Is the PRL too restrictive on access to internationals?

Not sure where to put this. George North's club faces a fine given he's turning out for Wales this weekend. He's got it written into his contract.

OK, here's the question.

Will the fine hold up in European Court?

My understanding is only England players are allowed to be released outside the international window. Surely this is discriminatory?

Sorry if this has been done before.

It's certainly a Hot potato in the current climate. War perhaps breaking out now on a second front.

To be honest I can't see the issue with this. The PRL negotiated with the RFU compensation for players being away on International duty with England, and the Regions have done the same with the WRU too. So the unions are well aware that by playing outside of the IRB windows they could face issues with not having players. Seeing as there are no deals between the PRL sides and the WRU that sees the teams getting compensated for the loss of their players, I can fully understand the PRL having a 'ban' on players being allowed to play outside the windows (unless they are English). Saints signed up to the PRL agreement, and then signed George North (with a release clause, apparently), so they knew that they could face a fine. That is their problem, they signed the player and they allowed that clause to be in his contract.

(Also I am surprised that nobody has mentioned that the ban is on non-English players, so seeing as George is English, Saints should not be fined :tongue in cheek:)

ScarletSpiderman wrote:To be honest I can't see the issue with this.  The PRL negotiated with the RFU compensation for players being away on International duty with England, and the Regions have done the same with the WRU too.  So the unions are well aware that by playing outside of the IRB windows they could face issues with not having players.  Seeing as there are no deals between the PRL sides and the WRU that sees the teams getting compensated for the loss of their players, I can fully understand the PRL having a 'ban' on players being allowed to play outside the windows (unless they are English).  Saints signed up to the PRL agreement, and then signed George North (with a release clause, apparently), so they knew that they could face a fine.  That is their problem, they signed the player and they allowed that clause to be in his contract.

(Also I am surprised that nobody has mentioned that the ban is on non-English players, so seeing as George is English, Saints should not be fined :tongue in cheek:)

I see where you're coming from. I still suspect it's illegal and unenforceable should someone challenge it.

I'm no lawyer - but I wonder if the question will centre more on the question of discrimination. How lawful is it to release one nationality to play and not another? rather than the primacy of one contract over another.

Will there even be a dispute if Saints pay up. Perhaps they even factored the fine in when contracting with North and thought it was worth it?

Doesnt it at least show a bit of good gesture by Saints aswell...and to be honest they were only playing my club so its not like they needed George anyway!!!

offload wrote:I'm no lawyer - but I wonder if the question will centre more on the question of discrimination.  How lawful is it to release one nationality to play and not another? rather than the primacy of one contract over another.

Will there even be a dispute if Saints pay up.  Perhaps they even factored the fine in when contracting with North and thought it was worth it?

I am not too sure it discrimination. England pay the PRL to release their players outside of the IRB window. So I guess it is another one of those arguments that comes down to the wording. If the PRL agreement says "only England Internationals are allowed to be released outside of the IRB windows" then it is discrimination, but if it reads "only players from unions that pay the PRL compensation are allowed to be released outside the IRB windows" then it is fair play. Out of interest if it is the latter, maybe the WRU could axe two regions, and give their Participation Agreement money to the PRL and get the likes of Paul James, Bradley Davies (If he goes) etc released too.

Do saints get payment from the WRU as compensation?

mystiroakey wrote:Do saints get payment from the WRU as compensation?

I doubt it, the regions barely get anything (less than Jamie Roberts earns each year anyway), so I can't see the WRU paying anything out to the Saints.

It seems a bit unfair on Saints- They get shafted both ends!!

But i suppose they knew about it going in!

Court! Court, I say!!! Freedom of movement for labour in Europe, I say!

blackcanelion wrote:...Will the fine hold up in European Court?

That's only worth asking if Northampton aim to challenge any PRL punishment in court.

Rugby Fan wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:...Will the fine hold up in European Court?

That's only worth asking if Northampton aim to challenge any PRL punishment in court.

Oh my could Northampton be the team that breakaway from the PRL, during the PRLs breakaway from the Union?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:...Will the fine hold up in European Court?

That's only worth asking if Northampton aim to challenge any PRL punishment in court.

Oh my could Northampton be the team that breakaway from the PRL, during the PRLs breakaway from the Union?

The agreement between the Clubs and PRL over international release should be challenged by the clubs. The agreement is already being tested by Saints and Bath who would rather deal with the WRU or the Players Agent than with the PRL over their International players release.

I am surprised that the PRL are allowed to fine anyone, surely they should have to ask permission of the RFU? I would be surprised if the fine was legitimate...!

The original agreement, November 15th 2007, has nothing written in to it stipulating overseas player release, there is nothing regarding fining individuals or clubs for international release of non English players. It doesn't even stipulate that England are allowed to host a fourth international outside of the IRB release windows.

Is there an amendment to this document that confirms the PRLs right to fine Northampton Saints and to threaten Bath RFC with action over releasing foreign players?

In the England teams favour it does stipulate that the players that are in the EPS that have to play in club finals rather than tour NZ next summer should be made available to the RFU the week before the Premiership Finals, thus meaning that the England team will be able to pick who they want for the first test rather than having to pick a second string team.

"All Senior EPS players will be released 13 or 14 days before the start of the autumn internationals and RBS 6 Nations and for the duration of both international windows. There will also be a minimum 2 weeks preparation for the Senior EPS players prior to each summer tour on which England will take their strongest available squad." from RFU.com

maestegmafia wrote:...
The agreement between the Clubs and PRL over international release should be challenged by the clubs. The agreement is already being tested by Saints and Bath who would rather deal with the WRU or the Players Agent than with the PRL over their International players release....

The PRL are the clubs.

lostinwales wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:...
The agreement between the Clubs and PRL over international release should be challenged by the clubs. The agreement is already being tested by Saints and Bath who would rather deal with the WRU or the Players Agent than with the PRL over their International players release....

The PRL are the clubs.

So why was their any need for "The policy agreed by all 12 clubs", (The Guardians PRL spokesperson)...????

Ok. For a start, what Saints are being fined for is the release of players outside of the period defined by IRB regulation 9 without prior agreement from all the clubs. The point of this is to ensure the integrity of the premiership is maintained and it's not diluted uncontrollably. It also covers all English players not covered by the EPS so discrimination doesn't come into it.

And on what basis would Saints challenge it? "Well, we agreed with it at the time but he said he wouldn't come if we didn't release him so we don't want to be held by the policy we originally agreed with".

Its just another thing for certain posters to have a pop at the prl about dude..

Nothing to see though really

There should not be test matches this weekend. The week before the Heineken Cup is too disruptive and has a knock-on effect... in this case, the WRU is wrong.

Oh and onto the original topic. Are they too restrictive? Well no. The IRB set the international window the size it is for a reason. Because that was decided to be a reasonable amount of the season to be taken up with international games.

Note that the IRB recently expanded the IW to include more training time. It's big enough. Nothing wrong with playing outside it if everyone is happy but not playing outside it is not unreasonable.

If this issue ever came to court I suspect the thing the court would reject is a group of unions (i.e. the IRB) demanding that the employees of other businesses (the clubs) work for unions whether the businesses want it or not.

Exiledinborders wrote:If this issue ever came to court I suspect the thing the court would reject is a group of unions (i.e. the IRB) demanding that the employees of other businesses (the clubs) work for unions whether the businesses want it or not.

So the court would come out as anti Western democratic governments?  

Hmmm............ we're due to go to war soon then, as Governments (the IRB) force employees of businesses (home and foreign owned companies) to pay taxes to them, even though the businesses would perhaps prefer to pay their employees all the wages they are due.

Plus the court would have to assess the PRL itself (IRB) and its demands that the employees of other businesses (Individually owned clubs) work under PRL rules, whether the Individual clubs want it or not.  

Yes, individual clubs 'agree' to PRL rules, but only under duress to get into the AP in the first place - majority voting doesn't mean universal agreement, it means compliance of the few to the wishes of the many.  

Doing something under 'duress'???  Now where have I heard that language used before?

SecretFly wrote:
Doing something under 'duress'???  Now where have I heard that language used before?

Fly, I think you've been listening to The Captain.

I saw yuh baby dancin' in your x-ray gingham dress
I knew you were under duress
I knew you were under yer dress

I raised this issue and posted on the club thread yesterday and mentioned that I was surprised that the PRL had this kind of power (to fine clubs). Can anyone confirm they actually do have this power and what sort of fines they could hit Saints with?

Yep, that could be what I was thinking of, Cyril. Thanks for the heads-up.

bedfordwelsh wrote:I raised this issue and posted on the club thread yesterday and mentioned that I was surprised that the PRL had this kind of power (to fine clubs).  Can anyone confirm they actually do have this power and what sort of fines they could hit Saints with?

Actually, now that you're speaking, another question comes to mind. If the PRL are the clubs and the club are the PRL...just where does any fine go? Is it re-swallowed up, pecentage based, across all 12 clubs (thus Northampton getting some of their fine returned to them) or does it get to stay in a wall safe in PRL head office, that they can then use to purchase coffee, biscuits, caviar and stuff?

The money goes to pay for the exotic dancers at the Christmas party.

doctor_grey wrote:The money goes to pay for the exotic dancers at the Christmas party.

That must be one of the very few rugby traditions the PRL uphold...?

yes maes, but only because the dancers and other lavish entertainments are for the union bods

quinsforever wrote:yes maes, but only because the dancers and other lavish entertainments are for the union bods

Bill Beaumont is much too nice a man to be twirling nipple tassels with his nose. Stop besmirching the RFU!

The PRL have still not commented on George North. They have not fined Northampton Saints.

I am just starting to worry that they might fine them on the night of the match at a ridiculous amount of money, or march into the WRU training camp with Armed guards and abduct George North (obviously they will be concealing their kryptonite)...

If they aren't going to do anything, Wales should definitely get all their English Premiership based players to make sure they have full exclusion from any interference by the PRL written firmly into their contracts with immediate effect.

maestegmafia wrote:The PRL have still not commented on George North. They have not fined Northampton Saints.

I am just starting to worry that they might fine them on the night of the match at a ridiculous amount of money, or march into the WRU training camp with Armed guards and abduct George North (obviously they will be concealing their kryptonite)...

If they aren't going to do anything, Wales should definitely get all their English Premiership based players to make sure they have full exclusion from any interference by the PRL written firmly into their contracts with immediate effect.

If only the world were that simple, the regions would have clauses written into all academy contracts saying that they are not allowed to sign for a team out of wales until they turn 30 etc.

Truth is that the players who are in the Jeff, chose to go there for the money and knew full well about the issues surrounding player release etc. I mean it has been going on since what '05 when Mark Taylor was at Sale Sharks. It hasn't deterred them from going over the bridge for the money, and sadly this George North issue will only make players either sod off to France, or accept that they can't make the 4th AI, unless they are actually world class (like world 23 v Mars good) in which case they may possibly stand a chance of the club risking a fine to release them.

maestegmafia wrote:The PRL have still not commented on George North. They have not fined Northampton Saints.

I am just starting to worry that they might fine them on the night of the match at a ridiculous amount of money, or march into the WRU training camp with Armed guards and abduct George North (obviously they will be concealing their kryptonite)...

If they aren't going to do anything, Wales should definitely get all their English Premiership based players to make sure they have full exclusion from any interference by the PRL written firmly into their contracts with immediate effect.

I find it very hard to believe that you believe what you write Maes

maestegmafia wrote:The PRL have still not commented on George North. They have not fined Northampton Saints.

I am just starting to worry that they might fine them on the night of the match at a ridiculous amount of money, or march into the WRU training camp with Armed guards and abduct George North (obviously they will be concealing their kryptonite)...

If they aren't going to do anything, Wales should definitely get all their English Premiership based players to make sure they have full exclusion from any interference by the PRL written firmly into their contracts with immediate effect.

This isn't a new issue, and there a good reasons for PRL wanting a coordinated approach. There's an article with Tigers CEO Simon Cohen where he states that they were threatened with docked points if they allowed Murphy or Castrogiovanni to play tests outside the agreed window in years gone by. He thinks that if that is the punishment that other clubs are threatened with then that is what should be applied. If Saints, knowing the rules and potential punishment signed North anyway - and more to the point signed a contract allowing him to play outside the agreed window - then they just have to release him and take the hit, whether that's points deduction or a fine. It's not George North's problem, and it's not PRL's problem.

Big wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:The PRL have still not commented on George North. They have not fined Northampton Saints.

I am just starting to worry that they might fine them on the night of the match at a ridiculous amount of money, or march into the WRU training camp with Armed guards and abduct George North (obviously they will be concealing their kryptonite)...

If they aren't going to do anything, Wales should definitely get all their English Premiership based players to make sure they have full exclusion from any interference by the PRL written firmly into their contracts with immediate effect.

This isn't a new issue, and there a good reasons for PRL wanting a coordinated approach.  There's an article with Tigers CEO Simon Cohen where he states that they were threatened with docked points if they allowed Murphy or Castrogiovanni to play tests outside the agreed window in years gone by.  He thinks that if that is the punishment that other clubs are threatened with then that is what should be applied.  If Saints, knowing the rules and potential punishment signed North anyway - and more to the point signed a contract allowing him to play outside the agreed window - then they just have to release him and take the hit, whether that's points deduction or a fine.  It's not George North's problem, and it's not PRL's problem.

Point stands though doesn't it, as yet nothing has been done by the PRL.

No comment, no actual threats, no written warnings....???

Regarding Paul James they threatened Bath RFC with action two weeks before he was likely to play for Wales outside the window vs Australia. With Saints and George North they still have not stipulated that they will actually do anything.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:The PRL have still not commented on George North. They have not fined Northampton Saints.

I am just starting to worry that they might fine them on the night of the match at a ridiculous amount of money, or march into the WRU training camp with Armed guards and abduct George North (obviously they will be concealing their kryptonite)...

If they aren't going to do anything, Wales should definitely get all their English Premiership based players to make sure they have full exclusion from any interference by the PRL written firmly into their contracts with immediate effect.

If only the world were that simple, the regions would have clauses written into all academy contracts saying that they are not allowed to sign for a team out of wales until they turn 30 etc.

Truth is that the players who are in the Jeff, chose to go there for the money and knew full well about the issues surrounding player release etc.  I mean it has been going on since what '05 when Mark Taylor was at Sale Sharks.  It hasn't deterred them from going over the bridge for the money, and sadly this George North issue will only make players either sod off to France, or accept that they can't make the 4th AI, unless they are actually world class (like world 23 v Mars good) in which case they may possibly stand a chance of the club risking a fine to release them.

The point that the PRL have not acted, though they might act last minute we are still 48 hours plus away from the game, may mean that this matter may be able to be sorted amicably and suitably by the PRL backing down over their stance on Non English players getting release...???

maestegmafia wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:The PRL have still not commented on George North. They have not fined Northampton Saints.

I am just starting to worry that they might fine them on the night of the match at a ridiculous amount of money, or march into the WRU training camp with Armed guards and abduct George North (obviously they will be concealing their kryptonite)...

If they aren't going to do anything, Wales should definitely get all their English Premiership based players to make sure they have full exclusion from any interference by the PRL written firmly into their contracts with immediate effect.

If only the world were that simple, the regions would have clauses written into all academy contracts saying that they are not allowed to sign for a team out of wales until they turn 30 etc.

Truth is that the players who are in the Jeff, chose to go there for the money and knew full well about the issues surrounding player release etc.  I mean it has been going on since what '05 when Mark Taylor was at Sale Sharks.  It hasn't deterred them from going over the bridge for the money, and sadly this George North issue will only make players either sod off to France, or accept that they can't make the 4th AI, unless they are actually world class (like world 23 v Mars good) in which case they may possibly stand a chance of the club risking a fine to release them.

The point that the PRL have not acted, though they might act last minute we are still 48 hours plus away from the game, may mean that this matter may be able to be sorted amicably and suitably by the PRL backing down over their stance on Non English players getting release...???

or maybe PRL have told Saints what the penalty will be and are waiting til after the match to apply it. they can't really apply any penalty before North has played.

They haven't backed down Maes- Saints will just get the agreed fine and that's it.

Saints signed North on this possibility,

What is it you can not understand?

How much is the fine likely to be? I still haven't heard anything about anything specific.

Fines can be notional rather than restrictive. Will the fine itself ridicule the very idea of punishment? Or will it hit Saints as a painful enough sting?

maestegmafia wrote:Point stands though doesn't it, as yet nothing has been done by the PRL.

No comment, no actual threats, no written warnings....???

Regarding Paul James they threatened Bath RFC with action two weeks before he was likely to play for Wales outside the window vs Australia. With Saints and George North they still have not stipulated that they will actually do anything.

How do you know nothing has been done? I appreciate that following the ERC palava you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise, but these things don't actually need to be done publicly and it is quite possible that PRL have sent Saints a letter stating the actions that will be taken if North plays for Wales without it being accompanied by a press release!  

I was wandering when i read about the Saints be prepaied too let him play. As to whether he (could play) or not.

Surely if it is written into his contract, then he should be allowed to play for Wales this week end.

Every country want's there best player if avalible ( not injured) too play for them. so why is the PRL not allowing George North to play for Wales this week end?

Big wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Point stands though doesn't it, as yet nothing has been done by the PRL.

No comment, no actual threats, no written warnings....???

Regarding Paul James they threatened Bath RFC with action two weeks before he was likely to play for Wales outside the window vs Australia. With Saints and George North they still have not stipulated that they will actually do anything.

How do you know nothing has been done?  I appreciate that following the ERC palava you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise, but these things don't actually need to be done publicly and it is quite possible that PRL have sent Saints a letter stating the actions that will be taken if North plays for Wales without it being accompanied by a press release!  

True...!

I guess we probably presume that it would be publicly announced as Saints have said that they don't think they are in the wrong and these situations have to be tenuous due to the nature of modern contracts and to be competitive they need to sign the worlds best players.

SecretFly wrote:How much is the fine likely to be?  I still haven't heard anything about anything specific.

Fines can be notional rather than restrictive.  Will the fine itself ridicule the very idea of punishment?  Or will it hit Saints as a painful enough sting?

As said it is only the press pondering on the matter, nothing public from the PRL.

majesticimperialman wrote:so why is the PRL not allowing George North to play for Wales this week end?

The PRL and Northampton RFC are allowing George North to play for Wales.

majesticimperialman wrote:I was wandering when i read about the Saints be prepaied too let him play. As to whether he (could play) or not.

Surely if it is written into his contract, then he should be allowed to play for Wales this week end.

Every country want's there best player if avalible ( not injured) too play for them. so why is the PRL not allowing George North to play for Wales this week end?

Oh Maj keep up...

He is being allowed to play this weekend. It is outside the international window so he only goes with the agreement of Saints.

However releasing international players outside of the window is something the RFU for one is paying the PRL a great deal of money for, which sets a precedent. I am sure the PRL is happy enough to release players outside the window if they are paid for access (the PRL being run for and by the AP clubs). In this case it seems likely that the entity that is going to pay are Saints.

If the WRU sets up games outside the agreed international window then they have to accept there are going to be issues getting access to players outside their control. It is no good them just crying foul. I also dont have a problem with the PRL taking a hard line.

lostinwales wrote:
If the WRU sets up games outside the agreed international window then they have to accept there are going to be issues getting access to players outside their control. It is no good them just crying foul. I also dont have a problem with the PRL taking a hard line.

That is because it does not effect your national team... It constantly effects ours.

maestegmafia wrote:

lostinwales wrote:
If the WRU sets up games outside the agreed international window then they have to accept there are going to be issues getting access to players outside their control. It is no good them just crying foul. I also dont have a problem with the PRL taking a hard line.

That is because it does not effect your national team... It constantly effects ours.

Not arguing with that at all - its a tough situation to be in - its just that its not the responsibility of the clubs and union on this side of the bridge to help out.

And yet they have helped out .

Even though they shouldn't have to.

But off course that doesn't matter when it comes to someone like maes- The PRL has to still be at fault somehow!!

To be fair to maes, mystir, the PRL isn't very good is it?

P!ss-ups and breweries come to mind.

 I heard the RFU are requesting that their matches in March 2014 are also outside the International Window