Carter takes five! Heads North for Six Months.

[Canadian_Rugger]

Stop paying players so much to play in the NPC hell you could even develop the competition into a junior rugby competition. Maybe make it like an under 23 or 24 comp or something. Quite honestly if your over the age of 24 and you haven't made the super 14 whats the point in developing you anymore anyways go drink some beer and play club rugby and get on with life. Also open up the super 14 to private investment. Let private owners run the team and double the season length to increase ticket revenue. You would see a lot more revenue if you simply doubled your season length. Basically make the Super 14 your premier competition... f*** the domestic **** only promo the super 14 and bring in some rich American billionaires with oddles of money to spend on player acquisitions and talent.

 

[O'Rothlain]

Prestwick writes....."Sink or swim mate, from the point of view from a body like the European Union, if it is a loss making venture and unsustainable then why subsidise it?"

I wonder where French farmers stand with a policy like that. Do you think they will be driving their cattle and tractors down the Champs-Élysées again anytime soon?

Prestwick writes....."The problem is that we're all living in the wrong century. We're living in a world where players are seen as employees and where it is becoming quickly accepted that freedom of movement for work is an undeniable human right. The European Union would reject any move by the iRB or any sports body to prevent players from moving North or to impose quotas and would most likely take the body to court."

Which court? The ECJ? How does a European Body take an International Body to court? Are the EU going to take FIFA to court over the 6 + 5 rule? No, because they cannot. They have no jurisdiction over an International Body. The ECJ could make a ruling and FIFA will simply give them the finger and challenge them to enforce the unenforcible. FIFA on the other hand can simply suspend any member Association that does not comply with FIFA regulations (Google "Greek FA" of you don't believe me)

IRB Regulation 9.1 states "A Union has first and last call upon the availability of a Player for selection and appearances for a National Representative Team or National Squad of that Union and all attendances associated therewith, including training sessions". Its a regulation that ALL National Unions sign up to. Invoking it is a simple enough process with a clear set of consequences for failure to comply.

►Union A wants Player A who plays for a Club in Union B
►The Club in Union B refuses to release the player
►Union A makes a formal complaint to the iRB
►The iRB instructs Union B to secure the release of the player from the Club
►If Union B fails to secure the release, the iRB suspends Union B UFN

Prestwick writes....."Exiling players who go north is simply not a sustainable option. South Africa know that which is why allot of their players who have gone north are still eligible for the Spingboks. Offering incentives like sabbaticals while a smart and good move is only a short term measure and eventually, the NZRU will be selecting players working overseas and dealing with the idiot, arrogant and sodding awkward French clubs just like any other nation has to."

Agreed. Its a policy that was right in its time, and perhaps its had its time.

See above for how to deal with "idiot, arrogant and sodding awkward French clubs"
[/b]

It's not the EU taking the IRB to court but the EU taking the Unions within the EU to court.

How does the practice that South Africa and the European Clubs not make sense to you? It's a very simple concept that every other industry uses...RIGHT TO WORK.

 

[smartcooky]

ORothalin writes....It's not the EU taking the IRB to court but the EU taking the Unions within the EU to court.

How does the practice that South Africa and the European Clubs not make sense to you? It's a very simple concept that every other industry uses...RIGHT TO WORK.

If the EU took the RFU to court, for example, their defence would simply be that they are complying with the requirements of their International controlling body. This is precisely why, if FIFA are successful in introducing the 6+ 5 rule internationally, the EU will not be able to take the FA or any other association to the ECJ because they will use precisely the same defence, and the EU knows that the ECJ has no jurisdiction over FIFA (just as they have no jurisdiction ofver the iRB). They have even acknowledged as much in White Papers published by the EP as recently as last month.

You seem to think that the EU is some kind of world power that can dictate to everyone what they can and cannot do. The EU holds no sway outside of Europe, and the ECJ has no juridiction outside Europe. No one living anywhere else in the world gives a fat rats arse what the ECJ says or does.

In New Zealand, the right to work exists as well, but so too do the employers have rights, and one of the most fundamental of these is to employ who they CHOOSE. The NZRU is the major rugby employer in New Zealand, and they currently CHOOSE not to employ foreign players in their Super 14 teams, and they CHOOSE not to select players who do not have contracts with them. This may change in the future, but it is not as easy as you might think to simply change the selection policy. The first thing they will have to do is get such a policy change past the NZRPA (the equivalent of the PRA in UK). The NZRPA are vehemently opposed to allowing unlimited foregn players in NZ competititons, and are also vehemently opposed to NZers playing outside of NZ being selected for the AB's. It will take a lot of careful negotiation to make that happen. If the NZRU try to railroad the changes through, the NZRPA could well call a player's strike, and then we'd really up sh*t creek in a barbed-wire canoe.

It is interesting to look at the Argentina team to play Scotland, and compare it with the Argentina team that played France in the bronze final of the RWC. Those players who took part in that match are marked in red

1- Marcos Ayerza
2- Ãlvaro Tejeda
3- Santiago González Bonorino
4- Ignacio Fernández Lobbe
5- Esteban Lozada
6- Martín Durand
7- Juan Fernández Lobbe
8- Juan Manuel Leguizamón
9- Nicolás Vergallo
10- Federico Todeschini
11- Tomás De Vedia
12- Felipe Contepomi (captain)
13- Gonzalo Tiesi
14- José María Núñez Piossek
15- Bernardo Stortoni

16 -Pablo Gambarini
17- Juan Gómez
18 - James Stuart
19 - Alejandro Campos
20 - Alfredo Lalanne
21 - Santiago Fernández
22. Hernán Senillosa

How many of those missing players have retired, and how many have not been released by their clubs

Rodrigo Roncero - Stade Francais - not released
Alberto Vernet Basualdo - Stade Toulousain - not released
Omar Hasan Jalil - Stade Toulousain - not released
Rimas Ãlvarez Kairelis - Perpignan - not released
Patricio Albacete - Stade Toulousain - not released
Gonzalo Longo Elía - Clemont-Auvergne - not released
Juan Martín Hernández - Stade Francais - not released
Horacio Agulla - Dax - not released
Federico Martin Aramburu - Perpignan - not released
Ignacio Corleto - Stade Francais - not released
Eusebio Guiñazu - Agen - not released

Then

Nicolás Fernandez Miranda -retired from International Rugby???
Agustín Pichot - retired from International Rugby
Manuel Contepomi - retired from International Rugby???

Now it is NOT my intention to have a go at these French clubs, because I fully understand the reasons why their club season is finishing so late this year. However, to those who think that the All Black selectors should pick players playing in Europe, take a good look, because this is will become the norm, private owners of clubs impacting on Test Selections.

 

[O'Rothlain]

Yeah, it's pretty much understood that the EU only have jurisdiction within the EU.
Anyway, I don't give a flying flip about letting foreigners into NZ to play, but rather solving your fecking problem, which is players retiring from NZ rugby early to go make MONEY.
Why would it be so hard to let players play club rugby abroad and their national rugby at home? What NZRU should do is add a clause to anyone wanting to play abroad that in their contract with the foreign club that they have to be available for all international tests. SIMPLE.
I swear to God, don't make me retype this idea again. Please read it through a few times. :wall:

 

[C A Iversen]

I think your idea is futile O'Rothlain. Why should our competitions be drained of talent we created? Who's to say the talent will still come through. I have an idea, I have mentioned it in the past and no-one has actually passed comment on it. Seriously, in another thread people seemed to pretend I'd said nothing.

I believe an employer has the right to protect it's own developments and I believe that every boy who every steps foot into a NZ school or club should have to sign up to a simple contract stating that if they are ever signed up to be paid by any overseas club for their rugby services, that the club involved will have to negotiate a transfer fee with the NZRFU. Same for Australia and South Africa. In the interim, we should make all new All Blacks sign a contract to the same effect.

These players are being developed by the NZ rugby system, it is an investment for NZ rugby and we should be able to make some of the money to put back into the system. Something like, if a player is being offered $300,000 a season, then the club must pay the NZRFU an additional 50% ($150,000). This would keep the financial wolves from our door and make the NH pay for what they haven't created.

I'm at the point where I am going to have to email the NZRFU with this suggestion. If it can somehow be brought in things will become a lot fairer than they are now and the NH can stop complaining that the SH players are "not the best in the world, but please give them to us".

It'd be a wonderful world. You get and we get. The only difficulty is that the NH wants and it doesn't want to have to give anything back.


By the way big O', your sig is mocking nothing. Many nations have a large fanbase who think they are "No:1", yes we do too. Much like many other nations, we have a large number of fans who think we have slipped behind South Africa or Australia and from time to time France. Your sigs point is really lost, as my issue with your opinion and the issue of the other NZ TRF'ers was that no country has 100.00% of people behind one opinion and we didn't like being all stereotyped. So, that must've got right up your nose as the rushed and unfunny sig now rather muddily screams.

 

[O'Rothlain]

My signature is brilliant. There I said it. It is also highly relevant. Let's not pretend that Kiwis in time past have not been rather arogant about NZ Rugby. I'm cool with that. You should be proud of you nation and the All Blacks. I just think it's retarded to get your tights in a bind when someone calls the general consensus on their opinion. But, it's a lost point on you. I know others find it as funny as I do.

ANYWAY, your point with the transfer fee is good. That paired with my plan would really be a valid option. Players can leave and play, but must be available for all International Duty and the club must pay the NZRFU a transfer fee. I think that's great.

 

[DonBilly]

ORothalin writes....It's not the EU taking the IRB to court but the EU taking the Unions within the EU to court.

How does the practice that South Africa and the European Clubs not make sense to you? It's a very simple concept that every other industry uses...RIGHT TO WORK.

If the EU took the RFU to court, for example, their defence would simply be that they are complying with the requirements of their International controlling body. This is precisely why, if FIFA are successful in introducing the 6+ 5 rule internationally, the EU will not be able to take the FA or any other association to the ECJ because they will use precisely the same defence, and the EU knows that the ECJ has no jurisdiction over FIFA (just as they have no jurisdiction ofver the iRB). They have even acknowledged as much in White Papers published by the EP as recently as last month.

You seem to think that the EU is some kind of world power that can dictate to everyone what they can and cannot do. The EU holds no sway outside of Europe, and the ECJ has no juridiction outside Europe. No one living anywhere else in the world gives a fat rats arse what the ECJ says or does.

In New Zealand, the right to work exists as well, but so too do the employers have rights, and one of the most fundamental of these is to employ who they CHOOSE. The NZRU is the major rugby employer in New Zealand, and they currently CHOOSE not to employ foreign players in their Super 14 teams, and they CHOOSE not to select players who do not have contracts with them. This may change in the future, but it is not as easy as you might think to simply change the selection policy. The first thing they will have to do is get such a policy change past the NZRPA (the equivalent of the PRA in UK). The NZRPA are vehemently opposed to allowing unlimited foregn players in NZ competititons, and are also vehemently opposed to NZers playing outside of NZ being selected for the AB's. It will take a lot of careful negotiation to make that happen. If the NZRU try to railroad the changes through, the NZRPA could well call a player's strike, and then we'd really up sh*t creek in a barbed-wire canoe.

It is interesting to look at the Argentina team to play Scotland, and compare it with the Argentina team that played France in the bronze final of the RWC. Those players who took part in that match are marked in red

1- Marcos Ayerza
2- Ãlvaro Tejeda
3- Santiago González Bonorino
4- Ignacio Fernández Lobbe
5- Esteban Lozada
6- Martín Durand
7- Juan Fernández Lobbe
8- Juan Manuel Leguizamón
9- Nicolás Vergallo
10- Federico Todeschini
11- Tomás De Vedia
12- Felipe Contepomi (captain)
13- Gonzalo Tiesi
14- José María Núñez Piossek
15- Bernardo Stortoni

16 -Pablo Gambarini
17- Juan Gómez
18 - James Stuart
19 - Alejandro Campos
20 - Alfredo Lalanne
21 - Santiago Fernández
22. Hernán Senillosa

How many of those missing players have retired, and how many have not been released by their clubs

Rodrigo Roncero - Stade Francais - not released
Alberto Vernet Basualdo - Stade Toulousain - not released
Omar Hasan Jalil - Stade Toulousain - not released
Rimas Ãlvarez Kairelis - Perpignan - not released
Patricio Albacete - Stade Toulousain - not released
Gonzalo Longo Elía - Clemont-Auvergne - not released
Juan Martín Hernández - Stade Francais - not released
Horacio Agulla - Dax - not released
Federico Martin Aramburu - Perpignan - not released
Ignacio Corleto - Stade Francais - not released
Eusebio Guiñazu - Agen - not released

Then

Nicolás Fernandez Miranda -retired from International Rugby???
Agustín Pichot - retired from International Rugby
Manuel Contepomi - retired from International Rugby???

Now it is NOT my intention to have a go at these French clubs, because I fully understand the reasons why their club season is finishing so late this year. However, to those who think that the All Black selectors should pick players playing in Europe, take a good look, because this is will become the norm, private owners of clubs impacting on Test Selections. [/b]

Rugby is now professional as we all know, the clubs are then considered like companies. The labour rules applying to companies within the European Union must comply with the national rules which themeselves have to comply with the EU rules. That's as simple as that. Recently the EU have explained to the FIFA that they can just f*** off the 6+5 rule is not compliant with the EU Labour Rules.

The only solution will be to change the EU rules regarding sport, exceptions are possible, culture for example is considered to be an exception and the global EU trade rules don't all apply to cultural production. Sport should get a similar status but I wonder if it is not already to late, I would not be surprised for examples if the owners of the English football clubs were against changing the rules for sport and therefore ask the British government to go against this change.

Regarding Argentina - Scotland test match, is this match within the so called international window? I think this latter is supposed to start mid-june, isn't it?

The summer tours in the former time used to start later in the season but with the 3N and the extension of it the tours must start sooner than they used to so clash is inevitable with the domestic seasons if they are delayed. Anyway I think these tours are nonsense in the seasons that precedes and follow the RWC. They should cancell them.

 

[smartcooky]

I believe an employer has the right to protect it's own developments and I believe that every boy who every steps foot into a NZ school or club should have to sign up to a simple contract stating that if they are ever signed up to be paid by any overseas club for their rugby services, that the club involved will have to negotiate a transfer fee with the NZRFU. Same for Australia and South Africa. In the interim, we should make all new All Blacks sign a contract to the same effect.

These players are being developed by the NZ rugby system, it is an investment for NZ rugby and we should be able to make some of the money to put back into the system. Something like, if a player is being offered $300,000 a season, then the club must pay the NZRFU an additional 50% ($150,000). This would keep the financial wolves from our door and make the NH pay for what they haven't created.[/b]

I think you are right on the money. We used to have to sign a document like that in the military. It was called "Return of Service Agreement". This was invoked when the Defence Force was about to pay tens of thousands of dollars on you to train you in some new aspect of your job, for example, they might send you to Lockheed for a Level 4 Maintenance course on a new type of Turbo-Prop engine they were about to refit a fleet of aircraft with. You would sign an RSA which stated that you were not allowed to leave the service for three years, so that at least they had got their money's worth from their expenditure on you.

Similarly, I would get all ANZC players to sign such an agreement prior to them ever setting foot on the park. As the players have more an more money spent on their development, so they attain a greater and greater value both for themselves, and the Provincial Unions and the NZRU who are footing the bill. When they become professionals, they have to start paying the NZRU back, but this would be deferred as long as they continue to play in New Zealand.

However, as soon as they decide to go play in another country, say for a European Club, the NZRU has to be paid back in the form of a transfer fee, which would be calculated by a formula incorporating variables such as age, length of service, playing experience, courses etc.

 

[Prestwick]

Prestwick writes....."Sink or swim mate, from the point of view from a body like the European Union, if it is a loss making venture and unsustainable then why subsidise it?"

I wonder where French farmers stand with a policy like that. Do you think they will be driving their cattle and tractors down the Champs-Élysées again anytime soon?[/b]

Aha! Touche! Speak to Shotve about that one. As a card carrying pro-european, he makes defending the indefensible his specialisation!

Prestwick writes....."The problem is that we're all living in the wrong century. We're living in a world where players are seen as employees and where it is becoming quickly accepted that freedom of movement for work is an undeniable human right. The European Union would reject any move by the iRB or any sports body to prevent players from moving North or to impose quotas and would most likely take the body to court."

Which court? The ECJ? How does a European Body take an International Body to court? Are the EU going to take FIFA to court over the 6 + 5 rule? No, because they cannot. They have no jurisdiction over an International Body. The ECJ could make a ruling and FIFA will simply give them the finger and challenge them to enforce the unenforcible. FIFA on the other hand can simply suspend any member Association that does not comply with FIFA regulations (Google "Greek FA" of you don't believe me)
[/b]

Now, the EU can squeeze the iRB several ways here. Firstly, as the iRB is based in Dublin, they do have grounds to proscecute if the iRB first advocate and then legislate for foreign player caps. As Microsoft (another international institution) showed, it doesn't matter what you are, as long as you have a base in the EU and come under EU law then the EU WILL see you in court.

Another way would be as Nate stated and put the squeeze on member Unions, clubs and leagues. If any of the big NH unions voted for quotas or caps, they would be essentially be breaking EU employment law and would be in line for hefty fines and even being forced to cease playing.

The EU can and will make the process unworkable. They can and will find ways of prosecuting, disrupting and ultimately shutting down anyone or anything that contravenes their way of doing things. Fifa and the iRB no choice but to kowtow to what the EU wants. Yes, they can suspend member bodies but on what grounds? Refusing to break EU law on employment?

 

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotemain'> Prestwick writes....."Sink or swim mate, from the point of view from a body like the European Union, if it is a loss making venture and unsustainable then why subsidise it?"

I wonder where French farmers stand with a policy like that. Do you think they will be driving their cattle and tractors down the Champs-Élysées again anytime soon?[/b]

Aha! Touche! Speak to Shotve about that one. As a card carrying pro-european, he makes defending the indefensible his specialisation!

Prestwick writes....."The problem is that we're all living in the wrong century. We're living in a world where players are seen as employees and where it is becoming quickly accepted that freedom of movement for work is an undeniable human right. The European Union would reject any move by the iRB or any sports body to prevent players from moving North or to impose quotas and would most likely take the body to court."

Which court? The ECJ? How does a European Body take an International Body to court? Are the EU going to take FIFA to court over the 6 + 5 rule? No, because they cannot. They have no jurisdiction over an International Body. The ECJ could make a ruling and FIFA will simply give them the finger and challenge them to enforce the unenforcible. FIFA on the other hand can simply suspend any member Association that does not comply with FIFA regulations (Google "Greek FA" of you don't believe me)
[/b]

Now, the EU can squeeze the iRB several ways here. Firstly, as the iRB is based in Dublin, they do have grounds to proscecute if the iRB first advocate and then legislate for foreign player caps. As Microsoft (another international institution) showed, it doesn't matter what you are, as long as you have a base in the EU and come under EU law then the EU WILL see you in court.

Another way would be as Nate stated and put the squeeze on member Unions, clubs and leagues. If any of the big NH unions voted for quotas or caps, they would be essentially be breaking EU employment law and would be in line for hefty fines and even being forced to cease playing.

The EU can and will make the process unworkable. They can and will find ways of prosecuting, disrupting and ultimately shutting down anyone or anything that contravenes their way of doing things. Fifa and the iRB no choice but to kowtow to what the EU wants. Yes, they can suspend member bodies but on what grounds? Refusing to break EU law on employment? [/b][/quote]
The Union of European States is looking a lot more like the Union of American States we have over here...ha ha ha!

 

[erwanseb]

In New Zealand, the right to work exists as well, but so too do the employers have rights, and one of the most fundamental of these is to employ who they CHOOSE. The NZRU is the major rugby employer in New Zealand, and they currently CHOOSE not to employ foreign players in their Super 14 teams, and they CHOOSE not to select players who do not have contracts with them. This may change in the future, but it is not as easy as you might think to simply change the selection policy. The first thing they will have to do is get such a policy change past the NZRPA (the equivalent of the PRA in UK). The NZRPA are vehemently opposed to allowing unlimited foregn players in NZ competititons, and are also vehemently opposed to NZers playing outside of NZ being selected for the AB's[/color][/color]. It will take a lot of careful negotiation to make that happen. If the NZRU try to railroad the changes through, the NZRPA could well call a player's strike, and then we'd really up sh*t creek in a barbed-wire canoe.

[/b]

An employer has the rigth to choose an employee but only on the basis of competence, experience and seniority.
All other criteria such as race,colour, political opinion, religion or nationality are discriminatory as per the UN nation convention.

Only jobs related to the security of the sate (army, defense, police) are excluded from this convention.


Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention
Convention (No. 111) concerning Discrimination in respect of Employment and Occupation
Adopted on 25 June 1958 by the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation
at its forty-second session
entry into force 15 June 1960, in accordance with Article 8

 

[smartcooky]

<div class='quotemain'>

In New Zealand, the right to work exists as well, but so too do the employers have rights, and one of the most fundamental of these is to employ who they CHOOSE. The NZRU is the major rugby employer in New Zealand, and they currently CHOOSE not to employ foreign players in their Super 14 teams, and they CHOOSE not to select players who do not have contracts with them. This may change in the future, but it is not as easy as you might think to simply change the selection policy. The first thing they will have to do is get such a policy change past the NZRPA (the equivalent of the PRA in UK). The NZRPA are vehemently opposed to allowing unlimited foregn players in NZ competititons, and are also vehemently opposed to NZers playing outside of NZ being selected for the AB's[/color][/color]. It will take a lot of careful negotiation to make that happen. If the NZRU try to railroad the changes through, the NZRPA could well call a player's strike, and then we'd really up sh*t creek in a barbed-wire canoe.

[/b]

An employer has the rigth to choose an employee but only on the basis of competence, experience and seniority.
All other criteria such as race,colour, political opinion, religion or nationality are discriminatory as per the UN nation convention.

Only jobs related to the security of the sate (army, defense, police) are excluded from this convention.


Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention
Convention (No. 111) concerning Discrimination in respect of Employment and Occupation
Adopted on 25 June 1958 by the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation
at its forty-second session
entry into force 15 June 1960, in accordance with Article 8




[/b][/quote]

An employer may also require certain qualifications before they employ someone, right? e.g. a hospital cannot be prosecuted for turning down a Plumber applying for a Doctor's job, if they are not a Doctor!!!

So the NZRU has a selection policy in which players must be eligible to play for New Zealand (under iRB Regulation 8) before they can be selected to play for a Super 14 side. i.e., it is their ELIGIBILITY TO BE AN ALL BLACK which is the criteria for employment, a qualification not a discrimination. In all the 48 years since the UN Convention you mention, no-one has ever challenged their right to do this.

Anyone who satisfies the criteria laid down in iRB Regulation 8, regardless of race, creed. colour or religious persuasion, is qualified to play for the country they reside in. This is how players like Gregan (Zambia) got to play for Australia, Mehrtens (South Africa) for NZ and Tony Marsh (New Zealand) for France!!

It is perfectly reasonable and within the Law for a National Union to direct its Clubs or representative teams to select only players who are eligible for that National Union, just as it is reasonable and within the law for a Dictrict Health Board to demand a that their Hospitals employ Doctors to operate on people, and not Plumbers! iRB Regulation 8 prohibits players who have played for one country, then playing for another country. That could be construed as a restriction of employment, but it isnt. I wonder why that is?????

 

[esoj]

a slightly different point which I think should be brought up.

we know about the nzrfu as employers but what about adidas. they also have a vested interest in the all blacks and I think they wouldn't be too happy with their top products playing off in Europe most of the year.

I am sure adidas would have something built into all blacks contracts or with the nzrfu as part of their sponsorship arrangement that they have pretty much full access to use the all blacks in any promotional activity they require at almost anytime in new zealand. Adidas would seriously reconsider sponsorship of the All Blacks if they had to battle with a club in europe everytime they wanted some promotional work done in new zealand with the all blacks. some of the bigger name players sure I can see adidas being ok with and maybe even having more personal contracts with but I just don't see them being ok with every all black playing up in europe. other sponsors may have similar clauses in their sponsorship contracts too and all of these would have to be worked into contracts with every all black that plays overseas. some clubs wouldn't be too happy only getting a player for part of a season and I doubt many bar the seemingly rich french ones would do it for more than a few players anyway.

 

[erwanseb]

An employer may also require certain qualifications before they employ someone, right? e.g. a hospital cannot be prosecuted for turning down a Plumber applying for a Doctor's job, if they are not a Doctor!!!

So the NZRU has a selection policy in which players must be eligible to play for New Zealand (under iRB Regulation 8) before they can be selected to play for a Super 14 side. i.e., it is their ELIGIBILITY TO BE AN ALL BLACK which is the criteria for employment, a qualification not a discrimination. In all the 48 years since the UN Convention you mention, no-one has ever challenged their right to do this.

Anyone who satisfies the criteria laid down in iRB Regulation 8, regardless of race, creed. colour or religious persuasion, is qualified to play for the country they reside in. This is how players like Gregan (Zambia) got to play for Australia, Mehrtens (South Africa) for NZ and Tony Marsh (New Zealand) for France!!

It is perfectly reasonable and within the Law for a National Union to direct its Clubs or representative teams to select only players who are eligible for that National Union, just as it is reasonable and within the law for a Dictrict Health Board to demand a that their Hospitals employ Doctors to operate on people, and not Plumbers! iRB Regulation 8 prohibits players who have played for one country, then playing for another country. That could be construed as a restriction of employment, but it isnt. I wonder why that is?????
[/b]

f the ELIGIBILITY TO BE AN ALL BLACK is the criteria, then they should be able to employ any nationalities provided that the player has not played for another country, but that's not the case. Why aren't they employing 18 years old Argentinian and wait for three years until he is eligible.

The real confusion is coming form the central contract, the NZRU is both a national body and an employer. A s14 franchise criteria should be limited to rugby competence, not eligibility.

Clubs on the other hand are just employers and therefore have the obligation to disregard nationalities of job applicants.

Usually most employees (except civil servants) dislike working in a single employer market , most employees ,whatever their job, will resign or threaten to resign to get a pay rise or a promotion. By centrally contracting players, the NZRU deny this leverage to players hence the European exit.

By privatizing S14 franchises, the franchises would compete for the best players and for the sponsorship deals. It would at least create a real job market (albeit at New Zealand scale) and would probably slow down the trend.

A richer franchise would have the means to retain the best players by offering better wages but that is not possible in single employer market. A single employer will always flatten the salary differences.

 

[smartcooky]

Codorniou writes...If the ELIGIBILITY TO BE AN ALL BLACK is the criteria, then they should be able to employ any nationalities provided that the player has not played for another country, but that's not the case. Why aren't they employing 18 years old Argentinian and wait for three years until he is eligible.

Clubs on the other hand are just employers and therefore have the obligation to disregard nationalities of job applicants.

Sitiveni Sivivatu (Fiji)
Joe Rokocoko (Fiji)
Andrew Mehrtens (South Africa)
Steve Devine (Australia)
Rodney So'oialo (Samoa)
Greg Rawlinson (South Africa)
Malili Muliaina (Samoa)

Are just a few examples of the many foreign nationals who are eligible for New Zealand and played in the Super 14.

As for your "<span style="color:#000000">18 years old Argentinian and wait for three years until he is eligible." example, well;

a. that would be poaching, wouldn't it?
b. why would he come here when he can earn 3-4 times as much in France??
</span>

Codorniou writes...IThe real confusion is coming form the central contract, the NZRU is both a national body and an employer. A s14 franchise criteria should be limited to rugby competence, not eligibility.

Usually most employees (except civil servants) dislike working in a single employer market , most employees ,whatever their job, will resign or threaten to resign to get a pay rise or a promotion. By centrally contracting players, the NZRU deny this leverage to players hence the European exit.

Utter crap. New Zealanders are free to leave for Europe for the greater cash rewards. You want them to have their cake and eats it too.

By privatizing S14 franchises, the franchises would compete for the best players and for the sponsorship deals. It would at least create a real job market (albeit at New Zealand scale) and would probably slow down the trend.

A richer franchise would have the means to retain the best players by offering better wages but that is not possible in single employer market. A single employer will always flatten the salary differences.

If you expect us to base our model on Europe, where arrogant money-hungry clubs run the game and dictate terms to their national union as regards availability of players, you can whistle. Privatisation of Super 14 franchises would spell doom for our domestic competitions. There is neither the money nor the backers in New Zealand to make private ownership of S14 teams financially feasible.

 

[O'Rothlain]

Why can't they have their cake and eat it too?
Why are so many of you comfortable with that? Strictly talking National Team Eligibility, why can't players play outside their home union proffesionally as other nations? No one (I Feel) has put forward a good argument.

 

[Cymro]

For me as long as they qualify through living there for a certain time then its all good!

 

[C A Iversen]

Why can't they have their cake and eat it too?
Why are so many of you comfortable with that? Strictly talking National Team Eligibility, why can't players play outside their home union proffesionally as other nations? No one (I Feel) has put forward a good argument.
[/b]

I'm not going to bother with too detailed a response to this, as it seems you don't listen every bit as much as you say others don't. For just one example of a multitude of reasons, read esoj's comment.

Can you not understand? The Super 14 is one of our biggest revenue sources. Our competition will have even less ability to negotiate for more and in fact will be offered less if we don't have quality star-type players in our game down here. We then won't be able to pay even more players, and so it will go.

It's supreme arrogance to say that this isn't a problem and that there are "easy" answers. If we let as many players as want to go over to the UK/France/Japan, we will have at least 3 times the number of players leave. Our nation has 4 million people. It's impossible to sustain a loss like that.

So to answer your question, if we allow that, then players will see a different pathway to the All Blacks and get to it via an overseas career. That will kill our domestic game's quality at Super 14 & ANZC due to our quality players all leaving 2years into their career. It will also ruin the All Blacks as players will not have as much time together to form a cohesive unit.

I'm wasting my breath though. No reason will be enough. Your not here and you don't care if the All Blacks cease to be a major world rugby force. You have no reason to care and every reason to want to support the comps you follow. Supporting the financially strong against the gradually weakening.

Financial victory for other nations. What a bunch of heroes!

 

[errlloyd]

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't there a certain amount of weeks each year that all clubs HAVE to release players. I realize is not those weeks, but surely New Zealand can handle not having players in June as they will have them for their Try nations ?

 

[C A Iversen]

Once again ignoring my point........