The Samu situation and player eligibility and fees for releasing players for internationals

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/104383963/nz-rugby-puts-forward-mystery-proposal-to-allow-pete-samu-to-play-for-wallabies

Supposedly they are looking for a $50k fee for releasing him.

My issue is that more and more players are getting hovered up by France long before they become internationals.  This sets a precedent that and islander/Georgian etc would be eligible for France and their own country once residency is done.  With players going younger that could mean 23 year olds.  What is to stop T14 clubs from demanding fees from unions.

My understanding is that while Samu is Australian but playing in a NZRU afilated team and he quailifed for them they get to refuse to release him.  So T14 write into the contract that while with the club they are tied to only representing France and as such could keep a lot of players for the international window.  Big losers would be poor unions.

NZRFU looking to ride roughshod over the rules about international windows?

Presumably this is another regulation 9.38 agreement like the one which could have prevented the release of Shields. Did NZRFU ask for money in that case?

I get that the regulation is there to prevent unions from developing players, only to see them represent another national team, but I really don't like it. It has the potential to really restrict access to players for smaller nations without a domestic league.

I think that World Rugby need to step in here and clarify the rule a little. If you are offered a call up in an international window there should be no haggling over price. It's an international window you should be able to go and play.

With Sheilds I can understand as he was born in NZ and wanted to play for NZ but never got the call.

Samu is an Australian playing in NZ who can't play for his Country

As I said T14 clubs will look at this and wonder how they can get it to work for them. If a player signs a contract that states he is working on getting residency for that Club's Union does that mean they have removed themselves from being picked by their home union

As Sam said World Rugby needs to act now not only when it starts to cause real problems. Imagine if those players that Scotland and England are courting were tied up in the fiasco I am sure NZRU would say how wrong it was for English club to tie players to the RFU and not allow them to play for Scotland even if the players wanted.

Player availability in circumstances of dual eligibility

9.38           When a Union enters into a written agreement with a Player that contemplates the Player representing that Union at senior or next Senior Fifteen-A-Side National Representative Team level (whether at fifteen-aside or seven-a-side Rugby), the Union may seek the Player’s written agreement that the Player shall not be available for selection, attendance and/or appearance in a National Representative Team or National Squad of another Union during the term of that written agreement.......

Samu is eligible to play for NZ and Australia

NZR do not need to release him because he signed a contract with a clause that commits him to NZ

NZR want compensation and justifiably so because he has a contract to play for Tasman in the Mitre10 cup. If he is selected to play in the RC then he will miss the Mitre10 cup and NZR and Tasman will be out of pocket.

He didn’t have to sign the contract with the clause that NZR contracts have. He did though didn’t he. He decided to move to NZ to enhance his rugby and career. He was a nobody in Australia prior.

NZ rugby developed him into something Australia now all of a sudden want. NZ isn’t in the business of developing foreigners out of the goodness of our hearts so other Unions around the world can come in and swoop them up.

Rugby Australia should pay the compensation to break a Mitre10 contract if they’re so desperate for him.

From the reading of the rules it has to be signed into a players contract that he aims to play for union x if at the time he qualifies for union x and y. Realistically this doesn't change a situation of a player moving for money and turning down an invite from his or her country. The club and union would only have a right to turn the request down should he already be qualified for the host country.

There's also a couple of get out clauses for wr in the wording of what was meant by the 'spirit' of he law.

If the young player signed the contract (probably without legal advice) then that is enforceable legally. However if NZ wish to be part of World Rugby organisation they shouldn't be inserting these standard clauses as it is against the Test Window Regulation.
Elite Union controlled rugby forces Unions to adopt formally or informally controlled quotas. That is why PI's have to travel half way round the world to find a professional contract in France or England.

World Rugby has a dilemma as it wants to expand the game but most of the senior Unions have pulled up their drawbridge to protect their elite structure by ensuring only test qualified players are employed and are quasi trial test sides. Whilst that may deliver success within a playing generational cycle, when it doesn't then the commercial risks go up exponentially - see Australia and to a lesser extent South Africa.

Actually part of the law here is that legal advice is given. So if the player could prove that it would be null and void.

Recwatcher16 wrote:World Rugby has a dilemma as it wants to expand the game but most of the senior Unions have pulled up their drawbridge to protect their elite structure by ensuring only test qualified players are employed

The real dilemma for WR is the extreme damage that English and French clubs (that make financial losses year after year) are doing to the game. These nations have hollowed out Australian and South African playing stocks.

England is an Anglo Pasifika team based on locals and residency qualified or mummy/daddy qualified pacific developed immigrants and it’s a disgrace for such a once proud nation.

You do not see any British, Irish or French players making SH rugby teams. It’s all one way traffic up north and that’s a major dilemma for Workd Rugby. World Rugby needs to somehow get the NH unions to take the training wheels off and have them standing on their own two feet.

Ha. You don't even follow the sh rugby comps hat closely either!

You’re doing your incoherent shtick again 7.5

Lol. Good one ebop.

Lol yourself 7.5. Anglo-Pasifika, you guys can do a war dance when we meet in November.

Why would NH players move half way around the world to play for half the wage.
4 of the 6 unions in the 6N fund their rugby off the 6 Nations funds and mainly due to large national stadiums.

When the SH were doing well they didn't worry about the future and building up their brand. When they were getting 30-40k to matches for S12-15 did they invest any money for the future or just spend it all

Of the 4 Pro12 nations Ireland after the problems of the 90s got their house in order to compete. Wales were next to do it restructuring debt and going regional. Scotland were next and are at a point where they have sorted the debt and have to much money so are trying to buy a private team. Italy are now starting to get their house in order and will be like Scotland are now in about 3-5 years where there first team is a challenge.

A domestic league (6-8 teams) and champions cup would have been more financially viable and marketable in the early days but that chance is gone now. (HC grew from strenght to strenght to become the juggernaut it is today)

But back on point what is to stop all the 18 year olds from the islands, SA, Oz, players who are hovered up by French T14/ProD2 clubs from having it written into their contract when they are 23 and hitting international level.

I don't think the English clubs have the same issues and have not been actively setting up links with schools in these countries to get the best 18 year olds

I think if you get asked by a union you are eligible for and you want to play for them during the international window there should be no stopping you.

But maybe it is just to simple.

While the NZRU might be thinking about their bank/future this would only result in a release fee by unions to clubs for all international windows if they feel teams should be compensated for loss of a player. The fees in Europe would be large based on a % of the players wages. Teams like Samoa who give their players a bag of crisps for playing would not be able to afford $20k a player for 30 players.

Sounds like ebop is still on the source from last night, same drivel for someone who hasn't a clue. When was the last time England or any NH team recruited children through sponsorship/education to tie them in to nz on residency? You may have given him the opportunity to play but you don't own his soul. Mean spirited and beyond a joke that the mighty allblacks don't play test matches all that often with the pacific island teams who are very close geographically to help them out financially. Always the same the holier than thou attitude is wearing very thin and incredibly boring.

Brendan wrote:But back on point what is to stop all the 18 year olds from the islands, SA, Oz, players who are hovered up by French T14/ProD2 clubs from having it written into their contract when they are 23 and hitting international level.

I don't think the English clubs have the same issues and have not been actively setting up links with schools in these countries to get the best 18 year olds

Enter it as a line in the contract when they sign at 18 or younger and renew every year. "Once qualified under residency my intention is to represent France", player signs and then the club will be asking for cash in order for them to make their debut. Once they have been capped you wouldn't get away with what NZ are doing but you could make it very difficult for that player to earn that first cap and hence stay out of international rugby and be available more for their club.

Personally I would like to see the rule of if you aren't a tier one nation (6&4) you can pick players from a Tier 1country after 2 years out of international matches.
Do the same for Tier 2 for Tier 3.

Depending how long NZ holds out on the rule that players have to play in NZ, you could see second generation islands (born in NZ) picking Samoa/Fiji/Tonga over NZ because of the sheer money difference between NZ wages and NH wages.  You could say €500k and Samoa or €300 and NZ at the moment. That gap is only going one way and if they were AB standard it could be higher, ask a man on his way to Bristol

Brendan wrote:Personally I would like to see the rule of if you aren't a tier one nation (6&4) you can pick players from a Tier 1country after 2 years out of international matches.
Do the same for Tier 2 for Tier 3.

Depending how long NZ holds out on the rule that players have to play in NZ, you could see second generation islands (born in NZ) picking Samoa/Fiji/Tonga over NZ because of the sheer money difference between NZ wages and NH wages.  You could say €500k and Samoa or €300 and NZ at the moment. That gap is only going one way and if they were AB standard it could be higher, ask a man on his way to Bristol

I would love nothing more than to see this but I don't think the tier 1 nations would ever agree to this, simply because of how good the PIs would become. You only have to look at the names that have come out and said they would love to represent their island. It would be great for rugby to see strong PI nations, just look at the flair that the Fijian 7s teams bring to the world series and also the impact that Tonga has had in international rugby league due to a similar rule in place there.

If you consider there are a lot of players in Europe who could play for PI teams immediately under that rule

Changed the heading to better describe it

Brendan wrote:If you consider there are a lot of players in Europe who could play for PI teams immediately under that rule

Europe ? How many are playing in Wales, Ireland, Italy & Scotland exactly?

There always exceptions and I could be wrong but not sure there are that many examples of individuals who would/could be selected by PI Unions who then turn them down because of club commitments ?

The Union structure, that World Rugby sanctions, creates a restricted employment environment and subsequent conflicts of interest. Although I do realise fans of those Unions will not see it or certainly not accept it.

Recwatcher16 wrote:

Brendan wrote:If you consider there are a lot of players in Europe who could play for PI teams immediately under that rule

Europe ? How many are playing in Wales, Ireland, Italy & Scotland exactly?

There always exceptions and I could be wrong but not sure there are that many examples of individuals who would/could be selected by PI Unions who then turn them down because of club commitments ?

The Union structure, that World Rugby sanctions, creates a restricted employment environment and subsequent conflicts of interest. Although I do realise fans of those Unions will not see it or certainly not accept it.

Whats not to accept? of course the unions have created a restricted environment but is that supposed to be a bad thing? Opening up everything doesn't solve anything.. If the provinces for instance cut the restrictions on foreign signings, then that is restricting Irish players from having a professional career, same problem, somebody has to miss out. It's not the job of any country to provide a professional platform for other nations to develop players and teams can operate anyway they that seems best for them.

Yes Leinster I do remember the wailing and indignation on here when first french and then english clubs considered having their own separate competition 'that seems best for them' !!!

Restricting players from a career because there is a better alternative is a strange one but not altogether surprising. From our previous conversation you believe you have the best school in the world based in Dublin for producing rugby players - I am sure Ireland will be fine.
As it happens I know where it is too as I have friends who live/work in the Ballsbridge/Blackrock side of town and they always point it out too......

Recwatcher16 wrote:

Brendan wrote:If you consider there are a lot of players in Europe who could play for PI teams immediately under that rule

Europe ? How many are playing in Wales, Ireland, Italy & Scotland exactly?

There always exceptions and I could be wrong but not sure there are that many examples of individuals who would/could be selected by PI Unions who then turn them down because of club commitments ?

The Union structure, that World Rugby sanctions, creates a restricted employment environment and subsequent conflicts of interest. Although I do realise fans of those Unions will not see it or certainly not accept it.

There are a fair few PI ancestry players from NZ in France who haven't played for NZ for two years.

Recwatcher16 wrote:Yes Leinster I do remember the wailing and indignation on here when first french and then english clubs considered  having their own separate competition 'that seems best for them' !!!

Restricting players from a career because there is a better alternative is a strange one but not altogether surprising. From our previous conversation you believe you have the best school in the world based in Dublin for producing rugby players - I am sure Ireland will be fine.
As it happens I know where it is too as I have friends who live/work in the Ballsbridge/Blackrock side of town and they always point it out too......

I said St. Micheals was famous in the rugby world, I didn't even suggest it was amongst the very best but no surprise you took it that way to further your little narrative. Of course when talking about the best in anything to do with rugby you must automatically look towards NZ. Everyone else is still a million miles away from them.

ebop wrote:NZ isn’t in the business of developing foreigners out of the goodness of our hearts so other Unions around the world can come in and swoop them up.

We (NHers) are in the business of developing International Standard Coaches (foreign ones) and then other Unions come steal them back when they're ready for that level (and when they have enough spy intel built up on the locals )  

Didn't Hansen come from Wales?
Didn't Graham Henry come from Wales?
Didn't Wayne Smith come from Benetton Treviso?    
Didn't Cheika come from Leinster and Stade Francais?
Doesn't the new South Africa head coach come from Munster?
Doesn't the next semi-hot AB favourite come from Leinster and Ireland or maybe from Wales yet one more time?
Hell, Leinster are even re-educating an ex-foreign National Head Coach to maybe give him back to England a more finished article for a second bite at a cherry.

Don't we got no rights to no compensation like????   No?  Training top coaches ain't cheap!

ebop wrote:...NZ isn’t in the business of developing foreigners out of the goodness of our hearts...

It's uncontroversial to say that there's little room for sentiment at the highest levels of rugby. Still, when you say you are in a business, then you have to work out what business your in. Your comment suggests NZRU shouldn't be in the rugby business, but the New Zealand business. For a country which rates rugby as it's national sport, that seems short-sighted.

There are 20 nations at the next Rugby World Cup but only just over half that number are involved with serious professional rugby competitions (Six Nations, Sanzaar & Japan). New Zealand rugby fans who like to take pot shots at the willingness of Northern hemisphere leagues to employ overseas talent, have no suggestions about where professional players, from countries without thir own serious domestic competitions, might find work.

When teams from Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Romania, Georgia and, in the past, Argentina, have competed in the tournament, they have been filled with players employed in Europe. It's to the great credit of Northern hemisphere clubs and unions that they were willing and able to give professional careers to so many international rugby players. Very few found work in Super Rugby, because the unions want to use their franchises to develop players for their own national sides.

The NZRU might argue that international competition drives the future of rugby but they have shown no interest in playing Tests against anyone other than major, reveune-producing nations. They had to be shamed into arranging the 2015 fixture against Samoa, after initially suggesting there was no possibility of scheduling the match.

Everyone recognizes the financial constraints on national unions. Major rugby playing nations like Wales, Scotland and Australia also find it a challenge to balance the books.

What England and France are aiming to do is create vibrant, competitive domestic competitions, which generate strong fan loyalty, and are attractive to sponsors and broadcasters. They can grow the whole sport and, crucially, provide a base of support for participation in rugby even when the fortunes of the national side are at a low ebb.

If New Zealanders want to complain about that, then a good first step would be to explain how the policies of NZRU are supposed to be helping grow the game internationally.

Good points rugby fan.

I know we all know that certain countries don't have the money to run professional teams but more can be done.

Georgia has come on leaps and bounds due to players going to France and the development of their domestic league. We are seeing their u20s improving drastically.

I am not going to say that money should be magically created out of somewhere but there must be things that can be done.
Being from Europe and everything being close together it makes it easier to get good side's around cheaper.

If the B6Ns were to each have a professional squad on about 20k a year per player (40x20k = 800k). They would play 5 games in the B6Ns (already doing So no extra cost). Have 6 games in the challenge cup which would give them money(Russian teams doing this already). And then they play tournaments with another national team and two professional teams (most likely Pro12 due to fixtures) so something like
Pro14 Pro14 B6N Pacific Cup
Leinster Ulster Georgia Japan
Munster Con Romania Tonga
Glasgow Edinb Belgium Canada
Dragons Blues Russia USA
Ospreys Scarlets Spain Samoa
Beni Zebre Germany Uruguay
Play two games against the club teams and then one against each other and a tier one to finish. Do the same in the summer with S15 teams. WR did a tournament with 4 tier teams in North Wales and Tier 2 sides travel anyway so some cost would be offset. Bigger crowds for the games would generate more money for all involved. Teams could train with the host team for the month. Imagine what Spain would gain from being with Munster for a month.

That gives them 5+6+4+4 which is 21 games. Good players are in the shop window for professional contracts and when PRO14 looks to expand the professional setup is there.

Brendan wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:

Brendan wrote:If you consider there are a lot of players in Europe who could play for PI teams immediately under that rule

Europe ? How many are playing in Wales, Ireland, Italy & Scotland exactly?

There always exceptions and I could be wrong but not sure there are that many examples of individuals who would/could be selected by PI Unions who then turn them down because of club commitments ?

The Union structure, that World Rugby sanctions, creates a restricted employment environment and subsequent conflicts of interest. Although I do realise fans of those Unions will not see it or certainly not accept it.

There are a fair few PI ancestry players from NZ in France who haven't played for NZ for two years.

Wasn’t the old law around this changed to encourage the PI lads to chose to play for their conuntrh rather than NZ, Aus, or NH countries? As if they know that they can trot out for Tonga in a few years wouldn’t they all go chase the cash and then get their PI caps near th back end of th or career?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Brendan wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:

Brendan wrote:If you consider there are a lot of players in Europe who could play for PI teams immediately under that rule

Europe ? How many are playing in Wales, Ireland, Italy & Scotland exactly?

There always exceptions and I could be wrong but not sure there are that many examples of individuals who would/could be selected by PI Unions who then turn them down because of club commitments ?

The Union structure, that World Rugby sanctions, creates a restricted employment environment and subsequent conflicts of interest. Although I do realise fans of those Unions will not see it or certainly not accept it.

There are a fair few PI ancestry players from NZ in France who haven't played for NZ for two years.

Wasn’t the old law around this changed to encourage the PI lads to chose to play for their conuntrh rather than NZ, Aus, or NH countries?  As if they know that they can trot out for Tonga in a few years wouldn’t they all go chase the cash and then get their PI caps near th back end of th or career?

I think half of the Samoa world cup squad where born in NZ at the last WC.
I think there are a few older players in Europe who are an upgrade on what Tonga and Samoa have.

5 year residency means only OZ and NZ would get them which they would anyway if they were good enough.