• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Tolouse warn Census Johnston: "There will be consequences"

Amiga500

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
3,442
Country Flag
Ireland
Club or Nation
Ulster
http://www.the42.ie/cenus-johnston-toulouse-2203242-Jul2015/

SAMOAN PROP CENSUS Johnston could soon find himself in a club vs country row, after Toulouse’s management team expressed their disappointment at his decision to come out of international retirement.

Johnston had retired from test rugby in April after 47 caps, signing a new contract with the Top 14 semi-finalists.
However, Johnston has been persuaded to come out of retirement for tomorrow’s historic test against the All-Blacks, which has disappointed his employers.
The new management team of Fabien Pelous and Ugo Mola have said they were unaware Johnston was intending to make an international u-turn, with Mola in particular saying the player could be disciplined when he returns.
While Johnton has been named to start in tomorrow’s game, it’s unclear whether of not he’ll make himself available for the World Cup.


Pelous told French rugby magazine Rugbyrama: “We thought that Census had retired from international rugby. The fact that he is playing against the All Blacks is a bit of a surprise and unsettling.â€
Mola’s comments seem even more ominous, hinting that the club may sanction the 34-year-old for reneging on his international retirement.
“When you lose a key player from your squad that should be present for pre-season but is not, there will be consequences,†he said.


If anything happened, I'd like to see the IRB (or whatever the clowns are calling themselves this week) jump on Toulouse's throat.

I'd also like to see any contract that has preferential terms for not choosing to play (or clauses that prevent playing) for your country illegal.
 
"When you lose a key player from your squad that should be present for pre-season but is not, there will be consequences," he said.

Such BS. He's going to miss, what, one? two? weeks. During which time he'll be training in an international set up and playing against the all blacks. Not exactly lying on the sofa eating his way through 600 big macs.


Agree with what the said, Amiga, I'd like to see WR kick up a stink about this.
 
If it's in his contract, that he's agreed to retire from internationals, then he deserves some sanctions from his club. If his contract makes no mention of internationals, then he's entitled to play during IRB 9 sanctioned windows and the club should go **** themselves.

Haskell said when he was in France and playing/training with England, that even though he had all the agreements in his contract to do so, they still docked him pay for the time he was away.
 
If his contract specifically requires him to retire from internationals, then surely Toulouse would be in deep ****?
 
If his contract specifically requires him to retire from internationals, then surely Toulouse would be in deep ****?

It doesn't have to require him to retire, he may have retired beforehand, and the contract merely frames it "On the understanding that the player will be available all year round, due to having retired from internationals, we'll pay him this much." For him to then up sticks and move isn't really on.

If there's nothing in the contract, then ****'em, if the man wants to play international, he's allowed to.

I'm not entirely on the side of either party here, I don't believe that clubs should be forced to offer a player the same contract regardless of his international status, equally I don't think the clubs should be able to force a player already in contract, to retire from internationals.

Overall, I think it's World Rugbys fault to a large degree. They make a ton of cash, have power to manipulate the other unions, and could easily help improve the financial situation for players from tier 2 nations (meaning they could afford to take a lesser contract, using international matches for top-ups). Even if WR help push for regular home matches for tier 2 nations against tier 1 nations, even if it's just once a year.
 
It doesn't have to require him to retire, he may have retired beforehand, and the contract merely frames it "On the understanding that the player will be available all year round, due to having retired from internationals, we'll pay him this much." For him to then up sticks and move isn't really on.

My interpretation of reg 9 would mean that was illegal.
 
It really isn't alright to do this and this seriously hinders rugby's development in many countries, so it's in World Rugby's interest to take action against it.
 
Last RWC Fiji got screwed over by Top 14 clubs. Looks like its Samoa's turn.
 
I don't think it will be as bad as Fiji at least Samoa have the likes of Mulipola who IMO is better than Johnston.
 
I don't get why there is such an issue with him playing 1 last game for his country, when his club is not playing any games at the moment. He'll probably miss 3 days or so of training, and it's not as if he's sitting at home doing nothing, he's playing rugby, keeping in shape and staying fit.

I think they can only have a valid concern if he gets injured because of this match and he misses a few games for his club...
 
I don't get why there is such an issue with him playing 1 last game for his country, when his club is not playing any games at the moment. He'll probably miss 3 days or so of training, and it's not as if he's sitting at home doing nothing, he's playing rugby, keeping in shape and staying fit.

I think they can only have a valid concern if he gets injured because of this match and he misses a few games for his club...

Thats the fear but thats why rugby is a squad game. I fail to see Toulouse's argument here and hope common sense prevails
 
Once again mountains out of mole hills, there has been nothing said about consequences or disipline as per the article listed in the first post, Pelous and Mola were surprised and wanted to be informed of Johnstones decision to play for his counrtry as they believed that he had retired from International rugby that is it for the moment, another Journo searching for sensationalism and everybody jumps on the band wagon. This is completely over the top and not necessary i believe that the club will deal with the issues which i think there is not an awful lot to deal with, just a journo trying to make a story out of nothing.
 
To me it makes sense to me that if you play international rugby then you are worth less to your club so they have a right to pay you less. It all depends on Johnston's contract situation, I guess.
 
If his contract specifically requires him to retire from internationals, then surely Toulouse would be in deep ****?

Yep, a clear breach of Regulations 9.3 and 9.4

[TEXTAREA]9.3 No Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club whether by contract, conduct
or otherwise may inhibit, prevent, discourage, disincentivise or render
unavailable any Player from selection, attendance and appearance in a
National Representative Team or National Squad session when such
request for selection, attendance and appearance is made in accordance
with the provisions of this Regulation 9. Any agreement and/or
arrangement between a Player and a Rugby Body or Club or between a
Union or an Association and a Rugby Body or Club (and/or any proposal
made and/or attempted to be made howsoever communicated) which is
contrary to this Regulation 9.3 is prohibited, including, but not limited to
any agreement and/or arrangement and/or proposal pursuant to which a
Player is (or would be) unable to exercise the right to play for a Union.

9.4 Subject to Regulation 9.18, no Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club
may require any payment or other benefit from or impose conditions
relating to a Player’s participation in a National Representative Team
and/or attendance at a National Squad session of his Union when such
participation and/or attendance has been requested in accordance with
the provisions of this Regulation 9.[/TEXTAREA]
 

Latest posts

Top