NIQ issue resurfaces

[Leargas]

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthre ... p=79498652

Looks like the blazers have some serious thinking to do.

[taz]

A rugby Bosman on the way.

[busby]

What i found most bizzare was that the IRFU came out and made a public announcement on the new regulations. Why the hell did they do that, when we always knew restrictions on non-national workers were against EU law?

[Clubman]

If anyone ever worked with a club bringing in a NIQ player, you'd know there are lots of obstacles and quite a bit of skid greasing has to be done to end up with an accomplished fact. The reality probably is that islanders would be far more legitimate imports than NZ or OZ players. The report even mentions freedom of movement within the EU - obviously relating to a different situation altogether. From personal experience, it sounds top me like we're talking apples and oranges here.

[Bitter As A Lemon]

All they need to do here, is reverse the wording, and make it a pre-requisite that 90% of the squad is home-grown, or something of that nature.

[Balla Boy]

All they need to do here, is reverse the wording, and make it a pre-requisite that 90% of the squad is home-grown, or something of that nature.

I'd take a ball park swing that a trained legal eye would see through that defence.

You're either allowed to discriminate on grounds of nationality or you're not - the formulation of your quota isn't the issue.

I can see why the IRFU could end up with issues regarding EU players, but I'm not sure why it's being discussed now. They've operated a quota system for quite a while.

Is it the issue around the non-renewal of contracts for NIQ's that's brought it to the fore? It does strike me as being more contentious.

There's a world of difference between not signing someone on the grounds of nationality (who's ever going to be able to prove that the decision was based on that?) and terminating someone's employment on that basis.

[Bitter As A Lemon]

I guess maybe you are right on, the grounds of allowing players to re-sign, and that is probably the illegal piece.
There are so many comptitions now, that have a "home-grown" type rule in their Participation agreements, and to be honest I am in favour of them.

[Balla Boy]

I guess maybe you are right on, the grounds of allowing players to re-sign, and that is probably the illegal piece.
There are so many comptitions now, that have a "home-grown" type rule in their Participation agreements, and to be honest I am in favour of them.

And the EU does seem to tolerate them, whatever way the law stands. It's always going to be a bit odd in sport, given that no one is in fixed employment - they're all on fixed term contracts with clauses that govern dismissal, performance etc and no one is ever going to be automatically entitled to a new contract offer.

By ruling out the possibility, regardless of performace, I think the IRFU has complicated things.

[overthehillprop]

The ERC and certainly the Celtic League (not sure about the English Premiership and French Top 14) already have rules about the number of non EU players allowable in a match day squad. Any case would have to be taken by a person with EU qualifications (EU resident or under Kolpac) and therefore be able to claim that they were discrimenated against because of their nationality. The provinces ain't going to raise the case as they would effectively be taking a court case against themselves. Nathan Hines was the perfect case and nothing was done about it. He wanted to stay at Leinster, leinster wanted him to stay but the IRFU said no and he has spoken about this very publicly.

[Munsterboy]

I reckon the IRFU could reasonably challenge any assertion that they are discriminating on the grounds of nationality. After all, being Irish qualified does not require one to be an Irish citizen, it simply requires a player to have lived in Ireland for three consecutive years and not to have represented another country at senior international level.

They can point to numerous foreign players who are not excluded by their rules and could probably even find one or two Irish players who are. The Irish team even represents more than one country!

[<BM>]

I reckon the IRFU could reasonably challenge any assertion that they are discriminating on the grounds of nationality. After all, being Irish qualified does not require one to be an Irish citizen, it simply requires a player to have lived in Ireland for three consecutive years and not to have represented another country at senior international level.

They can point to numerous foreign players who are not excluded by their rules and could probably even find one or two Irish players who are. The Irish team even represents more than one country!

This may just be enough to swing it in the IRFU's favour, particularly since there is an official policy of developing project players to become Irish qualified, they may however have to remove the restrictions on the number of project players.

[mikerob]

I'd have thought that the commission's primary concern is discrimination between EU citizens... so if an NIQ EU citizen didn't get a provincial contract renewed, the IRFU could say, yes, we are discriminating on the basis of IQ/NIQ, and that has nothing to do with citizenship.

Ironically, if the IRFU gave a really vague reason for not renewing a contract, like great player, but doesn't fit within the direction we want to take the squad, there wouldn't be anything the commission could do about it.

[MrsMcGahan]

I reckon the IRFU could reasonably challenge any assertion that they are discriminating on the grounds of nationality. After all, being Irish qualified does not require one to be an Irish citizen, it simply requires a player to have lived in Ireland for three consecutive years and not to have represented another country at senior international level.

They can point to numerous foreign players who are not excluded by their rules and could probably even find one or two Irish players who are. The Irish team even represents more than one country!

Problem is that as some foreign imports are top players the argument will look laughably thin if the player concerned has played brilliantly. But I don't think it will come to that. The NIQ/project player issue is a work in progress to some extent and there will be wriggle room in necessary cases. The blazers want to see max Irish players available but the success of the provinces is also vital.

[mikerob]

Problem is that as some foreign imports are top players the argument will look laughably thin if the player concerned has played brilliantly. But I don't think it will come to that. The NIQ/project player issue is a work in progress to some extent and there will be wriggle room in necessary cases. The blazers want to see max Irish players available but the success of the provinces is also vital.

But being a brilliant player doesn't entitle you to a contract... the employer could be quite justified saying they don't fit within the direction they want to take the squad, they want to reduce their wage bill, they want to develop a younger player and so on...

[MrsMcGahan]

But being a brilliant player doesn't entitle you to a contract... the employer could be quite justified saying they don't fit within the direction they want to take the squad, they want to reduce their wage bill, they want to develop a younger player and so on...

But they would say that..........
Courts are not entirely brainless.
If Hines for example had brought a case (with a nod and wink from the Ladys) who would have believed that argument?
Especially given the ongoing prominence of the NIQ issue .
(hint: the answer is NOBODY)
Without Hines the girlz would not have won that HEC. Laughable to pretend that the European cup winners are now dispensing with a key player on a magical mystery adventure to God knows where.

[overthehillprop]

But they would say that..........
Courts are not entirely brainless.
If Hines for example had brought a case (with a nod and wink from the Ladys) who would have believed that argument?
(hint: the answer is NOBODY)
Without Hines the girlz would not have won that HEC. Laughable to pretend that the European cup winners are now dispensing with a key player on a magical mystery adventure to God knows where.

they did alright without Hines the following season and thats the arguement blown out of the water.

[MrsMcGahan]

they did alright without Hines the following season and thats the arguement blown out of the water.

Allah help us.
And Thorn was a mirage? Thorn, parachuted in precisely because the No 5 jersey was a problem.........So much for your argu(E)ment.

I can see Hines in court with a parade of expert pundits rubbishing the IRFU case. If the Ladys gave him tacit encouragement, and given the context (NIQ controversy) IRFU likely to lose.
Nobody would believe them.

note to self: don't ask OTHP for legal advice

[overthehillprop]

Allah help us.
And Thorn was a mirage? Thorn, parachuted in precisely because the No 5 jersey was a problem.........So much for your argu(E)ment.

I can see Hines in court with a parade of expert pundits rubbishing the IRFU case. If the Ladys gave him tacit encouragement, and given the context (NIQ controversy) IRFU likely to lose.
Nobody would believe them.

note to self: don't ask OTHP for legal advice

Thorn was not a replacement for Hines and was short term injury cover according to Leinster and the IRFU.

As for your case that Leinster would attempt to bite the hands that feed them in terms of funding

[MrsMcGahan]

Up! OTHP, dig up!!

[Cathal]

Thorn was not a replacement for Hines and was short term injury cover according to Leinster and the IRFU.

As for your case that Leinster would attempt to bite the hands that feed them in terms of funding

It's only renewing a contract, they could say they expected his physicality or athletic ability to decline, or that his ability wasn't worth what he was asking (he was a 34 year old after all).

Ridiculous thinking that the LB/LR could or would go against the IRFU.

[mikerob]

Why would an employer be forced to renew a contract? It is up to the employer if they want to renew it or not and I don't think they need to give any reasons if they decide not to.

There may be an issue if a player is told that his contract will be renewed, and then it isn't, but that is a different situation.

[Balla Boy]

Why would an employer be forced to renew a contract? It is up to the employer if they want to renew it or not and I don't think they need to give any reasons if they decide not to.

There may be an issue if a player is told that his contract will be renewed, and then it isn't, but that is a different situation.

That's the complication I was talking about above. Obviously, an employer is at liberty to renew a players contract or not. Once the contract expires, they have no duty of care to them at all - that's the nature of employment on fixed term contracts.

The only potential fly in the ointment is that the IRFU have come out and explicitly forbidden the granting of second contracts. So they've moved it away from being an issue of discretion by formalising it.

I'm still not sure that a player would have any sort of case. Even if they're playing well, there is no automatic entitlement to a new contract.

But it does strike me that the IRFU's position is eminently more attackable, in theory at least. They could (highly theoretically) get into a situation where a previously capped Bok or Tongan does a contract with Ulster, then one with Munster (like Botha). How far will Botha be from being eligible for citizenship on residency when that time elapses? It's five years isn't it?

So, at the end of his Munster contract, it's not inconceivable that BJ Botha, Irish Citizen, is denied a new contract on the basis that he's disqualified from representing Ireland.

It's the rigidity of the position that I think is problematic. I think, given the power the IRFU has to approve contracts or not via the PAG, that they'd have been better establishing this as a matter of convention that regulation.

[Red Hand Hero]

Correct me if I am wrong but was Hines not offered a One-year deal but left because he wanted two? The interesting case IMO will be when Nacewa comes to the end of his one-year extension and who replaces Botha at Munster given Afoa is signed until the end of 2013/14.

I don't think the Business Post article changes much tbh, the IRFU were probably a bit gung-ho in announcing their initial intentions but lets not kid ourselves they have been there, technically if not in strict reality, for as long as I can remember.

The issue, as I understood it, was not the reduction in NIQ allocated spaces or indeed who could/could not be signed etc but rather the inability to sign a player beyond the termination date of his first contract which in effect means you are signing only mercenaries who are here for a quick buck and away again. It also limits the scope in terms of what type of player you are looking to sign, e.g. players with a young family might be looking 3/4 years at a club to allow the family to settle and develop rather than a mid-20's single Antipode looking to drink and ride all round him before heading home.

I think the IRFU will/have seen sense in this regard and will continue to have the threat of it in the background but will probably be more pragmatic in enforcing it.

[McCloud]

Correct me if I am wrong but was Hines not offered a One-year deal but left because he wanted two? The interesting case IMO will be when Nacewa comes to the end of his one-year extension and who replaces Botha at Munster given Afoa is signed until the end of 2013/14.

I don't think the Business Post article changes much tbh, the IRFU were probably a bit gung-ho in announcing their initial intentions but lets not kid ourselves they have been there, technically if not in strict reality, for as long as I can remember.

The issue, as I understood it, was not the reduction in NIQ allocated spaces or indeed who could/could not be signed etc but rather the inability to sign a player beyond the termination date of his first contract which in effect means you are signing only mercenaries who are here for a quick buck and away again. It also limits the scope in terms of what type of player you are looking to sign, e.g. players with a young family might be looking 3/4 years at a club to allow the family to settle and develop rather than a mid-20's single Antipode looking to drink and ride all round him before heading home.

I think the IRFU will/have seen sense in this regard and will continue to have the threat of it in the background but will probably be more pragmatic in enforcing it.

Think I read in an interview Hines said both Leinster and himself wanted a 2 year contract but the IRFU said only 1 year without the option to renew at the end of the year. More or less the same thing happened in Munster with Warwick.

[mikerob]

Wasn't it the same with Wannenburg ? He was offered 1 year by Ulster but could get a longer deal at Castres.

[taz]

Wasn't it the same with Wannenburg ? He was offered 1 year by Ulster but could get a longer deal at Castres.

Yet ,they replaced him with Williams on a two year deal.

[overthehillprop]

Yet ,they replaced him with Williams on a two year deal.

Can only offer an existing player a one year deal if he's over 30 but can offer a player not already in the squad over 30 a two year deal once its approved by the PAG. Thats the IRFU for you.

(exact same thing happened with Mafi and Casey Lualala)

[taz]

Can only offer an existing player a one year deal if he's over 30 but can offer a player not already in the squad over 30 a two year deal once its approved by the PAG. Thats the IRFU for you.

Would explain Nacewa's extension of contract before he hit 30 so.

[Munsterboy]

So, at the end of his Munster contract, it's not inconceivable that BJ Botha, Irish Citizen, is denied a new contract on the basis that he's disqualified from representing Ireland.

The thing is, that actually works in the IRFU's favour. It clearly shows that the man is NOT being discriminated against on the grounds of his nationality, which would contravene EU law. He's being discriminated against because he's played for another senior international rugby team. Might not be fair either but I'm not sure it's currently illegal.

Non-Irish citizens who have not played for another international side, such as CJ Stander, will get a renewal if they are good enough players.

Personally I think that, all legalities aside, the non-renewal rule is just plain wrong. If a man, like BJ, Nacewa or Dougie has earned a renewal, he deserves to get one. Anyway, there will not be many more than one or two of these cases per province.

[taz]

It's funny though that D'arcy at 32 can get a 2 year deal from the IRFU on his current deal but a NIQ can only get a one year extension on his current deal if over 30 based on his contract. I know it's simply the rules but..