Exeter vs Bath (sat 2 pm)

[fivepointer]

Next step, points deduction?

[Raggs]

And a kick in the bollocks to the owner(s) from each Welsh qualified player in the AP.

[Oakboy]

Next step, points deduction?

What is the rationale behind this rule? If it is just to try to ensure that all oponents face the same strength team there should simply be no games clashing with internationals. Furthermore, how does squad rotation get permitted?

Surely, Bath could argue that keeping Faletau happy could add to his overall performance contribution.

There must be something that my yokel mind is missing.

[Raggs]

Next step, points deduction?

What is the rationale behind this rule? If it is just to try to ensure that all oponents face the same strength team there should simply be no games clashing with internationals. Furthermore, how does squad rotation get permitted?

Surely, Bath could argue that keeping Faletau happy could add to his overall performance contribution.

There must be something that my yokel mind is missing.

It's unfair on AP clubs that can't afford to give such extra incentives, and perhaps more significantly, the RFU aren't likely going to want to keep paying English clubs for access to players outside the window, when they're giving it to other unions for free.

[Mellsblue]

Next step, points deduction?

What is the rationale behind this rule? If it is just to try to ensure that all oponents face the same strength team there should simply be no games clashing with internationals. Furthermore, how does squad rotation get permitted?

Surely, Bath could argue that keeping Faletau happy could add to his overall performance contribution.

There must be something that my yokel mind is missing.

It's unfair on AP clubs that can't afford to give such extra incentives, and perhaps more significantly, the RFU aren't likely going to want to keep paying English clubs for access to players outside the window, when they're giving it to other unions for free.

The second point is the crux of the matter.

[Oakboy]

What is the rationale behind this rule? If it is just to try to ensure that all oponents face the same strength team there should simply be no games clashing with internationals. Furthermore, how does squad rotation get permitted?

Surely, Bath could argue that keeping Faletau happy could add to his overall performance contribution.

There must be something that my yokel mind is missing.

It's unfair on AP clubs that can't afford to give such extra incentives, and perhaps more significantly, the RFU aren't likely going to want to keep paying English clubs for access to players outside the window, when they're giving it to other unions for free.

The second point is the crux of the matter.

So Wales did not pay Bath and will not contribute to any fine? It seems like a real mucking fuddle to me. I just think the professional game should accept no top level club games should clash with internationals.

[Mellsblue]

It's unfair on AP clubs that can't afford to give such extra incentives, and perhaps more significantly, the RFU aren't likely going to want to keep paying English clubs for access to players outside the window, when they're giving it to other unions for free.

The second point is the crux of the matter.

So Wales did not pay Bath and will not contribute to any fine? It seems like a real mucking fuddle to me. I just think the professional game should accept no top level club games should clash with internationals.

The PRL has said that when they wanted an extended season. It hasn’t gone down well.

Bath knew what they were getting into when the signed Faletau, there is precedent. No idea why Wales should pay Bath. This is not if their doing. Faletau is under no obligation to play outside test windows.

[Oakboy]

The second point is the crux of the matter.

So Wales did not pay Bath and will not contribute to any fine? It seems like a real mucking fuddle to me. I just think the professional game should accept no top level club games should clash with internationals.

The PRL has said that when they wanted an extended season. It hasn’t gone down well.

Bath knew what they were getting into when the signed Faletau, there is precedent. No idea why Wales should pay Bath. This is not if their doing. Faletau is under no obligation to play outside test windows.

But, why should Bath get fined? What difference does it make to the RFU if Wales get him for free which was the point above that you endorsed? I'm not arguing for the sake of it. I simply don't see what the problem is. Bath want to keep their player happy. He plays for Wales. Where's the issue? Who loses? There may be a precedent but that doesn't make it right/sensible.

[Mellsblue]

So Wales did not pay Bath and will not contribute to any fine? It seems like a real mucking fuddle to me. I just think the professional game should accept no top level club games should clash with internationals.

The PRL has said that when they wanted an extended season. It hasn’t gone down well.

Bath knew what they were getting into when the signed Faletau, there is precedent. No idea why Wales should pay Bath. This is not if their doing. Faletau is under no obligation to play outside test windows.

But, why should Bath get fined? What difference does it make to the RFU if Wales get him for free which was the point above that you endorsed? I'm not arguing for the sake of it. I simply don't see what the problem is. Bath want to keep their player happy. He plays for Wales. Where's the issue? Who loses? There may be a precedent but that doesn't make it right/sensible.

It’s PRL that have fined them. As Raggs said, it’s their argument that it undermines them in negotiations with the RFU when getting payment for releasing EPS players outside of the international windows. If the RFU can point out that Welsh/Scottish/Irish/French players can play outside the windows without having to pay for it than why should the RFU have to pay (so much). I’d suggest, the fine is predominantly designed to be a deterrent to signing players with contracts allowing them to play test rugby outside windows rather than a punishment for doing so.

[fivepointer]

Bath will get fined as they've allowed a player to play for Wales outside of the international window. They are under no obligation to release Falateu but did so in contravention of the PRL rules, which the Premiership clubs have signed up to. The club knew full well the risks and the strong likelihood of getting a fine.
Given we've been here before with North and Saints, it strikes me that the threat of losing points might be the next step if a club chooses to break the governing body rules.

[Oakboy]

So, basically it is simply 'rules are rules'. Fair enough, but I still don't understand the rationale behind the rule (from the AP's viewpoint) other than the creation of an arbitrary vehicle for screwing money out of the RFU. It's their failing as much as the RFU's that there are fixture clashes. By definition, the AP offers a diminished-standard product to their paying customers with weakened teams contesting front-line fixtures. I just find it all very odd.

[Raggs]

So, basically it is simply 'rules are rules'. Fair enough, but I still don't understand the rationale behind the rule (from the AP's viewpoint) other than the creation of an arbitrary vehicle for screwing money out of the RFU. It's their failing as much as the RFU's that there are fixture clashes. By definition, the AP offers a diminished-standard product to their paying customers with weakened teams contesting front-line fixtures. I just find it all very odd.

How is it the RFU's failing that the Welsh schedule extra tests outside the official test window?

The AP like money, and they get paid money from the RFU for certain luxuries, like outside of test window release. If teams give that release without extra payment, the RFU are going to tell them to get fucked, and encourage any player with intentions to play for England, to ensure their contract allows them to take extra weeks off.

[Oakboy]

So, basically it is simply 'rules are rules'. Fair enough, but I still don't understand the rationale behind the rule (from the AP's viewpoint) other than the creation of an arbitrary vehicle for screwing money out of the RFU. It's their failing as much as the RFU's that there are fixture clashes. By definition, the AP offers a diminished-standard product to their paying customers with weakened teams contesting front-line fixtures. I just find it all very odd.

How is it the RFU's failing that the Welsh schedule extra tests outside the official test window?

The AP like money, and they get paid money from the RFU for certain luxuries, like outside of test window release. If teams give that release without extra payment, the RFU are going to tell them to get fucked, and encourage any player with intentions to play for England, to ensure their contract allows them to take extra weeks off.

Christ, I must be thick. I understand both your paragraphs taken individually. What I can't see, still, help , is how Faletau playing for Wales makes any difference to anyone. If Bath are happy and Faletau is happy why should the AP be unhappy or the RFU? To take it to its logical conclusion, why don't AP rules stipulate that all player contracts have to include player release on a fee-paying basis for all players regardless of nationality?

[Mellsblue]

So, basically it is simply 'rules are rules'. Fair enough, but I still don't understand the rationale behind the rule (from the AP's viewpoint) other than the creation of an arbitrary vehicle for screwing money out of the RFU. It's their failing as much as the RFU's that there are fixture clashes. By definition, the AP offers a diminished-standard product to their paying customers with weakened teams contesting front-line fixtures. I just find it all very odd.

I’m fairky certain premiership games must be signed off by the RFU as governing body. As I said previously, PRL have floated an idea to extend the season to move domestic fixtures out of the test windows. Unfortunately, rather than float it went down like a lead ballon, with talk of player strikes.

[Mellsblue]

So, basically it is simply 'rules are rules'. Fair enough, but I still don't understand the rationale behind the rule (from the AP's viewpoint) other than the creation of an arbitrary vehicle for screwing money out of the RFU. It's their failing as much as the RFU's that there are fixture clashes. By definition, the AP offers a diminished-standard product to their paying customers with weakened teams contesting front-line fixtures. I just find it all very odd.

How is it the RFU's failing that the Welsh schedule extra tests outside the official test window?

The AP like money, and they get paid money from the RFU for certain luxuries, like outside of test window release. If teams give that release without extra payment, the RFU are going to tell them to get fucked, and encourage any player with intentions to play for England, to ensure their contract allows them to take extra weeks off.

Christ, I must be thick. I understand both your paragraphs taken individually. What I can't see, still, help , is how Faletau playing for Wales makes any difference to anyone. If Bath are happy and Faletau is happy why should the AP be unhappy or the RFU? To take it to its logical conclusion, why don't AP rules stipulate that all player contracts have to include player release on a fee-paying basis for all players regardless of nationality?

Because the PRL think it undermines their bargaining position if players play for other nations outside of the window for free whilst they ask the RFU to pay for the privilege.

[Oakboy]

How is it the RFU's failing that the Welsh schedule extra tests outside the official test window?

The AP like money, and they get paid money from the RFU for certain luxuries, like outside of test window release. If teams give that release without extra payment, the RFU are going to tell them to get fucked, and encourage any player with intentions to play for England, to ensure their contract allows them to take extra weeks off.

Christ, I must be thick. I understand both your paragraphs taken individually. What I can't see, still, help , is how Faletau playing for Wales makes any difference to anyone. If Bath are happy and Faletau is happy why should the AP be unhappy or the RFU? To take it to its logical conclusion, why don't AP rules stipulate that all player contracts have to include player release on a fee-paying basis for all players regardless of nationality?

Because the PRL think it undermines their bargaining position if players play for other nations outside of the window for free whilst they ask the RFU to pay for the privilege.

Ah, got it. Fricking illogical, though, IMO.

[Mellsblue]

Christ, I must be thick. I understand both your paragraphs taken individually. What I can't see, still, help , is how Faletau playing for Wales makes any difference to anyone. If Bath are happy and Faletau is happy why should the AP be unhappy or the RFU? To take it to its logical conclusion, why don't AP rules stipulate that all player contracts have to include player release on a fee-paying basis for all players regardless of nationality?

Because the PRL think it undermines their bargaining position if players play for other nations outside of the window for free whilst they ask the RFU to pay for the privilege.

Ah, got it. Fricking illogical, though, IMO.

Well, if I were the RFU during negotiations and the clubs weren’t being fined, I’d point out that the PRL clearly didn’t mind the clubs losing one player outside of windows. I’d then argue that one player per club is 12 players in total, which equates to about a third of the EPS, and I’d then reduce my offer by 33%. Even with the fines I’d still be making a similar, if less financially onerous, point.

[Banquo]

Because the PRL think it undermines their bargaining position if players play for other nations outside of the window for free whilst they ask the RFU to pay for the privilege.

Ah, got it. Fricking illogical, though, IMO.

Well, if I were the RFU during negotiations and the clubs weren’t being fined, I’d point out that the PRL clearly didn’t mind the clubs losing one player outside of windows. I’d then argue that one player per club is 12 players in total, which equates to about a third of the EPS, and I’d then reduce my offer by 33%. Even with the fines I’d still be making a similar, if less financially onerous, point.

Yep, pretty logical, and Barf (and Saints) knew the rules when they agreed their respective contracts.