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?

dunno about all that. but i do love watching Toulon play. Wilko has still definitely got it. was so pleased he's signing for another year. And steffon armitage is a super-tank at 7. Wilkinson seems to have been instrumental in creating an incredible "team"atmosphere at Toulon. compare and contrast with racing metro!

60k


Free bar at the PRL Xmas party then!


IMO they should have lost some points

broadlandboy wrote:Be interesting to see if he is available during the 2 weeks break in the 6 Nations or Welsh training beforehand.

As I understand it the issue is if a player is rested from the league but plays somewhere else. If he stayed with the Wales camp during 6 nations it would be counted as 'resting', meaning he would be fresher for the league, that makes sense.

Knowsit17 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:That's quite a heavy fine and one they can nigh afford to be paying every season if the WRU continue with their tradition of scheduling games outside the window. Looks worrying for them as they can hardly revise the clause now that it's been agreed. Should have done their homework.

On the bright side this might deter future mass purchases of important Welsh players by foreign clubs. Toulon seem to have backed down from approaching Warburton as a direct consequence.

I don't understand the bit in bold. What have French teams got to do with this? Northampton will have known what could happen. How big a deal it is depends on whether it's included in the salary cap and whether they took it in consideration when they offered him a salary.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/25362659

'But Boudjellal, who has assembled a multi-national team of star names, said the amount of time Warburton spends on Wales duty was a problem.

He said: "Sam Warburton is the captain of Wales and that means we wouldn't have him during the international matches, and we're not used to that."

"There's also all the training with Wales and we're not used to that either."'

Don't know what you make of it but that looks fairly indicative to me.

On a separate matter, the bottom line makes fairly clear the trend of attempted prioritisation of club of international rugby which the club owners are trying to engineer.

But that's not related to this, which is what I thought you meant by "direct consequence". But yes, demanding release clauses makes players less attractive.

Demanding a release clause for a match outside the international window, when the club is not compensated, nor insurance paid yet still expecting the same large salary. Yes that will make a player less attractive.

Warburtons agents seemed to be demanding the mega salary and absence for half the season.

Knowsit17 wrote:....
On the bright side this might deter future mass purchases of important Welsh players by foreign clubs. Toulon seem to have backed down from approaching Warburton as a direct consequence.

Surely the best way of keeping them in Wales is keeping them happy there? It is worth remembering that the players do actually play an active part in getting themselves 'sold'.

Scrumpy wrote:60k


Free bar at the PRL Xmas party then!


IMO they should have lost some points

It seems about right to me (for a first offence). I think the RFU pay £60k per player in the EPS - so it's basically saying they will get the release money from the clubs, if by negotiating individually with the players a club has bypassed/prevented PRL doing a league wide deal. I'd be tempted to add that money on to the 'salary' bill and count it towards their cap. Otherwise the richer clubs will just not be bothered and will be willing to take the hit.

Knowsit17 wrote:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/25362659

'But Boudjellal, who has assembled a multi-national team of star names, said the amount of time Warburton spends on Wales duty was a problem.

He said: "Sam Warburton is the captain of Wales and that means we wouldn't have him during the international matches, and we're not used to that."

"There's also all the training with Wales and we're not used to that either."'

We are used to it though.

Big wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:60k


Free bar at the PRL Xmas party then!


IMO they should have lost some points

It seems about right to me (for a first offence).  I think the RFU pay £60k per player in the EPS - so it's basically saying they will get the release money from the clubs, if by negotiating individually with the players a club has bypassed/prevented PRL doing a league wide deal.  I'd be tempted to add that money on to the 'salary' bill and count it towards their cap.  Otherwise the richer clubs will just not be bothered and will be willing to take the hit.

Where does the money go?

Ian Hunter
Ex-Northampton and England full-back and BBC Radio Northampton summariser
"As far as I'm concerned, the fine seems to be outrageous and I'd question their legal position imposing this. But ultimately Saints will take this on the chin. Is it a price worth paying to have George North play for you? Most definitely it is, as we saw last weekend in Dublin.

"He's a special talent who can frighten and unlock defences like few others in the game today. And it's not just what he does on the pitch, but his influence on young players around him. I'm certain Saints will still think they did a very good bit of business bringing North to Franklin's Gardens."

Maes,

Wasn't it you who said Saints can't do anything   

God knows what the result of this will be, will clubs stop signing players who insist on release clauses which in turn may mean less players will leave, will the WRU stop playing 4th game outside window (Highly unlikely)

Will Saints have to pay another fine this week for releasing North?

Wasn't their fine to cover them for future windows too? I thought they wouldn't get a fine again.

Also, given the competition status and the team Saints have out, they could easily argue that as development team.

maestegmafia wrote:Will Saints have to pay another fine this week for releasing North?

no. one and done.

Until next season? I think Cohen at Tigers is still spitting feathers over this. The PRL told Tigers they'd be docked points if they released Murphy or Castro outside of the international windows.

Ok a couple of things:

1) Mallander has said it's a one off fine. Until we hear different that's what it is.
2) North isn't playing this weekend, so would could has a 'rest' weekend. Tigers have released that young Irish fella of theirs for a training sessions. So there would be nothing to fine anyway.

Risca Rev wrote:Wasn't their fine to cover them for future windows too? I thought they wouldn't get a fine again.

Also, given the competition status and the team Saints have out, they could easily argue that as development team.

You can only use that excuse if the 'better' players are being rested. If they're playing for someone else they're not resting so should be playing for their club. Unless of course agreement is reached.

Risca Rev wrote:Wasn't their fine to cover them for future windows too? I thought they wouldn't get a fine again.

Also, given the competition status and the team Saints have out, they could easily argue that as development team.

Saints are absolutely playing a development squad. Only a few senior players to steer the ship. In today's world maybe it is bad to call the team a developmental one. Maybe we should call it leveraging the full resources of the club?

Probably should Doc. Still think the leveraged full resources will have too much power for us today though.

I haven't really followed this whole debacle so excuse my lack of knowledge.

What is the point of this fine?

Why do the PRL(?) care who any club releases and when? I get that there is a rule but what I don't get is why there is that rule?

formerly known as Sam wrote:Until next season? I think Cohen at Tigers is still spitting feathers over this. The PRL told Tigers they'd be docked points if they released Murphy or Castro outside of the international windows.

What was their contract though, the problem here is that Saints were screwed either way, by releasing him they got fined, if they hadn't released him then they would have been in breach of contract and the possibility of being sude for that.

Guess depends hich is lesser of two evils etc.

Mrs P to keep the money from the RFU for extended access safe. RFU view why should they pay for something other Unions get for free?

I think one of the main reasons is to keep the best talent playing in league matches to the max. degree possible. More stars playing means more interest and more fans at the matches which helps the league. Also compliance with IRB rules regarding player release (which may be only lip service since it serves a need). The problem is Rugby across the globe still operates with a wink and a nod, in this case allowing North to be released to Wales for the price of 60k.

HammerofThunor wrote:Ok a couple of things:

1) Mallander has said it's a one off fine. Until we hear different that's what it is.
2) North isn't playing this weekend, so would could has a 'rest' weekend. Tigers have released that young Irish fella of theirs for a training sessions. So there would be nothing to fine anyway.

It's within the IRB international window.

doctor_grey wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Will Saints have to pay another fine this week for releasing North?

no.  one and done.

That's good news. It would get ridiculous fining the club every time they want to release him back to the WRU.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:Until next season? I think Cohen at Tigers is still spitting feathers over this. The PRL told Tigers they'd be docked points if they released Murphy or Castro outside of the international windows.

What was their contract though, the problem here is that Saints were screwed either way, by releasing him they got fined, if they hadn't released him then they would have been in breach of contract and the possibility of being sude for that.

Guess depends hich is lesser of two evils etc.

Saints offered George that contract. So they knew what they were getting in to.

Mallinder seemed convinced that the fine was improper... I thought they would have contested it. Maybe they are.

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Ok a couple of things:

1) Mallander has said it's a one off fine. Until we hear different that's what it is.
2) North isn't playing this weekend, so would could has a 'rest' weekend. Tigers have released that young Irish fella of theirs for a training sessions. So there would be nothing to fine anyway.

It's within the IRB international window.

This weekend? No it's not.