International Release

[j'nuh]

Rob Howley is currently warning James Hook to get "full" international release (outside IRB sanctioned windows) for Wales:
http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/...availability/story-21148010-detail/story.html

Does this mean we are just going to get a repeat of the whole North fiasco of last year? Either Gloucester break their contract with Hook by not releasing him, or face a fine if they do?

Who exactly is in the wrong here: the PRL for not allowing these contracts to exist, or the clubs/players for taking on these contracts in the first place? If the former, then the IRB needs to step in and clarify the issue with the PRL, and the PRL must not be allowed the authority to hand out fines on this issue. If the latter, the WRU need to back out of pressuring players into taking contracts that they simply cannot honour. (This would seem remarkably shady of the WRU.)

 

[Thingimubob]

Rob Howley is currently warning James Hook to get "full" international release (outside IRB sanctioned windows) for Wales:
http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/...availability/story-21148010-detail/story.html

Does this mean we are just going to get a repeat of the whole North fiasco of last year? Either Gloucester break their contract with Hook by not releasing him, or face a fine if they do?

Who exactly is in the wrong here: the PRL for not allowing these contracts to exist, or the clubs/players for taking on these contracts in the first place? If the former, then the IRB needs to step in and clarify the issue with the PRL, and the PRL must not be allowed the authority to hand out fines on this issue. If the latter, the WRU need to back out of pressuring players into taking contracts that they simply cannot honour. (This would seem remarkably shady of the WRU.)

A lot of it depends on the players wishes too. As far as I know, North himself pushed for the Welsh release clause in his contract as playing for Wales whenever he can is obviously very important to him. Stopping the release of players has always annoyed me because the international game should always be the pinnacle of the sport. However at the same time, I do get why the clubs don't want the Unions to trample all over them by taking away their best players services.
What does really annoy me is refusing the release of players when they would not even be playing... Just seems petty to me, as surely you'd want your player to aim for higher honours?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

The clubs would definitely be in the wrong in this situation.
If more clubs start releasing players then I'd hope the punishment increases exponentially.
You can't pick and choose which rules to follow.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Lol... Walkinshaw is one of the most anti-international club owners around... he's the only one I've seen be open about his disdain for it.

Good luck with that one.

 

[j'nuh]

The clubs would definitely be in the wrong in this situation.
If more clubs start releasing players then I'd hope the punishment increases exponentially.
You can't pick and choose which rules to follow.

This is what I would have assumed (although whether there is some legal mumbo jumbo about restriction of trade or what-have-you, that makes the fines illegal, I am not sure).
What's done is done with the North case, and the Hook signing has not happened yet, so there's not much to talk about there.
But if the Welsh management are openly trying to convince players into taking these types of contracts, should this not be looked at by the IRB?

Lol... Walkinshaw is one of the most anti-international club owners around... he's the only one I've seen be open about his disdain for it.

Good luck with that one.

I've never heard about this? Sources?

 

[ratsapprentice]

I've never heard about this? Sources?

https://twitter.com/RyanWalkinshaw/status/458920846732451840

His response to "There is a risk that clubs will become more important than countries in pro rugby, just like fooitball."

...is: "that sounds fantastic, let's hope it happens sooner rather than later."

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Have dislike Walkinshaw Jnr since he took over, some thing about him. Maybe it his use of twitter I don't know.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Stereotypical sports brand owner - an ego living vicariously through his "brand".

 

[j'nuh]

https://twitter.com/RyanWalkinshaw/status/458920846732451840

His response to "There is a risk that clubs will become more important than countries in pro rugby, just like fooitball."

...is: "that sounds fantastic, let's hope it happens sooner rather than later."

Preferring club rugby makes you anti-international?

I entirely agree with him. I wish 40000-80000 turned out for the clubs each week. I wish that the club game did become as important to rugby as it is to football. That doesn't mean I, or RW, want international rugby to fail...

 

[ratsapprentice]

Nope, it doesn't.
Wanting club rugby to be more important than internationals does though, since importance is a relativistic concept.

I'm a fan of rugby first - I want to watch as good a quality of rugby as possible.
This necessitates a tiered system in order to concentrate player, coaching and funding quality.
The two ways to do that are to have global geographic-regional teams who assume players based on a draft - or internationals.

The traditional European club system cannot provide test quality rugby consistently - because either the players are spread too thinly across a league, or they are concentrated too heavily in one or two teams.

 

[j'nuh]

Importance is a subjective and relativistic concept. Each person attaches their own meaning to "importance". You have identified that quality of rugby is "the most important aspect". This is not universal.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Yes... and if you want club rugby to be more important then you necessarily want international rugby to be less important. Therefore you are anti-international rugby.

The second part of my post has no function in the argument I made in the first part.

 

[j'nuh]

Only in so much as you are anti-club.

I don't see it that way though. I think that to be anti-international, you have to be actively against the international game. I am totally for the international game. In fact, the growth of the club and international games are co-dependent. International rugby requires players developed by clubs; clubs benefit from the growth of the sport that only the international game can provide. I think anyone who is anti-club or anti-international is probably not seeing the bigger picture. I'm just more personally invested in the club game, and the success/popularity of the club game is a more pressing matter for me.

... this is definitely getting off track.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I am definitely opposed to the club game encroaching or dictating terms to the international game.

The trouble is that bodies like the PRL are being run as businesses where rugby is their product, and primarily it's a means to an end - hence we have PRL clubs competing in four competitions in the same season.
Whereas the business should be the means to the end of better rugby.

I would love to see the club game grow and have 30,000 average attendance figures across the board - but not if it means the international games are reduced to poorly attended, low quality "friendlies" and qualifiers, with a tournament every second year.
As you say though, the international game is very important, and directly responsible for much of the growth of the domestic game - the club owners would have you believe that if only it didn't exist they would be giving you these games with 30k attendance every week.

And I would love England to be able to go to NZ and expect to win a series because we have the best players - but not if it means the RFU pulls them out of half of the club games in order to rest them.

Balance and empathy - not something I've seen a lot of from the PRL.

 

[Big Ewis]

well come on now, I have no clue about the coach in question and his views, but certainly grey areas are an absolute rarity in truth in this world. Neutrality is scarce. Lots are implicated and indirectly implied when one talks about the importance of club Rugby. I speak here, because I read the French internet media. You read between the lines; and sometimes the very interlocutor doesn't know it himself but in depth, in sense, he's against test Rugby. Especially with the growing importance of club Rugby, the money involved, the stakes, etc...; coaches cannot really afford to care about test Rugby anymore.
You read comments by a guy like Guy Noves, and in disguise and utilizing contexts, he really is bemoaning and criticizing the existence of test Rugby. He might not even admit it to himself; people do it all the time, they say a bunch of things, but never have the courage to come to a concrete conclusion, and may not even know their definitive position on a topic.

But really, you look at way way back, around the 60's, some Tier 1 national sides played 4 games a year, some even 1. While international Rugby hasn't expanded, calendar wise; we basically have the NH tournament, the SH one, and then 2 seasonal tours; club Rugby has taken on a new form altogether. Just look at the Top 14 as the most blatant example...
And when things grow, they necessarily take up space. Who says taking up space, says taking it from others. Conflict between domestic/local and international was just bound to occur, eventually.

 

[McTallshort]

Smart Cooky not commented yet?

 

[Peat]

What Rats said.

As for the original post - neither side is in the wrong, they're just protecting their own interests.