have the legal power to overrule a legally binding contract between an individual and his employer - they could sanction Saints for not following thier rules but could not stop North playing - effectively the PRL are telling North that they control the terms of his employment not Saints.
As a precedent this means that PRL can set the terms of a players contract against what has previously been agreed by the club, which would be a lot of fun to see in a court of law. As it stands my interpretation would be that if he was not allowed to play North could sue both Saints and PRL for breach of contract.
In the case of James it would be different if the clause was not present - the clubs as a matter of general policy and agreement between themselves and the PRL would not release players outside of the IRB windows then Bath can refuse to release him if the PRL won't sanction it.
Got to say from the political point it looks like a shot across the bows of the WRU re the HEC debacle.

Its pretty well acknowledged that here in Wales we dont like the 4th AI, however there's 2 parts to it.

The WRU shouldnt arrange it (they do it for the income - which is something they are actually very good at generating). The regions shouldnt have signed the agreement for the funding (participation agreement that actually needs to be re-signed by the regions by the end of the year) which included the release dates for the 4th AI every year.

Its pretty well acknowledged that the WRU dont have a working relationship with the PRL, thats over insurance and money, and the fact both sides are equally as arrogant as eachother (as nearly all unions/club bodies have demonstrated to be in the last few months).

So I'm all for what the PRL have done here but I'm against the way they've done it. It was made well known a while ago that Bath and the WRU had a gentlemans agreement that would allow Paul James to play against Wasps away and would be released outisde the IRB window for him to play against Australia, for Wales. the PRL could have intervened at any time up until now, but chose to do so to set a precedant. Whilst they've got that right (and again, I agree with them) I think they should have acted a lot more professionally and got involved as soon as the announcement was made public.

As for the situation with North, it's been said that he has release for all Wales training/tests in his contract, if thats set in stone (and without seeing the contract we will not know the wording/ins and outs) then if the PRL did get involved I would imagine there would be a very interesting legal battle between the PRL vs Saints/North.

aren't the AIs friendlies?

Comfort wrote: both sides are equally as arrogant as eachother (as nearly all unions/club bodies have demonstrated to be in the last few months).

I agree.

Quins - yeah technically they are, I don't imagine the welsh players will see the game against Australia as a friendly though. Neither does the welsh management, hence the agreement to get release for PJ I guess. Its their own fault for beating us so regularly last year  

quinsforever wrote:maybe someone at Bath asked the PRL to step in and be the bad guy?

you obviously aren't fully aware of what has been agreed by Bath and Wales

Bath asked the WRU to have PJ available for this sunday's game and in return Wales requested he be available next week.

Clearly you like to read between the lines that their is some sort of malicious motive at work

maestegmafia wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

Good on PRL for stepping in.

The PRL are acting against their clubs wishes. They have ordered Bath RFC to not release Paul James. How can that be good, they are meant to represent and look after their clubs. In this case they are doing the opposite.

The PRL act in the interests of all clubs. It is in the interests all clubs that there is a strong competition that all clubs have all their players available to pick in all games. The international window is there so that international teams have access to their players during the agreed period. We have seen in the Rabo the dangers of a league in which top players rarely play. It does not attract crowds.

If Saints have agreed a contract which guarantees he can play for Wales outside the international window it appears Saints may have breached league rules. Not sure what the penalty for that is.

If Saints have exiled then why hasn't the PRL challenged them?

Seems somewhat cynical to override an agreement between Bath and Wales at such a late stage

And in doing so, while not challenging Saints, they reveal themselves to be toothless

Scratch wrote:

quinsforever wrote:maybe someone at Bath asked the PRL to step in and be the bad guy?

you obviously aren't fully aware of what has been agreed by Bath and Wales

Bath asked the WRU to have PJ available for this sunday's game and in return Wales requested he be available next week.

Clearly you like to read between the lines that their is some sort of malicious motive at work

ah, you obviously have knowledge of the actual discussions that took place.

no malicious motive. i merely posited that Bath may have changed their minds and saw an opportunity to get the prl to take the flak. how is that malicious?

The PRL are protecting their product and the clubs so they aren't leaned on by Unions like the 'Greedy' WRU wanting players outside of the international window.

I don't know why they are worried, as its given them a ready made excuse if they lose to Aus.

quinsforever wrote:

Scratch wrote:

quinsforever wrote:maybe someone at Bath asked the PRL to step in and be the bad guy?

you obviously aren't fully aware of what has been agreed by Bath and Wales

Bath asked the WRU to have PJ available for this sunday's game and in return Wales requested he be available next week.

Clearly you like to read between the lines that their is some sort of malicious motive at work

ah, you obviously have knowledge of the actual discussions that took place.

no malicious motive. i merely posited that Bath may have changed their minds and saw an opportunity to get the prl to take the flak. how is that malicious?

What he said: Bath asked the PRL to step in and be the bad guy
What he mean't: Bath thought they would put a spanner in the works and get the PRL to do the dirty work

What happens if a player gets injured during the AI window and he cannot play? Will the clubs get financially re-imbursed?

The WRU and any other union are in effect using other people's assets to generate revenue. They are not doing it for the players, they are simply doing it to balance the books.

It has nothing to do with what is best for the players, the team etc.

Scratch wrote:If Saints have exiled then why hasn't the PRL challenged them?

Seems somewhat cynical to override an agreement between Bath and Wales at such a late stage

And in doing so, while not challenging Saints, they reveal themselves to be toothless

I would imagine showing their current form that the PRL would most likely challenge this the night before the match. If they do then Saints and the PRL will be at loggerheads.

I would be amazed if the WRU release North despite any protestations by the PRL. The WRU do not recognise the PRL as a negotiator, they only recognise English clubs and RFU. When Bath RFC requested that Paul James be returned contravening the agreement that Bath RFC made with the WRU, the WRU duly obliged in very good faith.

fa0019 wrote:What happens if a player gets injured during the AI window and he cannot play? Will the clubs get financially re-imbursed?

The WRU and any other union are in effect using other people's assets to generate revenue. They are not doing it for the players, they are simply doing it to balance the books.

It has nothing to do with what is best for the players, the team etc.

RFU provides insurance i believe, and compensation for anything inside and outside the window, to PRL clubs. WRU does not.

quinsforever wrote:

fa0019 wrote:What happens if a player gets injured during the AI window and he cannot play? Will the clubs get financially re-imbursed?

The WRU and any other union are in effect using other people's assets to generate revenue. They are not doing it for the players, they are simply doing it to balance the books.

It has nothing to do with what is best for the players, the team etc.

RFU provides insurance i believe, and compensation for anything inside and outside the window, to PRL clubs. WRU does not.

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

pretty sure WRU doesnt pay prl clubs anything in for player release, and i remember hearing there is an issue about player insurance for matches outside the window (maybe within it too).

will let someone else do the digging here.

how does it work for welsh players and WRR and the 4th international in terms of compensation and insurance?

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

You're one to talk about making assumptions!

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...!

quinsforever wrote:how does it work for welsh players and WRR and the 4th international in terms of compensation and insurance?

You just told us you thought you knew... Probably be a good idea to back up your claims here mate...!

calm down maes. we all make assumptions and assertions. thats about the only fact on 606!  

maestegmafia wrote:

quinsforever wrote:how does it work for welsh players and WRR and the 4th international in terms of compensation and insurance?

You just told us you thought you knew... Probably be a good idea to back up your claims here mate...!

big difference between WRU + WRR, and WRU + PRL club. i know how RFU + PRL clubs operate. and i know that welsh players who play in prl have to negotiate their own release up front in their contracts, hence why WRU dont pay the clubs for it. Whereas PRL do, as they can pick and choose who is in the squad and hence why they release players back to clubs when not needed. Insurance cover provided by WRU i do not know whether it is for in-window AIs only, none at all, or all. seem to remember someone complaining about no insurance for ex-window internationals.

quinsforever wrote:calm down maes. we all make assumptions and assertions. thats about the only fact on 606!  

I am very calm, I find your posting rather amusing.


So did you make up the following? Or do you have something to back up what you wrote...?

quinsforever wrote:RFU provides insurance i believe, and compensation for anything inside and outside the window, to PRL clubs. WRU does not.

If you know nothing of a situation why did you write "does not" rather than "I do not know if they do?"

quinsforever wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

quinsforever wrote:how does it work for welsh players and WRR and the 4th international in terms of compensation and insurance?

You just told us you thought you knew... Probably be a good idea to back up your claims here mate...!

big difference between WRU + WRR, and WRU + PRL club. i know how RFU + PRL clubs operate. and i know that welsh players who play in prl have to negotiate their own release up front in their contracts, hence why WRU dont pay the clubs for it. Whereas PRL do, as they can pick and choose who is in the squad and hence why they release players back to clubs when not needed. Insurance cover provided by WRU i do not know whether it is for in-window AIs only, none at all, or all. seem to remember someone complaining about no insurance for ex-window internationals.

So why did you write

quinsforever wrote:RFU provides insurance i believe, and compensation for anything inside and outside the window, to PRL clubs. WRU does not.

You just wrote that you didnt know whether they have or not ?

Scratch wrote:If Saints have exiled then why hasn't the PRL challenged them?

Seems somewhat cynical to override an agreement between Bath and Wales at such a late stage

And in doing so, while not challenging Saints, they reveal themselves to be toothless

Perhaps they have challenged them. They clearly challenged Bath and they have recalled Grant. Maybe Saints will recall North. If not we will see if any action is taken against them.

Guys, part of the reasoning to stick to the irb window is to clear up the insurance issue. the wry pay the regions for player access (and then they are the ones who would cover insurance costs if the player is injured hilarious with them). I imagine it would be the same for prl/the English clubs. when it comes to games outside of the irb window, if there is not a contract between the wru and prl/a particular club then the insurance would fall on the club (even if the player was injured whilst with wales) as there's nothin to suggest otherwise. this will be one of the reasons for prl challenging the Paul James agreement. They won't challenge George north's as his release (and probably everything insurance related) is written into his contract (so we believe).

"RFU provides insurance i believe, and compensation for anything inside and outside the window, to PRL clubs. WRU does not (provides insurance, and compensation for anything inside and outside the window, to PRL clubs)."

clearer now?

Exiledinborders wrote:Perhaps they have challenged them. They clearly challenged Bath and they have recalled Grant. Maybe Saints will recall North. If not we will see if any action is taken against them.

Saints can't recall North, his contract says he can play in all internationals.

What is the deal with Grant?

Doing some digging in 5 mins shows that the insurance thing seems to date back to November 2008. Back then it seemed to be that although the WRU insured players on international duty (to their own standards), the PRL considered the insurance offered not up to the required standard, and less that that set up for the PI teams playing the same autumn.

That was 5 years ago. No idea where things are now but back then the WRU refused to talk to the PRL and there it seems nothing has changed.

Bathman_in_London wrote: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.

This is far too sensible an idea for the WRU!

Blimey

Some of you guys could start an argument in an empty phonebox!

RDSguru wrote:Blimey

Some of you guys could start an argument in an empty phonebox!

Some blokes here could start an arguement alone in bed with a box of tissues.

 

lostinwales wrote:Doing some digging in 5 mins shows that the insurance thing seems to date back to November 2008. Back then it seemed to be that although the WRU insured players on international duty (to their own standards), the PRL considered the insurance offered not up to the required standard, and less that that set up for the PI teams playing the same autumn.

That was 5 years ago. No idea where things are now but back then the WRU refused to talk to the PRL and there it seems nothing has changed.

Actually, the Welsh players themselves were reportedly going to strike over the poor level of insurance the WRU offered, if I remember correctly. I'm sure it's been sorted now as there has been no strike and no news since.