Is the PRL too restrictive on access to internationals?

First topic message reminder :

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.

lostinwales wrote:

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.

What about in Fiji's case?

They play the Baa Baas at HQ this weekend, they need games like that to build revenue, just as the WRU but far more so in their case.

They are being stripped of a number of players who have to play club rugby instead of International. They, like many other non "Big Three" SH teams struggle to find a financially beneficial tour of Autumn Internationals.

Their opposition this autumn has been.

Nov 9 - Portugal 13 - 36 Fiji
Nov 16 - Italy 37 - 31 Fiji
Nov 23 - Romania 7 - 26 Fiji

This is the big earner for them and they are depleted of their best players.

The RFU will compensate the PRL for that though Ruby

 

mystiroakey wrote:The RFU will compensate the PRL for that though Ruby

Exactly; but if it helps - crack on

Look people are missing the point here.

If there is no action to non English players going on international duty outside of the agreed International periods, then the RFU could eventually say hold on. Why the heck are we paying the PRL for our players!

There has to be some kind of compensation agreement and that imo is obvious.

Saints will just swallow it even though in reality its the WRU that should be paying

maestegmafia wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

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.

What about in Fiji's case?

They play the Baa Baas at HQ this weekend, they need games like that to build revenue, just as the WRU but far more so in their case.

They are being stripped of a number of players who have to play club rugby instead of International. They, like many other non "Big Three" SH teams struggle to find a financially beneficial tour of Autumn Internationals.

Their opposition this autumn has been.

Nov 9 - Portugal 13 - 36 Fiji
Nov 16 - Italy 37 - 31 Fiji
Nov 23 - Romania 7 - 26 Fiji

This is the big earner for them and they are depleted of their best players.

Access to their players must be on a case by case basis and I dont think anyone of us can comment without a pile of research. If there is a problem here then it is with the IRB and the regulations on the international window. It has sod all to do with the unions and clubs.

 Oakey - Looking at it from another angle, how does a player feel when his club stops him from achieving the highest accolade in his career. It can't bold well for him feeling good about them. I'd like to see Paul James and Hook involved this weekend and perhaps Charteris on the bench. Nationalism aside; it's a great shame for these and other players that their employment stops them from achieving their goals.

If you dont read a contract you sign then you deserve what you get mate

 

mystiroakey wrote:If you dont read a contract you sign then you deserve what you get mate

I was really hoping someone would get the sentiment of the post and not come back with the most obvious reply. Hey ho - we live in hope

North is playing, the sentiment should be to thank saints and the PRL for not blocking him, not the reverse sentiment

Isn't it a great shame that their greed stops them? Did they have to move from Wales? The same can be said for Armitage. Their choice surely?

lostinwales wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

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.

What about in Fiji's case?

They play the Baa Baas at HQ this weekend, they need games like that to build revenue, just as the WRU but far more so in their case.

They are being stripped of a number of players who have to play club rugby instead of International. They, like many other non "Big Three" SH teams struggle to find a financially beneficial tour of Autumn Internationals.

Their opposition this autumn has been.

Nov 9 - Portugal 13 - 36 Fiji
Nov 16 - Italy 37 - 31 Fiji
Nov 23 - Romania 7 - 26 Fiji

This is the big earner for them and they are depleted of their best players.

Access to their players must be on a case by case basis and I dont think anyone of us can comment without a pile of research. If there is a problem here then it is with the IRB and the regulations on the international window. It has sod all to do with the unions and clubs.

The problem is the window is too small, Nations Unions need to finance the game in their nation and hosting others and touring others is a huge part of that.

While larger nations are only playing top ten ranked teams and not smaller nations we are starving the smaller nations of revenue and forcing them to arrange fixtures outside of the IRB window such as this, also starving of them of players for their show piece match is incredibly unfair.

An on the Centenary of the Fijian Rugby Union as well...

mystiroakey wrote:If you dont read a contract you sign then you deserve what you get mate

Charteris has full International release in his contract.

Timothy wrote:For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Tim must have been a rugby supporter.

maestegmafia wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:If you dont read a contract you sign then you deserve what you get mate

Charteris has full International release in his contract.

And whats your point?

 Nice to see the old traditional rugby values are alive and kicking. At this rate of evolution the rich clubs will have all the main players and release those of their own country when they need to. If it helps then crack on. Greed, what a lovely word to use for players putting their bodies on the line in a relatively short career - Greed; it's laughable - Looks like another 6 months off for me (Luckily I have a release clause in my 606v2 contract) Chow for now as they say in Llandow

Are you trying to say that the French are the evil ones and the PRL have done something right for once!!
You cant do that can ya maes..

Well on one side you have a professional game involving clubs who want to make the most of it and make the most of their players who they support and pay, and on the other you have the international games which, for some nations (especially PI) is all they have if they dont join clubs (where they get supported, paid and trained).

You could say that for PI teams the extreme positions are you pay the players or you support the union.

Some might say it should be all about he clubs, others the international game, but most would say you need a balance between the two, which is where we are at. Extend the IW and there is a danger of upsetting the organisations which support the largest number of players all year round.

RubyGuby wrote: Nice to see the old traditional rugby values are alive and kicking. At this rate of evolution the rich clubs will have all the main players and release those of their own country when they need to. If it helps then crack on. Greed, what a lovely word to use for players putting their bodies on the line in a relatively short career - Greed; it's laughable - Looks like another 6 months off for me (Luckily I have a release clause in my 606v2 contract) Chow for now as they say in Llandow

I have just looked over that contract, it does give you clearance to leave, but the mod/admin team must pay a fine if we let you leave.

maestegmafia wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:If you dont read a contract you sign then you deserve what you get mate

Charteris has full International release in his contract.

No he has not, he was allowed to play last year with the clubs permission, which was withheld this year, Gatland alluded to this just before this years AIs.

 

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: Nice to see the old traditional rugby values are alive and kicking. At this rate of evolution the rich clubs will have all the main players and release those of their own country when they need to. If it helps then crack on. Greed, what a lovely word to use for players putting their bodies on the line in a relatively short career - Greed; it's laughable - Looks like another 6 months off for me (Luckily I have a release clause in my 606v2 contract) Chow for now as they say in Llandow

I have just looked over that contract, it does give you clearance to leave, but the mod/admin team must pay a fine if we let you leave.

Damn!!! I'm back on - They could't afford the compensation - That's the price of being at the top of your game I guess - Hot dogs for supper boys!
 

wayne wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:If you dont read a contract you sign then you deserve what you get mate

Charteris has full International release in his contract.

No he has not, he was allowed to play last year with the clubs permission, which was withheld this year, Gatland alluded to this just before this years AIs.

I didn't hear that from Gatland. Ony there had previously been an article on his move to USAP where he said he had full release.

at least in France Wales have access to their players by agreements and deals that can be struck with out intervention of a third and unnecessary partner.

What deals are those then??

RubyGuby wrote: Nice to see the old traditional rugby values are alive and kicking. At this rate of evolution the rich clubs will have all the main players and release those of their own country when they need to. If it helps then crack on. Greed, what a lovely word to use for players putting their bodies on the line in a relatively short career - Greed; it's laughable - Looks like another 6 months off for me (Luckily I have a release clause in my 606v2 contract) Chow for now as they say in Llandow

I'm struggling to think of a better word than greed tbh. The problems you're describing is because those players signed for clubs in different countries to earn ore money. They knew the problems that would arise and the consequences of their actions. They could have stayed in Wales/England etc and avoided those problems but received less money. Yes they are putting their bodies on the line and they have a right to whatever money they can get; they can't really complain too much about their international careers in my eyes though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: Nice to see the old traditional rugby values are alive and kicking. At this rate of evolution the rich clubs will have all the main players and release those of their own country when they need to. If it helps then crack on. Greed, what a lovely word to use for players putting their bodies on the line in a relatively short career - Greed; it's laughable - Looks like another 6 months off for me (Luckily I have a release clause in my 606v2 contract) Chow for now as they say in Llandow

I'm struggling to think of a better word than greed tbh. The problems you're describing is because those players signed for clubs in different countries to earn ore money. They knew the problems that would arise and the consequences of their actions. They could have stayed in Wales/England etc and avoided those problems but received less money. Yes they are putting their bodies on the line and they have a right to whatever money they can get; they can't really complain too much about their international careers in my eyes though.

We can, those of us who pay to watch international rugby at its best. Those of us who want to see our best players playing for our country.

What is it then maes? What word are using to describe players who go abroad for more knowing that there will be more restrictions on them joining up with their national teams? I understand why they do it and I hold no grudges against them for it but surely they can't be that unhappy or they would have chosen diffrently?

maestegmafia wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: Nice to see the old traditional rugby values are alive and kicking. At this rate of evolution the rich clubs will have all the main players and release those of their own country when they need to. If it helps then crack on. Greed, what a lovely word to use for players putting their bodies on the line in a relatively short career - Greed; it's laughable - Looks like another 6 months off for me (Luckily I have a release clause in my 606v2 contract) Chow for now as they say in Llandow

I'm struggling to think of a better word than greed tbh. The problems you're describing is because those players signed for clubs in different countries to earn ore money. They knew the problems that would arise and the consequences of their actions. They could have stayed in Wales/England etc and avoided those problems but received less money. Yes they are putting their bodies on the line and they have a right to whatever money they can get; they can't really complain too much about their international careers in my eyes though.

We can, those of us who pay to watch international rugby at its best. Those of us who want to see our best players playing for our country.

What about those who want to see the best players playing for their 'club'?

It depends which model you look at, the top-down International is king or the meat-and-potatoes club angle.

Obviously the ideal is getting a balance. Which is what the International Window is all about, isn't it?

The ideal Cyril is that the best internationals are allowed to play for their respective country's or in England's case their adopted country  

- It' quite simple really - we want to see full strength international teams go head to head  

RubyGuby wrote:The ideal Cyril is that the best internationals are allowed to play  for their respective country's or in England's case their adopted country   

- It' quite simple really - we want to see full strength international teams go head to head  

people in glass houses....

quinsforever wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:The ideal Cyril is that the best internationals are allowed to play  for their respective country's or in England's case their adopted country   

- It' quite simple really - we want to see full strength international teams go head to head  

people in glass houses....

     Close the curtains quick..................

Fiji just about managed to put a team together for their century celebration, the restrictions on player release have massively hindered their squad.

The PRL have still not acted on Northampton RFC over their agreeing to release George North for all International commitments.

Wales should call Paul James into the squad for the match today to. As it looks like last week was just another example of the PRLs threats being empty...!

RubyGuby wrote:The ideal Cyril is that the best internationals are allowed to play  for their respective country's or in England's case their adopted country   

- It' quite simple really - we want to see full strength international teams go head to head  

We do. 11 times a year. That's about a third of these players' games (EPS limits games to 32). I can understand why some would want more if they're not content with their domestic game but 11 games (12 for the SH) isn't exactly a poor number.

"The PRL have still not acted on Northampton RFC over their agreeing to release George North for all International commitments."

they will just receive a fine at a later point. It doesn't have to be in the public.

"Wales should call Paul James into the squad for the match today to. As it looks like last week was just another example of the PRLs threats being empty...!"

what threats?

Just to point out Glasgow allowed matowalo to play for Fiji today - despite missing him last night agaisnt Ospreys