Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
aber-fan
Veteran
Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 18822
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Topic: Wales Squad for 2018 Summer Tour Posted: 18 May 2018 at 10:49pm |
minded wrote:
aber-fan wrote:
KID A wrote:
aber-fan wrote:
Your second point is quite a good one - in effect, it's all about money. I wonder if they'd release the players if the WRU were willing to put some cash in the pot?
I'm still not impressed by their total inflexibility, though. I wonder if Moriarty will be affected, even though he's joining a Welsh region next season? I haven't seen anything that clarifies his position for this tour. If he is released, shouldn't his club be fined £60k too, under the regulations? And if not, doesn't that prove that some flexibility is possible, but the PRL are simply choosing not to be flexible? I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one, unless the news is already out there, somewhere. |
Moriarty's contract effectively ends May / June. His club can effectvively offer mutual termination few weeks early to ensure he's no longer a PRL issue.
You're right about the PRL members not being elected - it's even cosier than that. This is what they say themselves:
"Premiership Rugby is the organising body for the top professional rugby clubs in England who compete in the Aviva Premiership. Premiership Rugby is a private company, wholly owned by and responsible to its member clubs. In the 2017-18 RFU Championship clubs Bristol Rugby and Leeds Carnegie have shares in Premiership Rugby and a place on the Board.
Each of the member clubs is independent of Premiership Rugby, working within the rules of the game as laid out by World Rugby, the RFU and English law and delivering in their local communities.
Representatives from the clubs come together every six weeks for a Board meeting, at which decisions are taken collectively as to the best way to develop the professional game for the benefit of all clubs, stakeholders and fans. The Board is the highest forum for decision-making in the game and Premiership Rugby is ultimately responsible to the Board for delivering against decisions made."
So, as I said earlier, the relationship between the clubs and PRL is so close that if the clubs wanted to do so they could easily mandate their representatives on the Board to change the regulations. They choose not to do so., and to retain what seems to me to be an extremely inflexible position. It should not be beyond the wit of intelligent people to come up with a set of regulations which protects the clubs' interests (e.g WRT the Autumn internationals) whilst allowing some wiggle room at times when the clubs are not playing any matches, and are not going to do so for a considerable period. |
Yes. Exactly the same as in Wales then.
I wonder........... if the Scarlets had 2 English international players on our books that were wanted by Eddie Jones for a game against New Zealand next week - would you be saying they should be released to the RFU "for the good of the game" - and the Scarlets should pay a £120k fine to Mark Davies at PRW? |
You don't seem to have read my posts carefully - I have repeated several times that IF PLAYERS ARE NEEDED BY THEIR CLUBS, there is no issue.
The situation is (to my mind) completely different if the players season is at an end, and if they won't be needed for months. You seem to be inventing situations to suit your argument, rather than dealing with the situation that exists in reality. |
And what happens if the player then gets injured in this extra game and is out until Christmas? How does that benefit the club that are paying his wages? |
Insurance could be a possibility - to be paid for by the WRU (or whoever) - but players have been known to injure themselves doing daft things like breaking a leg ski-ing or whatever. Life is full of risks... Again, though, I see the 'argument against' comes down to money (essentially) rather than any moral imperative...
Anyway, I can see that some posters are admirers of Prem Rugby, and I've had my say. I'll leave it there, so we can all enjoy the great Scarlets win tonight!
|
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
|
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
minded
Admin Group
Joined: 09 July 2009
Location: N18
Status: Offline
Points: 11888
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 May 2018 at 2:13pm |
aber-fan wrote:
KID A wrote:
aber-fan wrote:
Your second point is quite a good one - in effect, it's all about money. I wonder if they'd release the players if the WRU were willing to put some cash in the pot?
I'm still not impressed by their total inflexibility, though. I wonder if Moriarty will be affected, even though he's joining a Welsh region next season? I haven't seen anything that clarifies his position for this tour. If he is released, shouldn't his club be fined £60k too, under the regulations? And if not, doesn't that prove that some flexibility is possible, but the PRL are simply choosing not to be flexible? I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one, unless the news is already out there, somewhere. |
Moriarty's contract effectively ends May / June. His club can effectvively offer mutual termination few weeks early to ensure he's no longer a PRL issue.
You're right about the PRL members not being elected - it's even cosier than that. This is what they say themselves:
"Premiership Rugby is the organising body for the top professional rugby clubs in England who compete in the Aviva Premiership. Premiership Rugby is a private company, wholly owned by and responsible to its member clubs. In the 2017-18 RFU Championship clubs Bristol Rugby and Leeds Carnegie have shares in Premiership Rugby and a place on the Board.
Each of the member clubs is independent of Premiership Rugby, working within the rules of the game as laid out by World Rugby, the RFU and English law and delivering in their local communities.
Representatives from the clubs come together every six weeks for a Board meeting, at which decisions are taken collectively as to the best way to develop the professional game for the benefit of all clubs, stakeholders and fans. The Board is the highest forum for decision-making in the game and Premiership Rugby is ultimately responsible to the Board for delivering against decisions made."
So, as I said earlier, the relationship between the clubs and PRL is so close that if the clubs wanted to do so they could easily mandate their representatives on the Board to change the regulations. They choose not to do so., and to retain what seems to me to be an extremely inflexible position. It should not be beyond the wit of intelligent people to come up with a set of regulations which protects the clubs' interests (e.g WRT the Autumn internationals) whilst allowing some wiggle room at times when the clubs are not playing any matches, and are not going to do so for a considerable period. |
Yes. Exactly the same as in Wales then.
I wonder........... if the Scarlets had 2 English international players on our books that were wanted by Eddie Jones for a game against New Zealand next week - would you be saying they should be released to the RFU "for the good of the game" - and the Scarlets should pay a £120k fine to Mark Davies at PRW? |
You don't seem to have read my posts carefully - I have repeated several times that IF PLAYERS ARE NEEDED BY THEIR CLUBS, there is no issue.
The situation is (to my mind) completely different if the players season is at an end, and if they won't be needed for months. You seem to be inventing situations to suit your argument, rather than dealing with the situation that exists in reality. |
And what happens if the player then gets injured in this extra game and is out until Christmas? How does that benefit the club that are paying his wages?
|
|
|
KID A
Moderator Group
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Cardiff
Status: Offline
Points: 27566
|
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 May 2018 at 1:48pm |
I've definitely given up this time.
|
|
aber-fan
Veteran
Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 18822
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 May 2018 at 1:42pm |
KID A wrote:
aber-fan wrote:
Your second point is quite a good one - in effect, it's all about money. I wonder if they'd release the players if the WRU were willing to put some cash in the pot?
I'm still not impressed by their total inflexibility, though. I wonder if Moriarty will be affected, even though he's joining a Welsh region next season? I haven't seen anything that clarifies his position for this tour. If he is released, shouldn't his club be fined £60k too, under the regulations? And if not, doesn't that prove that some flexibility is possible, but the PRL are simply choosing not to be flexible? I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one, unless the news is already out there, somewhere. |
Moriarty's contract effectively ends May / June. His club can effectvively offer mutual termination few weeks early to ensure he's no longer a PRL issue.
You're right about the PRL members not being elected - it's even cosier than that. This is what they say themselves:
"Premiership Rugby is the organising body for the top professional rugby clubs in England who compete in the Aviva Premiership. Premiership Rugby is a private company, wholly owned by and responsible to its member clubs. In the 2017-18 RFU Championship clubs Bristol Rugby and Leeds Carnegie have shares in Premiership Rugby and a place on the Board.
Each of the member clubs is independent of Premiership Rugby, working within the rules of the game as laid out by World Rugby, the RFU and English law and delivering in their local communities.
Representatives from the clubs come together every six weeks for a Board meeting, at which decisions are taken collectively as to the best way to develop the professional game for the benefit of all clubs, stakeholders and fans. The Board is the highest forum for decision-making in the game and Premiership Rugby is ultimately responsible to the Board for delivering against decisions made."
So, as I said earlier, the relationship between the clubs and PRL is so close that if the clubs wanted to do so they could easily mandate their representatives on the Board to change the regulations. They choose not to do so., and to retain what seems to me to be an extremely inflexible position. It should not be beyond the wit of intelligent people to come up with a set of regulations which protects the clubs' interests (e.g WRT the Autumn internationals) whilst allowing some wiggle room at times when the clubs are not playing any matches, and are not going to do so for a considerable period. |
Yes. Exactly the same as in Wales then.
I wonder........... if the Scarlets had 2 English international players on our books that were wanted by Eddie Jones for a game against New Zealand next week - would you be saying they should be released to the RFU "for the good of the game" - and the Scarlets should pay a £120k fine to Mark Davies at PRW? |
You don't seem to have read my posts carefully - I have repeated several times that IF PLAYERS ARE NEEDED BY THEIR CLUBS, there is no issue.
The situation is (to my mind) completely different if the players season is at an end, and if they won't be needed for months. You seem to be inventing situations to suit your argument, rather than dealing with the situation that exists in reality.
|
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
|
|
KID A
Moderator Group
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Cardiff
Status: Offline
Points: 27566
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 May 2018 at 8:59am |
aber-fan wrote:
Your second point is quite a good one - in effect, it's all about money. I wonder if they'd release the players if the WRU were willing to put some cash in the pot?
I'm still not impressed by their total inflexibility, though. I wonder if Moriarty will be affected, even though he's joining a Welsh region next season? I haven't seen anything that clarifies his position for this tour. If he is released, shouldn't his club be fined £60k too, under the regulations? And if not, doesn't that prove that some flexibility is possible, but the PRL are simply choosing not to be flexible? I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one, unless the news is already out there, somewhere. |
Moriarty's contract effectively ends May / June. His club can effectvively offer mutual termination few weeks early to ensure he's no longer a PRL issue.
You're right about the PRL members not being elected - it's even cosier than that. This is what they say themselves:
"Premiership Rugby is the organising body for the top professional rugby clubs in England who compete in the Aviva Premiership. Premiership Rugby is a private company, wholly owned by and responsible to its member clubs. In the 2017-18 RFU Championship clubs Bristol Rugby and Leeds Carnegie have shares in Premiership Rugby and a place on the Board.
Each of the member clubs is independent of Premiership Rugby, working within the rules of the game as laid out by World Rugby, the RFU and English law and delivering in their local communities.
Representatives from the clubs come together every six weeks for a Board meeting, at which decisions are taken collectively as to the best way to develop the professional game for the benefit of all clubs, stakeholders and fans. The Board is the highest forum for decision-making in the game and Premiership Rugby is ultimately responsible to the Board for delivering against decisions made."
So, as I said earlier, the relationship between the clubs and PRL is so close that if the clubs wanted to do so they could easily mandate their representatives on the Board to change the regulations. They choose not to do so., and to retain what seems to me to be an extremely inflexible position. It should not be beyond the wit of intelligent people to come up with a set of regulations which protects the clubs' interests (e.g WRT the Autumn internationals) whilst allowing some wiggle room at times when the clubs are not playing any matches, and are not going to do so for a considerable period. | Yes. Exactly the same as in Wales then. I wonder........... if the Scarlets had 2 English international players on our books that were wanted by Eddie Jones for a game against New Zealand next week - would you be saying they should be released to the RFU "for the good of the game" - and the Scarlets should pay a £120k fine to Mark Davies at PRW?
Edited by KID A - 18 May 2018 at 9:00am
|
|
GPR - Rochester
Veteran
Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Offline
Points: 18737
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 May 2018 at 7:59am |
I think the whole situation has been exacerbated by the continuing battle between the WRU and the Premier League clubs over talented academy players who have dual qualifications. It has led the PRL to take a very hard stance with the WRU and they are playing by the rules instead of showing some common sense flexibility.
The situation could have been much worse if the decision hadn't been made to rest Liam & Taulupe.
|
|
aber-fan
Veteran
Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 18822
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 May 2018 at 7:17am |
KID A wrote:
PRL is not elected. It's the organisation that runs English pro rugby. It's chaired by an independent Chief Executive.
It operates in the best interest of the clubs, and has a lucrative deal with the RFU to receive money for player release. If the RFU sees Wales players are being released scott free out of the window, then that is all up in the air. So PRL fines clubs for releasing such players. |
Your second point is quite a good one - in effect, it's all about money. I wonder if they'd release the players if the WRU were willing to put some cash in the pot?
I'm still not impressed by their total inflexibility, though. I wonder if Moriarty will be affected, even though he's joining a Welsh region next season? I haven't seen anything that clarifies his position for this tour. If he is released, shouldn't his club be fined £60k too, under the regulations? And if not, doesn't that prove that some flexibility is possible, but the PRL are simply choosing not to be flexible? I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one, unless the news is already out there, somewhere.
You're right about the PRL members not being elected - it's even cosier than that. This is what they say themselves:
"Premiership Rugby is the organising body for the top professional rugby clubs in England who compete in the Aviva Premiership. Premiership Rugby is a private company, wholly owned by and responsible to its member clubs. In the 2017-18 RFU Championship clubs Bristol Rugby and Leeds Carnegie have shares in Premiership Rugby and a place on the Board. Each of the member clubs is independent of Premiership Rugby, working within the rules of the game as laid out by World Rugby, the RFU and English law and delivering in their local communities. Representatives from the clubs come together every six weeks for a Board meeting, at which decisions are taken collectively as to the best way to develop the professional game for the benefit of all clubs, stakeholders and fans. The Board is the highest forum for decision-making in the game and Premiership Rugby is ultimately responsible to the Board for delivering against decisions made." So, as I said earlier, the relationship between the clubs and PRL is so close that if the clubs wanted to do so they could easily mandate their representatives on the Board to change the regulations. They choose not to do so., and to retain what seems to me to be an extremely inflexible position. It should not be beyond the wit of intelligent people to come up with a set of regulations which protects the clubs' interests (e.g WRT the Autumn internationals) whilst allowing some wiggle room at times when the clubs are not playing any matches, and are not going to do so for a considerable period.
|
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
|
|
NobbySosban
Veteran
Joined: 30 June 2010
Location: Sir Berk
Status: Offline
Points: 6278
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 May 2018 at 4:37pm |
Not sure Kid A is defending anyone, just explaining how PRL have created a commercial property and are protecting it within the express 'rules' of World Rugby.
PRL is the Clubs in the English Premiership and, as their employers, the players contracted to play for them. They are not obliged to release players outside of contracted periods and, if any other body (in this case the WRU) tries to take a liberty in this commercially-competitive world, they are within their rights to refuse access to the players under contract to them.
For whatever reason, WRU have arranged a game outside the recognised international window, so can't be entirely surprised when some stakeholders don't play ball. The wider context is that Gats & Co were testing the resolve of PRL Clubs, and have taken the opportunity to remind players that, to play for Wales, they'd be better off playing in Wales. Bluntly.
|
|
Dai38
Veteran
Joined: 15 April 2009
Location: Llanelli
Status: Offline
Points: 2878
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 May 2018 at 3:53pm |
Kid A you say and I quote " best interest of the clubs"
What about the best interest of the game, which in reality is why they are there.
I am confused and this will be the last posting on this why are you defending all that is good in the English game and criticising everything Welsh.
Also why have you not said anything about South Africa.
Does anyone agree that it is a shambles brought on by the following Unions:-
English Welsh South African
Marshalled so well by the IRB who would have sanctioned the game prior to it being agreed.
How anyone can solely blame Wales is beyond me.
|
Be careful when you pick up the stick.........IT MAY BE THE WRONG END!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
Fscarlet
Moderator Group
Joined: 26 January 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 8854
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 May 2018 at 3:45pm |
KID A wrote:
Fscarlet wrote:
Am I right in saying that AP clubs receive money when the England squad train outside of official windows?
|
The clubs get compensated for all player release inside and outside of windows. As the 4 Welsh teams do from the WRU. |
I'm sure I read somewhere, a while ago, that when there are one off sessions they get extra money...
|
|
Micro Duck
Moderator Group
Joined: 10 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 10698
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 May 2018 at 3:23pm |
Lewis Rawlins still can't make it into the squad.
Thought he would've been ahead of Aaron Wainwright.
|
New KALAMAFONI - BEAST MODE t-shirt now available online.
Plus a new 'Sosban Fach Scoundrels' range.
Paste the link below into your URL: https://llanelli.teemill.com/
|
|
KID A
Moderator Group
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Cardiff
Status: Offline
Points: 27566
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 May 2018 at 3:16pm |
Fscarlet wrote:
Am I right in saying that AP clubs receive money when the England squad train outside of official windows?
| The clubs get compensated for all player release inside and outside of windows. As the 4 Welsh teams do from the WRU.
|
|
Fscarlet
Moderator Group
Joined: 26 January 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 8854
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 May 2018 at 3:10pm |
Am I right in saying that AP clubs receive money when the England squad train outside of official windows?
|
|
KID A
Moderator Group
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Cardiff
Status: Offline
Points: 27566
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 May 2018 at 3:02pm |
PRL is not elected. It's the organisation that runs English pro rugby. It's chaired by an independent Chief Executive.
It operates in the best interest of the clubs, and has a lucrative deal with the RFU to receive money for player release. If the RFU sees Wales players are being released scott free out of the window, then that is all up in the air. So PRL fines clubs for releasing such players.
|
|
aber-fan
Veteran
Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 18822
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 May 2018 at 2:58pm |
KID A wrote:
aber-fan wrote:
Indeed you should, if I understood the position correctly.
If, on the other hand, the body making the rules is distinct and independent from the bodies refusing to release players, then please clarify. I may have misunderstood |
They're not paying themselves the fine! |
That hardly matters, if they are essentially the same people - is this a bit like traffic wardens - where they fine the public, and the fines go to pay the body that runs the traffic wardens?
They can only wash their hands of the situation, Pontius Pilate style, if they are totally separate and independent from each other. From what I have read and (mis-?) understood so far, that does not appear to be the case!
i.e. if the 'fining body' is elected by the 'fined clubs', is there anything to stop those clubs from instructing the 'fining body' to change its regulations? They seem to be remarkably inflexible ATM.
|
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
|
|
KID A
Moderator Group
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Cardiff
Status: Offline
Points: 27566
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 May 2018 at 2:52pm |
aber-fan wrote:
Indeed you should, if I understood the position correctly.
If, on the other hand, the body making the rules is distinct and independent from the bodies refusing to release players, then please clarify. I may have misunderstood |
They're not paying themselves the fine!
Edited by KID A - 17 May 2018 at 2:53pm
|
|