It is currently Sun May 20, 2018 12:43 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
This is taking the pi55 
Author Message
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:09 am
Posts: 13812
Post Re: This is taking the pi55
I understand your concerns as regards peoples perceptions and expectations as regards Wales CAB. :thumbright:

_________________
As a scummer once said 'we dont produce anything and live meaningless lives doing meaningless jobs just to payback money that never really existed in the first place'.


Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:25 pm
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:09 am
Posts: 13812
Post Re: This is taking the pi55
Cymru am byth wrote:

We have a tendency to either think we are much better than we are or claim it is doom and gloom. To improve ourselves we need an honest assessment of our merits. As it is we will gloss over the problems of not winning against southern hemisphere teams and coming second in what was frankly an odd six nations (from 2nd to 5th) and not improve.

Yes I think the same.

_________________
As a scummer once said 'we dont produce anything and live meaningless lives doing meaningless jobs just to payback money that never really existed in the first place'.


Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:45 pm
Profile
World XV Player

Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:35 am
Posts: 8652
Post Re: This is taking the pi55
Troron wrote:
Not a fan of selecting him, the fact is the English premiership DOES have good flankers and players who operated well at the breakdown. The issue the that successive English coaches have refused to select them which has given the impression that we have no home grown talent up to the task. I'd be disappointed if Jones just plonks in Shields for our tour of SA with Robshaw or Haskell. I have a bad feeling Jones is not going to use the SA tour to give English players a chance and is going to continue to stick with the same group and same tactics. The fact it's taken coming 5th for him to even acknowledge there was a problem is kinda worrying when the signs have been there for over a year.

As for this situation, NZ don't really have a leg to stand on. WR rules explicitly say that if a player is eligible to play for a country then the clubs are not allowed to block him from being selected to play for them during the designated international windows. Doesn't matter what is in his contract, the contract is in breach of WR rules. The only reason this hasn't been an issue before is because a player based in NZ has not be called up to play for another international team whilst still being based in NZ. If it goes to court then WR will simply ask why they mandate all NZ club players sign a clause that directly contradicts WR rules on releasing players for internationals. I think if push comes to shove, WR will just declare that clause is null and void.


What :bs: Shields like all players has a contract with NZRU until Super rugby is finished.

You think that should be null and void because it suits you.

You're a dreamer


Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:50 pm
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:09 am
Posts: 13812
Post Re: This is taking the pi55
Justic wrote:
Troron wrote:
Not a fan of selecting him, the fact is the English premiership DOES have good flankers and players who operated well at the breakdown. The issue the that successive English coaches have refused to select them which has given the impression that we have no home grown talent up to the task. I'd be disappointed if Jones just plonks in Shields for our tour of SA with Robshaw or Haskell. I have a bad feeling Jones is not going to use the SA tour to give English players a chance and is going to continue to stick with the same group and same tactics. The fact it's taken coming 5th for him to even acknowledge there was a problem is kinda worrying when the signs have been there for over a year.

As for this situation, NZ don't really have a leg to stand on. WR rules explicitly say that if a player is eligible to play for a country then the clubs are not allowed to block him from being selected to play for them during the designated international windows. Doesn't matter what is in his contract, the contract is in breach of WR rules. The only reason this hasn't been an issue before is because a player based in NZ has not be called up to play for another international team whilst still being based in NZ. If it goes to court then WR will simply ask why they mandate all NZ club players sign a clause that directly contradicts WR rules on releasing players for internationals. I think if push comes to shove, WR will just declare that clause is null and void.


What :bs: Shields like all players has a contract with NZRU until Super rugby is finished.

You think that should be null and void because it suits you.

You're a dreamer

That seems like a fair point.

_________________
As a scummer once said 'we dont produce anything and live meaningless lives doing meaningless jobs just to payback money that never really existed in the first place'.


Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:10 am
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:00 am
Posts: 2514
Post Re: This is taking the pi55
Justic wrote:
What :bs: Shields like all players has a contract with NZRU until Super rugby is finished.

You think that should be null and void because it suits you.

You're a dreamer


And Super Rugby clubs are governed by WR rules like everyone else and those rules say clubs are not allowed to block players from playing for a country if they are eligible during the designated international windows. The clause in NZ based players contracts that prevent that directly contradict WR rules on the matter. So you think clubs should have the power to block players playing internationally?

_________________
Image


Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:12 am
Profile E-mail
World XV Player

Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:35 am
Posts: 8652
Post Re: This is taking the pi55
Troron wrote:
Justic wrote:
What :bs: Shields like all players has a contract with NZRU until Super rugby is finished.

You think that should be null and void because it suits you.

You're a dreamer


And Super Rugby clubs are governed by WR rules like everyone else and those rules say clubs are not allowed to block players from playing for a country if they are eligible during the designated international windows. The clause in NZ based players contracts that prevent that directly contradict WR rules on the matter. So you think clubs should have the power to block players playing internationally?


:sleepy2: Super rugby is NOT club rugby


Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:16 am
Profile
Online
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 7709
Post Re: This is taking the pi55
Justic wrote:
Troron wrote:
Justic wrote:
What :bs: Shields like all players has a contract with NZRU until Super rugby is finished.

You think that should be null and void because it suits you.

You're a dreamer


And Super Rugby clubs are governed by WR rules like everyone else and those rules say clubs are not allowed to block players from playing for a country if they are eligible during the designated international windows. The clause in NZ based players contracts that prevent that directly contradict WR rules on the matter. So you think clubs should have the power to block players playing internationally?


:sleepy2: Super rugby is NOT club rugby


I think Troron has a point though. I think by 'club' he is referring to any non-international side. My understanding is that if there is an IRB window, you can't prevent a player playing for the international team they have been selected for.

This is a dictate from the central body, of which NZRU are playing under and therefore (I assume) a rule by which the NZRU have to abide by as part of the condition for being part of World Rugby.

My understanding is that the NZ super rugby teams are taking RFU to court (or similar) to resolve this. The point being is whether the clause that NZ based players have to sign is legally allowed - i.e. are NZRU breaking the rules by including this within their contracts? So yes, Shield may be seen as being in breach of his contract but is the contract valid on this point? As Troron has said, I don't believe that this clause has been tested until now, as no NZ based player has been selected in this manner.

Clearly the RFU believe that they have a case which falls in line with the IRB ruling and clearly the NZ teams believe they have a case that sits with their contracts.

I would argue that such contractual nuances are beyond the scope of our knowledge on here (unless someone on here is a contract lawyer with decent knowledge of the contractual arrangementz). This is clearly one the experts will battle out. I have no knowldege or particular opinion on the matter but the above is my understanding of the facts.


Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:40 am
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:00 am
Posts: 2514
Post Re: This is taking the pi55
Justic wrote:
:sleepy2: Super rugby is NOT club rugby


Super rugby, regions, clubs, franchises, all follow the same WR rules on releasing players to international sides during the designated window. Outside that window they are allowed to block players playing for an international team but during the window a player must be allowed to play for the country if selected. Again you sidestepped the question, do you think Clubs, regions, franchises and any teams the player has a contract with should be able to block them from playing internationally with little more than a clause in the contract?

_________________
Image


Wed Apr 25, 2018 12:24 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 12:34 am
Posts: 15478
Location: Japan
Post Re: This is taking the pi55
Troron wrote:
Justic wrote:
What :bs: Shields like all players has a contract with NZRU until Super rugby is finished.

You think that should be null and void because it suits you.

You're a dreamer


And Super Rugby clubs are governed by WR rules like everyone else and those rules say clubs are not allowed to block players from playing for a country if they are eligible during the designated international windows. The clause in NZ based players contracts that prevent that directly contradict WR rules on the matter. So you think clubs should have the power to block players playing internationally?

When shields signed, he made himself eligible for NZ, and that was the reason he got a contract. He reneged on that deal and decided he was no longer eligible for NZ, mid contract, so I don’t see how the NZRFU can change anything. It’s a good system, and part of the reason NZ rugby is so strong.
I can’t see them stopping him as he’s been a good servant to NZ, but if they do, to give Jones a bit of shit, then I understand as well.
NZ wont block players from playing internationally, as all players contracted have put their names forward to play for NZ. This is a unique case and can’t really be seen as, “NZ blocking a player from playing international footy”. The player is at fault here, not the NZRFU.

_________________
Religion is like a penis.
It's fine to have one, and fine to be proud of it.
But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around,
And PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.


Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:57 am
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 12:34 am
Posts: 15478
Location: Japan
Post Re: This is taking the pi55
Troron wrote:
Justic wrote:
:sleepy2: Super rugby is NOT club rugby


Super rugby, regions, clubs, franchises, all follow the same WR rules on releasing players to international sides during the designated window. Outside that window they are allowed to block players playing for an international team but during the window a player must be allowed to play for the country if selected. Again you sidestepped the question, do you think Clubs, regions, franchises and any teams the player has a contract with should be able to block them from playing internationally with little more than a clause in the contract?

As far as the NZRFU are concerned, hes made himself available for NZ, he’s then changed his mind mid contract so he can play for another country. The NZRFU are simply trying to protect their system, otherwise anyone could sign knowing they won’t play for NZ and taking a place away from someone who will.

_________________
Religion is like a penis.
It's fine to have one, and fine to be proud of it.
But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around,
And PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.


Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:00 am
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:24 pm
Posts: 45408
Location: Llanharan
Post Re: This is taking the pi55
Changing his mind?

Wow.


Fri Apr 27, 2018 6:15 am
Profile
Online
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 7709
Post Re: This is taking the pi55
loosechange wrote:
Troron wrote:
Justic wrote:
:sleepy2: Super rugby is NOT club rugby


Super rugby, regions, clubs, franchises, all follow the same WR rules on releasing players to international sides during the designated window. Outside that window they are allowed to block players playing for an international team but during the window a player must be allowed to play for the country if selected. Again you sidestepped the question, do you think Clubs, regions, franchises and any teams the player has a contract with should be able to block them from playing internationally with little more than a clause in the contract?

As far as the NZRFU are concerned, hes made himself available for NZ, he’s then changed his mind mid contract so he can play for another country. The NZRFU are simply trying to protect their system, otherwise anyone could sign knowing they won’t play for NZ and taking a place away from someone who will.


Granted. Apologies for repeating myself but the underlying question is whether the contract that NZRU made that Shields signed is legally binding. I.e. does this ruling of tying players to NZ break w9rld rugby rules? I have no opinion either way but this is what the lawyers will look at.


Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:19 am
Profile E-mail
Online
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 7709
Post Re: This is taking the pi55
loosechange wrote:
Troron wrote:
Justic wrote:
:sleepy2: Super rugby is NOT club rugby


Super rugby, regions, clubs, franchises, all follow the same WR rules on releasing players to international sides during the designated window. Outside that window they are allowed to block players playing for an international team but during the window a player must be allowed to play for the country if selected. Again you sidestepped the question, do you think Clubs, regions, franchises and any teams the player has a contract with should be able to block them from playing internationally with little more than a clause in the contract?

As far as the NZRFU are concerned, hes made himself available for NZ, he’s then changed his mind mid contract so he can play for another country. The NZRFU are simply trying to protect their system, otherwise anyone could sign knowing they won’t play for NZ and taking a place away from someone who will.


Granted.

Apologies for repeating myself but the underlying question is whether the contract that NZRU made that Shields signed is legally binding. I.e. does this ruling of tying players to NZ break world rugby rules? I have no opinion either way but this is what the lawyers will look at.

If an employee signs a contract which is in breach of legislation, that contract in itself if illegal.


Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:19 am
Profile E-mail
Online
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 7709
Post Re: This is taking the pi55
By the way, the whole episode stinks. I think that Jones is stirring more shit than he needs to.


Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:23 am
Profile E-mail
International Player

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:24 pm
Posts: 1214
Post Re: This is taking the pi55
loosechange wrote:
As far as the NZRFU are concerned, hes made himself available for NZ, he’s then changed his mind mid contract so he can play for another country. The NZRFU are simply trying to protect their system, otherwise anyone could sign knowing they won’t play for NZ and taking a place away from someone who will.


I've asked before, which came first the World Rugby rule or the NZRFU contract clause. Anyone know?
If the WR rule came first then the NZ clause is irrelevant and they need to have another go at designing a protection system.
Though even if the NZ clause came first by signing up to the WR rule NZ should have then adjusted their contract clause to reflect what was required by the WR rule.


Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:58 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: