Northampton To Be Fined Over North Release

Just read that Saints are to be fined over releasing North to Wales for this weekend.

First off guess Bath didn't want similar fine after agreeing to release James.

Secondly who is fining them? I am guessing its the PRL but I didn't realise they had this sort of power available to them and what sort of fine are we talking, financial or other sacntions. Anyone know?

PRL forbids release of non England players for games outside the IRB window.
The policy was agreed by all 12 clubs. Saints will have no doubt factored this into their plans.
Personally I think they should have points deducted, a financial penalty wouldn't necessarily be a deterrent and presumably the same issue will arise again within the 2 year contract.

Welsh fans should be pleased for this. Not only will they get North for the games outside the window, it also means your players will be less attractive to English clubs if they demand release contracts (the club will just have to take the hit or if sanctions get more severe stop completely).

HammerofThunor wrote:Welsh fans should be pleased for this. Not only will they get North for the games outside the window, it also means your players will be less attractive to English clubs if they demand release contracts (the club will just have to take the hit or if sanctions get more severe stop completely).

Or they just wont be released for Wales games.

Trev, Points deducted? Why, is that what was said in the agreement? Or are you just getting in the mindset for forthcoming cold war?

This ties nicely into the European Cup stuff and shows why PRL should not be involved in any governance aspects.

PS LNR are far worse.

Alternatively why are WRU playing outside the window? As England did with their first match.

Sounds like the WRU should encourage all their players to get the same dispensation George North has in his contract added to theirs.

Great to here the PRL are powerless to prevent a Welsh International fulfilling his duties.

What I cant understand is why clubs would sign players if its going to cause them so much hassle.

If players get release clauses in their contracts then the clubs will either face the wrath of the PRL if they release players according to contracts or they will risk being in breach of contract by refusing their release.

justified sinner wrote:This ties nicely into the European Cup stuff and shows why PRL should not be involved in any governance aspects.

PS LNR are far worse.

Alternatively why are WRU playing outside the window? As England did with their first match.

Geneally (before this season) the LNR have been very co operative with the WRU, they are playing outsid the window fo money no other reason but the RFU pay the English clubs for player release much like the WRU pay the Regions.

kingjohn7 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Welsh fans should be pleased for this. Not only will they get North for the games outside the window, it also means your players will be less attractive to English clubs if they demand release contracts (the club will just have to take the hit or if sanctions get more severe stop completely).

Or they just wont be released for Wales games.

Trev, Points deducted? Why, is that what was said in the agreement? Or are you just getting in the mindset for forthcoming cold war?

If a player has the release in their contract they have to be released. If they accept a contract that doesn't have the release written in then they shouldn't expect to be released.

Most of the guys who've gone recently have had them in the contract haven't they?

bedfordwelsh wrote:

justified sinner wrote:This ties nicely into the European Cup stuff and shows why PRL should not be involved in any governance aspects.

PS LNR are far worse.

Alternatively why are WRU playing outside the window? As England did with their first match.

Geneally (before this season) the LNR have been very co operative with the WRU, they are playing outsid the window fo money no other reason but the RFU pay the English clubs for player release much like the WRU pay the Regions.

Agreed, but LNR have been really tough on some of the SH players, particularly PI, effectively demanding they give up Internationals before they sign. Not good for the greater game.

HammerofThunor wrote:

kingjohn7 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Welsh fans should be pleased for this. Not only will they get North for the games outside the window, it also means your players will be less attractive to English clubs if they demand release contracts (the club will just have to take the hit or if sanctions get more severe stop completely).

Or they just wont be released for Wales games.

Trev, Points deducted? Why, is that what was said in the agreement? Or are you just getting in the mindset for forthcoming cold war?

If a player has the release in their contract they have to be released. If they accept a contract that doesn't have the release written in then they shouldn't expect to be released.

Most of the guys who've gone recently have had them in the contract haven't they?

I dont actually know mate, a lot of the time its said they do but wether its true or not im not too confident.

justified sinner wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

justified sinner wrote:This ties nicely into the European Cup stuff and shows why PRL should not be involved in any governance aspects.

PS LNR are far worse.

Alternatively why are WRU playing outside the window? As England did with their first match.

Geneally (before this season) the LNR have been very co operative with the WRU, they are playing outsid the window fo money no other reason but the RFU pay the English clubs for player release much like the WRU pay the Regions.

Agreed, but LNR have been really tough on some of the SH players, particularly PI, effectively demanding they give up Internationals before they sign. Not good for the greater game.

True, they have been plenty of reports of contracts with big french clubs being offered on the onus that that player retires from International rugby.

Though in general, the French clubs have been very cooperative with the WRU, so have the English clubs the PRL are the issue, and their timing is always last minute never when the issue arises..

kingjohn7 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Welsh fans should be pleased for this. Not only will they get North for the games outside the window, it also means your players will be less attractive to English clubs if they demand release contracts (the club will just have to take the hit or if sanctions get more severe stop completely).

Or they just wont be released for Wales games.

Trev, Points deducted? Why, is that what was said in the agreement? Or are you just getting in the mindset for forthcoming cold war?

If it's in North's contract they cant stop him from making himself available regardless when wales choose to play international rugby. In fairness Northampton always had to make concessions with North because he was a target for some of Europe's finest. France have no problems with putting clauses in like this, so if English clubs have any chance of signing the best NH talent, concessions will have to be made or they risk losing out.

To be honest given what they are paying North, they got him on a bargain so probably that factored into the equation (given he could have trebled his wages in france).

Welshmushroom wrote:

kingjohn7 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Welsh fans should be pleased for this. Not only will they get North for the games outside the window, it also means your players will be less attractive to English clubs if they demand release contracts (the club will just have to take the hit or if sanctions get more severe stop completely).

Or they just wont be released for Wales games.

Trev, Points deducted? Why, is that what was said in the agreement? Or are you just getting in the mindset for forthcoming cold war?

If it's in North's contract they cant stop him from making himself available regardless when wales choose to play international rugby.  In fairness Northampton always had to make concessions with North because he was a target for some of Europe's finest.  France have no problems with putting clauses in like this, so if English clubs have any chance of signing the best NH talent, concessions will have to be made or they risk losing out.  

To be honest given what they are paying North, they got him on a bargain so probably that factored into the equation (given he could have trebled his wages in france).

To be honest all players should have the same written into their contracts if they have international ambitions. If English players did it then the RFU would save themselves a lot of money paying the PRL for release.

I think Lidiate (spelling?), North and Roberts do. I've got a feeling Charteris had a gentleman's agreement, which is worth squat. All the players know now they need it in there. No excuse.

Yes there was a blunder a few years ago when the first wave of welsh internationals went who only had verbal agreements. However players such as Haskell, Palmer and most of the England internationals had them in theirs. While it usually affects (lowers) the offer from the French clubs with these clauses in, my understanding is that all the current welsh starting test players have the clauses in. The ones that don't are generally fringe players who know they probably rarely make the test team and don't want to sacrifice the bigger pay day. This was the case with both Hook and Charteris.

HammerofThunor wrote:I think Lidiate (spelling?), North and Roberts do. I've got a feeling Charteris had a gentleman's agreement, which is worth squat. All the players know now they need it in there. No excuse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/17217346

Charteris insists his new employers will give him "full release" for Wales playing and training squad duties.
"If I'm called on I'll be available for all Welsh training and for Welsh games because that's massively important to me," said Charteris.

In doing so, Charteris has fallen in line with Wales coach Warren Gatland's wish for any players based elsewhere to ensure their contract allows them to fulfil all international commitments.

Which is the way it should be. If the player want to go for the cash they should take the hit for extra time.

It will be interesting to see if Saints knew how much this would be. If the sanctions are fixed or could escalate. If this has an impact on contracts offered from English clubs (although given the new French TV deal that triples the money that may not be an issue for other reasons).

maestegmafia wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:

kingjohn7 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Welsh fans should be pleased for this. Not only will they get North for the games outside the window, it also means your players will be less attractive to English clubs if they demand release contracts (the club will just have to take the hit or if sanctions get more severe stop completely).

Or they just wont be released for Wales games.

Trev, Points deducted? Why, is that what was said in the agreement? Or are you just getting in the mindset for forthcoming cold war?

If it's in North's contract they cant stop him from making himself available regardless when wales choose to play international rugby.  In fairness Northampton always had to make concessions with North because he was a target for some of Europe's finest.  France have no problems with putting clauses in like this, so if English clubs have any chance of signing the best NH talent, concessions will have to be made or they risk losing out.  

To be honest given what they are paying North, they got him on a bargain so probably that factored into the equation (given he could have trebled his wages in france).

To be honest all players should have the same written into their contracts if they have international ambitions. If English players did it then the RFU would save themselves a lot of money paying the PRL for release.

This is probably the reason PRL have this rule as it would weaken their barganing with RFU who would say why should we pay for something other unions are not, IMSVHO PRL would like similar agreements with other unions for player release, didnt they try to get one with WRU but failed

How many clubs did PRL fine for releasing their England players to the RFU for the Australia game, which was also outside the IRB window of the the 2nd, 3rd and 4th weeks of November?

If a club has an agreement with a player over international release then PRL (or any similar body) should not get involved.

It's that simple.

The WRUs fourth international is a terrible idea. It always falls the week before the Heineken Cup double header and puts Welsh sides at a real disadvantage in that competition- without real success in the Heineken Cup its difficult for the regions to generate any real momentum.

The Welsh haven't cracked the balance between the national team and the regional sides any more than the FFR/LNR have... you always have the suspicion that both the Union and the Regions can't see past the end of their noses.

Of course the PRLs stance on this is a microcosm of why they have failed to get the relevant unions across Europe on board with their bloodless coup wonderful new opportunity with BT. They tolerate working with the RFU out of necessity but are outright hostile to all the other unions.

I've been busy all day, and haven't had time hit the internet for news much. But even the Northampton Chronicle isn't reporting anything about Saints being fined. Anyone have a link?

The simple solution to this is no Internationals outside the approved IRB windows, hence no player release issues. On the other hand, clubs/regions/teams can't prevent player release during the approved time periods. Fair is fair and simple is simple.

Hound, the difference is that RFU pay for the extra time due to their agreement with PRL

Doc, it is here http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/nov/25/northampton-george-north-wales-fine

presumably north is playing in northampton, for more money that he would have got playing for a welsh region (but less than in france), because that is closer to where his family life is?

i have no problem with the PRL fining english clubs for uncompensated player release outside of the windows, as long as the clubs know this is likely to happen. consistent application of the rules allows clubs to plan for it when they structure compensation packages. PRL is after all only applying the IRB rules in this area. Don't want any whimsical or inconsistent rulings though from PRL, RFU, LNr or anyone.

What was the point of all 12. clubs signing up to the PRL agreement if in the future they knowingly disregard them?
You either have rules, that were agreed, and apply them or in this case deliberately break them & suffer the consequences.

I agree with the Doc if countries choose to play games outside the IRB window then that country and its players should not have any right to demand player release.

As a Saints supporter this has me perturbed.  This report does talk in probabilities, but nothing officially has happened.  Yet.

Firstly, I agree that Premiership clubs should be prevented (not simply fined) from contracting players with allowances for time with national teams outside the approved IRB windows.  To me its bad business as International windows take players from clubs for a lot of the Premiership matches.  The Heineken Cup matches are not impacted directly, but players returning to their clubs might not always have a lot or practise time with their teams before the Euro matches begin.  To me, the Premiership is a collection of separate business who come together with common purpose, to play Rugby.  They should sign up to, and all play by the same rules.  For some clubs to violate league rules with impunity makes Rugby look like a real minor league sport.  Bad for our image.  Bad for business.  Same a national teams violating IRB policy.  

There must be one set of rules for everyone to play by.  All this points to the need for a revamped season, probably in accordance with SANZAR and the smaller Unions.  Clear defined seasons and clearly defined rules.

Doc you are correct in your last statement.

If the season was not so ridiculously juxtaposed these conundrums would never arise.

maestegmafia wrote:

Great to here the PRL are powerless to prevent a Welsh International fulfilling his duties.

I forgot Saints carried North out of Wales kicking and screaming!

His happy to take Saints money then both he and the club should respect the laws that are in place.
What happens if he gets injured this weekend will Saints be compensated?

I think Saints should be docked points, hit them where it hurts.

1)If North has a release clause then the fine wouldn't stand up as by not releasing him Saints would then be in breach of contract.

2)If he hasn't a release clause, then I think its fair that Saints were fined.
The Prem clubs receive money from the RFU to release its players, if they did this for free for other unions then why would RFU pay them, or pay them as much.

(If a player doesn't have a release clause and the WRU wants them for training or games outside the international Windows they the Union have to pay for this release).

3) if North has a release clause and Saints should not have signed a player with a release clause, as agreed with the other clubs. Then the fine is fair for breaking League Rules.

Kingshu wrote:1)If North has a release clause then the fine wouldn't stand up as by not releasing him Saints would then be in breach of contract.

2)If he hasn't a release clause, then I think its fair that Saints were fined.
The Prem clubs receive money from the RFU to release its players, if they did this for free for other unions then why would RFU pay them, or pay them as much.

(If a player doesn't have a release clause and the WRU wants them for training or games outside the international Windows they the Union have to pay for this release).

3) if North has a release clause and Saints should not have signed a player with a release clause, as agreed with the other clubs. Then the fine is fair for breaking League Rules.

4) The PRL thingy says that they are not allowed to release Non-English players. Saints had been on here and seen George being called English, and assumed he was eligible for release without a fine.

Scrumpy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Great to here the PRL are powerless to prevent a Welsh International fulfilling his duties.

I forgot Saints carried North out of Wales kicking and screaming!

His happy to take Saints money then both he and the club should respect the laws that are in place.
What happens if he gets injured this weekend will Saints be compensated?

I think Saints should be docked points, hit them where it hurts.

kind of mixed messages there Scrumpy...a lot to say but it seems to be in a blender.  

So firstly you say North is happy to take Northampton money.  Yes - and Northampton are happy to let him play for his country - so fair is fair, yes?
Then you ask will Northampton be compensated if he gets injured - meaning they should do?  And yet a line down from that, you state that Northampton itself should be punished.  Would the injury to North be sufficient punishment, especially if they don't get compensated?

So you seem to be saying compensate them/punish them, allow them the autonomy to buy North but don't allow them the autonomy to let him play for Wales

We all were reading how AP is so different to the Pro12, in that it's every privately run club for itself, doing it's own thing, trying to survive as a single entity.  And yet, here we have PRL acting like a virtual Union overlord, and calling Individual privately run clubs into line about their player selections.

Personally I wouldn't fine Saints. North missing the Worcester game is not a big deal. Worcester will undoubtedly be pleased North would not be available.

Also Saints are part of the PRL. Efforts should be made to keep them happy for not upset them.

Scrumpy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Great to here the PRL are powerless to prevent a Welsh International fulfilling his duties.

I forgot Saints carried North out of Wales kicking and screaming!

His happy to take Saints money then both he and the club should respect the laws that are in place.
What happens if he gets injured this weekend will Saints be compensated?

I think Saints should be docked points, hit them where it hurts.

Saints paid big money to buy him out of his contract, they are spending pretty big money on his wages, and now they may be paying big money for him to play international rugby (and run the risk of injury). I wonder if by the end of his contract he will be seen as a value for money asset?

SecretFly wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Great to here the PRL are powerless to prevent a Welsh International fulfilling his duties.

I forgot Saints carried North out of Wales kicking and screaming!

His happy to take Saints money then both he and the club should respect the laws that are in place.
What happens if he gets injured this weekend will Saints be compensated?

I think Saints should be docked points, hit them where it hurts.

kind of mixed messages there Scrumpy...a lot to say but it seems to be in a blender.  

So firstly you say North is happy to take Northampton money.  Yes - and Northampton are happy to let him play for his country - so fair is fair, yes?
Then you ask will Northampton be compensated if he gets injured - meaning they should do?  And yet a line down from that, you state that Northampton itself should be punished.  Would the injury to North be sufficient punishment, especially if they don't get compensated?

So you seem to be saying compensate them/punish them, allow them the autonomy to buy North but don't allow them the autonomy to let him play for Wales

We all were reading how AP is so different to the Pro12, in that it's every privately run club for itself, doing it's own thing, trying to survive as a single entity.  And yet, here we have PRL acting like a virtual Union overlord, and calling Individual privately run clubs into line about their player selections.

Do try and keep up dear boy!

If he did pick up a season ending injury then the WRU should compensate Saints, as this game is outside of the IRB international window, fairs fair.

If Saints have broken PRL rules regarding player release outside of the international window then they should be fined/docked points whether its in North’s contract or not.

doctor_grey wrote:As a Saints supporter this has me perturbed.  This report does talk in probabilities, but nothing officially has happened.  Yet.

Firstly, I agree that Premiership clubs should be prevented (not simply fined) from contracting players with allowances for time with national teams outside the approved IRB windows.  To me its bad business as International windows take players from clubs for a lot of the Premiership matches.  The Heineken Cup matches are not impacted directly, but players returning to their clubs might not always have a lot or practise time with their teams before the Euro matches begin.  To me, the Premiership is a collection of separate business who come together with common purpose, to play Rugby.  They should sign up to, and all play by the same rules.  For some clubs to violate league rules with impunity makes Rugby look like a real minor league sport.  Bad for our image.  Bad for business.  Same a national teams violating IRB policy.  

There must be one set of rules for everyone to play by.  All this points to the need for a revamped season, probably in accordance with SANZAR and the smaller Unions.  Clear defined seasons and clearly defined rules.

Yes agreed but until that happens let clubs abide by the agreed rules.

Yeah..so my first thoughts were correct - compensate them and/or punish them. Or in other words, make the WRU sorry they asked for him and make Northampton sorry they gave in to WRU by giving him?

You call all this fair practices on player rights btw? I know it's PRL agreements and rules - but one rule applying to 'English' players and another divergent one aplying to non-English players?
That makes the Professional privately run club League in England tied in very closely to the working of English International rugby...and such a truth runs contrary to the oft spoken opinions here that the 'Englishness' of English clubs in a European context is irrelevent.

But remember the RFU pay the clubs/PRL to have access to the players.

Why should the WRU get their players without paying?

Scrumpy wrote:But remember the RFU pay the clubs/PRL to have access to the players.

Why should the WRU get their players without paying?

It's a meaningful English-International-friendly relationship though, Scrumpy (not one I'm against by the way, as it's a natural unity of purposes).
But it's a relationship of meaning that gets denied by many RCC purists in the old ancient debates over on other threads

Scrumpy wrote:But remember the RFU pay the clubs/PRL to have access to the players.

Why should the WRU get their players without paying?

As unpatriotic as it may sound, +1. It is not discrimination or anything like that, it is plain old paying for services rendered. The RFU pay for the use of the players outside of the window, the same as the WRU pay the regions (well barely) for the services of their players outside of the window. I have a feeling that if the WRU stumped up cash for release that Paul James would be available too.

I agree Scarlet, I'm not against players playing for their countries but if rules are being broken then something needs to be done.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:But remember the RFU pay the clubs/PRL to have access to the players.

Why should the WRU get their players without paying?

As unpatriotic as it may sound, +1.  It is not discrimination or anything like that, it is plain old paying for services rendered.  The RFU pay for the use of the players outside of the window, the same as the WRU pay the regions (well barely) for the services of their players outside of the window.  I have a feeling that if the WRU stumped up cash for release that Paul James would be available too.

The player (worker) himself does have a personal contract ( a legal document) with a specific club that allegedly allows his release.  So which rights prevail?  The PRL rights to be compensated or otherwise disallow a private club from honouring a contract?  Or the player rights to have his contract arrangements honoured in full?

Both!

Saints knew the rules but were happy to break them so they must take the punishment coming their way.

Thats the price of getting a star player I guess.

Scrumpy wrote:Both!

Saints knew the rules but were happy to break them so they must take the punishment coming their way.

Thats the price of getting a star player I guess.

...and the compensation if he's injured of course If compensation was payable they'd be doing the maths as we speak on whether they'd come out of this episode with profit - they might even feel the need to pay an Aussie to injure North to offset the fine that's coming.

Oh the complexity of modern bizness is bizzness rugby.

It's over a decade late (imo) but according to the Torygraph the IRB are looking at the season structure now...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10474027/Global-season-on-cards-as-International-Rugby-Board-tries-to-end-club-v-country-wars-over-player-availability.html

In terms of North - I can understand PRL wanting to have a unified approach to player release outside the international window. Partly so it doesn't undermine future negotiations with RFU (or others) and partly because it would be unfair for individual clubs to profit (either in reduced salary costs if they contract it in, or in direct payments if unions pay directly for additional release rights) when those providing players to England have to share the benefit of RFU payments through payment smoothing.

Granted Saints are more than pulling their weight on the England front, but it's a principle worth sticking up for. However, if that is the case then surely Saints should be punished for signing a contract allowing additional player release (assuming that's what's happened) rather than releasing the player which they would be contractually obliged to do?

The other issue for me is why didn't Gatland stick to his guns on players staying in Wales? He's done some great stuff as the Welsh coach, but despite his initial warnings about only picking from outside in exceptional circumstances he seems to have dropped this one. The salary cap in England isn't much more than what I understand is spent in Wales, so I'd assume salaries are broadly comparable. So if the rule that you have to play in England to play for England is keeping most of our best players from going to France, wouldn't the same work for Wales? That would probably have knocked this issue on the head and stopped North from leaving at all. Surely that would be good for Wales as well as the regions.

Saints agreed/voted (they may have even suggested it) for the PRL rule that no club can deliberately weaken their side with consultation with the collective. This is why there was talk of sanctions against Sale when they got their required quota of EQP in the last game of the season by fielding an academy team (can't remember if they actually were done for it).

If they've changed their mind it can be discussed with the group. They may propose a system where X number of players per club can miss X number of additional games. Then the collective can vote on it and decide whether to change the rules.

SecretFly wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:But remember the RFU pay the clubs/PRL to have access to the players.

Why should the WRU get their players without paying?

As unpatriotic as it may sound, +1.  It is not discrimination or anything like that, it is plain old paying for services rendered.  The RFU pay for the use of the players outside of the window, the same as the WRU pay the regions (well barely) for the services of their players outside of the window.  I have a feeling that if the WRU stumped up cash for release that Paul James would be available too.

The player (worker) himself does have a personal contract ( a legal document) with a specific club that allegedly allows his release.  So which rights prevail?  The PRL rights to be compensated or otherwise disallow a private club from honouring a contract?  Or the player rights to have his contract arrangements honoured in full?

The player is being released, that is not an issue. He is still in the Welsh camp as I type. So it is pretty obvious that his release clause is being honoured. However the PRL have a contract with his employers saying that they will be fined if they release players outside of IRB windows. So that contract to also be honoured. Lets face it the PRL participation agreement with the RFU is not something that was signed recently. IT was in place long before Saints signed George North, and as such they must have known that there could be ramifications of allowing him a full-release clause in his contract. So I can not really see any grounds for complaints.

Lets look at it another way. There is a huge multinational company that sell burgers (PRL), and they franchise out their restaurants (Clubs). Part of the agreement when they allow someone to take on a franchise is that employees are only entitled to 24 days holiday a year, and any breach of this will result in a fine. However there is a really good young restaurant manager (George North) working at a rival restaurant, and one of the franchises (Saints) decide to try and head hunt him. They offer him more money in his pay packed to come and join, and the manager (North) says that at the moment he is entitled to 28 days holiday. The franchise (Saints) are aware that this is in breach of the parent company's (PRL) agreement with them, however they really want the young manager (North) so they agree with him he can have his 28 days holiday and write it into his contract. So the manager (North) gets his 28 days holiday as per his contract, and the franchise (Saints) get a financial penalty as per their contract.

And that is the last time I try doing a real life analogy using fast food chains again.

Big, Gatland never said he would only pick players in Wales. He said if players aren't available for all the training sessions/games their chances of selection would be hit. North is available for all training sessions and all games so that doesn't come into it.

HammerofThunor wrote:Saints agreed/voted (they may have even suggested it) for the PRL rule that no club can deliberately weaken their side with consultation with the collective. This is why there was talk of sanctions against Sale when they got their required quota of EQP in the last game of the season by fielding an academy team (can't remember if they actually were done for it) .

Hmmmmmm........................ it's all sounding rather IRFU big-bad-wolf, big-brotherish to me, Hammer.  Just how autonomous are these autonomous English clubs?  Just who owns these teams???

Talking to someone else, who was at a meet and greet that Gats attended. An Gats was asked if he was overly concerned with the players leaving to play in France etc, and he more or less said that as long as they have clauses in their contracts that allow them to play the 4th AI, and to train for the 6Ns, then that was fine by him. So this whole Gats law thing is just big hairy danglers that the press like to mention every now and again.