Ashley-Cooper summoned back by his club

[Peat]

are rugby contracts incentive laden? cause if they are there is a lot owners can do about it

They can't legally put in direct incentives for players to turn down national duty.

There are clearly things they can do judging from the number of players from smaller countries who make themselves available. Its a bit different dealing with someone who plays for a country that pays their players well and is sufficiently talented to pick and choose his contracts though.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

What I was thinking was that the incentive would be to play so many matches for the club would be large amount of the contract and then once the player chooses to go to their national team they would just stop playing them so they wouldn't reach the incentive.

- - - Updated - - -

I also think that would be totally illegal from a labour point of view though

 

[Peat]

What I was thinking was that the incentive would be to play so many matches for the club would be large amount of the contract and then once the player chooses to go to their national team they would just stop playing them so they wouldn't reach the incentive.

- - - Updated - - -

I also think that would be totally illegal from a labour point of view though

I think most rugby players would avoid that sort of contract if possible as they're one injury away from losing the a lot of money. I'm not sure, I don't know how rugby contracts are structured, but the high incidence of injury makes heavily incentivised contracts a mug's game. Particularly if you're one of the best players in the game.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I think most rugby players would avoid that sort of contract if possible as they're one injury away from losing the a lot of money. I'm not sure, I don't know how rugby contracts are structured, but the high incidence of injury makes heavily incentivised contracts a mug's game. Particularly if you're one of the best players in the game.

Agreed.. I have no idea how they work
Just curious

 

[FrenchFan]

There are a couple of issues still unresolved. I'm going by what Rugbyrama is saying but it may not be accurate.

They are saying that AAC had retired from test rugby after the last WC. Is this correct? If he did he might have been recruited on the basis that he was no longer involved with Australia. So this is misleading to his club.

Also, AAC was concussed v NZ and must observe a mandatory 3-week layoff. Is UBB not entitled to ask AAC to come back if he's no longer available for selection with Australia?

 

[saulan]

AAC retired from international rugby after the World Cup and returned to international duty when Chieka approached him. He signed for the Begles in December 2014, prior to the Giteau Rule coming into play in April 2015. I assume that both sides assumed when he signed in 2014 that his international career was over as Australia had not picked international players up to that point in time.

I think that maybe after that rule came into play they must have spoken and he may have said he would retire, which he did, but there was nothing binding him to that which would prevent him from returning, like a contract. In essence, Bordeaux just got unlucky that Australia changed their selection policy after they signed AAC.

 

[smartcooky]

Well, if clubs are stupid enough to sign players under the basis they won't be playing international rugby; then they deserve every bit of money wasted quite frankly. It's not slandering French rugby - it's that French rugby is not following the rules set out to everyone and cry when it disadvantages them. Whether he said he was retired or not; it's his and every rugby players right to play international rugby when selected during the windows. More fool clubs who sign players thinking they can stops them from playing. I mean, playing for Australia or Bordeaux. Tough one.

If you want to get personal you are welcome to PM me.

THIS.

This sort of bollocks is the key reason why the NZRU do not compromise when it comes to their selection policies, and long may they continue to do what they do.

Additionally, it is actually against WR Regulations to have ANY clause in a club contract that restricts or implies penalties to be applied to players in relation to their playing for their national team.

[TEXTAREA]World Rugby Regulation 9
9.3 No Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club whether by contract, conduct or otherwise may inhibit, prevent, discourage, disincentivise or render unavailable any Player from selection, attendance and appearance in a National Representative Team or National Squad session when such request for selection, attendance and appearance is made in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation 9. Any agreement and/or arrangement between a Player and a Rugby Body or Club or between a Union or an Association and a Rugby Body or Club (and/or any proposal made and/or attempted to be made howsoever communicated) which is contrary to this Regulation 9.3 is prohibited, including, but not limited to any agreement and/or arrangement and/or proposal pursuant to which a Player is (or would be) unable to exercise the right to play for a Union.

9.4 Subject to Regulation 9.18, no Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club may require any payment or other benefit from or impose conditions relating to a Player's participation in a National Representative Team and/or attendance at a National Squad session of his Union when such participation and/or attendance has been requested in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation 9.[/TEXTAREA]

If AAC's club has such a clause in his contract, or even of they said to him privately ("howsoever communicated"), that he could not be available to play, they are in breach of regulations

- - - Updated - - -

Also, AAC was concussed v NZ and must observe a mandatory 3-week layoff. Is UBB not entitled to ask AAC to come back if he's no longer available for selection with Australia?

What's the point? He still can't play for his club while he is on mandatory stand-down, unless they do a Guy Noves, ignore WR concussion protocols and play him anyway.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

THIS.

This sort of bollocks is the key reason why the NZRU do not compromise when it comes to their selection policies, and long may they continue to do what they do.

Additionally, it is actually against WR Regulations to have ANY clause in a club contract that restricts or implies penalties to be applied to players in relation to their playing for their national team.

[TEXTAREA]World Rugby Regulation 9
9.3 No Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club whether by contract, conduct or otherwise may inhibit, prevent, discourage, disincentivise or render unavailable any Player from selection, attendance and appearance in a National Representative Team or National Squad session when such request for selection, attendance and appearance is made in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation 9. Any agreement and/or arrangement between a Player and a Rugby Body or Club or between a Union or an Association and a Rugby Body or Club (and/or any proposal made and/or attempted to be made howsoever communicated) which is contrary to this Regulation 9.3 is prohibited, including, but not limited to any agreement and/or arrangement and/or proposal pursuant to which a Player is (or would be) unable to exercise the right to play for a Union.

9.4 Subject to Regulation 9.18, no Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club may require any payment or other benefit from or impose conditions relating to a Player's participation in a National Representative Team and/or attendance at a National Squad session of his Union when such participation and/or attendance has been requested in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation 9.[/TEXTAREA]

If AAC's club has such a clause in his contract, or even of they said to him privately ("howsoever communicated"), that he could not be available to play, they are in breach of regulations

- - - Updated - - -



What's the point? He still can't play for his club while he is on mandatory stand-down, unless they do a Guy Noves, ignore WR concussion protocols and play him anyway.

my point was that a contract could be setup so that most of the money came from performance incentives and that they could just bench the player for playing internationally and therefore not reach the incentives

is it illegal? yes
is it hard to prove? yes, they could just say that they felt the player wasn't in form

 

[smartcooky]

my point was that a contract could be setup so that most of the money came from performance incentives and that they could just bench the player for playing internationally and therefore not reach the incentives

is it illegal? yes
is it hard to prove? yes, they could just say that they felt the player wasn't in form

The existence of such a contract would be illegal. It could be proved by the simple dint of looking at it (WR are entitled to examine all player contracts).

Such an arrangement would have to be made privately/verbally. THAT would be difficult to detect and/or prove. This is what French clubs are suspected of doing with players from weaker unions such as the the PI unions; those that don't have the clout to fight against being bullied.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

The existence of such a contract would be illegal. It could be proved by the simple dint of looking at it (WR are entitled to examine all player contracts).

Such an arrangement would have to be made privately/verbally. THAT would be difficult to detect and/or prove. This is what French clubs are suspected of doing with players from weaker unions such as the the PI unions; those that don't have the clout to fight against being bullied.

so rugby contracts can't have incentives in it? this is a question i want an answer to.

 

[Peat]

so rugby contracts can't have incentives in it? this is a question i want an answer to.

Incentives such as appearance fees and win bonuses are common place but I don't know how high the incentives are compared to base salary. I believe they're generally more incentive based for academy players and more base salary orientated for established players.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Incentives such as appearance fees and win bonuses are common place but I don't know how high the incentives are compared to base salary. I believe they're generally more incentive based for academy players and more base salary orientated for established players.

so yeah, a team would be able to **** players over who choose to play internationals with incentives

 

[smartcooky]

so rugby contracts can't have incentives in it? this is a question i want an answer to.

I doubt IRPA would allow a contract solely based on incentives without a substantial base salary that at is at least comparable to those of other similar players. For example,. you cannot have a contract that says "we only pay you for matches you play, and only if we win". A player could technically end up at the end of the season not ever being paid at all.

Incentives would have to be over and above salary, NOT in lieu of it... IRPA would never stand for it

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I doubt IRPA would allow a contract solely based on incentives without a substantial base salary that at is at least comparable to those of other similar players. For example,. you cannot have a contract that says "we only pay you for matches you play, and only if we win". A player could technically end up at the end of the season not ever being paid at all.

Incentives would have to be over and above salary, NOT in lieu of it... IRPA would never stand for it

no one's saying that the contract would consist of just incentives

 

[Shaggy]

THIS.

This sort of bollocks is the key reason why the NZRU do not compromise when it comes to their selection policies, and long may they continue to do what they do.

Additionally, it is actually against WR Regulations to have ANY clause in a club contract that restricts or implies penalties to be applied to players in relation to their playing for their national team.

[TEXTAREA]World Rugby Regulation 9
9.3 No Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club whether by contract, conduct or otherwise may inhibit, prevent, discourage, disincentivise or render unavailable any Player from selection, attendance and appearance in a National Representative Team or National Squad session when such request for selection, attendance and appearance is made in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation 9. Any agreement and/or arrangement between a Player and a Rugby Body or Club or between a Union or an Association and a Rugby Body or Club (and/or any proposal made and/or attempted to be made howsoever communicated) which is contrary to this Regulation 9.3 is prohibited, including, but not limited to any agreement and/or arrangement and/or proposal pursuant to which a Player is (or would be) unable to exercise the right to play for a Union.

9.4 Subject to Regulation 9.18, no Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club may require any payment or other benefit from or impose conditions relating to a Player's participation in a National Representative Team and/or attendance at a National Squad session of his Union when such participation and/or attendance has been requested in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation 9.[/TEXTAREA]

If AAC's club has such a clause in his contract, or even of they said to him privately ("howsoever communicated"), that he could not be available to play, they are in breach of regulations

- - - Updated - - -



What's the point? He still can't play for his club while he is on mandatory stand-down, unless they do a Guy Noves, ignore WR concussion protocols and play him anyway.

It kind of makes sense to me, that if he is concussed, that he goes back to his club. He's not going to do Australia any good by being there, and he can at least train within the club environment, even if it's the non-contact stuff.

Perhaps he wasn't summoned back, but simply chose to go back

 

[FrenchFan]

Maybe the penny will drop with SH players coming over here that they just can't have their cake and eat it.

The Top 14 with its 10-mths long competition + Euro games are just not comptatible with players who want to continue their test career. I can understand why they want to continue of course. But it's not very realistic.

Giteau is a great player but at 34 and 4 seasons in T14 have taken their toll.

I don't know how Will Genia got a recall in the RC. He's been anonymous for his club here. AAC has notched over 100 caps for Aus - amazing tally - but hard to imagine he can keep going for country if he stays in T14.

 

[McTallshort]

Im guessing at some point AAC though his agent was asked if he was retired from International rugby by the club before signing? If his answer was yes he has quit then that probably sealed the deal on his contract and payment. If after this point he changed his mind you can understand the club being miffed. If aging SH internationals want to boost their retirement funds with a couple of big money in contracts in France then they need to appreciate the clubs paying those contracts are not going to be happy if they decide to try and go back to playing international rugby.

That's why it always makes sense to only pick players playing in the countries league. Don't Australia have 5 super rugby franchises now? Can they not find a match day 23 out of that?

 

[nickdnz]

Once again; it's the Top 14 clubs risk not the players. Top 14 clubs need to get their head around the fact that if you sign international caliber players - you run the risk that they will play for their national teams as they have every right to do. Don't like it? Don't sign them.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I love the Top 14 but feel presidents should respect the fact that WR protects the international game with good reason and ANY international player carries that risk. I wouldn't know what the exact situation is with AAC and don't trust that the media would have it right either so I am nt going to comment on the actions/comments from either side.

I do feel for UBB though in this particular instance. Its especially tough on the smaller aspriring sides specifically like UBB who can't afford to carry the size of squad the 'big sides' do. I'm sure they felt they had a player who would be fully available to them but then Aus changed their availability policy. Its just a combination of those two factors. Plain bad luck/timing. Don't think UBB could forsee Aus chnging their policy and at the same time I can appreciate AAC choosing country first. I don't know what the exact word was surrounding his participation but even if they knew there was a chance for him to be involved in test rugby being based abroad.. well its an emotional attachment you can't contractualize or forsee how you might feel beforehand IMO.

 

[Which Tyler]

Couple of points here.
Incentives in contracts are absolutely standard; for senior players they'll be icing on the top, rather than the bulk though.
I have no sympathy for Bordeaux - hire a player who promises to retire from internationals, and take the risk that the player may change his mind - just like Bath and Priestland last year.
There is no mandatory 3 week stand-down for concussion in elite rugby (just like there is no foul of "gouging" either; from a different thread; nor is there a "red card test" to decide if citing is warranted)