Toulon demanding thaqt Habana, Botha and Lobbe return at once?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/habana-lobbe-botha-told-return-7779080

 This could get interesting.

 First 1/2P now this.


 Although I don't know how much is the truth.

This man has too much money, the French will ruin rugby union for the rest of the world at this rate, the power is going to his head.

He's obviously not a man who knows the meaning of the word no. The most dangerous kind. And he hates international rugby, he doesn't want it to have any influence, and if his world comes to pass rugby will be drab and boring.

It doesn't stop there...Giteau is told to enjoy empty stadiums at Racing Metro by Mourad!

http://www.planetrugby...3551_9473039,00.html

Is all this because they lost 1 game at home?

Link doesn't work, here is what he says...

"I know he's been in contact with Racing Metro who made him an offer of one million euros," Boudjellal told Var Matin.
"Matt has been to visit their training facilities which are very impressive. It's an attractive club.
"If he wants to sign for Racing, so be it. If he signs for Toulon, we'll be happy to keep him.
"And if he does go, maybe it's because he likes empty stadiums."
The loss of Giteau would be a huge blow for Toulon, with the last three games showing how important he is to the French champions' backline.
However if he does swap the south coast for the suburbs of the capital, Boudjellal explained that he might look at a major overhaul of his squad.
"I've come to think that we should start on a new cycle, and we'll be looking to bring in six, seven or eight new players," he added.
"That's a fallback solution. A new team wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Both ideas work for me."

In many ways, Boudjellal is the best advertisement for ambitious players to not move to Toulon. You want to be successful on the big stages of world rugby? Toulon won't back or pay for your ambitions.

He's very successfully making the case that the best way to be successful in international rugby is to remain in the country you play for internationally. In Toulon, the only prizes that matter are all club prizes. Not the elite competitions- World Cup, Six Nations, Rugby Championship.

Players care about winning those competitions. More than playing for Toulon and the money that can be earned through it?

boudjellal makes a lot of noisy threats. Although this one is interesting because he will force the players to come after ToulonRC for the wages which get withheld for the period they are away.

he only cares about RCToulon. fair enough. takes all sorts. but i cant think of anyone else like him.

Notch wrote:In many ways, Boudjellal is the best advertisement for ambitious players to not move to Toulon. You want to be successful on the big stages of world rugby? Toulon won't back or pay for your ambitions.

He's very successfully making the case that the best way to be successful in international rugby is to remain in the country you play for internationally. In Toulon, the only prizes that matter are all club prizes. Not the elite competitions- World Cup, Six Nations, Rugby Championship.

Players care about winning those competitions. More than playing for Toulon and the money that can be earned through it?

Exactly. This is all brilliant. It needs sorting out anyway and hopefully this will do it.

But it's a badly written article. The RFU don't compensate the clubs for the international periods. They do it for the EXTRA time outside the IRB (or WR?) regulations. It's completely different.

Unfortunately this is probably hot air and nothing will come of it. But the WR should now sanction Toulon because they have breached their regulations by opening using finances to encourage players not to represent their country. But we know they're as toothless as an old dog, don't we?

quinsforever wrote:boudjellal makes a lot of noisy threats. Although this one is interesting because he will force the players to come after ToulonRC for the wages which get withheld for the period they are away.

he only cares about RCToulon. fair enough. takes all sorts. but i cant think of anyone else like him.

1 is enough.

I thought under French law the FFR had some sort of legal status where it could run rugby pretty much as it wishes. This was cited as a reason PRL could not sue FFR for restraint of trade for blocking PRL/LNR proposals.

If so, I assume FFR will tell Boudjellal to get back in his box. As others have pointed out this would destroy international rugby. Pretty much only England and NZ would be left standing as countries with no players in France.

Em.........shut the hell up Boudjellal.  Yeah, we know - you're there and you want to be more famous than your club.

Okay, we get the picture.  You want attention...and headlines

So don't pay the players then. Don't threaten it in public, just do it if you feel you have the power and legal right to.  If you don't then................ keep saying it and threatening it and then wait for their lawyers to come knocking on your door saying their absences are I'm sure on contracts that you signed.

If it's all just about the money, and the 'value' of a player and a player's battery-chicken potential for a club then accept that money will be sucked from you if you break cold hard money contracts.

the prem league in football has complained about this countless times, esp players getting injuried on international duty.

But if the mega rich football clubs can't force football players not to play durning international windows, or not pay them durning this period, then Boudjellal has no chance.

You'd have thought he'd have looked into similar cases before shooting off.

How can players possibly enjoy their rugby with a guy like that as their boss? I couldn't..

I hope he does go to court then get absolutely destroyed. The man has clearly gone mad with powder....er sorry power

The RC was decided weeks ago so maybe he's got a point.

VinceWLB wrote:How can players possibly enjoy their rugby with a guy like that as their boss? I couldn't..

hmmm...let me think about that for a second...

maybe...

the fact that they get paid better than they could anywhere else?

and have won 2 HCs in a row and the top14 last year?

i think that would have been a fun ride to be aboard.

Money and success isn't everything in life though.

Ok notch so what would you say is more important for a pro rugby player?

quinsforever wrote:Ok notch so what would you say is more important for a pro rugby player?

Well that differs from player to player, these men are all individuals, but what they have in common is a massively competitive desire. Once their needs are met financially so they can take care of their families and plan for a future beyond rugby I think they are motivated most of all by success. They have to make decisions to earn that money, they have to compromise on some things to get it, but I would say a lot of players value success at the highest level as a priority. The Top14 is not the highest level. The I-Can't-Believe-Its-Not-The-Heineken-Cup is not the highest level. They're not going to be reflecting on the money they made at the end of their career, they are going to be reflecting on the titles they've won. I can't believe for a second that Habana will put the Heineken Cup win on the same standing as the World Cup win. The Heineken Cup puts bread on the table but the World Cup is the dream thats sustained him whole life.

These men are competitive animals, they are mentally strong and to reach their goals they are willing to put up with a lot of shoite most people wouldn't ever want to deal with. They are willing to come up against and conquer obstacles that would knock most people on their ass. But that same focus on their goals is exactly why Bryan Habana is not going to want to give up on the Springboks regardless of what it says on his paycheques.

I'd welcome a test case somewhere if it helps clear the air. It might be that a court simply reaffirms the right of the IRB to decide how the game is run, but there's a chance they might look to impose limits. The IRB sets international windows but there is no apparent limit to their ability to extend such windows - the IRB Sevens circuit was just randomly added - and a court might want more clarity rather than confirming unlimited power.

Notch wrote:Money and success isn't everything in life though.

No. But player have a long retirement to enjoy the other things.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Notch wrote:Money and success isn't everything in life though.

No. But player have a long retirement to enjoy the other things.

This is true.

The best thing that can come out of this is that clubs only sign contracts with players that excludes all international rugby.

This way the temptation for international coaches to select overseas players is removed from the equation, the clubs will have 100% committed players, the international teams will have 100% committed players

And it will force international coaches to have succession plans in place, build more depth and expose youngsters.

Biltong wrote:The best thing that can come out of this is that clubs only sign contracts with players that excludes all international rugby.

This way the temptation for international coaches to select overseas players is removed from the equation, the clubs will have 100% committed players, the international teams will have 100% committed players

And it will force international coaches to have succession plans in place, build more depth and expose youngsters.

And who plays the Internationals then? Players with no club?

Biltong wrote:The best thing that can come out of this is that clubs only sign contracts with players that excludes all international rugby.

This way the temptation for international coaches to select overseas players is removed from the equation, the clubs will have 100% committed players, the international teams will have 100% committed players

And it will force international coaches to have succession plans in place, build more depth and expose youngsters.

thought that was illegal. Clubs like Toulon do sign players like Halfpenny or Lobbe knowing they wont be available for some big chunks of the season. That's why Argentinian players are seen as less attractive than they used to be (when they were not in the RC) and that's why they usually go for players that are retired from international rugby (Wilkinson, Masoe, Hayman, Van Nierkerk , Giteau , Smith amongst others). They also cannot overplay some french players who are limited to 30 games per season now.

Its not illegal, Sale signed Mark Taylor years back with a no International release clause because he was at the end of his carear, if players wantt o sign a contract with that sort of clause in it then thats upto them.

Likewise as it stands at the moment Clubs know that if they sign current international players then they must release them in IRB windows.

Would be interesting to see what happens when a "no-release" clause that a player has willingly signed, meets an international team that calls that player up again for whatever reason, and the player chooses to answer that call

Would guess that the player would be in breach of his employment contract, irrespective if IRB regs

bedfordwelsh wrote:Its not illegal, Sale signed Mark Taylor years back with a no International release clause because he was at the end of his carear, if players wantt o sign a contract with that sort of clause in it then thats upto them

What the interesting thing there for me is, what would happen if he had a change of heart? If he wanted to leave his club during an international window he'd be in breach of contract. But if his club didn't want to release him they'd be in breach of IRB regulations. So it could lead to some really messy stuff.

Yes I think this sort if thing would have to test in court according to employment and contract law in that country

I suspect the common sense legal judgement would be that the IRB has the right to force players to be released, BUT the country or IRB have to pro rats compensate the club for the number of days they are away, including travel part-days.

Pro rata not rats

The IRB is of course very pro-rats, which is controversial amongst the cat lover community

This need's serious looking at, if these players do come back to Toulon, then the clown in charge needs to be dragged infront of the IRB and made to explain himself, ok, these are high profile players playing for top tier countries who could have players to replace them, what if he did this to any Fijiann's, Tongan's, Georgian's e.c.t, if he gets away with this all clubs will be demanding it, and the lower tier nations would be screwed.

I greatly look forward to my trip to Dublin to see Ireland play Georgia. I hope Mourad lets Gorgodze play!

Notch wrote:I greatly look forward to my trip to Dublin to see Ireland play Georgia. I hope Mourad lets Gorgodze play!

Thats the thing though, will he ? He could have a word with him and say, if you go, you get no pay from me, and who is to stop him ?

Biltong wrote:The best thing that can come out of this is that clubs only sign contracts with players that excludes all international rugby.

No the best thing that could come out of this is if the IRB have a serious look at rewording regulation 9, and have a serious look at a global rugby season that would stop all this nonsense.

It would be nice Chunky, but I'll believe it when I see it. The IRB really do nothing about updating the regulations or reacting to emergent trends. They are more concerned with expensive re-branding exercises than addressing any issues arising at this fairly crucial period in the development of the professional game. They are a very weak regulator.

Notch wrote:It would be nice Chunky, but I'll believe it when I see it. The IRB really do nothing about updating the regulations or reacting to emergent trends. They are more concerned with expensive re-branding exercises than addressing any issues arising at this fairly crucial period in the development of the professional game. They are a very weak regulator.

Exactly. Which is why we could do with Boudjellal winning this court case.

So many people automatically think "Nasty bullies Toulon more money than sense" without actually thinking about the wider, long term consequences for rugby.

Kingshu wrote:the prem league in football has complained about this countless times, esp players getting injuried on international duty.

If players get injured on international duty, its usually the Union who pick up the bill for the players wages during the period they are out. All Unions pay a large insurance bill to have cover in place.

The thing is we all sign contracts of varying sorts and we know (or should) know what we are signing for and any clauses etc if we break them so if a player signs in the knowledge he wont be playing or released for International duty so be it.

Likewise if a Club signs a player knowing he has to release him during recognised IRB windows then the clubs themselves cant complain.

Notch wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Its not illegal, Sale signed Mark Taylor years back with a no International release clause because he was at the end of his carear, if players wantt o sign a contract with that sort of clause in it then thats upto them

What the interesting thing there for me is, what would happen if he had a change of heart? If he wanted to leave his club during an international window he'd be in breach of contract. But if his club didn't want to release him they'd be in breach of IRB regulations. So it could lead to some really messy stuff.

Notch,

Can't remember all the details but as it happened if memory serves me right this happened, we had a bit of an injury crisis Taylor hadn't been involved for sometime and had signed for Sale knowing his Wales carear was finished but then he had a surpise call but Sale refused to release him for a Wales games in a recognised IRB window.

bedfordwelsh wrote:The thing is we all sign contracts of varying sorts and we know (or should) know what we are signing for and any clauses etc if we break them so if a player signs in the knowledge he wont be playing or released for International duty so be it.

Likewise if a Club signs a player knowing he has to release him during recognised IRB windows then the clubs themselves cant complain.

True. Toulon knew what they were getting themselves into. But it raises issues.

3 South Africans play for my region. I wouldn't be very happy if they were called up to play int he rugby championship (unlikely). We'd be absolutely screwed. Rugby needs a global season.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:The thing is we all sign contracts of varying sorts and we know (or should) know what we are signing for and any clauses etc if we break them so if a player signs in the knowledge he wont be playing or released for International duty so be it.

Likewise if a Club signs a player knowing he has to release him during recognised IRB windows then the clubs themselves cant complain.

True. Toulon knew what they were getting themselves into. But it raises issues.

3 South Africans play for my region. I wouldn't be very happy if they were called up to play int he rugby championship (unlikely). We'd be absolutely screwed. Rugby needs a global season.

Chunky,

Agree on the global season but again if Regions sign these players then its their/our own fault. If this proressed to the courts then it would really put the Club v Country row in a different perspective and it could also then seperate the money grabbers from the ones who want to represent Country above all.

The best way to be sure of getting players to play for your team is still to develop them yourself but you have to get value out there as well

Does Ruan Pienaar playing for South Africa make Ulster weaker? Of course. Does that mean he shouldn't play for the Boks? No, Ulster knew he'd want to when we signed him. There's plenty of other teams that would be envious of having a classy player like that around but thats the trade-off you make. No having your cake and eating it too here.

Ulsters new signings have been rather written off as none of them are international players but which South African import will have the bigger impact on our season; Louis Ludik who will be available the whole year, or Ruan Pienaar who will miss some very large chunks of the season and has just picked up an injury on international duty? Hard to say. I'd probably on balance say Pienaar but he's nothing to us without the hard work of the other players at the province.

One thing is for sure. If you're going to go for a team of 'superstars' you better have a deep bench on standby for the times in the season where they go off, doing the thing that made them superstars.

Notch wrote:The best way to be sure of getting players to play for your team is still to develop them yourself but you have to get value out there as well

.

As a Welshman, and a lover of rugby, I get very paranoid when the Welsh regions develop any decent players, as soon as we get a good un, the English and French clubs come circling, FFS we cannot even compete with teams in the second tier of English rugby these days.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Notch,

Can't remember all the details but as it happened if memory serves me right this happened, we had a bit of an injury crisis Taylor hadn't been involved for sometime and had signed for Sale knowing his Wales carear was finished but then he had a surpise call but Sale refused to release him for a Wales games in a recognised IRB window.

In 2006 (when this happened) Wales played 4 Internationals in the Autumn, the first was Australia and the last was New Zealand.  They clearly decided they wanted the NZ game to be classed as in the window rather than the Australia one. Couldn't have both.

It is expressly forbidden (in the Regs) that no-one player can have contractual stipulations that stop them playing for their country.  They also cannot be financially incentivised.

[quote="HammerofThunor"]

bedfordwelsh wrote:Notch,



It is expressly forbidden (in the Regs) that no-one player can have contractual stipulations that stop them playing for their country.  They also cannot be financially incentivised.

Surely though if both parties agreed to a certain stipulation then the contract can go ahead?

Nope. The player may agree at the time but change their mind. But they can't if it's contracted. You can have it contracted but if the team follow through it they can be banned from being involved in rugby union (obviously maximum sanction), so it's worthless.

LordDowlais wrote:

Notch wrote:The best way to be sure of getting players to play for your team is still to develop them yourself but you have to get value out there as well

.

As a Welshman, and a lover of rugby, I get very paranoid when the Welsh regions develop any decent players, as soon as we get a good un, the English and French clubs come circling, FFS we cannot even compete with teams in the second tier of English rugby these days.

I know. It's desperate and frustrating. Trying to hold onto your best players is a constant, exhausting war. Have a read of Chunkys thread about the IRFU getting private investment, it's quite a debate. Because the IRFU is desperate to avert a player drain, yet of course the IRFU is also a contributor to player drain in other nations.

Professional rugby really is a house of cards.

HammerofThunor wrote:Nope.  The player may agree at the time but change their mind. But they can't if it's contracted. You can have it contracted but if the team follow through it they can be banned from being involved in rugby union (obviously maximum sanction), so it's worthless.

A sanction is meaningless if its not enforced. I find it hard to think of the IRB banning Toulon from participating in rugby union if Bpudjellal tries to ban players from playing international rugby. Nuclear options were explored in the recent conflict over the European Cup and eventually the Unions whimpered and gave in. There was little appetite for resisting the Frankensteins monster they created.

People said any settlement over the European Cup would not avert more conflict between the big French clubs and the unions and of course its happening.