FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Toulon owner: Boudjellal has demanded that Springboks Bryan Habana, Bakkies Botha and Argentina flank Juan Martín Fernández Lobbe return to club or face not being paid.

Toulon owner: Boudjellal has demanded that Springboks Bryan Habana, Bakkies Botha and Argentina flank Juan Martín Fernández Lobbe return to club or face not being paid.

Started by kingcorn24 REPLIES2,238 VIEWS· 16 Sept 2014, 20:13
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
KI
kingcorn
Pro3,695 posts
KI
kingcornPro3,695 posts
16 Sept 2014, 20:13
#1
16 Sept 2014, 20:13#1

Why Springboks should be on Central contracts and loaned out.. 


Comments from the French Bafoon


"There is something that is quite simple - they defend the colours of their country and are paid rather comfortably by Toulon," he said.


"The IRB decided the rules. That's fine but I'm not here to fund South African and Argentine rugby and I will not.


"These players will return as we need them. If they do not and we receive no fee, they will not be paid by us because they will not be present in Toulon.


"We'll see if the rules of the IRB prevail or if it is the rules of the Labour Code for French private enterprise. In any case, it is an aberration.


"We have reached a stage where we have to ask the opinion of the French law. Therefore, we will ask the French judges whether a foreign federation has the right to take my employees and force me to pay them.


"It's just unthinkable we have players who are paid very well by us but cannot not play them. Moreover, I have to pay the players replacing them. This is a double sanction."


.... and from a South African point of view. The french are quite happy to raid foreign players without compensating for the investment that their countries and unions have invested in them. 


Why not pay the unions the value of player rather than just outbidding them on higher wages....

CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
16 Sept 2014, 20:29
#2
16 Sept 2014, 20:29#2
They would have SA by the short and curly.

There is something called IRB Regulation 9.

The problem is the stuffed-up SANZAR schedule. If they followed the NH model there would not be this kind of BS. The NH have their 6N competition that is not a long stretched out affair and they finish it without going beyond the International Release periods. They complete their European competitions and the have proper domestic seasons with no watered down crap with no international players and everybody is happy and they do not need to go beyond the International Release periods.

The International Release periods and Regulation 9 was agreed upon with all the role players involved. The SH release period is the whole of July and August but SANZAR have their internationals during mid August/Sept/Oct. They have to because of the monotonous S15 affair.


sharkbok
sharkbok
Captain23,294 posts
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,294 posts
16 Sept 2014, 20:58
#3
16 Sept 2014, 20:58#3
I remember this same person being in the news about 2 years ago demanding that Toulon players play for Toulon and not their countries. 
Although at the time it during the IRB international period. The IRB got involved and he shut up very quickly.
This is something that should be contractual and agreed from the outset. If it is outside the IRB international window and it was agreed that they must be available during this time, then not paying them seems fair enough. They are in breach of their contract. They are getting double salaries.It is then Sanzar is wrong, not the players or the clubs.

However earlier in the season Bok players returned to their French clubs against Scotland as this was outside the IRB period. Why not now?
From what the Toulon manager is saying that this is not outside the IRB international period. "We'll see if the rules of the IRB prevail."
So is it outside the IRB international period or not?

If it is not then this idiot can get lost. He should never have employed international players to begin within if the international tour is going to conflict with a "local club competition". 
KI
kingcorn
Pro3,695 posts
KI
kingcornPro3,695 posts
16 Sept 2014, 21:41
#4
16 Sept 2014, 21:41#4
 I can see the attraction of using foreign players as it means that you fill a gap when your local international players have to be released for 3 months. SA is the only top tier rugby union that selects foreign players where as England, Aus and New Zealand do not select players if they choose to play abroad. The French clubs will really moan when the above mentioned does the same as SA. On the other hand, SA has allowed for their domestic product being devalued by letting players play abroad but also not being able to hold onto players, which ends seeing juniors playing when you should have more players with the average of 27, not 28. I really hate the current Sanzar format, but I also hate that there are no clear international season. I theory their should be 16 weeks scheduled, split up into 2 stages. Have matches played in autumn and spring. Countries can schedule their season around that rather than have pointless international tours where the North send spent players. 
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
16 Sept 2014, 22:30
#5
16 Sept 2014, 22:30#5
 Zeromoron
There is something called Regulation 9 - and guess what the period of the RC is clearly defined in hat regulation.   It definitely is not the period quoted by you.   The NH countries will prefer the period July - Auigut.  Because you find it so hard to understand - I shakll quote the issue covering the RC:-
"Effective from 1 June 2012 a Tournament Release Period shall be introduced to be known as the Four Nations Release Period.  (c) Four Nations Release Period (i) The Right to Release for Matches shall apply to Players who are eligible pursuant to Regulation 8 to represent the senior, the next senior National Representative Team or the Under 20 National Representative Team of a Four Nations Union in the Four Nations International Tournament during the Four Nations Release Period. (ii) Unless Council approves otherwise the Four Nations Release Period shall operate each year for an eight week period. It shall commence on or around the third weekend in August and shall conclude on or around the first weekend in October each year. Players shall be released prior to the Four Nations Release Period in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 9.9."
The NH clubs will not play rugby in July and August - but whjhat make yoiu think that they can prescribe theri programme to the SH countries.  Also you talk a load of unadulterated rubbish.   The Super series last from middle February to the first week in June and then there are a few matches in July.   It is not the garbage that you come up with - utter crap. 
So please - get some sense into you brain cell or shut up.     

CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
16 Sept 2014, 22:42
#6
16 Sept 2014, 22:42#6
 Sharkbok 
Ceradyne is talking crp - I gave an extract from the IRB regulations covering the RC.  It is covered clearly by the regulations - so the issue would have to be reolved by Toulon. 
The Clubs in Europe are really getting to big for their boots - they better shut up or they will find themselves in hot water with thir boards.   This threat is not a problem in any event.    Bakkies is not playeing and wont be playing -- so he cn go.  Smith was already released.   Morne should also be sent packing.   Same with Gruthro Steenkamp and Schalk Britz.   
In the startng line up last week there was only Habana, Pienaar and Louw in the team - there were no other foreign players used.   I blieve that the foreign complement should be reduced and only the players that would reasonably make the smatch day 23 should be released to play.   The RC has been going for a month now and Bakkies for instance played in one match and then vanished from the scene.   It is clear Morne will not be abck this year and I think the same with Gurthro.  Why keep them if they are not going to be used?
Thi could in fact be more of a problem - if the NH clubs prove that players are in squads - but not used -0 there ccan be repercussi ons.       
sharkbok
sharkbok
Captain23,294 posts
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,294 posts
16 Sept 2014, 22:55
#7
16 Sept 2014, 22:55#7
Agreed, Bakkies, Schalk Britz and Steenkamp are a waist of time. No point including them in the squad when they are not even in the match day squad. Much better to include younger players that are playing in South Africa.
Boudjellal sounds like an idiot. He is just a big mouth millionare trying to flex his muscles. If it is within the IRB schedule which appears to be the case, he has no authority. 

I wonder if the IRB could sanction him for trying to put pressure on international players. What ever he is saying in the media, must be much less severe to what he is saying to the players. 

CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
16 Sept 2014, 23:12
#8
16 Sept 2014, 23:12#8
 Sharkbok
Th problem is that Boudjellal can take the matter to the French equivalent of the Labour Court.   but that is unlikely to happen.   However, the Clubs have a point - why keep players in a squad if there is no rel intention to use them?
The latter will have to be proved - and it would be quite difficult to do so - but still they can try and claimm money from SARU for that one - since it technically amounts to a breach of the regulations - any legal document has intent as its core and if the intent is not there - there could be repercussions.   
Toulon did not do too well thus far as I understand it - and they obviously want their players back.   I do noit think much would happen - since the RC ends in less than a month in any event.   Any Labour Court case would take months to finalize and there could be problems from the FFR as well as the IRB.   The problem of the Clubs is that they know what was in the regulations when they signed the contracts and they went in nonetheless - so their case would be weak at best.
 
sharkbok
sharkbok
Captain23,294 posts
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,294 posts
16 Sept 2014, 23:36
#9
16 Sept 2014, 23:36#9
Clevermike, I can only see it being dealt with at a national level between French club and SA players, because I doubt their is an international jurisdiction between a French Club and SARU other than the IRB itself as the governing body of the game. 
Also, their is unlikely to be an contract between these 2 bodies (SARU and French Clubs) anyway. Only contracts between SARU and the Player, and the French Club and the player. It is like having 2 employment contracts at the same time and getting double pay. The labour laws of each country would only apply in their own countries, and would have no other jurisdiction.
I agree on the point that the clubs would have known from the outset that signing a test level player is going to have risks that they will be unavailable during the test season window. Especially a player from the Southern Hemisphere with a different club competition schedule. 
I also agree that their is little that the Labour courts could do. Even if the current signed contracts were not explicit as to when the player (employee) can play tests, or cant play tests. The precedent of the case is that the international players have allways been made available by French clubs for the test season, except when it is outside the test window specified by the IRB (Like the Scotland test earlier in the season). This is in itself should be legally binding under the contracts which the players would have at the moment. Perhaps future contracts would be different, but then the IRB might then get involved....
The IRB may start flexing their muscles shortly. As the governing body of the game they may be able to place sanctions on the Toulon and even get them kicked out of competitions. Not sure how much power the IRB have. The IRB can for example prohibit a player found guilty of violent or unsporting conduct of not playing any rugby for a certain amount of time, or even for ever. This is at any level of the game. Why then not a club?
BE
becs
Pro4,378 posts
BE
becsPro4,378 posts
16 Sept 2014, 23:40
#10
16 Sept 2014, 23:40#10
Oh this is fun, isn't it    
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
17 Sept 2014, 00:02
#11
17 Sept 2014, 00:02#11
Mike. I apologise. I did not have the latest version of Regulation 9. This is the one that I had:


(b) Southern Hemisphere Release Period
(i) The Right to Release for Matches shall apply to
Players
who are eligible pursuant to Regulation 8 to repres
ent the
senior, the next senior National Representative Tea
m or
the Under 20 National Representative Team of a Sout
hern
Hemisphere Union in a Southern Hemisphere Internati
onal
Match, International Tour or International Tourname
nt
during the Southern Hemisphere Release Period.
(ii) Unless Council approves otherwise the Southern
Hemisphere Release Period shall operate each year.
It shall
commence on or around July 1 and shall conclude on
or
around August 31. Players shall be released prior t
o the
Southern Hemisphere Release Period in accordance wi
th
the provisions of Regulation 9.9.

It has since been updated and is in the latest IRB handbook and it is correct in the way that you have quoted it.

http://www.irb.com/irbuploader/ePubs/Handbook/Website_Content/140701_English/#/158/

SH
Shezza
Pro2,471 posts
SH
ShezzaPro2,471 posts
17 Sept 2014, 00:07
#12
17 Sept 2014, 00:07#12
Habana has got a clause in his contract and the French court are also likely to favour the players.
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Sept 2014, 00:16
#13
17 Sept 2014, 00:16#13
 Sharkbok
I think the only contracts at play here is between the Clubs and the players.   There is no second contract between the players and SARU.   I think that is controlled by the IRB regulations - but a player can still refuse to play for the Springboks if selected - but that is unlikely to happen.   
The seond contract may be between the Super 15 franchises and the SA players - eg when they would be available to play for these franchises outside of the NH club season, but I doubt whether those will not be covered in the initial player contract in any event - eg was the case with JP Pietersen and a lot of Japanese club players who play for the SA franchises during the Japan off season.   That would mean that the contract between for instance the Japanese club and Pietersen has a specific clause allowing for Pietersen to play for the SA Franchises in the Japanese off season.   
The only player from the overseas crowd who still have a contract with SARU would be Francois  Steyn - but I think that one will be terminated when the contract period expires in any event.     
Since the employment contract has the employer as a French institution - the French cpourts will have jusridiction in this case.    I assume - like in normal contracts - the contract will contain a provision indicating which court system will deal with the contract compliance conditions on both sides.     
This can become complicated from a legal perspective - but I do not think much will come out of the said report.   
BE
becs
Pro4,378 posts
BE
becsPro4,378 posts
17 Sept 2014, 00:28
#14
17 Sept 2014, 00:28#14
Toulon are ravaged by injury. They even discussed Wilkinson coming out of retirement to help out, but he refused. I should imagine this will be interesting because this chap doesn't give up easily !   
SA
Saffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
17 Sept 2014, 00:56
#15
17 Sept 2014, 00:56#15
 That's one way of getting rid of dead wood like bakkies
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Sept 2014, 01:09
#16
17 Sept 2014, 01:09#16
 Dofdoos
Read fiurther down the regulations where the issue of the RC is dealt with in detail and the time frames given- dimwit.   One can see that you never took Interpretation fo Law as a subject - you cannot read a part of a regulation and then sys - that is the interpretation.    
Since the RC is dealt with in detail - the general position does not apply - so get a life and start understanding the elgal framewrok.   
This si not the firsttime you buggered up copletely about this issue.   I thought you would have learnt something by now.
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
17 Sept 2014, 01:12
#17
17 Sept 2014, 01:12#17
 I had a downloaded copy of the previous version of the Regulation. I have admitted that I made mistake, haven't I? What more do you want of me? Tell you what. Why don't you go back the the thread about Steyn and Goosen and do the same?

Please feel free to list my "bugger-ups" and then we can compare notes. Remember the time when you disappeared after challenging me to list your bugger-ups?
sharkbok
sharkbok
Captain23,294 posts
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,294 posts
17 Sept 2014, 23:28
#18
17 Sept 2014, 23:28#18

Mourad Boudjellal has demanded that Bryan Habana and Bakkies Botha quit the Springboks' Rugby Championship campaign and report for club duty.

Toulon recently lost 28-24 to Stade Français, and currently sit at third on the Top 14 log. Their president is clearly not pleased with his side's form at present, and has publicly lamented the club's lengthy list of injuries as well as the absence of international stars like Habana, Botha, and Pumas flanker Juan Martin Fernandez Lobbe.

The three Test players are currently competing in the Rugby Championship, which is sanctioned by the IRB. Clubs have to release the players who are selected by their countries during the specified Test window.

And yet, the French publication Varmatin reports that the Toulon president is not happy following his club's home defeat to Stade Français. Boudjellal has demanded that Habana, Botha, and Lobbe all return to France by the end of the week or face the consequence of not being paid.

The law, at least as far as the IRB is concerned, is on the side of these players, as well as the Test teams that have selected them for the duration of the Rugby Championship.

Boudjellal, however, has said he is willing to take the matter to court. He feels that clubs like Toulon should be compensated during an IRB-sanctioned Test window.

'There is something that is quite simple, they defend the colours of their country and are paid rather comfortably by Toulon,' Boudjellal said.

'The IRB decided the rules. That’s fine but I’m not here to fund South African and Argentine rugby and I will not. These players will return as we need them. If they do not and we receive no fee, they will not be paid by us because they will not be present in Toulon.

'We’ll see if the rules of the IRB prevail or if it is the rules of the Labour Code for French private enterprise,' he added. 'In any case, it is an aberration.

'We have reached a stage where we have to ask the opinion of the French law. Therefore, we will ask the French judges whether a foreign federation has the right to take my employees and force me to pay them.

'It’s just unthinkable we have players who are paid very well by us but cannot not play them. Moreover, I have to pay the players replacing them. This is a double sanction.'

Toulon have also threatened to terminate the contract of Wales fullback Leigh Halfpenny, who is yet to play for the club due to a series of serious injuries.

sharkbok
sharkbok
Captain23,294 posts
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,294 posts
17 Sept 2014, 23:32
#19
17 Sept 2014, 23:32#19
He is a total twat. Apparently he wants to terminate the contract of Leigh Halfpenny because he is injured. He clearly does not care much about a employers responsibilities. 
FO
ForeverArizona
Club Pro580 posts
FO
ForeverArizonaClub Pro580 posts
17 Sept 2014, 23:34
#20
17 Sept 2014, 23:34#20
 Do we really care what the French has to say....tell them to pi.s.s.o.f.f end eff.
BE
becs
Pro4,378 posts
BE
becsPro4,378 posts
17 Sept 2014, 23:36
#21
17 Sept 2014, 23:36#21
Halfpenny has yet to play.They have paid him for nothing, in his eyes.It all amounts to whether he was likely to play this Season or not and if that was known when he signed for the Club, ie if his medical was untruthful.He says he refuses to simply pay him to sit around and then get him fit to play for Wales in the RWC. 
We shall see. 
sharkbok
sharkbok
Captain23,294 posts
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,294 posts
17 Sept 2014, 23:45
#22
17 Sept 2014, 23:45#22
I thought clubs had their own people to do medicals before the contract is concluded. If not, then I doubt they could ever prove when a player was injured. He could have slipped on a banana peel a few days after signing the contract
BE
becs
Pro4,378 posts
BE
becsPro4,378 posts
17 Sept 2014, 23:48
#23
17 Sept 2014, 23:48#23
 That is for Halfpenny's people and the Club to thrash out !!! 
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Sept 2014, 23:59
#24
17 Sept 2014, 23:59#24
Sharkbok
TThis is a load of utter BS - obn all counts.   First of all the guy knew full well the situation as to the IRB regulations when they signed Habana and that was taken into account when they signed that contract with him.   They could have reduced his payments to cater for absences on national duty and they did not or if they duid it did not feature in Habana's contract.   
Secondly - all players have to pass their future employe's medical check and if they did and the contract is signed, the contractor suffered.   They certainly must have taken out insurance to cove rpotential injuries to highly-paid players - they woulfd be bloody fools if they did not.  If Halfpenny was injured after soigning of the contract - but before he joined the club - there should have ben an escape clause in the contract.    If there was not - then this guy should change his lawyers - they are up to no good.
Once Halfpenny in fact assumed duty with the Club - and he got injured in training or otherwise - the Club will have to pay him.
I know the EU  has some really quaint laws pretecting especially the contract employees - and being harsh on emmployers - and France will be subjected to those. So this is a storm in a teacup and the actual outcome would be zero.    What a farce - and all that because they lost some matches.     
 
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
18 Sept 2014, 00:00
#25
18 Sept 2014, 00:00#25
Sharkbok
TThis is a load of utter BS - obn all counts.   First of all the guy knew full well the situation as to the IRB regulations when they signed Habana and that was taken into account when they signed that contract with him.   They could have reduced his payments to cater for absences on national duty and they did not or if they duid it did not feature in Habana's contract.   
Secondly - all players have to pass their future employe's medical check and if they did and the contract is signed, the contractor suffered.   They certainly must have taken out insurance to cove rpotential injuries to highly-paid players - they woulfd be bloody fools if they did not.  If Halfpenny was injured after soigning of the contract - but before he joined the club - there should have ben an escape clause in the contract.    If there was not - then this guy should change his lawyers - they are up to no good.
Once Halfpenny in fact assumed duty with the Club - and he got injured in training or otherwise - the Club will have to pay him.
I know the EU  has some really quaint laws pretecting especially the contract employees - and being harsh on emmployers - and France will be subjected to those. So this is a storm in a teacup and the actual outcome would be zero.    What a farce - and all that because they lost some matches.     
 
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news