PRL priorities...?

today the PRL announce...

"Premiership Rugby is delighted to see the new schedule for the 2013 British and Irish Lions tour to Australia, and to see the Lions go from strength-to-strength, Premiership Rugby chief executive Mark McCafferty.

"The Lions are an important part of the rugby family. We are pleased to announce that the Aviva Premiership Rugby final in 2013 is staged on Saturday 25 May, before the Lions are due to depart for Australia so the tour party can all leave together."

Great we all love the Lions.

How come they do this for the Lions with out it costing the Lions a penny, when any other unions wants access to their players
not within an IRB window it is an impossibility...?

Double standards...! Hopefully this can be used against the PRL preventing English clubs from releasing foreign players when they are requested to serve their national cause.

It's not double standards at all. The IRB release window for the Lions starts on the 1st June: http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/27/42327_pdf.pdf

You really should stop this constant moaning that the PRL is following the IRB guidelines. If the WRU want playerssinged to PRL clubs to be released outside of the IRB release window, then they should enter into an agreement woth PRL and pay the PRL clubs for the release of their players. Or they should get the players to have it written to their contracts that they are released for now IRB sanctioned windows. Engand players such as Wilkinson and Haskell have managed to do it. Perhaps the WRU and/or Welsh players aren't bright enough to manage to do this ?

It's obvious from this statement that were the Lions departure to clash with the Aviva Premiership final, the PRL believe that they would get priority over their players, as in if there was a clash the tour party wouldn't all be able to leave together. Even in the case of the Lions, the PRL will not release the players a moment before they have to.

This is in line with everything else the PRL have done. Quite why the WRU often seem to think they should be the exception I don't know.

The bottom line is surely that as far as possible that fixtures are arranged so there is minimal clashing.It has been made clear in the case of England,only home based players will be considered.
That was also more or less the norm for Sanzar Countries until 2008,the clubs pay the wages.
BUT IRB lays down a International Program and it is Country before Club.
IF you are a regular fan then you take your choice.
It is surely in the wit of ALL countries Unions to arrange suitable fixture lists.
The REAL answer would be a universally agreed Season both NH/SH so that Test matches/Tours cause minimal clashes but that is too simple isn`t it.?

How come they do this for the Lions with out it costing the Lions a penny, when any other unions wants access to their players
not within an IRB window it is an impossibility...?

Because the WRFU refuse to pay compensation for the release of said players. The WRFU happily give the regions money for the release of their players why won't they do the same to the English clubs? The big issue during the RWC was that the PRL offered a slighly earlier release but the nations had to cover that release with insurance. The WRFU refused to pay this additional insurance.

Why do the WRFU feel they have a god given right to have constant access to contracted players?

formerly known as Sam wrote:

How come they do this for the Lions with out it costing the Lions a penny, when any other unions wants access to their players
not within an IRB window it is an impossibility...?

Because the WRFU refuse to pay compensation for the release of said players. The WRFU happily give the regions money for the release of their players why won't they do the same to the English clubs? The big issue during the RWC was that the PRL offered a slighly earlier release but the nations had to cover that release with insurance. The WRFU refused to pay this additional insurance.

Why do the WRFU feel they have a god given right to have constant access to contracted players?

Because they are still upset about their own regions taking legal action to force the issue on them?

If its English, its worng strikes again.

Why on earth should the WRU pay English clubs for players.

I'm glad they don't subsidise these clubs as that would be the wrong use of funds that Welsh supporters put in their pockets.

There is nobody playing in England at the present time that I would consider as being our first or second choice when it comes to being selected for the Welsh squad.

Good, everyone is happy then. The clubs release players according to IRB rules, unions keep their money and clubs get what they paid for.

doctornickolas wrote:Why on earth should the WRU pay English clubs for players.

I'm glad they don't subsidise these clubs as that would be the wrong use of funds that Welsh supporters put in their pockets.

Are you serious?

doctornickolas wrote:Why on earth should the WRU pay English clubs for players.

I'm glad they don't subsidise these clubs as that would be the wrong use of funds that Welsh supporters put in their pockets.

If they want the players outside of the IRB designated release periods then they should pay for the release of players, just like the RFU do for the release of EPS players.

Cymroglan wrote:There is nobody playing in England at the present time that I would consider as being our first or second choice when it comes to being selected for the Welsh squad.

Cymro,

The only 1 who I would say was 1st choice still is Phillips, not every ones cup of tea but he is in theory man in possesion etc but that could change if Williams has stormer on Saturday

bedfordwelsh Mike is in France I think you read it as playing outside Wales .

Yeh ok fair one lol in that case totally agree with you.

To be fair there is only Peel, Mitchell and Powell in the AP. Peel and Mitchell are pretty good but there other options to Mitchell and Peel is getting on a bit (now 30), still rate him over the young guns that are coming through but only in the short term. No point in calling up Powell.