English clubs threaten USA - All Blacks in Chicago

[Nielsch]

The USA is supposed to play New Zealand at Chicago's Soldier Field on November 1 of this year. The test will fall outside the IRB Test Window and so far the English clubs are not willing to release their American professional players. This could endanger the match as New Zealand will only play the Eagles at the 60.000+ seater venue if there's at least a meaningful opposition.

I'd say, for the good of rugby, let 'em play already.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11198666

 

[TRF_Olyy]

What did they expect?
Rules have been there for 7 years, it shouldn't really come as a surprise.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Unless I recall incorrectly, in a Rugby Champions Cup press release, PRL and LNR spoke about growing the game in new markets via a 3rd tier competition. To me, the USA playing New Zealand in front of a possible crowd of 60,000 people in Chicago is a damn good way to grow the game.

I criticized PRL for their stance on George North playing for Wales outside the international window because I think test rugby should always have supremacy. Having said that, with PRL taking the position they did, for consistency's sake they must take a position about this test. Is it self serving and confrontational? Yes however I don't believe New Zealand are going to the USA out of the goodness of their hearts and only do so for their own financial gain. If New Zealand are extracting money from USA Rugby, why should PRL be criticized for doing the same thing?

I think all sides will give a little. USA Rugby will pay a token fee to PRL clubs, New Zealand will chip in a little since it's better to earn something than nothing and PRL will allow the players to go as a good PR exercise.

 

[munstermuffin]

Unless I recall incorrectly, in a Rugby Champions Cup press release, PRL and LNR spoke about growing the game in new markets via a 3rd tier competition. To me, the USA playing New Zealand in front of a possible crowd of 60,000 people in Chicago is a damn good way to grow the game.

I criticized PRL for their stance on George North playing for Wales outside the international window because I think test rugby should always have supremacy. Having said that, with PRL taking the position they did, for consistency's sake they must take a position about this test. Is it self serving and confrontational? Yes however I don't believe New Zealand are going to the USA out of the goodness of their hearts and only do so for their own financial gain. If New Zealand are extracting money from USA Rugby, why should PRL be criticized for doing the same thing?

I think all sides will give a little. USA Rugby will pay a token fee to PRL clubs, New Zealand will chip in a little since it's better to earn something than nothing and PRL will allow the players to go as a good PR exercise.

Snoop key there is they don't like growing when they aren't directly involved. For example Saracens etc would much prefer it be them to host a big game in USA.
They did explore bringing Munster to USA in HEC and were really for it.

Regards game it will be a spectacle but I presume this would be a 1 sided affair but also will kill game they play with Aus in Hong Kong

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

What about the American players playing I'm France? And are there any in the super 15?

 

[munstermuffin]

What about the American players playing I'm France? And are there any in the super 15?

Super 15 wouldn't be a problem and not sure of guys in France but presume if there is a deal agreed it'd be similar with 2 countries. Also IRB will probably put pressure on to as they will be benefitting.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

What about the American players playing I'm France? And are there any in the super 15?

As far as I'm aware the French clubs are under no obligation to release players but can do so if they want to.

 

[nickdnz]

What about the American players playing I'm France? And are there any in the super 15?

Unfortunately not anymore. We had Todd Clever and James Patersonfor the Lions and Highlanders but the both play elsewhere.

Most of SR tends to be very lenient on player releases; it really seems odd for clubs to deny access considering there are only two or three USA players who would be starters anyway - and it isn't exactly a promotion of the league to foreign talent to deny access. I can see the clubs arriving at a solution like Snoopy says - although I'd be suprised if the NZRU paying part of it would feature in the agreement. A bitter half of me says schedual the match which was supposed to be Twickenham to Chicago just to make a point.

 

[McTallshort]

If they want PRL players outside the agreed window then they should offer to compensate the clubs for releasing those players..its what the RFU do.

 

[St George]

A bitter half of me says schedual the match which was supposed to be Twickenham to Chicago just to make a point.

I think contractual obligations would probably prevent this, but anyways, IMO the NZRU would be hit harder by that stance than the PRL. Any hit in England would be on the RFU which will just re-schedule another fixture in place.

I question the point of having an IRB window at all if Unions persist in staging games outside of it and then bashing clubs who have businesses to run for witholding players.

 

[Peat]

Most of SR tends to be very lenient on player releases; it really seems odd for clubs to deny access considering there are only two or three USA players who would be starters anyway - and it isn't exactly a promotion of the league to foreign talent to deny access. I can see the clubs arriving at a solution like Snoopy says - although I'd be suprised if the NZRU paying part of it would feature in the agreement. A bitter half of me says schedual the match which was supposed to be Twickenham to Chicago just to make a point.

Well it's been going for 7 years and it hasn't done the league too much harm despite several well publicised cases. I'm not really sure what there is to be bitter about here - when both bodies organised this match, they knew what the answer would be.

 

[norcalbuff]

We have a ton of players playing professionally in Europe these days.

Premiership:


Wyles (Sarries), Smith (Sarries), Scully (Tigers), Manoa (Saints), Dolan (Saints), Lamositele (Sarries), Suniula (Wasps)


Top 14:


LaValla (Stade Francais), Ngwenya (Biarritz)


Pro 12:


Niua


Japan:


Clever (NTT)


Championship:


Fry (London Scottish), Shaw (London Scottish), Tuisamoa (London Welsh), L'Estrange (London Welsh), Magie* (Ealing), McLean* (Ealing)


Pro D2:


Hume (Narbonne), Bausari (Tarbes), Tuilevuka (Beziers)


*Uncapped. Magie is a former USA U20 and McLean is US born.

Nick Wallace looks like he's about to side with a Championship side soon, too.

 

[flying tiger]

If SAANAR are serious about growing their brand in North America then they should be more pro active in getting players from those countries into Super Rugby hence removing the issue of avaliability.

Anyways PRL have a point, we have written agreements for a reason.

 

[nickdnz]

If SAANAR are serious about growing their brand in North America then they should be more pro active in getting players from those countries into Super Rugby hence removing the issue of avaliability.

Anyways PRL have a point, we have written agreements for a reason.

1. WTF is SAANAR?
2. If you mean SANZAR - what have they got to do with this match?
3. With nation only having 5 franchises (SA now with 6) there is less space for foreign talent in SR - and the wages aren't as competitive as Europe.

I don't think anyone is saying PRL don't have a right to refuse those players to participate. NZRU however have always released foreign players outside of the time frame. Refusing the release of those players (who ultimately won't drastically harm any clubs chance of success) is fine - I just don't want to hear Saracens going to Bermuda to 'grow the game' when they won't release Chris Wyles for a week - which would be considerably more beneficial for the games expansion. But you are right - PRL does have the right to say "whats in it for me" - and I'm sure they'll get their pound of flesh.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Just so that you are aware, Nick... some of those players are integral to their team.

Samu Manoa for example is one of the best players in Europe.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I just don't want to hear Saracens going to Bermuda to 'grow the game' when they won't release Chris Wyles for a week

It's not a matter of "won't" but "can't".
Saints got away very lightly for releasing North, but in previous years the threats have always been of a big fine and points deduction.

 

[Big Ewis]

pfff....another one of those stories...

 

[welshglory]

Well the simple answer is that they should have scheduled this to be played during the international window.

I'd rather watch this than watch the same old top 8 unions play each other year after year after year after year after year.

The PRL have a policy and it's one that the clubs all agreed upon to protect themselves essentially, it's not for financial reasons.

What's the point of having an international window if it's ignored?

I'd rather we have a variation of test matches against different nations instead of the same tours and competitions every year.

 

[smartcooky]

Unless I recall incorrectly, in a Rugby Champions Cup press release, PRL and LNR spoke about growing the game in new markets via a 3rd tier competition. To me, the USA playing New Zealand in front of a possible crowd of 60,000 people in Chicago is a damn good way to grow the game.

Just shows that PRL and their ilk are just users who only pay lip service to the development and expansion of the global game. They are happy to reap the benefits of the iRB Global Expansion program by using foreign players from Tier 2 countries, but appear uninterested in helping to sow the seeds. They are good at making nice sound bytes around negotiation time, and then renege when the time comes for them to show some commitment. Its all they have ever done, and all they will ever do.

What bunch of arseholes!

 

[Peat]

Oh give over. Are you guys going over there to play them out of the goodness of your hearts? Is your match fee going to the IRB to further fund rugby in developing countries? Have you offered to play the match during the test window, ensuring release of all the players, or are you going for a match outside the window that doesn't clash with a really lucrative money maker like a fixture at Twickenham?

I'm guessing the answers are 'Only Kinda', 'No' and 'No'. In this situation, I don't see how the kiwis can have a go at PRL being up for financially profitable ways of expanding rugby but not being interested when it involves disadvantaging themselves. I notice Nick says the SANZAR unions can't take foreign players due to a limited number of franchises. To me, that sounds like "It would disadvantage ourselves to take these guys ahead of our own so we're not going to do it." There is no one in international rugby who is giving the Tier 2 countries something for nothing. There are no totally altruistic benefactors. Expecting PRL to be different is ridiculous and hypocritical. And yes, breaking an agreement that they are using to collectively ensure a fair slice of the international pie is disadvantaging themselves.

If the Americans want the players, they can pay money and form a player release agreement for this occasion. Or maybe even long term. PRL would be delighted to.

I am pro-Union and pro-International game. I believe the Unions should run the game and the International game should come first. But there are limits, and the Club game has to be respected and taken care of, for the good the Unions and the International game as much as anything. Consistently playing games outside the agreed upon window and expecting the Clubs to go along with it without compensation falls outside that respect. If the Unions cannot respect the Club game properly, then maybe the Unions shouldn't run it, and the Clubs are justified in every move to try and place themselves out of the Unions' power.

To sum up - anyone having a go at PRL for their stance here is, providing they agree with the stance of their own union, probably being a massive hypocrite and definitely being highly annoying. Oh well. The world will keep on turning here and happily, what I think is (mostly) fair shall come to pass.