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

First topic message reminder :

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.

Well i would love to see the players say ah do one.

If you dont pay us you are breaking the contract thus it is null and void and i will begin immediate negotiatinons with another club. This also sends out a statement join Toulon at your peril if you still want international honours.

all depends on the contract.

just because they say its null and void doesnt mean it is. and no club would play them until that particular wrinkle was ironed out. theoretically it would lead to suspension of the new club as they would be fielding a player still registered with another club.

would all get very messy, and the last person i think you want to pick that fight with is boudjellal. he is more than happy to sue everyone.

Id pick a fight with him no probs

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.

if a player has retired from international rugby the club do not have to release him, even if he changes his mind.

Notch wrote: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.

Very true, but then no-one has been open about it before. The International game is the IRB's thing, if they were ever going going to stomp their feet and push hard it would be over this.

quinsforever wrote:

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.

if a player has retired from international rugby the club do not have to release him, even if he changes his mind.

Only for 12 months, then they can change their mind.

IRB Regulations wrote:9.30 If a Player does retire in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 9.29 above, the Player shall not be entitled to play for that Union for a period of 12 months from the date of written confirmation of retirement from the International Game being received by the Union save with the prior written approval of both the Player’s Union and the IRB.

And note, if they retire they're not allowed to play international rugby for 12 months even if the team is willing to release them.

HammerofThunor wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

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.

if a player has retired from international rugby the club do not have to release him, even if he changes his mind.

Only for 12 months, then they can change their mind.

IRB Regulations wrote:9.30 If a Player does retire in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 9.29 above, the Player shall not be entitled to play for that Union for a period of 12 months from the date of written confirmation of retirement from the International Game being received by the Union save with the prior written approval of both the Player’s Union and the IRB.

And note, if they retire they're not allowed to play international rugby for 12 months even if the team is willing to release them.

they can if the Union and IRB agree to allow it

On the matter of contracts, it's not entirely true that clubs always know what they are getting with a player. Leicester didn't know Waldrom had an English gran when they signed him - he didn't know himself. It's not clear to me they would have signed him on the same deal if they had known he was immediately eligible for England.

You could argue that's a matter of a club performing due diligence but there are some matters out of their hands. The IRB ruling on player release for the HSBC sevens tournament came out of the blue.

quinsforever wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

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.

if a player has retired from international rugby the club do not have to release him, even if he changes his mind.

Only for 12 months, then they can change their mind.

IRB Regulations wrote:9.30 If a Player does retire in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 9.29 above, the Player shall not be entitled to play for that Union for a period of 12 months from the date of written confirmation of retirement from the International Game being received by the Union save with the prior written approval of both the Player’s Union and the IRB.

And note, if they retire they're not allowed to play international rugby for 12 months even if the team is willing to release them.

they can if the Union and IRB agree to allow it

Well it would be abreach of the IRB Regulations.

HammerofThunor wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

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.

if a player has retired from international rugby the club do not have to release him, even if he changes his mind.

Only for 12 months, then they can change their mind.

IRB Regulations wrote:9.30 If a Player does retire in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 9.29 above, the Player shall not be entitled to play for that Union for a period of 12 months from the date of written confirmation of retirement from the International Game being received by the Union save with the prior written approval of both the Player’s Union and the IRB.

And note, if they retire they're not allowed to play international rugby for 12 months even if the team is willing to release them.

they can if the Union and IRB agree to allow it

Well it would be abreach of the IRB Regulations.

"If a Player does retire in accordance with the provisions of Regulation
9.29 above, the Player shall not be entitled to play for that Union for a
period of 12 months from the date of written confirmation of retirement from the International Game being received by the Union save with the
prior written approval of both the Player’s Union and the IRB."

Sorry, I clearly can't read. Thank you for being patient

(It took me a while then, I just thought "why has he just quoted what I put back at me?" )

no worries, the last bit was on the next page of the irb handbook. easily missed.

but what is still unclear to me is if a player has retired, then the Union and IRB agree to allow him to play intl rugby again within that 12month period, does the club now have to release him? i suspect not but its not clear from the regs.

I'd say yes. The club isn't in the bit about coming out of retirement. So if the player decides to come out of retirement then they're no longer in retirement and the usual regulations apply. There seems to be nothing at all that suggests a club can stop a play being called up during the window (excluding squad size and timing limitations). Of course there is absolutely nothing that allows unions to call up players outside of these limits (outside the window or in larger numbers).

And this is either legal, or not. I would hope a court case would sort it out once and for all.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

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.

Disagree, this way a player must make a decision, club or country.

By having a clearly defined line drawn in the sand a player knows he either plays for his country or he doesn't.

There is plenty of money to be made out there, if you choose it, great, but then your country can move on without you.

Toulon boss wrote:“The IRB decided the rules. That’s fine but I’m not here to fund South African and Argentine rugby and I will not.”

One issue I would like to slap his jubblies till his nose bleeds on, and the arrogance that accompanies the comment.

Funding SA rugby, what absolute nonsense, he buys talent developed and then effectively buys his trophies instead of developing his own talent and then has the arrogance to suggest he pays for the Boks.

No mate, we pay for our own Boks.

Then why doesn't he invest his money in a decent academy and play some fking french players when internationalists are away?
Truth is he wasn't complaining when they were winning and irb regulation has been like that for years..

I said it in another thread Toulon represents everything hatable about pro rugby and if rugby really goes this way i can see myself walking away from it.

personally i like toulon. their best foreign players have retired from intl rugby anyway (wilko til recently, giteau). its not easy getting a team of big bucks players to gel. the owner has a shocking mouth on him and seems to want to pick a fight with his shadow, but i suspect a lot of what he says is bluster. he made several threats to sue the FFR and LNR during the HC debate, none of which he pursued.

toulon have a very good academy i am led to believe. but just like in the UK it takes time for academy players to become 1st team players. and there is a huge step up, usually requiring loan time at Championship clubs until they are really pushing for first team places.

its a bit melodramatic to say that Toulon represents the end of likeable rugby. they are one club. and i love seeing all the big names play. was great watching them dominate sarries in the HC final last year.

i would prefer to watch toulon play any day over any of the irish national team development sides, i mean provinces. as a neutral.

quinsforever wrote:i would prefer to watch toulon play any day over any of the irish national team development sides, i mean provinces. as a neutral.

Where do you think those high prized individuals come from?

From those development competitions.

Without them there won't be a Toulon.

I love watching Currie Cup even though our Boks no longer play in it, it is beautiful attacking rugby, plenty of newbies showing their talent and they play with passion and exuberance.

Each to their own i guess.

The way Rugby has been going for the last 2-3 years hasn't exactly made for pleasing viewing, and i'm not talking about Delon Armitage's antics.

VinceWLB wrote:Each to their own i guess.

The way Rugby has been going for the last 2-3 years hasn't exactly made for pleasing viewing, and i'm not talking about Delon Armitage's antics.

indeed.

rugby is still finding its professional feet. in professional terms its still a very young sport.

by the way, i think professionalism has by far most benefited Irish rugby. and i mean that in a positive way. the provinces were virtually unsupported before the dawn of professionalism and look how far they have outstripped the english and french clubs that pre-dated professionalism.

Biltong wrote:

quinsforever wrote:i would prefer to watch toulon play any day over any of the irish national team development sides, i mean provinces. as a neutral.

Where do you think those high prized individuals come from?

From those development competitions.

Without them there won't be a Toulon.

I love watching Currie Cup even though our Boks no longer play in it, it is beautiful attacking rugby, plenty of newbies showing their talent and they play with passion and exuberance.

i am not denigrating anyone else's teams. i just enjoy seeing all the big names at Toulon with their vociferous and passionate home and away fans. great spectacle.

Biltong wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

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.

Disagree, this way a player must make a decision, club or country.

By having a clearly defined line drawn in the sand a player knows he either plays for his country or he doesn't.

There is plenty of money to be made out there, if you choose it, great, but then your country can move on without you.

Why shouldn't Toulon be able to sign the best players in the world and have them part of their workforce during their rugby season? They've become a major sporting force and have an annual turnover of £30m Euros, yet they can only sign players that are of certain nationalities?

Crazy. I don't see how that can stand up in a court.

Biltong wrote:

Toulon boss wrote:“The IRB decided the rules. That’s fine but I’m not here to fund South African and Argentine rugby and I will not.”

One issue I would like to slap his jubblies till his nose bleeds on, and the arrogance that accompanies the comment.

Funding SA rugby, what absolute nonsense, he buys talent developed and then effectively buys his trophies instead of developing his own talent and then has the arrogance to suggest he pays for the Boks.

No mate, we pay for our own Boks.

Narcissism.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

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.

Disagree, this way a player must make a decision, club or country.

By having a clearly defined line drawn in the sand a player knows he either plays for his country or he doesn't.

There is plenty of money to be made out there, if you choose it, great, but then your country can move on without you.

Why shouldn't Toulon be able to sign the best players in the world and have them part of their workforce during their rugby season? They've become a major sporting force and have an annual turnover of £30m Euros, yet they can only sign players that are of certain nationalities?

Crazy. I don't see how that can stand up in a court.

who said they can only sign certain nationalities?

They can sign whoever they want.

The player must decide club or country.

Oh dear................ court seems to be the prospect or threat thrown in so many 'rugby' threads these days.

The Judge Judy Champions Cup!

Toulon can decide to sign whoever they want, South Africa can decide to pick whoever they want. They can even draw up contracts and ask players to sign them if they want. I will play for the Springboks and I will play my rugby at Bulls/Sharks/Lions/Stormers/Kings/Cheetahs.

The SARU are not asking them to make that choice. It seems like you are saying that they should. Leaving has no real consequences when it comes to the Springboks.

Notch wrote:Toulon can decide to sign whoever they want, South Africa can decide to pick whoever they want. They can even draw up contracts and ask players to sign them if they want. I will play for the Springboks and I will play my rugby at Bulls/Sharks/Lions/Stormers/Kings/Cheetahs.

The SARU are not asking them to make that choice. It seems like you are saying that they should. Leaving has no real consequences when it comes to the Springboks.

If The French courts decide in favour of the clubs, then it will basically boil down to club or country, because SARU don't have the money to compensate clubs, but what SARU must then do is go to court to get transfer fees paid to them for developing players.

This frenxhman is so f...n arrogant they must nail him for every player he signs.

Biltong wrote:

Notch wrote:Toulon can decide to sign whoever they want, South Africa can decide to pick whoever they want. They can even draw up contracts and ask players to sign them if they want. I will play for the Springboks and I will play my rugby at Bulls/Sharks/Lions/Stormers/Kings/Cheetahs.

The SARU are not asking them to make that choice. It seems like you are saying that they should. Leaving has no real consequences when it comes to the Springboks.

If The French courts decide in favour of the clubs, then it will basically boil down to club or country, because SARU don't have the money to compensate clubs, but what SARU must then do is go to court to get transfer fees paid to them for developing players.

This frenxhman is so f...n arrogant they must nail him for every player he signs.

But if the French courts decided in favour of the French clubs would that then mean the IRB ruling was null and void? If it didn't then Toulon would still be in breach of IRB rules and face sactions from them surely.

I don't think you'll ever get transfer fees for out of contract players. It is effectively banning someone from practicing their profession unless the entity that trained them is paid. Not going to happn, and it wouldn't just have a impact on sport, it would effect everything.

If private clubs have rights...and the IRB claims rights...then I think the solving of any grey areas is to acknowledge that the players who play and become the chess pieces in these bloody 'profit and power' wars also have rights - if not the main rights.

They have the right to have contracts written that will take into account their rights of employment and that means they should clearly have it written down in every and any contract what rights they would claim in the event of their Nation looking for their services.  And, if millionaire club owners then don't want to accept such contracts, would feel constrained by such contracts, feel their purchasing rights are being affected by such contracts, then they have the freedom to resist such contracts and not sign players with International availability demands in their contracts.

Then of course, the club argument becomes "Why should clubs be restricted to sub-International standard players simply because International grade players demand the rights to play for their Nations in contractually protected windows?"
Why indeed.  I'll tell you why.  Because your rights as an owner don't negate the rights of players and if you don't like the rights of players, you have the freedom to buy players who don't arrive with hard-ball contract demands.

That's the Catch-22.  Club owners despise that International rugby impedes their well oiled plans for Leagues...but they still selfishly want to choose many players, buy many players, based on the very International performances they complain about.  Club owners want it all.  Players should control the market by laying down their own private demands in any contractual negotiations.  Clubs then have the freedom to say: "Then we can't employ you with such demands hanging over our heads" and go on to employ players with less confidence in their International abilities and therefore less demanding contracts

It should never be Club versus IRB, and compensation claims - compensations claims should be already negated by wise personal contracts from Individual players.

Tom May and Rory Lamont on twitter;

Spoiler:

Both ex-Toulon players.