Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > RUGBY > GENERAL RUGBY
  New Posts New Posts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


Wales Squad for 2018 Summer Tour

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345
Author
Message
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 14218
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 May 2018 at 7:17am
Originally posted by KID A 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.


I share no-one's ideas. I have my own.
(Ivan Turgenev)
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Offline
Points: 5988
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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. 
Back to Top
KID A View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Cardiff
Status: Offline
Points: 26183
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KID A Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 May 2018 at 8:59am
Originally posted by aber-fan 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.

Quote 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
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 14218
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 May 2018 at 1:42pm
Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan 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.

Quote 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.
I share no-one's ideas. I have my own.
(Ivan Turgenev)
Back to Top
KID A View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Cardiff
Status: Offline
Points: 26183
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote KID A Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 May 2018 at 1:48pm
I've definitely given up this time.
Back to Top
minded View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 09 July 2009
Location: N18
Status: Online
Points: 10389
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote minded Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 May 2018 at 2:13pm
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan 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.

Quote 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?
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 14218
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 May 2018 at 10:49pm
Originally posted by minded minded wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan 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.

Quote 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!

BeerHandshake
I share no-one's ideas. I have my own.
(Ivan Turgenev)
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.