Argentinians in French clubs

The French clubs are threatening to stop signing Argentinian players because of the international matches. Biarritz have already let Manuel Carizza leave because of this. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/1025/1224325678674.html

I can see the French point of view. If they do stop signing Argentinians, what will that do to Argentinian rugby? I doubt we'll see a rush of SANZAR teams trying to sign them so where will they go.

Edinburgh will surely sign Patricio Albacete and Manuel Carizza.

They need a couple of locks that wouldn't come second best in a tickling competition.

The problem is that the Argentine internationals are used to damn good pay but finding clubs unwilling to pay it now they are missing a third or more of every season.

Are the Argentinians a victim of their own success? with their top down focus on Test success?
Following the general debate on clubs playing franchises in the NH competition, the Unions who profess the rugby should take precedence over the financial imperative appear to have the upper hand. Then perhaps all those Unions who control their franchises would take them on to ensure Argentinian rugby continues? Or should the Argentinians be told to develop their own domestic league?

The structure of world rugby has far too much focus on the Test 'cash cow' and has distorted the structure of the game. The Australian cricket model has much to answer for.

It should only be a temporary setback, you are talking international players only at this stage.

Sure this will open up talks between Super XV franchises and argentinian players

Eventually will they look to add an Argentinean (possibly 2?) side to the Super rugby competition? It seems like the natural progression to me, although it would stretch Argentina's rugby finances and be a logistical nightmare for the other teams involved.

Biltong do you ever think there'll be the space or flexibility in any of the conferences in Superrugby for an Argentinian side? Say in place of the Kings or Rebels/Force or Hurricanes maybe??

Curse you Cumbrian and your speedy typing!!!!

yappysnap wrote:Biltong do you ever think there'll be the space or flexibility in any of the conferences in Superrugby for an Argentinian side? Say in place of the Kings or Rebels/Force or Hurricanes maybe??

Yappy, I don't think any teams will be removed, but the next negotiations might well see an Argentinian Franchise.

I know everyone is suggesting the Franchise per country will go to 6 next time round, I doubt Australia should or could add another team, perhaps the Argentinian Franchise can slot into their conference.

If I was good at anything else, I might not be so fast.

Shouldn't there have been support for Argentinian sides before the inclusion in a Test competition? The whole thing has been back to front with Unions trying to take a short cut using a few select players who understandably want their slice of the commercial action.

A few things may happen as a result of this.

Either the players find NH clubs that will allow them to be away for big chunks of the season but probably for lower pay (I'm thinking Pro 12 clubs), or there may be an Argentinian side in the S15 (long way off, and wouldn't that just essentially be the Argentinian national side?!), or players will start deciding that they don't want to represent their country so that they can get a good French contract. This would be a big set back for the national side, obviously. But we've seen it elsewhere with pacific islands players, etc. I know clubs have to release players for international duty, but I think sometimes players can be persuaded with clever words that they may not get a contract if they're away for large chunks of the season.

Saints have a USA/Canadian player who signed with the express stipulation in his contract that he won't play internationally. Maybe more contracts like that will come along?

yappysnap wrote:Saints have a USA/Canadian player who signed with the express stipulation in his contract that he won't play internationally. Maybe more contracts like that will come along?

I am guessing you are thinking of Samu Manoa. Already he is a serious contender for an AP team of the season and has been Saints best forward by a long way. That players like him and Isa Nacewa do not feature for their countries is sad.

yappysnap wrote:Saints have a USA/Canadian player who signed with the express stipulation in his contract that he won't play internationally. Maybe more contracts like that will come along?

I hate seeing things like that. USA/Canada need all their best players playing for them to develope the game.

LondonTiger wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Saints have a USA/Canadian player who signed with the express stipulation in his contract that he won't play internationally. Maybe more contracts like that will come along?

I am guessing you are thinking of Samu Manoa. Already he is a serious contender for an AP team of the season and has been Saints best forward by a long way. That players like him and Isa Nacewa do not feature for their countries is sad.

Isa doesn't want to play for Fiji though. His situation is different.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Isa doesn't want to play for Fiji though. His situation is different.

Him and his club benefit from his decision. Not really any different other than he plays for your club. That he did noy feature in RWC is sad.

I think it was USA but he might be Canadian...Fairly sure American though.

Bad situation to be in either way.

yappysnap wrote:I think it was USA but he might be Canadian...Fairly sure American though.

Bad situation to be in either way.

It was USA. Player was hired specifically as RWC cover then was selected in the US squad, and turned it down

He had to turn it down didn't he?

Theres no chance of Rabo teams signing them. Rabo teams have enough internationals as it is.

I think the Argentinian Union will have to supplement the players wages and maybe pay French clubs to take their players away. Either that or Super rugby will have to be changed to accommodate the Pumas. I can't see that happening.

yappysnap wrote:He had to turn it down didn't he?

Manoa "chose" to turn them down as any contract preventing him playing would be deemed illegal by IRB. Everyone knows the real reason - but technically Manoa does not want to represent the states.

I wonder what the UAR sees as the best possible outcome. In an ideal world, their domestic game becomes lucrative enough to keep most players at home but that seems some way off. It may never happen. Football has more money than rugby over there but top footballers still earn more overseas.

Does anyone in Argentina actually want a Super Rugby franchise? It mostly seems to be SANZAR people who float the idea but perhaps that's just because I don't read Spanish.

The UAR originally preferred to join the Six Nations so that idea might resurface if any national team players start preferring club contracts to Test match appearances. Then again, they would still be missing more of the season than before. The timing might be more accommodating but still not as attractive for the clubs.

I suspect the UAR would now be one of the keenest advocates of a global rugby season.

UAR did everything they could to keep rugby amateur over there and really fought to keep the domestic game amateur. This was maybe in part due to finances but more an ideological stance. I think in general they are perfectly happy for their players to be based overseas - but it will now cause some issues.

I am not sure how a global season could ever be made to work due to all the self interest and ego involved in the parties that would be negotiating. even if we could work around the people involved - we would still end up with Summer rugby being played somewhere inappropriate (Toulon or biarritz in July!!!). This would dramatically change the game with additional mid half breaks (as seen in previous JWCs) and rolling replacements.

Manoa said he turned down the USA representation because he wanted to use the world cup time (with Lawes away) to show what he could do and help towards getting his appearance bonus.

There was, of course, nothing in his contract saying he couldn't play for US. That would be against the IRB regulations. Nothing wrong with Saints asking him if he was going and then him saying no. He could then still have gone but I'd doubt he'd get much time (at Saints) or a new contract afterwards.

Manuel Carizza has now signed for Racing

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,9818_8212793,00.html

Tricky situation for the nations who can not afford to compete with the big budgets on offer in the NH.

Many NH teams are in a similar situation too. Even the Irish are now saying that if a big club go for an Irish player and offer large sums of money over and above what the IRFU are already paying their lads, then there is little if anything they could do about it.

Wales are already struggling to contend with it, Scotland are in a similar predicament as Argentina, though are playing less internationals and not seeing the backlash as badly, but a large majority of their top players are abroad.

The PI Nations best nearly all play abroad in the Super 15 or NH.

There has to be a point to the IRB intervening for the good of the development of the less wealthy emerging/second tier nations. Maybe some assistance with rulings over player release...?

maestegmafia wrote:Tricky situation for the nations who can not afford to compete with the big budgets on offer in the NH.

Many NH teams are in a similar situation too. Even the Irish are now saying that if a big club go for an Irish player and offer large sums of money over and above what the IRFU are already paying their lads, then there is little if anything they could do about it.

Wales are already struggling to contend with it, Scotland are in a similar predicament as Argentina, though are playing less internationals and not seeing the backlash as badly, but a large majority of their top players are abroad.

The PI Nations best nearly all play abroad in the Super 15 or NH.

There has to be a point to the IRB intervening for the good of the development of the less wealthy emerging/second tier nations. Maybe some assistance with rulings over player release...?

If you were a Tongan would you rather be playing in an amature Tonga or playing (for money) in a league full of international talent (s15, or HEC) where you will most likely develope your skills etc. Also teams have to release players during international windows, so you would be able to be selected for your national side (providing they ain't clever sods who add fixtures cough cough).

The Argentinian thing is awkward because they have pretty much been treated as if they were NH players, with their international fixtures fitting in with ours, but now they have made the step up to the 4Ns they need to either ply their trade in the S15, or be prepare to take wage cuts.

I agree with your first point and to be honest part of me worries if this is the likely direction of more nations than Argentina, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, Canada, USA etc. It could be the direction for Wales, Ireland and Scotland too in the not so distant future.

We can not afford to keep up with the Expense of French or English rugby contracts on offer. Neither can many more nations. Even Kiwis, Aussies and south Africans are leaving their international ambitions at an earlier and earlier age.

HammerofThunor wrote:Manoa said he turned down the USA representation because he wanted to use the world cup time (with Lawes away) to show what he could do and help towards getting his appearance bonus.

There was, of course, nothing in his contract saying he couldn't play for US. That would be against the IRB regulations. Nothing wrong with Saints asking him if he was going and then him saying no. He could then still have gone but I'd doubt he'd get much time (at Saints) or a new contract afterwards.

Has he been capped yet ? If not he could be looking at trying to represent England.

Manoa has one cap for the US (perfect signing for an English club).

Maesteg, the PI nations already don't use the full international window because they can't fund the training. They generally still only get together 5 days before the first game. So I'm not sure an extension would help.

What would help would be the home nations giving the PI sides a slice of their profits from the games they play in the UK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/nov/14/autumn-internationals-walesrugbyunionteam1

Note the bit at the bottom which said England similarly refused money for the PI (so it's not anti-WRU).

EDIT: Also the Fiji game has sold out unexpectedly. Generating £500k more than expected. Will Fiji see any of this extra money? I'd hope so but I doubt it.

HammerofThunor wrote:
Maesteg, the PI nations already don't use the full international window because they can't fund the training. They generally still only get together 5 days before the first game. So I'm not sure an extension would help.

What would help would be the home nations giving the PI sides a slice of their profits from the games they play in the UK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/nov/14/autumn-internationals-walesrugbyunionteam1

Note the bit at the bottom which said England similarly refused money for the PI (so it's not anti-WRU).

EDIT: Also the Fiji game has sold out unexpectedly. Generating £500k more than expected. Will Fiji see any of this extra money? I'd hope so but I doubt it.

I think the IRB should intervene to make sure that the lower earning nations are allocated a great deal more than they currently are.

The example of 50p per ticket is nothing, amounting to £25000, compared to the financials earned by the host Union.

Especially since Australia were demanding £500k from the WRU to play them.

EDIT: Even more so in the case of the coming England v Fiji game where it is a sell out (not sure about price difference in tickets) and they haven't made a 'loss' playing a 2nd tier nation

I certainly think the IRB should enforce a minimum appearance fee payable to tier 2 nations when facing tier 1 first teams. Something as simple as 50k and 10% of ticket profits (not sales) would see the tier 2 nations actually earn some cash from their tours.

I don't agree with trying to keep players in their home country though. That's ridiculous, one of the best aspects of the sport was the ability of people from all over the world to come together and play. I don't see why player horizons should be narrowed purely because unions want control over every available player.

HammerofThunor wrote:Especially since Australia were demanding £500k from the WRU to play them.

EDIT: Even more so in the case of the coming England v Fiji game where it is a sell out (not sure about price difference in tickets) and they haven't made a 'loss' playing a 2nd tier nation

How much will Fiji get for playing the game?

Expenses is the minimum I think but no idea. I have no idea if the RFU have to release the information. I presume they would for a FOIA request but don't really know.

How much 'should' they give? A fixed amount? Profit related. A lot or a little. I, for one would be happy if it was a significant proportion of the profits. It would all depend on the ticket prices. If it's the same as for the 'bigger' games they should at least be given a similar amount (i.e. £500k for Australia).