N Saints fined £60,000 (~€71,000) for releasing George North outside of Test Window

thomond2006

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_9079261,00.html

70 grand! Seems a tad excessive.

If North's contract did state that he was free to be released for test matches outside of the IRB window and therefore had Northampton's blessing, does this mean he can never be released in the future? Something like this could make non-English players wary of signing for English clubs.

It doesn't look like Northampton will break ranks on this one as they aren't appealing.

awec

Only England players allowed to be released outside the window, but no other nation?

What is the logic behind that?

thomond2006

awec wrote: »

Only England players allowed to be released outside the window, but no other nation?

What is the logic behind that?

PRL and RFU have a specific agreement regarding the release of England internationals. PRL don't have a similar agreement with any other union as far as I'm aware.

gaius c

It's part of PRL rules that Northampton have agreed to abide by so technically speaking, PRL are right in what they do but it's another chip away at the notion that test rugby is all important by privately-owned clubs.

thomond2006

gaius c wrote: »

It's part of PRL rules that Northampton have agreed to abide by so technically speaking, PRL are right in what they do but it's another chip away at the notion that test rugby is all important by privately-owned clubs.

It's the size of the fine that surprises me. That money could pay a few academy players!

English Lurker

awec wrote: »

Only England players allowed to be released outside the window, but no other nation?

What is the logic behind that?

I've never been quite sure myself but the RFU seem happy to pay more for it. Probably aimed more at stopping the Premiership from becoming the world's playground than it is at securing a competitive edge for the England team. Although I've heard the WRU were invited to make a similar arrangement way back when in 2007, not sure if that's one true.

irishbucsfan

I suppose PRL will argue that Northampton weakened their hand in potential future negotiations with the WRU.

CatFromHue

gaius c wrote: »

It's part of PRL rules that Northampton have agreed to abide by so technically speaking, PRL are right in what they do but it's another chip away at the notion that test rugby is all important by privately-owned clubs.

A bigger question is should Wales be arranging games outside the IRB window when all their players are meant to be playing for their clubs?

There is a structure clubs and national teams are meant to adhere to but in this case Wales haven't and have put two fingers up to their regions.

This year this fixture meant the Welsh regions had no game after the International break before the HEC match 3 and 4.

irishbucsfan

thomond2006 wrote: »

It's the size of the fine that surprises me. That money could pay a few academy players!

I suppose it has to be noticeable enough to potentially deter clubs from agreeing to such a clause in future. And maybe to stop any existing players with the clause from asking for it to be enforced.

gaius c

CatFromHue wrote: »

A bigger question is should Wales be arranging games outside the IRB window when all their players are meant to be playing for their clubs?

There is a structure clubs and national teams are meant to adhere to but in this case Wales haven't and have put two fingers up to their regions.

This year this fixture meant the Welsh regions had no game after the International break before the HEC match 3 and 4.

If you're going to take that approach, clubs will start getting fined for releasing players for international training camps too, like Sexton has written into his contract with Racing.

Clubs (and their supporters) need to get used to the fact that international rugby is top dog. If they don't like that, they should check out their local soccer club.

I don't care if an Irish province has to field a weakened side the weekend of an international. They are there to service the national team and as a side bonus, it gives gametime to younger lads.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I suppose it has to be noticeable enough to potentially deter clubs from agreeing to such a clause in future. And maybe to stop any existing players with the clause from asking for it to be enforced.

Supposedly, Northampton budgeted for a fine when they agreed to the contract releasing North for Wales duties outside the international window.

thomond2006

gaius c wrote: »

Supposedly, Northampton budgeted for a fine when they agreed to the contract releasing North for Wales duties outside the international window.

And supposedly they paid Scarlets £250,000 to get North released from the final year of his contract there.

Yikes!

irishbucsfan

gaius c wrote: »

If you're going to take that approach, clubs will start getting fined for releasing players for international training camps too, like Sexton has written into his contract with Racing.

Clubs (and their supporters) need to get used to the fact that international rugby is top dog. If they don't like that, they should check out their local soccer club.

I don't care if an Irish province has to field a weakened side the weekend of an international. They are there to service the national team and as a side bonus, it gives gametime to younger lads.


Supposedly, Northampton budgeted for a fine when they agreed to the contract releasing North for Wales duties outside the international window.

Yeah... your opinion of the laws is a bit misguided and doesn't tally up with the IRB. Or else there would be no such thing as an international window.

gaius c

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yeah... your opinion of the laws is a bit misguided and doesn't tally up with the IRB. Or else there would be no such thing as an international window.

Sorry. Can't find anything on the international window in the laws of rugby.

English Lurker

Gaius C - How do you feel about Irish sides waving goodbye to their non-Irish internationals on non-designated international weekends? That is what this is comparable to, not the provinces releasing Irish players when required. The PRL has an agreement with the RFU to release players, the clubs have accepted that, and part of the agreement is that they don't do it for anyone else. This is as much the RFU's idea as the clubs.

People outraged by this should probably be more outraged by all the players not released due to this.

For what its worth, while I do not like this rule, I agree with enforcing it if its there and I regard this punishment as on the small side.

CatFromHue

gaius c wrote: »

If you're going to take that approach, clubs will start getting fined for releasing players for international training camps too, like Sexton has written into his contract with Racing.

Clubs (and their supporters) need to get used to the fact that international rugby is top dog. If they don't like that, they should check out their local soccer club.

If Racing have a contract that stipulates they can't release Sexton for a training camp then yes, they should be fined. If contract exists they shouldn't.

That's an awful opinion to have about International rugby. There is a structure put in place for the season for a reason, as it's in everyones interest to have allocated time for games. When people start breaking from this structure it leads to alot of resentment. For example the fourth Welsh International in November would be a factor in the Welsh regions wanting to break free from the WRU.

As far as I know the clubs in England don't actually need the International game at all so why would you intentionally go and piss these people off?

irishbucsfan

gaius c wrote: »

Sorry. Can't find anything on the international window in the laws of rugby.

Well then clearly you haven't read Regulation 9 in full

I think 9.6 or 9.7 is the one regarding the windows for this in particular.

gaius c

English Lurker wrote: »

Gaius C - How do you feel about Irish sides waving goodbye to their non-Irish internationals on non-designated international weekends? That is what this is comparable to, not the provinces releasing Irish players when required. The PRL has an agreement with the RFU to release players, the clubs have accepted that, and part of the agreement is that they don't do it for anyone else. This is as much the RFU's idea as the clubs.

People outraged by this should probably be more outraged by all the players not released due to this.

For what its worth, while I do not like this rule, I agree with enforcing it if its there and I regard this punishment as on the small side.

Don't have a problem with it but have any non-Irish players ever been unavailable to the Irish teams other than Saint Ruan? And they were for designated international games. We tend to sign lads not actively playing international rugby.

Young lad wants to play for his country. Clubs need to accept that it is reprehensible to force or coerce them not to do so, like Leicester trying to force Moody to retire from international rugby for example.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well then clearly you haven't read Regulation 9 in full

I think 9.6 or 9.7 is the one regarding the windows for this in particular.

Sorry. Law 9 covers methods of scoring.

irishbucsfan

gaius c wrote: »

Sorry. Law 9 covers methods of scoring.

Have a look at the IRB regulations

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/27/42327_pdf.pdf

Not the laws.

gaius c

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Have a look at the IRB regulations

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/27/42327_pdf.pdf

Not the laws.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yeah... your opinion of the laws is a bit misguided and doesn't tally up with the IRB. Or else there would be no such thing as an international window.

You said the "laws". Now you're saying it's only the much less dramatic sounding "regulations"?

English Lurker

gaius c wrote: »

Don't have a problem with it but have any non-Irish players ever been unavailable to the Irish teams other than Saint Ruan? And they were for designated international games. We tend to sign lads not actively playing international rugby.

Young lad wants to play for his country. Clubs need to accept that it is reprehensible to force or coerce them not to do so, like Leicester trying to force Moody to retire from international rugby for example.

Fair enough, just as long as you are aware of what the situation actually is, and stop blaming the clubs for what isn't entirely their decision.

Also - please look at regulation 9. It's not in the laws, it's in the regulations, and it's here - http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/27/42327_pdf.pdf

The game was played outside of the agreed upon international window. I believe in the primacy of the international game as well, but don't consider playing games outside the agreed upon window as necessarily being part of that primacy. Kings should have limits too.

gaius c

CatFromHue wrote: »

If Racing have a contract that stipulates they can't release Sexton for a training camp then yes, they should be fined. If contract exists they shouldn't.

That's an awful opinion to have about International rugby. There is a structure put in place for the season for a reason, as it's in everyones interest to have allocated time for games. When people start breaking from this structure it leads to alot of resentment. For example the fourth Welsh International in November would be a factor in the Welsh regions wanting to break free from the WRU.

As far as I know the clubs in England don't actually need the International game at all so why would you intentionally go and piss these people off?

Structure is place to appease privately owned clubs who I'm not overly bothered about. I don't see SANZAR or Aussies fining folk for playing Aussie players outside the international window.

And if the clubs really think they can survive without the international games, then they are welcome to budget themselves based on London derbies getting less than 10k supporters to turn up to watch.

CatFromHue

gaius c wrote: »

Structure is place to appease privately owned clubs who I'm not overly bothered about. I don't see SANZAR or Aussies fining folk for playing Aussie players outside the international window.

And if the clubs really think they can survive without the international games, then they are welcome to budget themselves based on London derbies getting less than 10k supporters to turn up to watch.

Nah you're talking rubbish.

The Aussies don't play outside the international window at the expense of their clubs. The Aussie clubs had finished up long ago and in SANZAR they've a much better and logical structure to their season.

gaius c

So what you're saying is that it doesn't actually matter if you play outside the international window if it only eats into the players' holiday/recuperation time, rather than their playing time at a lower level?

Do the kiwis fine Canterbury for not playing Richie McCaw and resting him so he's ready for international games?
No of course they don't because they accept that there is a bigger picture and they are only cogs in the wheel.

irishbucsfan

gaius c wrote: »

So what you're saying is that it doesn't actually matter if you play outside the international window if it only eats into the players' holiday/recuperation time, rather than their playing time at a lower level?

Do the kiwis fine Canterbury for not playing Richie McCaw and resting him so he's ready for international games?
No of course they don't because they accept that there is a bigger picture and they are only cogs in the wheel.

Whether the players have to play outside of international windows is between them and the ARU, who is their employer in most cases.

Is George North contracted to the WRU? No. You're making no sense here. Have to accepted the international window does exist yet?

BattleCorp

Is it not discrimination to allow an English player to be absented from his club for an international match outside of the test-match window, but not to allow a non-English player?

thomond2006

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is it not discrimination to allow an English player to be absented from his club for an international match outside of the test-match window, but not to allow a non-English player?

I don't think nationality comes into this, players opt to play for a Union as opposed to a country per se. The RFU as the Union of the England rugby team have their own agreement with PRL.

justsomebloke

Ok looking at this from a purely money perspective. The PRL were right to fine Northampton in such a manner that it dissuades others from doing the same.

Money at the end of the day is what professional rugby is based on. By allowing North play Northampton devalued the Aviva Premiership brand as it meant that people weren't seeing the 'best' players playing.

The PRL will say that this could potentially effect TV rights, sponsorship and gate receipts which they don't want happening.

So truthfully I'm not really surprised