Exodus 2018
-
@steven-harris Alaimalo is looking like an excellent signing - as long as he doesn't get snapped up by the ABs!
Trying to get rid of Ta$man and Northland was Steve Tew's greatest failure!
-
@chris-b Alaimalo like James Lowes has a very big kick,only difference being a right footer Northland were very poor in terms of recognising his ability with the boot especially when exiting the red zone..your right about being a chance in the ABs,in my opinion he’s got more of a skill set than Ben Lam and can play wing or fullback equally well..
-
@steven-harris ya reckon? Only thing I can see he has over Lam is age. Lam is way ahead in decision making and fairly ahead in most other departments.
-
@antipodean said in Exodus 2018:
If Shields plays for England, I'll swallow my knob. Eddie's too good a coach to select a bloke with toasters for hands.
FERBS
-
I thought at the time that was a reckless post by @antipodean I hope he’s getting the seasoning ready
-
@catogrande said in Exodus 2018:
I thought at the time that was a reckless post by @antipodean I hope he’s getting the seasoning ready
The fern never forgets
-
@catogrande said in Exodus 2018:
I thought at the time that was a reckless post by @antipodean I hope he’s getting the seasoning ready
He doesn't need seasoning. He has already assessed the situation and believes he can swallow it whole.
Perhaps just a glass of water at the ready in case he chokes. -
@machpants said in Exodus 2018:
As far as I know that's not true, all unions are required to release eligible players for international duties during the windows. It doesn't matter that he's playing in France, NZ or Outer Mongolia - you have to be released. Shields is eligible for both the UK and NZ under World Rugby rules, so if wither of those calls him up - and he wants to go- his club has to release him. Canes and NZRU have to. That's World Rugby rules which trump any clause he's signed in his contract. Compensation is not required by WR rules and the NZRU would be in breach of WR regs if they tried to stop him, same as if they played Owen Farrell in an international.
As I read it, his contract with the NZRU required no clause releasing him for international duties as he was expected to be under their control (NZ Teams). By declaring availability for England he is walking away from that contract and NZ Rugby are under no obligation to continue to employ him further. Hurricanes may find themselves with one less player.
NZR may not be able to stop him playing for England but they can say 'you signed a contract committing yourself to NZ', going to play for England makes that contract null and void. -
@crucial said in Exodus 2018:
@catogrande said in Exodus 2018:
I thought at the time that was a reckless post by @antipodean I hope he’s getting the seasoning ready
He doesn't need seasoning. He has already assessed the situation and believes he can swallow it whole.
Perhaps just a glass of water at the ready in case he chokes.From what I’ve heard the last bit is unlikely.
-
@catogrande said in Exodus 2018:
I thought at the time that was a reckless post by @antipodean I hope he’s getting the seasoning ready
I'm intrigued about the logistics.
-
@crucial said in Exodus 2018:
@machpants said in Exodus 2018:
As far as I know that's not true, all unions are required to release eligible players for international duties during the windows. It doesn't matter that he's playing in France, NZ or Outer Mongolia - you have to be released. Shields is eligible for both the UK and NZ under World Rugby rules, so if wither of those calls him up - and he wants to go- his club has to release him. Canes and NZRU have to. That's World Rugby rules which trump any clause he's signed in his contract. Compensation is not required by WR rules and the NZRU would be in breach of WR regs if they tried to stop him, same as if they played Owen Farrell in an international.
As I read it, his contract with the NZRU required no clause releasing him for international duties as he was expected to be under their control (NZ Teams). By declaring availability for England he is walking away from that contract and NZ Rugby are under no obligation to continue to employ him further. Hurricanes may find themselves with one less player.
NZR may not be able to stop him playing for England but they can say 'you signed a contract committing yourself to NZ', going to play for England makes that contract null and void.That's where I was going @Crucial. Shields will be in breach of contract. NZR could either say "You're fired!" or decide to pay him fuck all as his value to NZR would suddenly be significantly reduced.
-
But the contract would be illegal under World Rugby rules, that's the problem. Not under employment law, I have no idea about that, but under WR law. Contacts are only binding if they are legal, I don't think that clause is legal, at all. The NZRU is breaking WR rules by putting a clause in a contract that forbids a player being released for an international team he is qualified for. If push came to shove NZRU would have to back down, and that is why I don't think they'll test it, because they use that clause to keep dual nationals that haven't been captured inside SR squads. And there are a lot of SR players in that boat for the Pacific Islands.
-
@bones said in Exodus 2018:
@catogrande said in Exodus 2018:
I thought at the time that was a reckless post by @antipodean I hope he’s getting the seasoning ready
I'm intrigued about the logistics.
Like whether he plans to eat it on or off the bone?
-
@machpants said in Exodus 2018:
But the contract would be illegal under World Rugby rules, that's the problem.
Nope. Check the Regs
*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, including any extension thereof, provided that, prior to the execution of any such written agreement, the following conditions were satisfied:
(a) The Player had reached the age of majority. For the purposes of the Regulation(s), the age of majority shall be deemed to be acquired by a Player on his 18th birthday.
(b) Pursuant to Regulation 8, the Player was eligible to represent the senior or next senior National Representative Team of the Union with which he has entered into the written agreement and at least one other Union, (i.e., as a minimum requirement the Player had dual Union eligibility status).
(c) The Player had not represented the senior or next senior National Representative Team of any Union in any of the Matches or Tours specified in Regulation 8.3.
(d) As evidenced by completion of the standard form certification set out in Attachment 1, the Player received independent legal advice on the terms of the written agreement. In particular, the fact that in signing the written agreement the Player was acknowledging and accepting that during the course of the written agreement, and any extension thereof, he was foregoing his right to represent the senior or next senior National Representative Team of any other Union for which he may be eligible.
If, subject to compliance with the conditions set out in this Regulation 9.38, a Player’s written agreement so provides, then that 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 the written agreement, or any extension thereof and during such period the Union with whom the Player is contracted shall have no obligation to release the Player to another Union.*
-
-
@nepia said in Exodus 2018:
@steven-harris said in Exodus 2018:
Shannon Frizell
Is he qualified for NZ?
I understand from the article below, that he came to NZ on a Ta$man Mako development contract in 2015. So he meets or he will meet the 3-year residency requirement this year. Just don't know from which month.
-
@crucial Well that looks pretty cut and dried, I was totally wrong, apologies. Fkn weird that neither England nor WR seem to know about it
"That regulation is relevant in this case," a World Rugby source told The Telegraph in Britain as they investigated the ramifications of New Zealand digging their heels in over Shields.
It was a similar line at The Guardian who reported on Friday: "When asked if the Hurricanes would be obliged to release Shields if England wanted to select him, the Guardian was told by World Rugby that was 'absolutely the case'."
-
It's not really a battle though is it...sheesh.
It's about when he gets to play for England, it ain't like abs are sneakily looking to cap him to deny him to England.
I think NZ should fight it if they have grounds to, but no way they come out of this looking good imo.
Fight it people think they are petty, let him go people think we have bowed to England.
Which is why we should release him but ask for some form of compensation (just as a token) given this situation is a little different to most international windows.
-
I don't mind if the NZRU are petty about it. I also don't mind if they aren't.
Being petty means they disrupt a major rival's RWC prep by meaning they can't look at/integrate a player until 3 windows out from RWC instead of 4 windows out.
The RFU and Eddie Jones are being pretty cheeky.
I don't mind making them work a bit harder for their poaches.
I'm quite surprised that clause 9.38 exists
