Northampton Saints refused to let Samu Manoa play international rugby in his contract... Is this fact????

by maestegmafia Mon 12 Aug 2013, 10:40 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:Manoa doesn't play for the USA because he has an understanding with Saints not to, I believe. Many players from smaller national teams have a similar arrangement

by ChequeredJersey Mon 12 Aug 2013, 10:47 pm

I'm not entirely comfortable with the phrasing of this as I do not believe Saints are actually preventing Manoa from playing from the USA, just that it is clear he is prioritising his club over his country.

Though his wiki article does claim, rightly or wrongly, "His 2011 contract with Northampton meant that he did not play for the USA in the 2011 Rugby World Cup."

by maestegmafia Mon 12 Aug 2013, 10:54 pm

CJ mate you were sure enough to write that they were, before you found out it was against the IRBs regulations.

Is there much more of this going on in the premiership?

Will saints let Khan Foutaali still play for Samoa? Will they try to prevent North from playing for Wales???

by ChequeredJersey Mon 12 Aug 2013, 10:55 pm

This is what rugby world has to say:

http://rugbyworldcup-argentina2023.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/2013-with-eye-to-2015-usas-samu-manoa.html?m=1

by ChequeredJersey Mon 12 Aug 2013, 10:57 pm

The implication being this was definitely occurring in 2011, probably occurring tacitly in 2012 but probably won't be happening henceforth.

by maestegmafia Mon 12 Aug 2013, 11:00 pm

This is amazing..? No club should ever be allowed to do this..!

"Manoa joined the club for the 2011-2012 season and in doing so he did did not feature at the World Cup. The controversy of the signing saw such that despite Manoa looking certain to have a starting place in the USA´s World Cup team he missed out altogether. The club wanted him only on the condition that he miss the tournament. Since then similarities have occured such as Manoa not featuring for the USA Eagles in the June or November internationals in 2012. As such the Californian continues to only have one test cap to his name - his debut against Georgia in 2010. His non-involvement in November was extremely concerning as he had been said to be suffering a minor shoulder injury and thus did not make the USA squad. Northampton, however, fielded him for club action in November. Simply put, Northampton cheated to have the American play for them and not his country in November."

by BigTrevsbigmac Mon 12 Aug 2013, 11:50 pm

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/blackmail-threat-to-rugby-world-cup-clubs-pay-players-not-to-appear-8282961.

Saints naturally enough say it was Samu's own choice & obviously not in his contract. Tough to prove otherwise if the player chose to join a club on those terms or chose not to play in the WC for monetary reasons.

by Frankston Tue 13 Aug 2013, 1:07 am

His first contract with the Saints was for 1 year and he needed to impress to be offered a new, longer contract when the initial one expired. Lets not forget this is his first professional club and he had (and still does have) a lot to learn about rugby in a fully professional environment. He had to weigh up a few caps for his country or a long term professional contract that gave him stability for the future of himself and his family.

If he'd chosen to play for the Eagles at the WC and not secured a new professional contract, would he be as good as player as he is now? Probably not.

He's got his contract, and played for the Barbarians and the Eagles over the summer. The USA have to pick him first before he can be released.

by doctor_grey Tue 13 Aug 2013, 1:59 am

maestegmafia wrote:This is amazing..? No club should ever be allowed to do this!...........

Simply put, Northampton cheated to have the American play for them and not his country in November."

I think you are jumping to sensationalist conclusions, my friend, and without really a shred of any hard information. Only rumour and innuendo and a coincidence which is being manipulated.

If I recall the details of his signing, Saints at that time were desperate for second row/back row cover during the RWC. They were looking specifically for players would would be there and were open about it at the time. Manoa, who never played professionally before and was no shoe-in for the US team, said he would. Otherwise no signing.

It is a fair bit of revisionist history to see Manoa performing now and say he was that good back then. No one knew how good he was to become. Saints thought they were getting a fringe US player as cover through September and October at a bargain contract. I believe they wouldn't have signed him if he was going to disappear right after putting pen to the contract. Any club in the same situation would have done the same. This is what I believe has been misconstrued as preventing Manoa from playing in the RWC.

Regarding Manoa not joining up with the US team subsequent to that, I can only speculate. As said above, he doesn't get paid by Saints when on national duty, which is the typical process. He does have a young family. Perhaps it is his choice to continue to stay with Saints and get paid rather than lose what could be 25% of his salary.

Saints cannot prevent him from playing for the US team. It is one of the most sacred policies of Rugby that players get to represent their country, though disputes do occur, mostly when internationals are planned outside recognised international windows. It would be shocking for me to learn Saints prevented him from playing, especially knowing the Barwells. On the other hand, they cannot compel him to do so.

by HammerofThunor Tue 13 Aug 2013, 7:44 am

Well he played for the US this summer didn't he? So it's obvious wrong.

IIRC He was on an appearance bonus system and decided he would have more chance getting those appearances while Lawes was at the World Cup. It allowed him to prove himself and settle as a first team player. It was a sensible decision on his behalf and it worked for Saints.

by maestegmafia Tue 13 Aug 2013, 8:13 am

doctor_grey wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:This is amazing..? No club should ever be allowed to do this!...........

Simply put, Northampton cheated to have the American play for them and not his country in November."
I think you are jumping to sensationalist conclusions, my friend, and without really a shred of any hard information. Only rumour and innuendo and a coincidence which is being manipulated.

If I recall the details of his signing, Saints at that time were desperate for second row/back row cover during the RWC. They were looking specifically for players would would be there and were open about it at the time. Manoa, who never played professionally before and was no shoe-in for the US team, said he would. Otherwise no signing.

It is a fair bit of revisionist history to see Manoa performing now and say he was that good back then. No one knew how good he was to become. Saints thought they were getting a fringe US player as cover through September and October at a bargain contract. I believe they wouldn't have signed him if he was going to disappear right after putting pen to the contract. Any club in the same situation would have done the same. This is what I believe has been misconstrued as preventing Manoa from playing in the RWC.

Regarding Manoa not joining up with the US team subsequent to that, I can only speculate. As said above, he doesn't get paid by Saints when on national duty, which is the typical process. He does have a young family. Perhaps it is his choice to continue to stay with Saints and get paid rather than lose what could be 25% of his salary.

Saints cannot prevent him from playing for the US team. It is one of the most sacred policies of Rugby that players get to represent their country, though disputes do occur, mostly when internationals are planned outside recognised international windows. It would be shocking for me to learn Saints prevented him from playing, especially knowing the Barwells. On the other hand, they cannot compel him to do so.

Doc I hope to high heaven this doesn't happen again.

Should Northampton prevent George North from playing for Wales the "Act of Union would be burning on the Severn Bridge as an army marched on the midlands.

It sounds like saints/PR got a decent wrist slap from the IRB and were forced into agreeing release of international players at premiership clubs.

by formerly known as Sam Tue 13 Aug 2013, 8:28 am

Maes this situation is massively different from that of North's. North has no need to try and earn a longer contract he's already on a three year deal. Manoa chose to pursue his club career over international career in order to try and gain financially. Saints didn't ask him not to represent his country they said they wanted to sign someone to cover the RWC, Manoa made the decision after that.

Saints could not prevent anyone from playing international rugby, the IRB states players must be released in the international windows.

by maestegmafia Tue 13 Aug 2013, 8:37 am

formerly known as Sam wrote:Maes this situation is massively different from that of North's. North has no need to try and earn a longer contract he's already on a three year deal. Manoa chose to pursue his club career over international career in order to try and gain financially. Saints didn't ask him not to represent his country they said they wanted to sign someone to cover the RWC, Manoa made the decision after that.

Saints could not prevent anyone from playing international rugby, the IRB states players must be released in the international windows.

International windows encompass Rugby World Cups, the last one USA qualified for and as you wrote above Saints "said they wanted to sign someone to cover the RWC". That is clearly breaking the rules that you just stipulated...!

I think fans in Wales were angered enough by Scarlets selling North to Saints, if he had to go abroad we would rather he was in France and likely to be free to play for Wales without your PRL interfeering.

by Geordie Tue 13 Aug 2013, 8:58 am

I really dont believe that Saints actually stopped him playing.

Though it is a concern that rumours like these keep coming out...ie the French teams not letting their pacific islanders play for their national teams etc.

I know they pay the wages but international rugby needs the best players playing...Fiji need their best players...and if lesser rugby nations like USA are to progress they need the likes of Manoa playing for them.

Was he a first choice for them when he signed for Saints...i dont know and maybe he himself was happy to stay with Saints and prove his long term career and progression as a player...he will be a top player for them in the next WC should they get there.

by Toohey Tue 13 Aug 2013, 9:26 am

maestegmafia wrote:
formerly known as Sam wrote:Maes this situation is massively different from that of North's. North has no need to try and earn a longer contract he's already on a three year deal. Manoa chose to pursue his club career over international career in order to try and gain financially. Saints didn't ask him not to represent his country they said they wanted to sign someone to cover the RWC, Manoa made the decision after that.

Saints could not prevent anyone from playing international rugby, the IRB states players must be released in the international windows.
International windows encompass Rugby World Cups, the last one USA qualified for and as you wrote above Saints "said they wanted to sign someone to cover the RWC". That is clearly breaking the rules that you just stipulated...!

I think fans in Wales were angered enough by Scarlets selling North to Saints, if he had to go abroad we would rather he was in France and likely to be free to play for Wales without your PRL interfeering.

Scarlets and North chose to chase the cash, that's their problem. They knew the rules when they did the deal. From what I recall there was an opportunity to do a deal for extended access to Welsh players in the premiership but it wasn't taken up. No point complaining now.

by maestegmafia Tue 13 Aug 2013, 9:32 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:I really dont believe that Saints actually stopped him playing.

Though it is a concern that rumours like these keep coming out...ie the French teams not letting their pacific islanders play for their national teams etc.

I know they pay the wages but international rugby needs the best players playing...Fiji need their best players...and if lesser rugby nations like USA are to progress they need the likes of Manoa playing for them.

Was he a first choice for them when he signed for Saints...i dont know and maybe he himself was happy to stay with Saints and prove his long term career and progression as a player...he will be a top player for them in the next WC should they get there.

Read the article CJ posted. Link above.

by Portnoy's Complaint Tue 13 Aug 2013, 9:45 am

There does appear to be a fundamental problem being overlooked or at best skirted around here*.

This contract was discussed at or around the time of the 2011 the RWC when the Saints signed Manoa. I don't recall exactly, but indeed I may have raised the thread.

But what I do recall one thing, I was very sceptical about the contract for reasons similar to maes' concerns but I was convinced by the arguments in the case because of the mutuality of the symbiotic benefits - Manoa won a professional contract for himself and his family whilst Saints found a player for not only the duration of the tournament but offered a long-term, permanent contract.

Had it been just for the duration or had Manoa been an existing shoo-in for the Eagles, I wouldn't have acceded to the reasoning. But at the time, it just wasn't the case. Just as any attempt by a club to restrain an established International from plying his trade on the International circuit would be. That as I recall the Tigers felt it necessary to release Agulla when the Argentines joined the 4Ns.

*There is nothing inherently wrong with an individual turning down an International call should he feel so inclined. But the motivation for the decision is important as in (e.g.) PI players refusing/being barred from National selection.

by Cyril Tue 13 Aug 2013, 10:45 am

The player signs a contract. It's up to him whether he chooses club (and the cash) over international rugby.

There's really nothing to see here.

by Portnoy's Complaint Tue 13 Aug 2013, 11:15 am

Cyril wrote:The player signs a contract. It's up to him whether he chooses club (and the cash) over international rugby.

There's really nothing to see here.

No reason to treat people as indented or worse, a mule Cyril. It's not as simple as that.

by maestegmafia Tue 13 Aug 2013, 11:17 am

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:There does appear to be a fundamental problem being overlooked or at best skirted around here*.

This contract was discussed at or around the time of the 2011 the RWC when the Saints signed Manoa. I don't recall exactly, but indeed I may have raised the thread.

But what I do recall one thing, I was very sceptical about the contract for reasons similar to maes' concerns but I was convinced by the arguments in the case because of the mutuality of the symbiotic benefits - Manoa won a professional contract for himself and his family whilst Saints found a player for not only the duration of the tournament but offered a long-term, permanent contract.

Had it been just for the duration or had Manoa been an existing shoo-in for the Eagles, I wouldn't have acceded to the reasoning. But at the time, it just wasn't the case. Just as any attempt by a club to restrain an established International from plying his trade on the International circuit would be. That as I recall the Tigers felt it necessary to release Agulla when the Argentines joined the 4Ns.

*There is nothing inherently wrong with an individual turning down an International call should he feel so inclined. But the motivation for the decision is important as in (e.g.) PI players refusing/being barred from National selection.

You hit the nail on the head pretty accurately. Club rugby in England France and Japan is growing so financially strong that situations like this can undermine all the hard work the IRB are doing to encourage, protect and nurture rugby in the less wealthy nations.

It wold be interesting if you had time to find your previous post on the matter...!!!

Reading CJ's link earlier it looks as though this situation contravened the IRB Regulation 9. Though after a dressing down by the IRB that the PRL have advised their member clubs that they must comply implicitly. Manoa will play for the USA in the future and did so this summer...

Very good news...!

by maestegmafia Tue 13 Aug 2013, 11:18 am

For those who don't know the Laws and Regulations

REGULATION9. AVAILABILITY OF PLAYERS

(A) High quality international Rugby is in the best interests of the sport at all levels. It promotes the sport and encourages new participants and support for the sport around the world and at all levels. International Rugby is a major public interest and it is in the best interests of the public that the best teams and Players represent their Unions. The retention of high quality international Rugby benefits Players because it fulfils their aspirations to play at the highest level of the sport. The selection of the best Players for international Rugby also represents the fairest selection system as it is based on playing merit. Rugby Bodies and Clubs benefit if Players play international Rugby as it improves the quality and experience of Players, increases their value and enhances commercial returns in respect of merchandising, broadcast, sponsorship and gates thereby contributing to the interests of the Rugby Body or Club that Player represents. The development of the sport is enhanced and furthered as a result of the generation of funds from international Rugby for reinvestment in the sport.
(B) A Union must therefore be able to select and have available the Players it requires for International Matches and to build and develop team strategies in National Squad sessions in order to ensure that the quality and integrity of international Rugby is maintained. The future development and extension of the sport at all levels and throughout the world would be threatened if a Union was not able to select and have available the Players it requires.
(C) The IRB and Unions recognise that the Right to Release for Matches should be exercised reasonably and with due regard to the proper interests of the welfare of Players and other relevant entities who may be affected. This Regulation 9 reflects this balance, accommodates the difference in arrangements and sport structure from Union to Union and respects the position of Rugby Bodies and Clubs whilst recognising the fundamental role that international Rugby plays in the development of the sport worldwide. The Regulation has also been prepared on the basis that in light of the nature and physicality of the Game Players should have appropriate rest, recuperation and recovery opportunities so that when they participate in the Game they are able to do so at their best.

by Portnoy's Complaint Tue 13 Aug 2013, 11:45 am

maes wrote:It wold be interesting if you had time to find your previous post on the matter...!!!

In my previous reincarnation, maes. I tried but it's slipped off the cliff edge of v2's feeble memory.

by maestegmafia Tue 13 Aug 2013, 11:53 am

Never mind...!

by thebandwagonsociety Tue 13 Aug 2013, 11:54 am

HammerofThunor wrote:Well he played for the US this summer didn't he? So it's obvious wrong.

IIRC He was on an appearance bonus system and decided he would have more chance getting those appearances while Lawes was at the World Cup. It allowed him to prove himself and settle as a first team player. It was a sensible decision on his behalf and it worked for Saints.

I presumed there was some kind of appearance bonus involved. So if he plays in x number of games over the season he receives a bonus. He looks at his position in the squad and determines what fixtures he needs to target trigger the obligation of the club to provide him with the bonus and makes his decisions accordingly.

Then instead of being a man and admitting that he chooses his wallet over representing his country, he says that his club are forcing his hand.

This was probably made perfectly clear to him before he signed the contract.

What I would disagree with is a club threatening to try and cancel a players contract or force a change in their contract without their consent (strongly against this for obvious reasons). But if everyone is open and honest about it before pen is put to paper then the player is choosing money over country, simple as.

by HammerofThunor Tue 13 Aug 2013, 11:59 am

thebandwagonsociety wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:Well he played for the US this summer didn't he? So it's obvious wrong.

IIRC He was on an appearance bonus system and decided he would have more chance getting those appearances while Lawes was at the World Cup. It allowed him to prove himself and settle as a first team player. It was a sensible decision on his behalf and it worked for Saints.
I presumed there was some kind of appearance bonus involved. So if he plays in x number of games over the season he receives a bonus. He looks at his position in the squad and determines what fixtures he needs to target trigger the obligation of the club to provide him with the bonus and makes his decisions accordingly.

Then instead of being a man and admitting that he chooses his wallet over representing his country, he says that his club are forcing his hand.

This was probably made perfectly clear to him before he signed the contract.

What I would disagree with is a club threatening to try and cancel a players contract or force a change in their contract without their consent (strongly against this for obvious reasons). But if everyone is open and honest about it before pen is put to paper then the player is choosing money over country, simple as.

Not just money. He's now an established player at Saints. They know what he can do and if he's missing for some of pre-season or during the AI then he'll slip back into the team like anyone else. Now he has the benefit of his first professional contract which will help his performances improve for himself and his country.

EDIT: Also you can't contract it. If you put it out your looking for someone as cover during internationals and a guy says "I won't be playing for my country" you hire based on that alone. If he is then called up and decides to go that's fine. You just end his contract when it runs out. And he may struggle to find employment elsewhere.

by maestegmafia Tue 13 Aug 2013, 12:25 pm

The worrying entity is as the wealthier leagues move clear of all the others that this situation will arise more often and with more and more significance disabling less wealthy nations.

We are seeing huge sums of money paid for players in France, Japan and England and it is already having effects on not just other leagues and their teams but on the nations those players represent. Or as has been discussed many times previously these players then qualify through residency for their adopted nations.

Clermont sponsor a rugby academy in Fiji. This could be seen in two ways depending on the outcome. Should this encourage and assist in the progression of Fiji as a small nation with naturally excellent rugby players to rise through the rankings and establish their nations as a leading light in the 15-a-side as well as sevens game that would be a success. Should it weaken Fijian rugby and see more Fijian born player playing for France it would be a travesty.

by ScarletSpiderman Tue 13 Aug 2013, 12:30 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
thebandwagonsociety wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:Well he played for the US this summer didn't he? So it's obvious wrong.

IIRC He was on an appearance bonus system and decided he would have more chance getting those appearances while Lawes was at the World Cup. It allowed him to prove himself and settle as a first team player. It was a sensible decision on his behalf and it worked for Saints.
I presumed there was some kind of appearance bonus involved. So if he plays in x number of games over the season he receives a bonus. He looks at his position in the squad and determines what fixtures he needs to target trigger the obligation of the club to provide him with the bonus and makes his decisions accordingly.

Then instead of being a man and admitting that he chooses his wallet over representing his country, he says that his club are forcing his hand.

This was probably made perfectly clear to him before he signed the contract.

What I would disagree with is a club threatening to try and cancel a players contract or force a change in their contract without their consent (strongly against this for obvious reasons). But if everyone is open and honest about it before pen is put to paper then the player is choosing money over country, simple as.
Not just money. He's now an established player at Saints. They know what he can do and if he's missing for some of pre-season or during the AI then he'll slip back into the team like anyone else. Now he has the benefit of his first professional contract which will help his performances improve for himself and his country.

EDIT: Also you can't contract it. If you put it out your looking for someone as cover during internationals and a guy says "I won't be playing for my country" you hire based on that alone. If he is then called up and decides to go that's fine. You just end his contract when it runs out. And he may struggle to find employment elsewhere.

Or you just bench them, or leave them out of the team totally, managing to p1$$ off the player and the international side at the same time. The Welsh regions were considering a move along these lines if the union were to move players from one region to another.

by Cyril Tue 13 Aug 2013, 12:54 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
Cyril wrote:The player signs a contract. It's up to him whether he chooses club (and the cash) over international rugby.

There's really nothing to see here.
No reason to treat people as indented or worse, a mule Cyril. It's not as simple as that.

It is pretty straightforward. A player signs a contract based on what he is what he is willing to offer or forgo.

As has been mentioned above, a player may be offered a more attractive package (monetary or contract length etc) owing to availability. It's no different from other forms of work where you have to make choices based on opportunity cost and work/life balance etc.

Too much emphasis is being placed on the big, bad professional world and not enough on player choice and personal responsibility.

Nobody is just turning round and banning anyone from playing international rugby, and certainly not without agreement. It just means that certain opportunities may not be available to those who can't commit fully at certain times.

by doctor_grey Tue 13 Aug 2013, 12:56 pm

Sorry boys, but I cannot agree Saints did anything untoward. Looking for second row cover they signed a player who was not thinking international call-up. Why else would an amateur Rugby player be looking for a pro club in England? To play for the club. If he said he was going to New Zealand, Saints would simply have continued to look around for another player to sign. If anyone thought he would become as good as he has, he would have been signed by other clubs beforehand and would have featured for the US team before the RWC.

After the RWC, it has been up to Manoa if he wanted to play for the US team, same as for any other player. That is the second unsubstantiated allegation. If he wanted to go, he would go. And now, recognised as one of the best players in the Premiership, it would be impossible to stop him from doing what he wants.

However, to completely contravene the rules, if Saints want to prevent North from playing for Wales, I will pitch in the raise Offa's Dyke a few yards higher.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 13 Aug 2013, 1:06 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
maes wrote:It wold be interesting if you had time to find your previous post on the matter...!!!
In my previous reincarnation, maes. I tried but it's slipped off the cliff edge of v2's feeble memory.

You had a previous incarnation? Getton

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 13 Aug 2013, 1:07 pm

doctor_grey wrote:Sorry boys, but I cannot agree Saints did anything untoward. Looking for second row cover they signed a player who was not thinking international call-up. Why else would an amateur Rugby player be looking for a pro club in England? To play for the club. If he said he was going to New Zealand, Saints would simply have continued to look around for another player to sign. If anyone thought he would become as good as he has, he would have been signed by other clubs beforehand and would have featured for the US team before the RWC.

After the RWC, it has been up to Manoa if he wanted to play for the US team, same as for any other player. That is the second unsubstantiated allegation. If he wanted to go, he would go. And now, recognised as one of the best players in the Premiership, it would be impossible to stop him from doing what he wants.

However, to completely contravene the rules, if Saints want to prevent North from playing for Wales, I will pitch in the raise Offa's Dyke a few yards higher.

Dr_G, if a club recruits a player on the understanding that he will not appear for his national team, would you consider that a restraint of trade? btw not saying that's what happened in this situation

by maestegmafia Tue 13 Aug 2013, 1:27 pm

Doc,

I disagree here, IRB Regulation 9 states

"(B) A Union must therefore be able to select and have available the Players it requires for International Matches and to build and develop team strategies in National Squad sessions in order to ensure that the quality and integrity of international Rugby is maintained. The future development and extension of the sport at all levels and throughout the world would be threatened if a Union was not able to select and have available the Players it requires.

(C) The IRB and Unions recognise that the Right to Release for Matches should be exercised reasonably and with due regard to the proper interests of the welfare of Players and other relevant entities who may be affected. This Regulation 9 reflects this balance, accommodates the difference in arrangements and sport structure from Union to Union and respects the position of Rugby Bodies and Clubs whilst recognising the fundamental role that international Rugby plays in the development of the sport worldwide. The Regulation has also been prepared on the basis that in light of the nature and physicality of the Game Players should have appropriate rest, recuperation and recovery opportunities so that when they participate in the Game they are able to do so at their best."

The act of looking for a player that is ineligible for RWC would mean looking for a player a) from a nation that is not participating or b) a retired player. The Saints mere stipulation that they are looking for cover during a RWC means that they can not select a player possibly eligible...!

Even if Manoa had not been selected for the squad, injuries may have seen it as a necessity to be called up and Saints would have been in big trouble with the IRB if they tried to restrict him from playing.

Thankfully it looks like after this incident the IRB meeting in March 2013 addressed the fact that Manoa had not been made eligible and the PRL were told by the IRB to make sure this doesnt happen again... Hense he played for the USA in 2013 against as a blindside flanker for the first time since he was capped by the USA against Georgia in Tblisi in November 2010.

by thebandwagonsociety Tue 13 Aug 2013, 2:07 pm

That is an interesting one Maes.

The rule is there to ensure that players can are released when selected and that clubs cannot ban players from playing internationally.

However the Union can only offer a place in the squad to a player. It is that players choice whether or not to accept the offer.

So if in this case the Saints were looking for ineligible players (non-RWC qualified nations) and this fella comes in the door and states that he isn't going to accept any offer from his Union to take a place in their squad, does that mean the club are still breaking the rules if it is the player that chooses to play for a club and collect a paycheck over representing his country?

Also, you could conceivably rule out retired players also, as on the grounds that injuries might occur, they could still (however unlikely) be selected.

by maestegmafia Tue 13 Aug 2013, 2:16 pm

thebandwagonsociety wrote:That is an interesting one Maes.

The rule is there to ensure that players can are released when selected and that clubs cannot ban players from playing internationally.

However the Union can only offer a place in the squad to a player. It is that players choice whether or not to accept the offer.

So if in this case the Saints were looking for ineligible players (non-RWC qualified nations) and this fella comes in the door and states that he isn't going to accept any offer from his Union to take a place in their squad, does that mean the club are still breaking the rules if it is the player that chooses to play for a club and collect a paycheck over representing his country?

Also, you could conceivably rule out retired players also, as on the grounds that injuries might occur, they could still (however unlikely) be selected.

Good point on the retirees mate...!

It's an interesting situation and might be one that the IRB have left rather open, though I guess/suggest that similarly to their rules on Residency and eligibility are something that us fans of the game would very much like to see stiffened somewhat to prevent money being a detriment to the good of the worldwide game.

by HammerofThunor Tue 13 Aug 2013, 2:19 pm

maestegmafia wrote:Thankfully it looks like after this incident the IRB meeting in March 2013 addressed the fact that Manoa had not been made eligible and the PRL were told by the IRB to make sure this doesnt happen again... Hense he played for the USA in 2013 against as a blindside flanker for the first time since he was capped by the USA against Georgia in Tblisi in November 2010.

You seem to have insider information on this meeting. All I've seen is a written article (without quotes) saying that a meeting happened and because of this Manoa played for USA. So, either one of two things are happening:

1) You have insider knowledge of what happened in the meeting
2) You're leaping to conclusions.

Personally I see one of two things happening in that meeting:

1) The IRB tell the PRL they're in breach of Reg. 9 but don't issue any sanctions, official warnings, public statements as a precedent to others.
2) The Saints (and PRL in general) haven't done anything wrong but the IRB have been working to convince them that hiring active internationals is good for them.

And Maesteg, a "retired player" is a meaningless concept. A player that chooses not to play internationally doesn't have to issue a press release and can change their mind. You also can't 'force' a player to play internationally so neither of those quotes mean anything. The one you missed off was the important one, which refers to incentivising players against playing internationally by any means.

There is nothing wrong with hiring someone for international cover. There's nothing wrong with that player refusing to play internationally to get more money/professional contract. There's nothing wrong (legally) with said player being called up anyway and playing internationally.

I'd also say this may be more of problem for poorer clubs than richer ones. Richer clubs will be able to just hire who they want. They won't need to hire a fringe US player on his first professional contract. The poorer clubs won't have the squad cover and will rely more on these guys all season.

by formerly known as Sam Tue 13 Aug 2013, 2:22 pm

The IRB can whine about it all they like it was Manoa's choice. He has signed subsequent contracts at Saints so doesn't seem bothered by the situation. If someone chooses not to represent their national side that is up to them and the IRB cannot force anyone to do so. Manoa having established himself in his first season after sacking off the RWC could have easily found another club to join. He didn't and his none selection probably says more about Eddie O'Sullivan's view on the matter. I believe a new coach is now in place and he has probably been forgiven and brought into the fold.

It's easy to be high and mighty about playing for your but the guy needed to provide for his family and that was always going to be a priority. Going from semi pro or amateur with a bit of a bonus from the USA Eagles or earning what was probably 80k ish in the first season and probably 100k ish now. In the East Midlands where a nice 3 bed house can be picked up for 250 to 300k that sort of money would have set him and his family up nicely.

by Cyril Tue 13 Aug 2013, 2:35 pm

At the end of the day all this has got to be somebody's fault. My guess would be either:

a) Chris Ashton - well, he used to play for the Saints and he's bound to be involved in anything besmirching the Corinthian values of our dear rugger

b) Dylan Hartley - nuff said

by gelodge Tue 13 Aug 2013, 2:36 pm

Regarding the time around the World Cup when he was signed I don't see much of an issue. If a club is specifically stating that it's looking to recruit a player to cover them in that period, the only players who are going to get back to them are those who aren't overly interested in going to the WC. This player wasn't a standout option at the time, he would have responded to any questions as to his availability in a manner that put him in contention.

If Saints thereafter refused to let him play for USA then that is a different matter. That's not something that could be contractual though. The suggestion seems to be that they might have tried to force this last autumn, but given that people are stating that he was already a first choice player by then I can't see him having too much fear in going against any such demands if so inclined and requested by USA. Even if things went sour with his club wouldn't he have been attractive enough to other suitors by that time?

He's since played for USA and it's of note as to how much USA might be demanding him in that he only played the second of their four summer fixtures. Whether that is because he's made it clear he's more interested in his club career and so they are prioritising others, I don't know. Given his heritage, could it be that his level of Americanness doesn't make them figure above his club loyalties?

by HammerofThunor Tue 13 Aug 2013, 2:38 pm

FYI - the old article. It gets a bit Wummy in the middle but beginning and end are the interesting bits.

https://www.606v2.com/t10141p50-american-player-blocked-by-clause-in-contract-to-travel-to-the-world-cup

by Comfort Tue 13 Aug 2013, 2:41 pm

I think there's a good point being made in the thread, but dont think it necessarily applies to this specific situation.

From what I've read Saints were open about what they wanted at the time, Manoa wanted a professional contract and put himself into a situation that enabled him to win that contract with Saints. His performances/progression since then have meant he's now a mainstay of the saints first team and meriting international call-ups as a starter.

The issue of wealthier clubs trying to lean on players from the smaller nations is an interesting one though.

As far as the Saints trying to stop North playing, they will do, when its OUTSIDE of the IRB test window. As they blwydi well should do, off topic, but the WRU need to stop arranging games outside of these windows and putting unnecessary pressure on the players bodies and the regions to perform in the HC (for the last 2 years the 4th AI has been the weekend or 2 before the double headers in the group stages meaning the players aren't with their regions for probably one of the most important times of the year!).

Rant over zen

by thebandwagonsociety Tue 13 Aug 2013, 5:36 pm

Comfort - on organising games outside of the international window in Wales, there is an interesting argument on where the money that pays player wages comes from. How reliant are the regions on the WRU funding and that funding only comes about from player those international fixtures.

by maestegmafia Tue 13 Aug 2013, 5:53 pm

I appreciate comforts post, but I think even he would agree that it is something to be discussed on a different thread...!

by HammerofThunor Tue 13 Aug 2013, 6:05 pm

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Comfort - on organising games outside of the international window in Wales, there is an interesting argument on where the money that pays player wages comes from. How reliant are the regions on the WRU funding and that funding only comes about from player those international fixtures.

Well the IRFU manage to give the provinces more money (about £19M per season compared to £15M) and they don't play the extra games.

But it's not really on topic.

by HammerofThunor Tue 13 Aug 2013, 6:09 pm

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2065628.html

Hardly a wrist slap. Over egging the pudding?

by formerly known as Sam Tue 13 Aug 2013, 6:47 pm

It's worth noting that clubs like Bath, Tigers and now Worcester have happily signed and released Argentinean players for the 4N. A raft of PI internationals come from Europe and compete each season in the international windows. American internationals who wish to represent their country can do so as well, I believe Blaine Scully signed his short term contract following his trial at Tigers then almost immediately joined up with the Eagles.

This isn't a worrying epidemic it was just one guy who put the financial security of his family and the furtherance of his career over playing in a world cup.

by Casartelli Tue 13 Aug 2013, 7:05 pm

Blaine Scully looks like he'd be an excellent 12 or 13. It's a shame he was born a generation too late - I think he'd have made a great centre partner to Japie Mulder.

by HammerofThunor Tue 13 Aug 2013, 7:45 pm

I think he's got the X factor

by doctor_grey Tue 13 Aug 2013, 8:26 pm

maestegmafia wrote:Doc,

I disagree here, IRB Regulation 9 states

"(B) A Union must therefore be able to select and have available the Players it requires for International Matches and to build and develop team strategies in National Squad sessions in order to ensure that the quality and integrity of international Rugby is maintained. The future development and extension of the sport at all levels and throughout the world would be threatened if a Union was not able to select and have available the Players it requires.

(C) The IRB and Unions recognise that the Right to Release for Matches should be exercised reasonably and with due regard to the proper interests of the welfare of Players and other relevant entities who may be affected. This Regulation 9 reflects this balance, accommodates the difference in arrangements and sport structure from Union to Union and respects the position of Rugby Bodies and Clubs whilst recognising the fundamental role that international Rugby plays in the development of the sport worldwide. The Regulation has also been prepared on the basis that in light of the nature and physicality of the Game Players should have appropriate rest, recuperation and recovery opportunities so that when they participate in the Game they are able to do so at their best."

The act of looking for a player that is ineligible for RWC would mean looking for a player a) from a nation that is not participating or b) a retired player. The Saints mere stipulation that they are looking for cover during a RWC means that they can not select a player possibly eligible...!

Even if Manoa had not been selected for the squad, injuries may have seen it as a necessity to be called up and Saints would have been in big trouble with the IRB if they tried to restrict him from playing.

Thankfully it looks like after this incident the IRB meeting in March 2013 addressed the fact that Manoa had not been made eligible and the PRL were told by the IRB to make sure this doesnt happen again... Hense he played for the USA in 2013 against as a blindside flanker for the first time since he was capped by the USA against Georgia in Tblisi in November 2010.

Sorry mate, but I still have to disagree. You made an assumption Saints were looking for an ineligible player. They were simply lookng for cover and the bloke said no worries. Manoa made the decision, not Saints. No gun to his head, as it were. So no need to look for an 'ineligble player' only one who doesn't plan to go to the RWC. He is a man who made his own decision. Sorry to go there, but it seems much worse to tie a kid to a national team simply for playing age group rugby.

If the US squad had injuries, and I don't recall one way or the other, Manoa still made his decision to stay at Saints. He gave his word. His word is more important than IRB Reg. 9. Besides, the IRB cannot compel anyone to play for their national team.

I can't see how the IRB used this situation as a benchmark because nothing happened. Looking at Manoa now, they probably engaged in a little re-write of history since he is now so good. It is really hard to see him 18 months ago as a fringe player, barely on contract, and see the same top notch pro his is today. Saints clearly restrained no one.

Frankly, I think more harm is done by having internationals scheduled outside approved windows, and that should be clamped down upon aggressively. And I can promise you Saints will not let North play outside the approved timeframes. Even if they were not my team, I would think they would be nuts to do so.

by doctor_grey Tue 13 Aug 2013, 8:41 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Dr_G, if a club recruits a player on the understanding that he will not appear for his national team, would you consider that a restraint of trade? btw not saying that's what happened in this situation

That's a good question. In the Manoa case, it becomes somewhat weird. Since he would only receive spending money whilst playing for the US, is it a restraint of trade to take the option to make less money compared to staying the full season with Saints? Players for the major Rugby nations make a lot of extra money from their national union when playing internationals, especially the RWC.
Good question. What do you think?

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 13 Aug 2013, 10:40 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Dr_G, if a club recruits a player on the understanding that he will not appear for his national team, would you consider that a restraint of trade?

Teams in the North recruit New Zealanders and Australians on that basis, and no-one speaks of restraint of trade.

by Sponsored content