Northampton To Be Fined Over North Release

First topic message reminder :

Just read that Saints are to be fined over releasing North to Wales for this weekend.

First off guess Bath didn't want similar fine after agreeing to release James.

Secondly who is fining them? I am guessing its the PRL but I didn't realise they had this sort of power available to them and what sort of fine are we talking, financial or other sacntions. Anyone know?

Scrumpy uses this as a tenous oppotunity to slag the WRU and try and bump Bath up the league 'shocker'

Surely this wouldn't be an issue if English clubs relied less on foreign players ? You may have a decent back line for International games then  

munkian wrote:Scrumpy uses this as a tenous oppotunity to slag the WRU and try and bump Bath up the league 'shocker'

Surely this wouldn't be an issue if English clubs relied less on foreign players ? You may have a decent back line for International games then  

But why should English clubs be under pressure from Foreign Unions to release their asset (player) outside of the agreed IRB international window?
This may be a shock for some of you, but some fans put Club rugby ahead of the international game.

No, you put Bath above everyone, why else would you be calling for Saints to be docked points ?

They aren't 'put under pressure' - they signed a contract - hardly being bullied

Being a Bath fan I guess I would put Bath before Saints, The WRU and everyone else!  

Thats not really a shock is it!  

Woopie doo - Saints signed a contract for which there was a price involved if they broke it. And they decided the price was worthwhile.

The PRL are not actually evil overlords - they just want to look after the interests of their clubs within the agreed structures.

Irish Londoner wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I don't think the premiership needs to be larger, this will either require more games from the players and/or bigger squads. I don't think the quality is there at the moment to mean this wouldn't result in a dip in quality. If anything I would go for 10-10 professional top two tiers in the English professional rugby. I also think this is where the RFU want to go. This would result in two less home games per year and two guys drop out of the premiership. The step from Championship to Premiership has be tightened before then. And all the P, A, B, Q and Z shares nonsense needs sorting.

I think this could be a better working framework for the top level in England, do away with all the various share and have two financially sustainable divisions, with funding from PRL and the RFU to support the Championship clubs and do away with all the stuff about ground restrictions so that teams like the Cornish Pirates have a chance. I think for one away game a season each very few Premiership clubs would be that worried they could only take a restricted number of away supporters with them. Could even be argued that you have two divisions of nine so that it becomes really competitive.

If the PRL are not going to be involved in Europe for the next few seasons then it gives them the perfect time to implement a new structure without any outside distraction.

New structure isn't going to come about until 2016 at the earliest. That's the next time the Participation Agreement is done. Championship clubs will be involved this time so hopefully it will be a better solution.

The Minimum Criteria is vital (and is applied to pretty much every single professional, and sometimes non-profesional) competition in the world in some form or another. The reason it's vital is that without it any Richie Rich could buy a club and buy in players without investing in the infrastructure. At least with the current system the few guys who come in to plow money in are also improving the infrastructure. Both Saracens and Bath have had massive ground development stuff. Most other benefactors have settled into a quite supporting role rather than massive investiment (Saints, Worcester, Gloucester and Quins all have decent grounds that they own). Sale and Irish have got decent share set-ups.

Haven't Pirates got the approval now the ground development they needed/wanted?

I wonder if Saints will be challenging the PRL if they threaten to fine them....???

"Sometimes this requires compromise, and while we appreciate that we are outside Premiership Rugby board policy with this particular agreement we also believe that having George as a Northampton Saints player has benefitted both the club and the league as a whole."

Their statements today certainly protest the PRLs line.

The PRL have still not commented on the situation.

Again if they hadn't released him then they could be sued for being in breach of contract, maybe they thought a PRL fine was the lesser of two evils.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Again if they hadn't released him then they could be sued for being in breach of contract, maybe they thought a PRL fine was the lesser of two evils.

The PRL have not said they will do anything. The press reports are all supposition.

Isn't there another thread here somewhere where Saints get slaughtered for not releasing a player (Samu Manoa) for international games? Now they are being slaughtered for releasing a player to play for his country

I guess it really is damned if you do and damned if you don't.

maestegmafia wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Again if they hadn't released him then they could be sued for being in breach of contract, maybe they thought a PRL fine was the lesser of two evils.

The PRL have not said they will do anything. The press reports are all supposition.

I actually agree with you. It's funny how as fans we get whipped up into a frenzy by media hype. Hook line and sinker springs to mind.

The media are very effective at what they do.

There is no confirmation from the PRL that they are punishing Saints is there? Till there is..... bashing the PRL is a popular sport though....

beshocked wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Again if they hadn't released him then they could be sued for being in breach of contract, maybe they thought a PRL fine was the lesser of two evils.

The PRL have not said they will do anything. The press reports are all supposition.

I actually agree with you. It's funny how as fans we get whipped up into a frenzy by media hype. Hook line and sinker springs to mind.

The media are very effective at what they do.

There is no confirmation from the PRL that they are punishing Saints is there? Till there is..... bashing the PRL is a popular sport though....

I think it will still be a popular sport afterwards too, no matter what the outcome. If PRL do nothing then the world and their dog will come out slating them for being toothless and lacking any backbone, if the fine Saints (small) there will be people shouting that they are evil dictakers (sorry dictators), if they fine Saints (large) there will be cries about them going ott. It really is a lose, lose, lose situation for PRL.

They shouldn't be fine because at the end of the day its Northamptons money that bought him and pay him so its their choice to release him simple in my eyes

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

beshocked wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Again if they hadn't released him then they could be sued for being in breach of contract, maybe they thought a PRL fine was the lesser of two evils.

The PRL have not said they will do anything. The press reports are all supposition.

I actually agree with you. It's funny how as fans we get whipped up into a frenzy by media hype. Hook line and sinker springs to mind.

The media are very effective at what they do.

There is no confirmation from the PRL that they are punishing Saints is there? Till there is..... bashing the PRL is a popular sport though....

I think it will still be a popular sport afterwards too, no matter what the outcome.  If PRL do nothing then the world and their dog will come out slating them for being toothless and lacking any backbone, if the fine Saints (small) there will be people shouting that they are evil dictakers (sorry dictators), if they fine Saints (large) there will be cries about them going ott.  It really is a lose, lose, lose situation for PRL.

Scarletspiderman not sure I necessarily agree with that. If the PRL do nothing I don't see why they should be criticised.

I agree that the popular sport will go on for some time though, especially with the whole Euro mess going on. The PRL have a huge bullseye strapped to their chest. In the meantime the French are laughing their heads off. They hold all the Aces - they have a foot in both camps with Camou and the LNR - any resolution will benefit the French.

They continue to take most of Wales' best players but get less criticism than the PRL.

The only wildcard that the English have is they have the richest union who happen to be running the next rugby world cup. Isolate the English too much and it will bite you in the bottom.

welshboii15 wrote:They shouldn't be fine because at the end of the day its Northamptons money that bought him and pay him so its their choice to release him simple in my eyes

But they take money from the PRL and have agreed (and formed) the rules that they all follow.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:I think it will still be a popular sport afterwards too, no matter what the outcome.  If PRL do nothing then the world and their dog will come out slating them for being toothless and lacking any backbone, if the fine Saints (small) there will be people shouting that they are evil dictakers (sorry dictators), if they fine Saints (large) there will be cries about them going ott.  It really is a lose, lose, lose situation for PRL.

There's another sport we invited (RFU started it) that everyone else has bloody got on board with and starting beating us at  

'shocked, if PRL fail to fine Saints, then it must be seen as a sign of weakness, which is not ideal for anyone who is trying to overthrow the powers that be.

Thunor, maybe you should take the American route, invent a game and don't let anyone else join in, and then call it something like the world series. OH hang on make a rugby tournament, that only your teams will be in and call it the Rugby Champions Cup..................yes that was very much below the belt I know.

I'd be more than happy with that. Internationals can be for playing against the foreigners (or ex-pats in Scotland's and Wales' cases).

I'd like to keep the AW. Usualful competition, even if I'm the only one who seems to like it. The number of guys who've had and taken there chance from the competition is immence.

Baz75 wrote:Isn't there another thread here somewhere where Saints get slaughtered for not releasing a player (Samu Manoa) for international games? Now they are being slaughtered for releasing a player to play for his country

I guess it really is damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The difference is that Manoa was wanted for international games in the window but the USA were told that he was 'injured' and he then played for Northampton. So the allegation was that Saints had lent on him to not play for the USA.

North was wanted outside the window but I would imagine that he set that up in his contract so Saints will wear whatever fine (if any) comes there way.

Big difference is that Manoa was a virtual unknown then with little real options and North could name his terms. I suspect that Manoa could change that now given how he's played.

Scarletspiderman I don't see it as a sign of weakness for the PRL to allow Saints to play North but it would be inconsistent as they stopped Bath using James vs Wasps but he is allowed to play for Wales vs the Aussies I believe.

Can't be one rule for one club and one for another. Personally I would allow both to be released if I was the PRL or ban all players from playing in a match outside the IW if they are not English.

twoeightnine wrote:

Baz75 wrote:Isn't there another thread here somewhere where Saints get slaughtered for not releasing a player (Samu Manoa) for international games? Now they are being slaughtered for releasing a player to play for his country

I guess it really is damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The difference is that Manoa was wanted for international games in the window but the USA were told that he was 'injured' and he then played for Northampton.  So the allegation was that Saints had lent on him to not play for the USA.

North was wanted outside the window but I would imagine that he set that up in his contract so Saints will wear whatever fine (if any) comes there way.

Big difference is that Manoa was a virtual unknown then with little real options and North could name his terms.  I suspect that Manoa could change that now given how he's played.

Erm...no. Unless you have some information you can share to back that up. Manoa refused to play for US in the World Cup because because he wanted to use that time to establish himelf in the team (Lawes was away) and get some appearances to get his appearance bonus. It worked, he's an established and important part of Saints' squad now.

Never heard the injured thing until now (including in comments from team US about him not playing).

HammerofThunor wrote:

twoeightnine wrote:

Baz75 wrote:Isn't there another thread here somewhere where Saints get slaughtered for not releasing a player (Samu Manoa) for international games? Now they are being slaughtered for releasing a player to play for his country

I guess it really is damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The difference is that Manoa was wanted for international games in the window but the USA were told that he was 'injured' and he then played for Northampton.  So the allegation was that Saints had lent on him to not play for the USA.

North was wanted outside the window but I would imagine that he set that up in his contract so Saints will wear whatever fine (if any) comes there way.

Big difference is that Manoa was a virtual unknown then with little real options and North could name his terms.  I suspect that Manoa could change that now given how he's played.

Erm...no. Unless you have some information you can share to back that up. Manoa refused to play for US in the World Cup because because he wanted to use that time to establish himelf in the team (Lawes was away) and get some appearances to get his appearance bonus. It worked, he's an established and important part of Saints' squad now.

Never heard the injured thing until now (including in comments from team US about him not playing).

From what I can remember from the other post
1) he was far from an established international at that time. He is probably a lot better player now than he was
2) since establishing himself at saints and at international level there have been no issues with his release to play international rugby.

They shouldn't be fine because at the end of the day its Northamptons money that bought him and pay him so its their choice to release him simple in my eyes

Sorry posted same comment twice didn't mean to.
Yea they take money off them for the English players that play for them so how they spend their money is totally up to them and plus North is world class and the more he plays on an international stage the better it is all round for club and country because people are going see more of him and young kids will want his name and number on their tops which brings in more money and more fans

If Saints go unpunished I can just see the RFU being happy to continue paying for something that the WRU are getting for free. This is about the ability of PRL getting money for their teams from the Unions. RFU are happy to pay for time outside the IRB window, why should others get it for free?

lostinwales wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

twoeightnine wrote:

Baz75 wrote:Isn't there another thread here somewhere where Saints get slaughtered for not releasing a player (Samu Manoa) for international games? Now they are being slaughtered for releasing a player to play for his country

I guess it really is damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The difference is that Manoa was wanted for international games in the window but the USA were told that he was 'injured' and he then played for Northampton.  So the allegation was that Saints had lent on him to not play for the USA.

North was wanted outside the window but I would imagine that he set that up in his contract so Saints will wear whatever fine (if any) comes there way.

Big difference is that Manoa was a virtual unknown then with little real options and North could name his terms.  I suspect that Manoa could change that now given how he's played.

Erm...no. Unless you have some information you can share to back that up. Manoa refused to play for US in the World Cup because because he wanted to use that time to establish himelf in the team (Lawes was away) and get some appearances to get his appearance bonus. It worked, he's an established and important part of Saints' squad now.

Never heard the injured thing until now (including in comments from team US about him not playing).

From what I can remember from the other post
1) he was far from an established international at that time. He is probably a lot better player now than he was
2) since establishing himself at saints and at international level there have been no issues with his release to play international rugby.

Exactly on the money.  When he came to Saints, he was a US club player, nothing more.  No one really knew if he could hack it at this level.  Obviously he has been terrific.  

Now his problem is the same as players from most tier 2 and below nations.  When released for International duty players don't get paid by their clubs.  Most tier 2 nations don't have money in their Rugby to pay salaries. I don't know where USA Rugby nets out, but I do know they don't have a lot of money.  A lot of these tier 2 players make financial choices every day which our tier 1 players don't have to worry about.  Salary or country.  With Rugby players not on Soccer-type salaries, it is tough.

I don't see the fuss if thats the terms of his contract then that's what they have agreed then french clubs have agreed the same with Lydiate,  Roberts and if I remember correctly it was in phillips contract and its also in Davies and Evans contract so you don't see other places making a fuss so is this because North is the biggest and best player in the league and their management really want him on show to make their league views better

welshboii15 wrote:I don't see the fuss if thats the terms of his contract then that's what they have agreed then french clubs have agreed the same with Lydiate,  Roberts and if I remember correctly it was in phillips contract and its also in Davies and Evans contract so you don't see other places making a fuss so is this because North is the biggest and best player in the league and their management really want him on show to make their league views better

All the players with release clauses, bar North, are in France. George is in England. Different leagues different rules. We have known since Mark Taylor, back in '05, that the Jeff sides are not keen on releasing players when they don't have to. George is the only one over there who has the release clause, and that is because he is so good it is worth the possible fine from PRL to have him.

Yea fair point I remember a similar case with peel when he first went to Sale I think it might come to a point where they could re-think the rules if their if clubs are going sign big names that want to play for their counties at what ever cause

Tigers were threatened with a points reduction in the past if they released Murphy or Castro. Saints should have known the policy ,choose to ignore it so need to pay the penalty whatever that is. The policy is to protect the agreement with the RFU. Why should other Unions get for free that which RFU pay for? especially as the WRU pay the Regions for access outside the IRB windows. If WRU paid PRL for player release there would be no problem

Were threatened nothing more or nothing less so I just think they will come to am agreement

Tigers choose not to release the players so no punishment due, Saints have so punishment due

Yes, but should it affect their position in the league ? Releasing North hasn't given them any kind of advantage, if anything its a disadvantage

munkian wrote:Yes, but should it affect their position in the league ? Releasing North hasn't given them any kind of advantage, if anything its a disadvantage

But thats not the point!

Scrumpy wrote:

munkian wrote:Yes, but should it affect their position in the league ? Releasing North hasn't given them any kind of advantage, if anything its a disadvantage

But thats not the point!

What is the point? Are you jealous that Northampton have released George and made themselves weaker, and that Bath haven't done the same with James?

The point is that Saints are putting at risk the agreement about player release outside the Window with RFU

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

munkian wrote:Yes, but should it affect their position in the league ? Releasing North hasn't given them any kind of advantage, if anything its a disadvantage

But thats not the point!

What is the point? Are you jealous that Northampton have released George and made themselves weaker, and that Bath haven't done the same with James?

 

broadlandboy wrote:The point is that Saints are putting at risk the agreement about player release outside the Window with RFU

Spot on.

I don't see why the WRU don't just pay like the RFU do, problem solved.

Scrumpy wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:The point is that Saints are putting at risk the agreement about player release outside the Window with RFU

Spot on.

I don't see why the WRU don't just pay like the RFU do, problem solved.

Cos their tight fisted.

Realistically it only harms Saints, well unless they lose to Wuss, and even then Wuss are still too far behind to avoid the drop now. I can see it does put the release agreement at risk, and that intern makes negotiations with the RFU for cash harder next season if you are giving players out for free to other unions etc.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Realistically it only harms Saints,  I can see it does put the release agreement at risk, and that intern makes negotiations with the RFU for cash harder next season if you are giving players out for free to other unions etc.

Then it doesn't just harm Saints, PRL are right to kick up a stink.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:The point is that Saints are putting at risk the agreement about player release outside the Window with RFU

Spot on.

I don't see why the WRU don't just pay like the RFU do, problem solved.

Cos their tight fisted.

Realistically it only harms Saints, well unless they lose to Wuss, and even then Wuss are still too far behind to avoid the drop now.  I can see it does put the release agreement at risk, and that intern makes negotiations with the RFU for cash harder next season if you are giving players out for free to other unions etc.

I doesn't only harm Saints. Look at the way Welsh fans are complaining that their stars are never playing in the league. I paid to take my in-law to an Ospreys game and he wasn't fussed because the international players weren't there. The PRL are fighting to make sure the international game doesn't negatively impact on the club game, beyond what the IRB have set as fair and reasonable.

If Saints think that have North in the league for less time than the maximum possible is beneficial to themselves and the league (and they have a point) they should raise it and get approval (or should be able to raise it and get approval). Not just do it and then try and get out of it. The policy is there for a very legitimate reason and should be by-passed in advance not retrospectively.

The WRU has no obligation to pay compensation provided the clubs concerned consent to release clauses extending outside int'l windows, which in this case Saints have. They wanted to buy him, it wasn't the WRU who wanted him to go there, it is clear who should take responsibility. It is dubious whether North would have gone without assurance of full availability for Wales. My guess is that he clearly stated before anything was finalised that he would only join if this was agreed, which it clearly was. It's Saints' lookout.

Hammer has nailed it

If the kids aren't interested unless the stars are playing then eventually the regions will fold and grassroots rugby in Wales will go under.

Then there won't be any more stars because everyone will want to be a Bale not a Warburton.

If the WRU can't see that they are blind, take the National players under central contracts and keep them in Wales.

Of course the market and legislation will prevent that and i do worry about the future of Welsh regional rugby

Scratch wrote:Hammer has nailed it

If the kids aren't interested unless the stars are playing then eventually the regions will fold and grassroots rugby in Wales will go under.

Then there won't be any more stars because everyone will want to be a Bale not a Warburton.

If the WRU can't see that they are blind, take the National players under central contracts and keep them in Wales.

Of course the market and legislation will prevent that and i do worry about the future of Welsh regional rugby

Bale who was recruited age 10 and then played for Southampton as a junior and senior, then Tottenham, then Real Madrid?

maybe the answer is for the regions to join the AP then, like they did in football, if Bale is the new icon.

quinsforever wrote:

Scratch wrote:Hammer has nailed it

If the kids aren't interested unless the stars are playing then eventually the regions will fold and grassroots rugby in Wales will go under.

Then there won't be any more stars because everyone will want to be a Bale not a Warburton.

If the WRU can't see that they are blind, take the National players under central contracts and keep them in Wales.

Of course the market and legislation will prevent that and i do worry about the future of Welsh regional rugby

Bale who was recruited age 10 and then played for Southampton as a junior and senior, then Tottenham, then Real Madrid?

maybe the answer is for the regions to join the AP then, like they did in football, if Bale is the new icon.

Well you've just highlighted the issue

Bale who left Wales but still proudly represents them at national level.

Football has always played 2nd fiddle to rugby in wales, there are few top sides in Wales, unlike rugby where the standard si very comparable to the rest of the UK. And rugby is a whole different social entity in Wales, unlike in England where historically it has been sport associated with the middle classes, Welsh rugby roots are essentially working class. In the past the villages had 2 things guaranteed, a rugby team and a choir and many of our best players left playing union to play professional rugby league. It was a job in a country where jobs were few and far between.

Bale is an illustration of a symptom spreading across Wales; the regions are underfunded and the result is welsh rugby is going backwards at regional level, the cause is a well documented lack of investment by WRU at regional level.

A league system similar to football across the UK and Ireland would no doubt be advantageous for all the regions but it is unlikely due to the patronage of the individual unions, still too many old farts with too many vested interests.

With a much smaller playing base than in England, the Welsh regions are losing interest from kids due to players like Bale who is a Welsh hero, but he did what many top young sportsmen rightly do, he followed the money and opportunity.

i agree

the key is, he followed the money

and thats what young people are inevitably attracted to. the money, the star lifestyle, and the status.

thats a global thing obviously, not confined to wales.

but surely letting players go earn their way at the highest playing clubs encourages them if money is the motivator, a la Bale?

look at the number of NZ, Aus and SA international team players in the top14. the outsized earning potential is surely an extra motivation for them beyond domestic junior and senior rugby?

lots of celtic fans fear the breaking of the link between club and country. i say embrace it. wales can focus on developing loads of players and watch the top14 and AP pay for their stars. Kind of like Brazilian football players in europe.

quinsforever wrote:lots of celtic fans fear the breaking of the link between club and country. i say embrace it. wales can focus on developing loads of players and watch the top14 and AP pay for their stars. Kind of like Brazilian football players in europe.

Screw that....! That is not what anyone in Wales want at all...!!!

That is precisely what everyone in rugby is against.... There is no reason that we have to follow the direction Soccer has taken, we can keep the game how we want.

Precisely what is happening in European Rugby right now as the PRL were told to stuff their plans to ruin club rugby and now they are trying to get back in to the HEC...!

Maes, to be honest it looks like that is exactly what the welsh union want (providing there are release clauses). Gats has already said that our league lacks intensity. He is apparently asked by every player about their move before they do move, and every time the player ends up moving away. Also as I have said in another thread, I was talking to someone who went to one of those meet and greet evens that Gats was at, and when he asked Gats about the exodus Gats said that he doesn't really care where people play providing they have a release clause for international duty. Like it or not, the current situation in Wales it appears that it is in the unions best interests, financially, to ship the players else where and let the English/French pay for them week in week out, and have the clubs/regions focus on bringing kids through.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Maes, to be honest it looks like that is exactly what the welsh union want (providing there are release clauses).  Gats has already said that our league lacks intensity.  He is apparently asked by every player about their move before they do move, and every time the player ends up moving away.  Also as I have said in another thread, I was talking to someone who went to one of those meet and greet evens that Gats was at, and when he asked Gats about the exodus Gats said that he doesn't really care where people play providing they have a release clause for international duty.  Like it or not, the current situation in Wales it appears that it is in the unions best interests, financially, to ship the players else where and let the English/French pay for them week in week out, and have the clubs/regions focus on bringing kids through.

We have no blwdi option Spidey...!

Not that it is what we who support the regions want. I want to be able to go and watch the Ospreys when I am home in Wales and I want them to have top welsh players.

Luckily the players moving abroad are discovering and proving plenty of reasons why Welsh players are better off at home. Contractual issues over international release are not the only thing, player welfare and game time issues have been apparent too.