PRL release foreign players outside of the IRB window...!

Premiership Rugby has confirmed that it has reached agreement with USA Rugby for the release of selected players for the US Eagles match against New Zealand on 1 November.

Premiership Rugby Chief Executive Mark McCafferty added: "We have a very good relationship with USA Rugby and we have responded to their request to ensure all their best players are available to play against New Zealand, on what will be an historic occasion.
"As we help grow the sport in the USA, it is essential to support a match of this quality which has clearly captured the interest of the American supporters."

Great, that will save Northampton getting another fine and give Wales axis to their England based players.

maestegmafia wrote:Premiership Rugby has confirmed that it has reached agreement with USA Rugby for the release of selected players for the US Eagles match against New Zealand on 1 November.

Premiership Rugby Chief Executive Mark McCafferty added: "We have a very good relationship with USA Rugby and we have responded to their request to ensure all their best players are available to play against New Zealand, on what will be an historic occasion.
"As we help grow the sport in the USA, it is essential to support a match of this quality which has clearly captured the interest of the American supporters."

Great, that will save Northampton getting another fine and give Wales axis to their England based players.

Have I missed the bit where the WRU requested access to their players and it was agreed?

USA plays 1 AI so I guess they came to an arrangement for the match before the window opens.

I think wales aren't playing any matches outside the window this year so Hibbard and North should have no problem being released.

quinsforever wrote:USA plays 1 AI so I guess they came to an arrangement for the match before the window opens.

I think wales aren't playing any matches outside the window this year so Hibbard and North should have no problem being released.

Quins,

We play SA outside the window on 29th November so Hibbard or our French exiles won't be available. North should be has he has a full release clause, all that said I have said in previous posts that I would be happy if none of them were picked even against the ABs.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

quinsforever wrote:USA plays 1 AI so I guess they came to an arrangement for the match before the window opens.

I think wales aren't playing any matches outside the window this year so Hibbard and North should have no problem being released.

Quins,

We play SA outside the window on 29th November so Hibbard or our French exiles won't be available.  North should be has he has a full release clause, all that said I have said in previous posts that I would be happy if none of them were picked even against the ABs.

Beds the French based players are on an agreement between their club and the WRU, so it is up to the club whether they can play. We have usually had a good relationship with the clubs in France... Halfpenny would be the only player that I see their being a serious problem with.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/wales/8905415/Wales-players-face-Six-Nations-snub-if-they-do-not-guarantee-release-for-training-says-Warren-Gatland.html

Maest, you missed the bit that in having the players for this match USA Rugby has agreed not to pick the players for the other matches in the autumn window so the players will be avaiable to their clubs when other internationals are'nt

MM,

We have had in the past but what with all the noises coming out of Toulon at the moment I wouldn't hold my breath and if I am honest given the form most are showing (or not) and limited game time I would manage without them.

For me JD would be only one we really miss at moment.

broadlandboy wrote:Maest, you missed the bit that in having the players for this match USA Rugby has agreed not to pick the players for the other matches in the autumn window so the players will be avaiable to their clubs when other internationals are'nt

I wasn't aware of that, from what I read Melville said that the Eagles were using the other tests to blood younger players. I didn't read that there was a bartering agreement.

Where did you read that?

In many ways that is not good.

The IRB window means all players must be available for their nation not that the window is there to barter to suit the PRL's whim.

There was plenty of dicussion a few years ago about Manu Samoa's deal at Saints, where he was originally signed by Saints as a player who would not play international rugby.

http://rugbyworldcup-argentina2023.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/2013-with-eye-to-2015-usas-samu-manoa.html?m=1

Apart from Manoa, how many Eagles players are playing in England?

The Saint wrote:Apart from Manoa, how many Eagles players are playing in England?

Wyles is as well. I suppose Hayden Smith too. Think that's it

Scully? Not sure if he's in the squad.

What date is the IRB window exactly? England have 4 AIs too. Would they have to negotiate player release?

England already have. They have 4 AI every other year (non-WC/Lions years). Agreed with the PRL for 8 years. (Edit: this only applies to players in the premiership of course)

November window is (unless agreed otherwise) is 2nd, 3rd and 4th weekends in November.

The Saint wrote:Apart from Manoa, how many Eagles players are playing in England?

I think the real question is:

How many players in England from the likes of Samoa, Fiji, Tonga etc, will be playing in the window, against a Manoaless USA?

I can think of three of his Northampton teamates for a start.....

I find Mccafferty's attitude refreshing, its good to see someone has the nouse to recognise:

1.The Importance of this occasion.
2. That World rugby needs USA Rugby.
3. That sponsors like AIG are vital to the future of rugby no matter where they put their sponsorship dollar.
4.USA rugby needs Manoa.
5. How big an occasion it is for Manoa to play against the ABs.

And if I really thought about it I could go on.

HammerofThunor wrote:England already have. They have 4 AI every other year (non-WC/Lions years). Agreed with the PRL for 8 years. (Edit: this only applies to players in the premiership of course)

November window is (unless agreed otherwise) is 2nd, 3rd and 4th weekends in November.

It's just an agreement made for England players I take it?

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I find Mccafferty's attitude refreshing, its good to see someone has the nouse to recognise:

1.The Importance of this occasion.
2. That World rugby needs  USA Rugby.
3. That sponsors like AIG are vital to the future of rugby no matter where they put their sponsorship dollar.
4.USA rugby needs Manoa.
5. How big an occasion it is for Manoa to play against the ABs.

And if I really thought about it I could go on.

It's for the good of sucking up to prospective financial partners for the PRL, not necessarily good for the sport of rugby.

From The Guardian

Speaking to the USA Rugby website, Melville added: “It’s a case of give and take. The players want to play against New Zealand, which is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for any Eagle, but without the clubs’ support they would not be available.

“The current Regulation 9 does not work for North America and ideally this will be changed in the future. Until that happens, we have to be creative and manage our professional players as best we can.

“Our goal every four years is to be increasingly competitive at the Rugby World Cup. In 2015 there is no Regulation 9 release period during the Pacific Nations Cup, when we will need our players to prepare. Having a positive working relationship with the professional clubs is therefore critical to achieving our goals.

Re the bold bit. maes.

It seems like the IRB need to make Reg. 9 an all encompassing global Regulation which, from Melville's comment, it certainly doesn't appear to be.

But don't hold your breath. The current situation benefits the 'big 8' in the IRB voting system.

Until clubs/regions/whatever are disincentivised from signing players from nations not benefitting from Reg. 9, and prevent their release for designated international windows, the so called tier 2 nations will never develop to their full potential.

Playing matches outside of the IRB windows is a different matter. If agreement can be reached between affected parties then fair enough.

Hound I was very very surprised that the IRB are not supporting the pacific cup as they should.

More needs to be done for sure.

I think there's about 8 US players contracted in the Aviva. I think they essentially need the release for the game to be viable. If they can get a couple of players out of France, they should be near full strength.

I'm sure it's enlightened benevolence. English clubs have been looking to raise their exposure in Asia and the US. The All Blacks playing the eagles is the most effective way of doing this (It raises rugby's profile and allows the, to piggyback). I seem to remember that they are interested in tying into the proposed professional competition due to open their in a year or so.

Great comment, "enlightened benevolence"...!

This is the third game between the two sides. Unsurprisingly the ABs beat the Eagles in both previous matches. New Zealand rarely play teams outside of the top tier of rugby nations and we know this game is driven by the ABs american sponsors.

There are sure to be more games like this and it is huge for America, where former wasps man, Nigel Melville is doing a superb job as CEO of US rugby. 76% participation growth I read a while ago in an article in a UA inflight magazine article. Great news.

But the US have three more internationals against similar level teams during the window and they will not have their star players based in England available.

Imagine how angered New Zealand fans would be if an Australian club organisation was preventing their players from being available for the ABs...!

maestegmafia wrote:Hound I was very very surprised that the IRB are not supporting the pacific cup as they should.

More needs to be done for sure.

The PNC is specifically mentioned as a 'proper' competition in the appendix of Regulation 9. Since 2015 was specifically mentioned I'm guessing it's being moved out of it's usual time slot because of the World Cup.

Main thing is that the global season needs sorting out so these thing fit against each other rather than conflicting.

The Saint wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:England already have. They have 4 AI every other year (non-WC/Lions years). Agreed with the PRL for 8 years. (Edit: this only applies to players in the premiership of course)

November window is (unless agreed otherwise) is 2nd, 3rd and 4th weekends in November.

It's just an agreement made for England players I take it?

Yep

Good to see the PRL come to an agreement but will the French release their American players?

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Good to see the PRL come to an agreement but will the French release their American players?

It's not that great, it's a bartering deal according to a poster above, it allows them to be available for the ABs match but the players are then unavailable for the other three international matches the eagles have that are during the IRB window.

I think it is great that the PRL have allowed ese players to represent outside of the international window, but sickens me that they will not allow them to play when they are obliged to be released.

Financial bullying tactics seem very prevalent in professional rugby.

It is sickening that dialogue between the U.S. Union and the PRL has allowed the Union to shift their International window to include the All Blacks game, which they see as more important. I'm struggling to keep the vomit down.

HammerofThunor wrote:It is sickening that dialogue between the U.S. Union and the PRL has allowed the Union to shift their International window to include the All Blacks game, which they see as more important. I'm struggling to keep the vomit down.

As mentionede earlier, the abs rarely play non top tier teams so there was little chance of the USA getting a game against them in the IRB window.

Bruce Craig,

“Season structure is fundamental because a lot of the problems are created by not having a sensible global season. What we have is based on history and is a remnant of the bygone amateur and touring days.

“If we were to have a blank piece of paper, we certainly wouldn’t have the fragmented nature of the international and club scene in the North and South. Anyone sensible outside rugby would say it doesn’t make sense.

“There should be a separation of the club and international calendar. There’s no way the club game should be devalued by playing on the same day as Test matches, so one of the key things is to have

different windows in which to do things.

“Nothing in the Northern Hemisphere is based on logic, it’s purely based on historical blocks like the Six Nations, which everyone says is the Holy Grail which makes international rugby all its money, and the June and November blocks.

“But when you look at it from a league point of view, that’s where the problems arise. In England and France we have very strong league structures, so there needs to be a more sensible approach which will allow us to create the strongest national teams, as well as having the best leagues and clubs in the world.

Craig is pushing for his proposal to be part of the heads of agreement discussions between PRL & RFU which area about to begin.

The Unions & IRB need shaking up and come up with some ideas of their own to.

Trev many of us have been calling for that for years... Usually told by English club rugby supporters that it would be a bad idea.

Didn't realise you were such a Bruce Craig fan Maes

maestegmafia wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Good to see the PRL come to an agreement but will the French release their American players?

It's not that great, it's a bartering deal according to a poster above, it allows them to be available for the ABs match but the players are then unavailable for the other three international matches the eagles have that are during the IRB window.

I think it is great that the PRL have allowed ese players to represent outside of the international window, but sickens me that they will not allow them to play when they are obliged to be released.

Financial bullying tactics seem very prevalent in professional rugby.

Sickens you? Bullying? The PRL can't by default stop the USA calling up their players during normal international windows. If the USA want to give up the right to do that in exchange for extra release OUTSIDE of the window then that's up to them. Didn't have to agree to it.

I am a season ticket holder at Bath Trev. It is my local club.

Though the concept of the global season is hardly Bruce Craig's baby. His mates in the PRL have been rather against it for the last few years.

What with it being a logical way to avoid club vs Country issues it would remove a huge amount of RFU funding for English PRL member clubs who would no longer have to pay the clubs to pick players to represent England

thomh wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Good to see the PRL come to an agreement but will the French release their American players?

It's not that great, it's a bartering deal according to a poster above, it allows them to be available for the ABs match but the players are then unavailable for the other three international matches the eagles have that are during the IRB window.

I think it is great that the PRL have allowed ese players to represent outside of the international window, but sickens me that they will not allow them to play when they are obliged to be released.

Financial bullying tactics seem very prevalent in professional rugby.

Sickens you? Bullying? The PRL can't by default stop the USA calling up their players during normal international windows. If the USA want to give up the right to do that in exchange for extra release OUTSIDE of the window then that's up to them. Didn't have to agree to it.

Ofcourse Te Eagles had to do it. Try would be missing all their best players in the biggest game they have ever played, the game has already sold 60,000 tickets, that will be one of the first international rugby matches to be played on US TV...

This game is huge for the game in America.

Its also amazing to see what happens when a union is prepared to talk to the PRL

maestegmafia wrote:I am a season ticket holder at Bath Trev. It is my local club.

Though the concept of the global season is hardly Bruce Craig's baby. His mates in the PRL have been rather against it for the last few years.

What with it being a logical way to avoid club vs Country issues it would remove a huge amount of RFU funding for English PRL member clubs who would no longer have to pay the clubs to pick players to represent England

I dont understand your point about paying clubs; what do you mean?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I am a season ticket holder at Bath Trev. It is my local club.

Though the concept of the global season is hardly Bruce Craig's baby. His mates in the PRL have been rather against it for the last few years.

What with it being a logical way to avoid club vs Country issues it would remove a huge amount of RFU funding for English PRL member clubs who would no longer have to pay the clubs to pick players to represent England

I dont understand your point about paying clubs; what do you mean?

In 2007 the RFU agreed to pay £102 M to the PRL over an eight year deal to use England players

No. They payed them £102M to encourage playing English players, and having additional control over the elite English players. Including additional training over and above what the IRB deem neccessary, medical control over the players and limits on the number of games. This won't change with a restructured season.

HammerofThunor wrote:No. They payed them £102M to encourage playing English players, and having additional control over the elite English players. Including additional training over and above what the IRB deem neccessary, medical control over the players and limits on the number of games. This won't change with a restructured season.

Why not...?

If there was no, or at least very little, clashes with club and country games, like in the Southern Hemisphere, why would they need to pay anyone to release their players. No need to compensate for something that doesn't exist...

By that reckoning no need for WRU to subsiise regions by partially contracting a group of players.

There are clashes in the SH. The internationals don't play all (or any?) of the Currie Cup, ITM Cup. But that is beside the point. The current clashes are for time outside the International Windows. Time wanted outside these windows will always be clashes.

maestegmafia wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I am a season ticket holder at Bath Trev. It is my local club.

Though the concept of the global season is hardly Bruce Craig's baby. His mates in the PRL have been rather against it for the last few years.

What with it being a logical way to avoid club vs Country issues it would remove a huge amount of RFU funding for English PRL member clubs who would no longer have to pay the clubs to pick players to represent England

I dont understand your point about paying clubs; what do you mean?

In 2007 the RFU agreed to pay £102 M to the PRL over an eight year deal to use England players

As mentioned already think you ve misunderstood these payments.

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:No. They payed them £102M to encourage playing English players, and having additional control over the elite English players. Including additional training over and above what the IRB deem neccessary, medical control over the players and limits on the number of games. This won't change with a restructured season.

Why not...?

If there was no, or at least very little, clashes with club and country games, like in the Southern Hemisphere, why would they need to pay anyone to release their players. No need to compensate for something that doesn't exist...

They are not paying to access the players. They are paying for the players to be developed and given regular game time. In other words they are paying to avoid the situation in France or the English Wendyball league. Having access to players for one match outside of the international window is just a small part of the deal.

I can see the solution in the longer term could be dropping teams like Scotland and Italy out of the November schedule for the Boks, AB's and Wallabies. They could be replaced with a game against Japan, Canada, the US or possibly an Island team.

I think that should suit everyone. Clubs keep their players, world rugby developed, etc.

blackcanelion wrote:I can see the solution in the longer term could be dropping teams like Scotland and Italy out of the November schedule for the Boks, AB's and Wallabies. They could be replaced with a game against Japan, Canada, the US or possibly an Island team.

I think that should suit everyone. Clubs keep their players, world rugby developed, etc.

This isn't going to go down well

Poor Eric Fry...our signing from London Scottish.

He's not good enough to be our 1st choice LH but lines up for USA at TH prop...and he'll be facing the All Blacks.

It could be a horror story....

blackcanelion wrote:I can see the solution in the longer term could be dropping teams like Scotland and Italy out of the November schedule for the Boks, AB's and Wallabies. They could be replaced with a game against Japan, Canada, the US or possibly an Island team.

I think that should suit everyone. Clubs keep their players, world rugby developed, etc.

Surely it should be NH sides playing these teams more also?

I worry that the ABs,Boks and Wallabies would put too many points past Japan,Canada and USA.

Us English don't play these sides enough - it's a shame the Churchill cup was scrapped.

Perhaps this move by the PRL is to try and build USA and England relations so in the future England will play USA on a regular basis.

Having the likes of Wyles,Scully and Manoa playing their English club mates at international level would give them extra motivation.

These guys are decent players - they just lack coherency.

beshocked wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:I can see the solution in the longer term could be dropping teams like Scotland and Italy out of the November schedule for the Boks, AB's and Wallabies. They could be replaced with a game against Japan, Canada, the US or possibly an Island team.

I think that should suit everyone. Clubs keep their players, world rugby developed, etc.

Surely it should be NH sides playing these teams more also?

I worry that the ABs,Boks and Wallabies would put too many points past Japan,Canada and USA.

Us English don't play these sides enough - it's a shame the Churchill cup was scrapped.

Perhaps this move by the PRL is to try and build USA and England relations so in the future England will play USA on a regular basis.

Having the likes of Wyles,Scully and Manoa playing their English club mates at international level would give them extra motivation.

These guys are decent players - they just lack coherency.

My take was the same for PRL clubs. I've since heard that the price is the players wont play for the USA during the November window. It gives the clubs a win situation and cover when they lose players to international duty. However, I think it may come back to bite them and it may ultimately disappoint English club fans. There is no way that this will sit well with USA rugby and other minor nations will take note. the same goes for the investors in the professional rugby in the US. It works only as long as England is a major powerbase. But I think they may have really managed to alienate sections of international rugby community.

In terms of NZ/South Africa/ Australia dropping nations. I wouldn't be surprised if it happens. There's little actual benefit for them to play as seldom tour down south. What it does do is feed the SRU coffers so their clubs can sign more southern players. there is a fair amount of pressure to spread the game and play Pacific sides (which needs to be done as the NRL is expanding into the islands). Given these sides can only access their players in the release windows it makes sense to make room other ways. As far as thew quality of opposition goes it's got to help. The current international tour schedule is based around 6 nations and rc teams. This would free up times to play. Scotland and Italy would have to look for additional games. I think it's win/win.

blackcanelion wrote:,,There is no way that this will sit well with USA rugby and other minor nations will take note.. I think they may have really managed to alienate sections of international rugby community...

I doubt that will be the case. France has a similar, and longer-standing, deal with Argentina which hasn't caused them any grief to date.