American Player Blocked by Clause in Contract to travel to the World Cup

First topic message reminder :

One omission from the squad is San Francisco Golden Gate lock Samu Manoa, who has signed a professional contract with English Premiership Club, Northampton Saints.

"Samu Manoa will not be traveling to RWC," said O'Sullivan.

"Unfortunately, a clause in his contract prevents him from traveling to RWC. While I wish Samu every success as a professional rugby player and respect his decision to take up a contract overseas, it is disappointing we were only made aware of his unavailability for RWC as recently as three weeks ago."

Very disturbing this. I'd like to know what the clause is because no clause should be above the iRB laws with regards to player release to their national side.

http://planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_7059118,00.html

nottins wrote:Change the record TGG.

I suggest people stop pushing this lie and he will.

The recent NZ squad had only 3 non NZ born players in it and of them 1 moved to NZ when he was 2 and another was something like 7 or 8.

Fact is on this one TGG is right and NZ poaching players from the PI is a myth

Ireland poach players from Israel so any Irish people can't say anything!

Two players in 30 is years is a very poor rate of return

nottins wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:

nottins wrote:Change the record TGG.

I'll stop pointing out how many foreigners there are in the England squad when folks stop making the daft, and ill-informed accusation that the All Blacks are full of Samoans. Honestly, you make yourselves sound like such fools when you talk this tiko.

When asked to point out ALL those foreigners in thecurrent England squad, you fail to do so. Or include such players Mike Catt

You're missing the point. It's more valid to accuse 50% of the England squad of being foreigners than it is to make the earlier accusation that 90% of the All Blacks are Samoans. The argument about England is largely intended to point out the absurd nature of the nonsense claims about the ABs (and I've been putting up with those for two decades). So either get used to having someone point out that 50% of the England squad are foreign mercenaries on every single post, or stop making the ludicrous claims about others. Simple. Until then, no record will be changed.

MBTGOG wrote:Portnoys,

Are you saying Murphy should choose Leicester over Ireland?

As a Tigers fan, from a selfish point of view I'd rather Murphy was at Tigers... not least as I have the feeling that if Ireland get Kearny fit as well then the choice for Murphy would be picking splinters out of his backside if he's lucky in New Zealand or playing for Tigers

TGG, name the foreign 50% players in the current England squad.

I don't think any club should be allowed to block a player from going to the world cup. If this is the reason then I'm behind the player.

But if a player chooses to sign for a club and the main reason for the signing to get in cover while the RWC is on, then the player is himself selling his chance at a rwc by agreeing not to go and take the money available to play at club level. If that is the case, I'm with the club. And if this is the case and then the player doesn't man up to the national side and state he doesn't want to player at the RWC cos he wants to pick up a pay packet and uses the contract as an excuse, I'm even more behind the club.

"As for foreign nationals representing an international team, I think Mr Thunder and his pals had better shussssh about that, since England are by far the most overt offenders, fielding so many recent New Zealand Maori, and League representatives"

Of poor little GG. SO often has he given it out to others, particularly England, but he can't take a little banter the other way. Grow a pair mate.

Mr Thunder wrote:"As for foreign nationals representing an international team, I think Mr Thunder and his pals had better shussssh about that, since England are by far the most overt offenders, fielding so many recent New Zealand Maori, and League representatives"

Of poor little GG. SO often has he given it out to others, particularly England, but he can't take a little banter the other way. Grow a pair mate.

Again, you've got it the wrong way around (again). I started my critique of England's selection policy about a decade after I got tired of hearing the "PI Poaching" argument. Seems like certain members of the England fan base have an issue with the irony in the situation. Now go on tell us again how Tuilagi is English but Ma'a Nonu isn't a New Zealander.

nottins wrote:TGG, name the foreign 50% players in the current England squad.

Right after Mr Thunder names the entire "Half of Samoa" that "play for New Zealand".

You been banging on for weeks that half the current England squad iare foreign and yet again you find another excuse not to name them.

nottins wrote:You been banging on for weeks that half the current England squad iare foreign and yet again you find another excuse not to name them.

Laughable. You seem to be the only one still in denial...

http://totalflanker.blogspot.com/2011/06/foreign-legion.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/8584109/English-prospects-vie-with-foreign-legion-to-catch-Martin-Johnsons-eye-ahead-of-the-Rugby-World-Cup.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/2326521/England-should-consider-rugbys-foreign-legion.html

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12504_6997466,00.html

http://www.france24.com/en/20110621-england-rugby-manager-happy-with-teams-foreign-legion

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rugby_union/article5769265.ece

Laughable, you're the one still in denial

Only looked at the first link. 13 players and 8 of them were clearly marked as there being no problem with.

The England training squad is 45 players, that link provides 13 names, 8 of whom they discount. Half of 45 is 22.5. So, exactly how is this 50% of the training squad ?

In the same way that "Half of Samoa" are playing for NZ? Do you get it yet? Or do you want me to draw you a diagram?

Aside from which the "what's the problem?" marked players are rather dubiously marked this way IMO. Most of them have a lot less claim to play for England than a guy who was born in NZ, schooled in NZ, grew up in NZ, learned to play in NZ, represented an NZ province, Super franchise, age grade team and then the AB's has to play for NZ, for example.

Well maybe the americans should start picking some new zeaanders rather than relying on poaching premiership players.

I've never said that half of Samoa play for NZ. Rather than providing the evidence to people who have done, you just jump straight into your tired old lies about 50% of England training squad players are foreign.

Goose. Gander.

What's your point. I didn't see you pulling up Thunder for his ludicrous claim. Why are you attacking me?

Thanks Dreamer.

Well done Dreamer.

snoopster wrote:From a few seconds of searching on Google -

According to Paul Keeler, who coached Manoa with the SFGG club, Manoa has a incentives in his contract that pay off if he starts 20 games. Northampton plays seven Aviva Premiership matches during the World Cup, and if Manoa started all of them, he would be well on his way toward earning that incentive.

So if this is true then Saints aren't blocking him at all - he's opted out to earn more money. Either way, either O'Sullivan or this guy are talking rudey poo... and I have to be honest, I'm leaning towards it being O'Sullivan. Still, I guess the main thing for him is that most people are too lazy to try and spend a minute or two googling to find out more about this story so his version is the one they'll remember,

Just thought I'd bring this up again as some seem to have missed this. He gets a bonus for appearances and Lawes will be away with England for the World Cup. He's chosen the extra money (and a chance to make a name for himself) over representing his country. Did Northampton deliberately do this for the World Cup? Possibly (probably). It would interesting to find out if the appearance bonus is needed to bring his pay up to his 'worth' or whether the bonus truly is a bonus.

Yeah, well thats it really.

Not much you can do if a guy doesn't want to go. If he does have a change of heart, he can go. The real issue would be if he did that and Saints refused to release him. Then we'd have a story.

So the thread title should be changed to "American player decides not to go the RWC to earn more money playing for his club"

HammerofThunor wrote:

9.3 No Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club whether by contract, conduct or otherwise may inhibit, prevent, discourage, disincentivise or render unavailable any Player from selection, attendance and appearance in a National Representative Team or National Squad session when such request for selection, attendance and appearance is made in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation 9. Any agreement and/or arrangement between a Player and a Rugby Body or Club or between a Union or an Association and a Rugby Body or Club (and/or any proposal made and/or attempted to be made howsoever communicated) which is contrary to this Regulation 9.3 is prohibited, including, but not limited to any agreement and/or arrangement and/or proposal pursuant to which a Player is (or would be) unable to exercise the right to play for a Union.

Quoting myself.Oh dear.

I'd like to know if the appearance bonus is required to bring his salary up to a reasonable level. Or if it's standard for all players. If not would it count as a disincentment (is that even a word?). I doubt his Saints contract mentions the world cup at all.

I think 'disincentive' would mean he would be treated negatively, such as having a pay cut. Here is has an incentive to stay.

Now, yes, that's two sides of the same coin and it's all relative, and I'm in danger of tripping over a double negative if I try to explain myself any further. But because a bonus is an incentive he is being rewarded for one choice, rather than being punished for it.

I think the pont is taht he would never have got the contract if they had thought he intended to go to the world cup.

Thats hardly unique, Tgers were prWaldrom decided he was English.

Whilst his payt may be largely in play bonuses that gan wouldnt be so unusual. Its actually quite common for "project" players to be on such contracts,especially because of the salary cap. Guys who are given a chance to prove themselves'like academy kids, are payed on results.

If this is just an issue of pay perplay bonusses then its a complete misrepresentation to say that he has a clause that excludes him from playing in the world cup.

If they are saying they will cancel his contract or pay him less when he comes back from the worldcup than they would have done if he stayed then theres a reason to raise eyebrows about the situation....but beyond a shock horror tag line I havent actually seen any evidence that thast the case.

Has the player himself expressed a desire to attned the worldcup above his desire to play in the Jeff?

Has there been any comment from Saitns on this issue yet? Would like to hear their side of the story.

snoopster wrote:

"According to Paul Keeler, who coached Manoa with the SFGG club, Manoa has a incentives in his contract that pay off if he starts 20 games. Northampton plays seven Aviva Premiership matches during the World Cup, and if Manoa started all of them, he would be well on his way toward earning that incentive.

I still dont think clubs should be allowed to approach players of any rugby nations in PARTICULAR minor rugby nations and requesting that their players take contracts preventing them from taking part in International Rugby.

It should not be allowed that a club contract can in any shape or form prevent a player from representing their nation should they be called upon...!

As has as been said countless times, clubs are NOT allowed to have any clause in a players contract to stop them playing for their country.

maestegmafia wrote:

snoopster wrote:

"According to Paul Keeler, who coached Manoa with the SFGG club, Manoa has a incentives in his contract that pay off if he starts 20 games. Northampton plays seven Aviva Premiership matches during the World Cup, and if Manoa started all of them, he would be well on his way toward earning that incentive.

I still dont think clubs should be allowed to approach players of any rugby nations in PARTICULAR minor rugby nations and requesting that their players take contracts preventing them from taking part in International Rugby.

It should not be allowed that a club contract can in any shape or form prevent a player from representing their nation should they be called upon...!

What in there prevents him in anyway from travelling to the World Cup? Or taking part in any international game he is picked for?

snoopster wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

snoopster wrote:

"According to Paul Keeler, who coached Manoa with the SFGG club, Manoa has a incentives in his contract that pay off if he starts 20 games. Northampton plays seven Aviva Premiership matches during the World Cup, and if Manoa started all of them, he would be well on his way toward earning that incentive.

I still dont think clubs should be allowed to approach players of any rugby nations in PARTICULAR minor rugby nations and requesting that their players take contracts preventing them from taking part in International Rugby.

It should not be allowed that a club contract can in any shape or form prevent a player from representing their nation should they be called upon...!

What in there prevents him in anyway from travelling to the World Cup? Or taking part in any international game he is picked for?

I would say that the earning incentive is the crux of it, especially considering he is only likely to be a first choice player when other international stars at his club are away at the world cup.

It is a swings and round abouts way of going about confronting an irb law but it still means the player will earn his money during the world cup when playing for his club.

maestegmafia wrote:
It is a swings and round abouts way of going about confronting an irb law

No it's not.

maestegmafia wrote:I would say that the earning incentive is the crux of it, especially considering he is only likely to be a first choice player when other international stars at his club are away at the world cup.

It is a swings and round abouts way of going about confronting an irb law but it still means the player will earn his money during the world cup when playing for his club.

I believe it is standard for players to have an appearance bonus in their contracts, his contract being the norm in this respect and not an exception - it is a good way to make sure the player is rewarded if he exceeds expectation, in this case for a player signed as a back up playing over half the games for the club. A claim it is a way around the IRB rules is pure speculation unless you are privy to the contract terms of the other players at Saints and can thus prove he has been offered a distinct condition in his contract that the rest of the players don't have?