2017-18 World Sevens Series
-
@damo said in 2017-18 World Sevens Series:
@stargazer said in 2017-18 World Sevens Series:
@booboo said in 2017-18 World Sevens Series:
"By naming him in the All Blacks Sevens team it appears that NZR doesn't think his contract with the Warriors holds any value. Contracts signed by a minor (under 18) are not deemed binding in New Zealand.
However Nanai-Seturo is understood to have signed his agreement in conjunction with his parents and an agent so age should be irrelevant."
League media suggesting laws shouldn't count ...
Is that true though? The law doesn't say that contracts signed by a minor are not deemed binding in New Zealand. A contract signed by a minor is not enforceable against a minor, which is something else. Also, if he is 18, he is not a minor anymore. This could be a continuing legal battle.
Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017
Contractual capacity of minors
86 Contracts unenforceable against minors but otherwise have effect
(1) Every contract entered into by a minor is unenforceable against the minor but otherwise has effect as if the minor were of full age.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a contract to which section 92(1) applies.
(3) This section is subject to sections 87 to 91.Any contract lawyers on the Fern?
Contracts against minors are enforceable only to the extent that they are fair, reasonable and in the interests of the minor. See in particular
section 88 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2017/0005/21.0/DLM6844198.html). The presumption is that they are unenforceable but this is rebuttable by the side wanting to enforce it if they can show the contract is fair and reasonable (or at least the part they want to enforce is fair and reasonable).I would not like to speculate too much, but my instinct is that the length of time and the age in which he signed make this probably unenforceable against the player. A football player at 15 is not really in a position to lock himself into a club for 5 years where other options may present themselves.
On the other hand, the Warriors might point to the facts (AIUI):
-
that the parents and an agent were involved in the preparation of the agreement
-
the contract has already been partly performed (ie he has trained with the Warriors and been a part of their systems), meaning that Nanai-Seturo has probably already benefited a great deal from the contract already.
I suspect that the NZR and the Warriors will come to an arrangement that will sort it out fairly quickly. It's murky, neither side is guaranteed to win and if the Warriors won they would have a reluctant player anyway, so I would imagine NZR will write a small cheque and it will be smiles all round.
I'm with the Warriors on this one. You sign someone up at that age for that long, and all the value you get from it is at the last couple of years of the contract. What you are paying for at 15 is locking them in for the full contract term, so you can realise that value.
-
-
-
@bovidae Yes, a home win would be awesome. It's a pity the women aren't playing in Hamilton. It would be great to see the BF7s playing at home. If there's no official women's leg of the series in NZ, I wonder why NZR didn't organise an exhibition match like they' did in Wellington a few years back.
-
Portia has been outspoken about the lack of opportunity to play at home. Whether Tew and the other suits are listening is another question.
NZ won 9 of the 18 Wellington sevens but took 4 years to win their first. They lost twice in the finals, including year 1.
-
@bovidae It's a bit odd. We've consistently been in the Top 2 for years, and don't have a women's tournament in NZ, while there are two tournaments in North America (Canada & USA in non-RWC Sevens years), one in France and one in Japan (and obviously Sydney).
Japan, promoted to the core group at the end of the 2016-17 Series, will be struggling to stay in the core group this season, but has a tournament, because of .... growing the game in Asia? And the two tournaments in N America in regular years, because of ... money?
Also odd is that they reduce the number of legs from 6 to 5 in the women's series in years with a major event, like the Olympics and this year the Commonwealth Games and RWC Sevens, but they don't do this in the men's Series. Wonder why they're doing that. Maybe because not all women's teams are professional? Surely it's not work load, there's plenty of time in-between tournaments. Can't imagine it's cost, because the Olympics and Commonwealth Games are organised by different organisations, not World Rugby.
-
@bovidae said in 2017-18 World Sevens Series:
NZ won 9 of the 18 Wellington sevens but took 4 years to win their first. They lost twice in the finals, including year 1.
At least now we have a men's team again that is capable of winning a tournament. I think SA and Fiji aren't as good as previous years, and Australia and NZ look better. The Argies have improved, too.
-
-
-
@bovidae Geezus, what a crap article again, especially that title. Stuff has a habit of writing articles with fake news titles, in which they twist the facts in order to solicit anti-women's rugby/sports comments. And that obviously all for the clicks! Looking at the comments, that has worked again.
Either that, or they don't know the difference between association and causation. The extra costs may coincide with integrating the men's and women's event (association), but that doesn't necessarily mean that that has caused the extra cost. The men-only event in Cape Town also didn't attract big crowds in the early games, and that's where they staged the women's games in Sydney. And boo-hoo, the date was close to Australia Day; we have a men's leg of the Series close to Waitangi Day every year. Hamilton is sold out, and not because it's a men-only event. And that Foo Fighters concert being a reason, don't make me laugh. There are big name concerts all over Summer every year, nothing new. Step up your marketing.
At least they're mentioning that the Fox Sports ratings have gone up by 13 percent.
The women's final drew 62,000 viewers on Sunday afternoon while the men drew 70,000 - a solid result given it was competing with the Australian Open tennis final and the ODI cricket between Australia and England. -
-
The 700k figure is a bit misleading, as it assumes the crowd would be identical if the event were held on the same weekend as last year.
Ultimately the event suffered a little bit of third year syndrome. The long weekend didn't help (plenty of people went out of town), but after the phenomenal success of the first two years I think a chunk of that crowd would have given the event a miss this year - they'd 'ticked it off the list' and wouldn't feel the need to return.
I think 7s events have a bit of a shelf life in a city (with the exception of Hong Kong) and RA would be smart to move it every 3-4 years to keep it fresh. Wellington is a good example of what not to do, though I acknowledge all the other factors at play there.
53k is still a pretty decent crowd, considering how poor the event was before it moved to Sydney.
-
You have some good ideas in there @barbarian. It would be better to have an Australian sevens, a NZ sevens, etc and move it around each year. It is a festival event and most people don't want a rinse and repeat (apart from HKG as mentioned).
If you could get your people to talk to the IRB, I will book my tickets for the Queenstown sevens.
-
-
