Sale refuse to release Dwayne Peel...!

First topic message reminder :

Peel's club, Sale, have blocked the scrum-half from joining Wales summer training, amid an on-going dispute with the Welsh Rugby Union about availabilty outside designated International Rugby Board time periods.
However, his new clubmate Andy Powell is with Wales as his contract with the Aviva Premiership side begins after the World Cup.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/13992149.stm

snoopster wrote:Was it that no region was willing to offer him a contract or that none of them were willing to offer him a contract that was close to what he was on?
Either way, I think we're completely agreed that it comes down to Peel - he's not willing to cut his expectations enough to make himself an affordable for a Welsh region nor take the cut in salary that a non-Welsh club would demand in exchange for him having release clauses in his contract.

I seem to remember his agent using the phrase "nothing concrete from Wales" when it was announced Peel resigned with Sale. So I'm assuming there was interest but nothing materialised on it.

AlynDavies wrote:I seem to remember his agent using the phrase "nothing concrete from Wales" when it was announced Peel resigned with Sale. So I'm assuming there was interest but nothing materialised on it.

That is usually agent talk for "someone wanted to sign him but couldn't afford his wages"

I am very annoyed at reading many of the posts by English fans that try to blame and slander the WRU for something that has nothing to do with them.

Snoopster do you dislike the welsh or Wales ?

Watch what you type, an opinion is one thing, being unnecessarily offensive is not needed.

A screw it - no point in trying to make a sensible response. Go throw your unfounded accusations of bigotry around if you like.

I am amazed you side with money hungrey pedants like the PRL, rather than with rugby and it's players.

The PRL are obstinate the RFU have no backbone.

maestegmafia wrote:I am amazed you side with money hungrey pedants like the PRL, rather than with rugby and it's players.

The PRL are obstinate the RFU have no backbone.

you still banging on about this, people have replied sensibly to both your threads on the same subject. People have given you valid reasons, yet you choose just to ignore or pick fault with them.

You'll learn that people will stop replying to you if you carry on in this way. Remember this isn't 606v1!!!!!!

I dont like the accord of the PRL, it differs to the rest of rugby.

They have a self serving purpose that does little to promote the game, looking at the wider picture.

I am not surprised that the WRU will not deal with them, I think they are right not to.

Maesteg

I agree with you in principle but that doesn't change the fact that both the WRU and Dwayne Peel know how the PRL operate. If they are not willing to deal with them then they can't be suprised when players are not allowed to join training camp. It's not even like they're publicly campaigning to get PRL to change their modus operandi. It comes up every time and every time we have some complaint about it.

If they don't like it, pay up. Either for the players contract or for whatever PRL require to release the player.

maestegmafia wrote:I dont like the accord of the PRL, it differs to the rest of rugby.

They have a self serving purpose that does little to promote the game, looking at the wider picture.

I am not surprised that the WRU will not deal with them, I think they are right not to.

Did you miss the regions refusing to let players go to international games outside the window? There was a court session threatened and a judge ruled they had to go. Then we the new agreement was signed up the regions were given a boost to funding to allow the extra release time. The only difference is that the WRU don;t want to pay the PRL. the PRL are behaving no different than the RRW (except that the regions DID have a deal with the WRU to release players so they didn't have a leg to stand on).

Exactly. The whole reason the IRB woindow rules exist is to balance the inetrest of the club game against those of the inetrnational game.

Its hardly unreasonable of clubs to ask for those rules to be abided by. PRL are strict on this, and expect all the clubs who are contarcted to follow their rules to follow them. One a precedent is set to waive them where does it end? Peel was aware of this, and was aware that it previously caused problems with his relaease outside the window. England players like Haskell have had the same problems with their French clubs wanting them to play during 6 nations rest weeks. This is why the RFU is taking a tough stance against foriegn based players, whilst for some reason Gatland has said many of his are better off playing abroad.

How often does the WRU say they can do without their players for the benefit of their regions? Not very often.

If they dont like the rules they shouldnt have signed up to them, its the Unions who run the IRB not the clubs.

Honestly Wales have more pressing issues to worry about than their 4th choice scrum half missing a couple of weeks training. However it seems for certain sections of the fanbase its very importnat to try and creat and England Wales argument at every opportunity.

Thing is the IRB regulations on player availability specifically state the times players MUST be made available for international duty. It then goes on to say that any additional time wanted by the union may be negotiated. Since the WRU refuse to negotiate, it's not going to happen. The SRU are getting their players today. I don't remember any stories about money paid by the SRU and they aren't exactly rolling in it. Maybe they just asked nicely and put restrictions on the amount of hard training they can do.

For me it just begs the question, what is Peel doing there to begin with? - He has moved to absolute obscurity at a time when he needed the best profile he could attain to reignite his career - Its been a disaster move from the start for Peel and what motivation can you have to play under these shackles. Crazy and Peel needs to look at his own involvement here - what the fxxx is he actually doing there when the Regions could do with his skill and experience.

I seem to remember that he moved to experience life outside of south west Wales. Experience the bright lights of the big city. Obviously he likes it (and the pay is helpful)

Are you talking about international career or personal career? He chose to go to Sale and he is playing regularly and is still employed by them. Unless you ask him its hard to see how he has ruined his career

Peel and his agent if he has one should have negotiated a better deal!

No sympathy for the guy I'm afraid, his employed by Sale therefore he has to tow the line.

Bath

where does he need to tow it to?

BATH_BTGOG wrote:Peel and his agent if he has one should have negotiated a better deal!

No sympathy for the guy I'm afraid, his employed by Sale therefore he has to tow the line.

I'd agree. Its harsh but thems the breaks.

Have a read about this from the Sale RFC fans forum.

http://www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/read/s101.htm?104,12552466

Many seem very supportive of the WRU rather than, as they site it, the PRL

peel went to sale as first choice for the lions now he is 4th choice at wales.

Been an awful move for him hasn't it?

shame for me he has the best pass of any 9 in the uk and ireland and should still be out first choice.

Doubt Gatland will take him anyhow it'll be phillips knoyle and rees

jb1973 wrote:peel went to sale as first choice for the lions now he is 4th choice at wales.

Been an awful move for him hasn't it?

shame for me he has the best pass of any 9 in the uk and ireland and should still be out first choice.

Doubt Gatland will take him anyhow it'll be phillips knoyle and rees

Its been an amazing demotion through the scrum half rankings...

Still rated by the Sale fans as the best 9 in the AP...

Thought he was playing some good rugby last season but it is hard to judge considering the opposition.

maestegmafia wrote:Have a read about this from the Sale RFC fans forum.

http://www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/read/s101.htm?104,12552466

Many seem very supportive of the WRU rather than, as they site it, the PRL

You're reading the comments a lot differently than I am. The general consensus is that why should Wales get Peel for free during his contracted period of employment with Sale ?

I suggest you read and pay close attention to Dave Swantons comments. He isn't just a supporter of Sale, but actually works for them

mckay1402 wrote:Maesteg

I agree with you in principle but that doesn't change the fact that both the WRU and Dwayne Peel know how the PRL operate. If they are not willing to deal with them then they can't be suprised when players are not allowed to join training camp. It's not even like they're publicly campaigning to get PRL to change their modus operandi. It comes up every time and every time we have some complaint about it.

If they don't like it, pay up. Either for the players contract or for whatever PRL require to release the player.

Fair comment

but nothing actually lets us know whether or not the WRU or Peel have been trying their damnedest to sort this out and the PRL are just being obstinate.

There is also no info on how much the PRL want to release a player like Peel, I guess it is a lot.

Lets presume considering that the RFU gave the PRL/English premiership clubs £102 mil over eight years and lets be generous and say there are 96 international standard players at each of the twelve clubs split between the first team, saxons and u 21s that the RFU want released whenever they need to call on them, for training or for matches, then it is going to be well over £100,000 to get one player released outside the window the same as the English players are whenever the RFU requests them.

I think that adds up to £132812.50 per player per year. I would say that is a ridiculous amount of money for the PRL to demand if it is indeed a similar amount?

We can only speculate.

[quote="maestegmafia"]

mckay1402 wrote:Maesteg
I think that adds up to £132812.50 per player per year. I would say that is a ridiculous amount of money for the PRL to demand if it is indeed a similar amount?

We can only speculate.

We know the SRU got their players early. There's been no information about money changing hands. Some of the PI have also had players released. Not exactly loaded either. It may not be all about money. But with no dialogue nothing will be agreed.

[quote="HammerofThunor"]

maestegmafia wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:Maesteg
I think that adds up to £132812.50 per player per year. I would say that is a ridiculous amount of money for the PRL to demand if it is indeed a similar amount?

We can only speculate.

We know the SRU got their players early. There's been no information about money changing hands. Some of the PI have also had players released. Not exactly loaded either. It may not be all about money. But with no dialogue nothing will be agreed.

Premiership Rugby chief Mark McCafferty wrote:Premiership Rugby chief Mark McCafferty has previously defended their position and cited IRB regulations on player release. He is willing to negotiate provided the WRU are able to guarantee certain rest periods for players and also suitable insurance provisions.

"Our major concern is that the players, for whatever union they are eligible, have a break in June following the end of the season in May and then go into the national training camp at the beginning of July so they can then have a good month before the games in August," he said. "If we do release them in July, our only other issue is that all the proper insurance risk cover is in place.

"We are having negotiations with other unions but it is difficult to have a conciliatory approach when somebody is saying they won't speak to you. We need to get this sorted out as soon as possible and if the WRU won't negotiate with us, we may have to do this through the IRB."

Roger Lewis WRU wrote:"On player-release matters, the proper formality is for us to liaise with the relevant governing body, which in this case is the RFU, and we will be maintain a relevant dialogue and we hope that players get adequate release."

Lets just say they did realease Peel, where would that leave the Welsh regions in their battle for compensation?
Would it not also make the RFU question why they are paying their own clubs for player release when the same clubs are giveing a foriegn Union players for free? It took years for Rob Andrew to nail down the EPS agreement, which even now is creaky in places. The RFU tried and failed to flex their muscles and bully the French clubs into releasing the likes of Haskell outsdie IRB windows, the legal battles in those cases still havent been settled fully.

If the WRU want player release outside of the IRB windows they have to negtiate that, same as everyone else. The reason they havent with teh english clubs is because they are still in legal dispute with their own clubs about the level of release and payments ( remeber the broken promises over the 4th AI?) . If they start dishing out what PRL and other foriegn clubs want for player release then

It works both ways. Neither the clubs nor the Unions want to make precedent. But ultimatly the IRB windows exist to ensure that players are released, and they are largely without question. Anything outside of that is a bonus for the Union if not in all cases the players long term welfare. Rugby is "like soccer" in having agreements for players to only appear for one half in an international or gaining mysterious short term injuries the day before a game.
Its complicated and not ideal but you have to understand the issue as part of sa bigger picture. Their is a need to mantain a healthy viable club game as well as a desire to maximise the potential of international teams. Different Unions have different agendas and different leverage to get the players when they want them, that goes as much for the players at their own clubs as it does foriegn based ones.

Well Roger Lewis is a fool. The RFU may be the governing body but the PRL are effectively the players union. I'm not saying that the PRL are right to behave like this but you only have to look at payers who are being forced to retire and the amount of players we have out injured at any time to see why they don't want to release players to us.
When was the last time we were able to put out our first choice XV? I can't even remember. How many players do we have out injured at the moment? Maybe if we gave the players a break instead of constantly battering them we might have players who can stay in form and be able to actually play...A different argument I know but very relevant to the topic.

The system came about partially because the clubs did not always get benefit from having internationals - they spend big chunks of the season away and then come home crocked. So they did a deal on compensation and player management, and somehow some other unions have managed to work something out with the PRL also.

But it seems the WRU cant do that - its just easier to complain to the media.

As for Peel himself if I remember correctly his form wasnt what it had been before he moved, not because of it. I believe he had been injured and maybe unsettled also.

lostinwales wrote:
But it seems the WRU cant do that - its just easier to complain to the media.

And for some of the fans from Wales to complain on sites like this saying it's the fault of the RFU and PRL.

Maesteg,

Why should they release Peel? The PRL are doing precisely what they are within their rights to do. If the WRU fail to cooperate with the terms the PRL have (again) rightly put forth, then it's not a question of ''unfair'' or some other equally puerile description, it's simply that the WRU are demonstrating, yet again, that its policy on these matters is untenable.

Also, a point worth making in this topic is that the WRU are the only national organisation in rugby that sets demands on international training allocation outside of the IRB window and for longer periods. If they place this systematic approach to further the development and progress of the national game, then they should pay for it.

maestegmafia[quote="Roger Lewis WRU wrote:"On player-release matters, the proper formality is for us to liaise with the relevant governing body, which in this case is the RFU, and we will be maintain a relevant dialogue and we hope that players get adequate release."

[/quote]

The RFU have no say in this. Why are the WRU talking to them? This is an agreement between the representing union (WRU) and the employer (clubs represented by the PRL). It makes no sense whatsoever in speaking the RFU. All they can do is act as middlemen which would just slow everything up. Stikes me as posturing which has backfired and now the WRU won't back down. Their loss.

HammerofThunor wrote:

maestegmafia[quote="Roger Lewis WRU wrote:"On player-release matters, the proper formality is for us to liaise with the relevant governing body, which in this case is the RFU, and we will be maintain a relevant dialogue and we hope that players get adequate release."

The RFU have no say in this. Why are the WRU talking to them? This is an agreement between the representing union (WRU) and the employer (clubs represented by the PRL). It makes no sense whatsoever in speaking the RFU. All they can do is act as middlemen which would just slow everything up. Stikes me as posturing which has backfired and now the WRU won't back down. Their loss.[/quote]

Precisely, the RFU are not party to any terms in this instance, this is between the WRU and PRL acting on behalf of Sale!

Having said all this it does seem ridiculous that Sale RFC as Peels direct employer can't make the decision for themselves. What would PRL do to them if they just said to Dwayne "actually we pay your wages, ignore PRL and go join Wales"?

mckay1402 wrote:Having said all this it does seem ridiculous that Sale RFC as Peels direct employer can't make the decision for themselves. What would PRL do to them if they just said to Dwayne "actually we pay your wages, ignore PRL and go join Wales"?

The reason they do it is because they signed up to the PRL to improve their buying power. If they ignored the PRL they could be kicked out. they would then have to negiate their own TV deal for just their home game. they would have to negotiate sponsership deal, etc. Negotiate with the RFU for money for player release. Everything. There's no way they'll pull out. Remember the PRL are made up of representatives of the clubs and sale are included.

mckay1402 wrote:Having said all this it does seem ridiculous that Sale RFC as Peels direct employer can't make the decision for themselves. What would PRL do to them if they just said to Dwayne "actually we pay your wages, ignore PRL and go join Wales"?

Kick them out of PRL and watch them go out of business within a few season?
Sale get more out of PRL than they put in - they're one of the smaller sides in financial terms and PRL means they get subsidised by the bigger ones... oh and they'd have to work out how they're going to get money out of the RFU for their England players while they're letting other nations have their internationals for free.

A lot of you are saying Wales are complaining to the media and perhaps in years gone by that is true but they aren't these days.
They Barbarians invited Peel to play for them and the PRL blocked it. Then Wales invited Peel to join their World Cup training camp and the PRL blocked it. Wales aren't short of scrum halves in fact we have quite a lot of decent ones so we are not really losing anything. This is more about the WRU letting players know what will happen to them if they play outside Wales, especially if they go to England.

AlynDavies wrote:A lot of you are saying Wales are complaining to the media and perhaps in years gone by that is true but they aren't these days.
They Barbarians invited Peel to play for them and the PRL blocked it. Then Wales invited Peel to join their World Cup training camp and the PRL blocked it. Wales aren't short of scrum halves in fact we have quite a lot of decent ones so we are not really losing anything. This is more about the WRU letting players know what will happen to them if they play outside Wales, especially if they go to England.

Exactly, whilst their are continued behind the scenes legal waranglisgs and political posturings between unions and clubs its a section of the fans who seem determined to see this as England vs Wales deabte.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Exactly, whilst their are continued behind the scenes legal waranglisgs and political posturings between unions and clubs its a section of the fans who seem determined to see this as England vs Wales deabte.

The fixed minority who would perpetuate this gargle ''welsh inferiority complex'' as I tend to dub it these days. ''It's life, Jim!''

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Exactly. The whole reason the IRB woindow rules exist is to balance the inetrest of the club game against those of the inetrnational game.

Its hardly unreasonable of clubs to ask for those rules to be abided by. PRL are strict on this, and expect all the clubs who are contarcted to follow their rules to follow them. One a precedent is set to waive them where does it end? Peel was aware of this, and was aware that it previously caused problems with his relaease outside the window. England players like Haskell have had the same problems with their French clubs wanting them to play during 6 nations rest weeks. This is why the RFU is taking a tough stance against foriegn based players, whilst for some reason Gatland has said many of his are better off playing abroad.

How often does the WRU say they can do without their players for the benefit of their regions? Not very often.

If they dont like the rules they shouldnt have signed up to them, its the Unions who run the IRB not the clubs.

Honestly Wales have more pressing issues to worry about than their 4th choice scrum half missing a couple of weeks training. However it seems for certain sections of the fanbase its very importnat to try and creat and England Wales argument at every opportunity.

I think Peel in form was probably our second choice scrum half. He was on the bench when fit during six nations.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Exactly. The whole reason the IRB woindow rules exist is to balance the inetrest of the club game against those of the inetrnational game.

The windows are obviously not big enough, plus the PRL are willing to release players if they are paid to do so. There are double standards everywhere in the PRls dealings, unless your national union are free with your cash like the RFU, (£102 million over eight years, that is more than £100000 per player for 96 players involved with seniors, Saxons and under 20s).

I agree with the WRU that the RFU are the people to deal with, they should have more control over the PRL, but they seem to let them have a free reign, even with all the cash they are paying them.

I believe that's because the Clubs are a business, which is why the RFU don't have full control. The only places I can think of where the Union has full control over the clubs, etc.. is in New Zealand and South Africa.

nottins_jones wrote:I believe that's because the Clubs are a business, which is why the RFU don't have full control. The only places I can think of where the Union has full control over the clubs, etc.. is in New Zealand and South Africa.

And Ireland are centrally contracted too.

The top Premiership clubs must make a massive profit, large crowds, shirt sales, a salary cap and shed loads of cash from sky and the RFU. Even that seems to be not enough.

Mind you it does seem that this is much more to do with the governing clubs in the PRL rather than Sale rfc who previously have released Peel for Wales duty outside of IRB windows only been ordered to call him back by the PRL.

I think you are completely wrong with your numbers - Scotland currently has ten English based players in their WC training squad. Given the state of the SRU's finances and their tight control of them, do you think they are paying out for those ten players, some of whom won't make the actual WC squad?

I think you are working on the worst possible scenario and ignoring the evidence against it - that Scotland and the PIs don't seem to be having any issues with player release from PRL despite them being run on lower budgets than the WRU.

I agree with the WRU that the RFU are the people to deal with, they should have more control over the PRL, but they seem to let them have a free reign, even with all the cash they are paying them.

And the WRU are in a fine position to judge, given Gatland's comments about the Ospreys - they have a stronger control of the Regions and yet seem to be struggling

Ireland they are centrally contracted but the Provincial teams still act as seperate entities. NZ and SA unions have every say and the final say over all the contracted players to them.

maestegmafia wrote:

nottins_jones wrote:I believe that's because the Clubs are a business, which is why the RFU don't have full control. The only places I can think of where the Union has full control over the clubs, etc.. is in New Zealand and South Africa.

And Ireland are centrally contracted too.

The top Premiership clubs must make a massive profit, large crowds, shirt sales, a salary cap and shed loads of cash from sky and the RFU. Even that seems to be not enough.

Mind you it does seem that this is much more to do with the governing clubs in the PRL rather than Sale rfc who previously have released Peel for Wales duty outside of IRB windows only been ordered to call him back by the PRL.

The Premiership clubs are almost exclusively running at a loss.
Also they effectivly contribute more to the RFU in terms of money than they directly take back, even if you discount their role in player development (although you could counter argue that the RFU grassroots funding helps supply the player into their youth and academy sides). The Unions take the major share of Heinken cup profits for example, which is why both the Welsh regions and the English clubs were so keen to keep an Anglo Welsh cup where they take the majority of the money....its what keeps them afloat.
The RFU is stinking rich and massivley profitable, the club game is in a financial black hole for the most part. Similar situation in Wales I beleive?

In my opinion you are searching around for reasons to prove a point that you were pre-set on, rather than looking at the reality of the situation and then forming a view.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

nottins_jones wrote:I believe that's because the Clubs are a business, which is why the RFU don't have full control. The only places I can think of where the Union has full control over the clubs, etc.. is in New Zealand and South Africa.

And Ireland are centrally contracted too.

The top Premiership clubs must make a massive profit, large crowds, shirt sales, a salary cap and shed loads of cash from sky and the RFU. Even that seems to be not enough.

Mind you it does seem that this is much more to do with the governing clubs in the PRL rather than Sale rfc who previously have released Peel for Wales duty outside of IRB windows only been ordered to call him back by the PRL.

The Premiership clubs are almost exclusively running at a loss.
Also they effectivly contribute more to the RFU in terms of money than they directly take back, even if you discount their role in player development (although you could counter argue that the RFU grassroots funding helps supply the player into their youth and academy sides). The Unions take the major share of Heinken cup profits for example, which is why both the Welsh regions and the English clubs were so keen to keep and Anglo Welsh cup where they take the majority of the money....its what keeps them afloat.
The RFU is stinking rich and massivley profitable, the club game is in a financial black hole for the most part. Similar situation in Wales I beleive?

The fact is you are desperatly searching around for reasons to prove a point that you were preset on, rather than looking at the reality of the situation and then forming a view.

Interesting post, cheers.

My point is clear. I dont like the situation and I dont think that the WRU are doing anything wrong here, I think they are right to make a point about this and right to sanction the RFU as the responsible body over the PRL, who I believe they see as an entity they cant deal with.

The advantage of negotiating with the RFU is that it is IRB governed, the PRL is not, therefor a fellow National Union has no alternative barometer in this situation should they protest about the PRLs decision, which on the current terms they seem to think is unacceptable.

I also think that if National Unions, (whether they have subsidiary Ltd companies as a controlling body for their clubs, or acting as a unified voice for their clubs, or not), take control of the situation then an internationally amicable agreement between all the unions might ideally be reached.

Rugby is now a professional sport but the variety of levels of professionalism between competing nations is vast. England have a solid professional structure that is working for them, Wales have one that is younger but seems to be working for them, fiji, samoa, japan, italy and so on all have different scenarios.

For international rugby to continue to be a success and to be fair on competing nations, bodies like the PRL, RRW, SANZA etc need to be in unison with their respective national unions, especially now that so many players are playing in foreign countries for the financial benefits.

Maybe the next step forward is for the IRB to make a list of what a national union has to do as a recognised governing body with relation to that countries national teams players and as to how their rugby clubs operate.

The current system benefits the wealthy and not the poorer, that in my mind is not in Rugby Unions advantage as a sport.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:The fact is you are desperatly searching around for reasons to prove a point that you were preset on, rather than looking at the reality of the situation and then forming a view.

maesteg, read the posts above in reply to your points and you'll see the situation clearly.

i see the situation very clearly and have stated my points. You disagree, so be it.

maestegmafia wrote:My point is clear. I dont like the situation and I dont think that the WRU are doing anything wrong here, I think they are right to make a point about this and right to sanction the RFU as the responsible body over the PRL, who I believe they see as an entity they cant deal with.

YOU might think they're right in dealing with the RFU but the IRB don't. The RFU have NOTHING whatsoever to do with this. The players are employed by the clubs. The clubs are represented by the PRL. The IRB say that if unions want extra access they have to deal with the employer (the clubs).

The WRU aren't doing anything wrong as such but they're wasting their time talking to the RFU. The SRU have got extra access to their players and I doubt much money (if any changed hands). It would have to be reported but nothing has so far. The PI teams got players released for the PNC and I really doubt money changed hands there. One of the key requests is that the players are over trained and are allowed down time. What's wrong with that? The WRU want the players sent to Poland to be well and truely caned.

Was it the use of capitals? Only meant for emphasis. should perhaps have used italics or bold. Apologises

HammerofThunor wrote:Was it the use of capitals? Only meant for emphasis. should perhaps have used italics or bold. Apologises

That was a general "be nice" message to all Thunor, not related to the post immediately above my one

Just to bore everyone with my actual opinion on the subject of the thread, there's a time for standing on principal, and there's a time for common sense. In my opinion the WRU would be better served using some common sense and just talking to the PRU. It certainly appears to have worked for Scotland et al.