Comments on: Northampton release statement backing North over Premiership Rugby

By: xxxwookie

xxxwookie — Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:29:45 +0000

Why is it wrong? Rugby is professional, it’s a business. The clubs cannot tell a player that he can’t play for his international team during the test windows. The test windows are there precisely for that reason. As a player, you run the risk when you play for another professional club that you will only be available to your national side during those windows.

It’s tantamount to your employer giving you an extra week of holiday to work for another company. Add in the enhanced risk of getting injured in an international match where everyone is inclined to further put their bodies on the line. That is not in the interests of the club. So England offered teams a stimulus to encourage them to release English players. A deal that benefits players, clubs and the national side.

Now I think it’s great that Northampton opted to release North in his contract, it was possibly the only way to lure him in the first place. However, it undermines the EPS agreement with the RFU which threatens the position all of the Premiership sides.

By: Niall

Niall — Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:54:06 +0000

Actually, Australia were booked up for THREE weeks of the window. They happened to play the first game outside the window.

Now who was that against again….

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 28 Nov 2013 00:56:19 +0000

Because that’s all it is, a policy, hence it not being illegal. The only people apart from the fans who are getting upset is the Premiership Rugby Board because they got excited that there would have a big name in their league. It’s English rugby all over, the culture of it is backwards.

By: BB

BB — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:29:10 +0000

North has secured what so many Welsh internationals have been prepared in the past to forego-namely playing for Wales when they are picked.

After all too many non-Welsh clubs have been cherry-picking our internationals and then telling them when they can and when they cannot play for the national side.

That is quite simply wrong.

By: Steve Matthews

Steve Matthews — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:33:34 +0000

The main reason there is an agreement is that the clubs lose a lot of their players to the RFU on England International weekends. The clubs were unhappy that, because the league fixtures continued over International weekends, the atyendances would suffer and so could league points, meaning possible non-qual for ehc and even relegation. Payments made by RFU are to compensate for England players absence, possibly allowing the club to use that money to recruit some replacements. North is part of the Wales set up. Are the club compensated for his absence? If not he should be allowed to play without Saints being harassed by the PRL. Forgive me if i have that wrong.

By: brighty

brighty — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:06:38 +0000

Messy business – PRL agree this “policy” to stay strong in their resolve that Eng will not get “their” players to play for Eng for “free”. You want em, you pay for em. Collateral damage is that other unions, who don’t pay PRL for these players at all during the window, cannot get them outside the window. Seems a bit churlish on the one hand for PRL to care what Northampton does with it’s non-English players but I understand that this is all politics and is about the fractious relationship between the PRL and RFU.

WRU have an extra non-IRB-window AI because they want/need the money. Is it right? I don’t think so – Wales play too many international matches as it is … and compete with the regions for the eyes of the fans.

However, when they do play them I want them to be at full strength.

Blub is spot on here – without this release clause George would have probably gone to France. Northampton have opened the door here. Expect more shenanigans by English clubs emboldened by the BT deal.

By: Blub

Blub — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:56:33 +0000

Whats more…

What I find very difficult to understand is;

“our agreement with George has not contravened any laws, rules or regulations. However ……. the agreement included terms ……… which were outside Premiership Rugby board policy.”

How can the PL be run with a policy that is not backed up by ” laws, rules or regulations”?

Given the negotiating position of PRL with the whole Euro issue, it seems ludicrous that there should be such a loophole in their own structure.

By: Blub

Blub — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:53:12 +0000

Good points here from Wookie and Lukov.

I have been rather of the opinion that Northampton shoudl do what they want with their players, and PRL shoudl butt out. However, on reading Wookie’s first post it does occur to me that this could set a rather uneven playing field for the PRL teams.

Imagine for a moment that other players (Sexton? Lydiate? even North himself?) have negotiated with other PRL clubs, but could not come to an agreement on release outside of the test window. They turn down – or rather they fail to agree terms – the chance to sign a top player, and then Northampton come along and ignore this “policy”.

This is all hypothetical of course, but it is entirely reasonable to assume that signings have failed to materialise because of adherence by other clubs to this policy.

By: Lukov

Lukov — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:53:25 +0000

Quite simply WRU can do what ever they want, a window is just a window. They have lost plenty of players who can’t play this weekend due to out side Wales club commitments, just happens George North is not one of them.

They wanted to play Australia who were booked up the 4 weekends of the window so added one. Whether the main reason is for cash in the tills, rankings points or player experience I don’t know or particularly care, its entertainment – I’m far more looking forward to watching halfpenny, cuthbert and warburton play Aus at home than Treviso away!

Do you think the WRU want to make life simple for players with clubs outside of Wales? they will purposely drive this issue as far as they can to try and keep the remaining players with the Regions.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:12:00 +0000

I’d forgotten about the Wales match being outside the window – good point!!!

By: xxxwookie

xxxwookie — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:11:36 +0000

That’s all very well, but premiership rugby is the clubs. The clubs have representation within the organisation so they can all come together and agree on how everything should be run to make life easier for all the clubs together and for the league. They do need to be involved in the affairs of clubs because if they sign sensitive agreements regarding player release with England, they undermine those agreements by releasing players to other unions. This is exactly what the PRL are there for.

Given that teams in the Top XIV were being investigated last year for allegations of paying Argentinians and Fijians to turn down offers to play for their country (actually illegal), I’d be surprised if many of them smiled on players leaving outside of the test window

By: xxxwookie

xxxwookie — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:04:15 +0000

Frankly, there would be no problem in the first place if Wales weren’t playing a game outside of the test window. Why are they playing a game outside of the test window? I think that’s the biggest missed question in the whole debacle with a lot of people choosing to criticise PRL instead for micromanaging. The PRL for the sake of the clubs arranged a deal with the RFU – after lots of negotiating – that would see clubs reimbursed for their players leaving outside of the test window. Under these circumstances, Wales get a player for free. How does that not undermine the agreement between clubs and the RFU? The RFU could just as easily tell all English players to have it written into their contract that they can leave whenever they want and the deal falls through and clubs get nothing from the RFU for losing players.

The test window is there for the specific reason of preventing these arguments. If Wales choose to host a test outside of the window, they choose to go without players who have made legal and binding agreements with their clubs. That’s simply the way it works. They could have had a game the first weekend when England did, but opted for this structure instead. I think they did the same last year too and in previous years (I remember arguments over Dwayne Peel). Effectively, they’re making life difficult for their players and the clubs they play for when they could be making it so much more simple.