Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Tolouse warn Census Johnston: "There will be consequences"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Raggs" data-source="post: 732186" data-attributes="member: 72268"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>If there's nothing in the contract, then ****'em, if the man wants to play international, he's allowed to. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Raggs, post: 732186, member: 72268"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Tolouse warn Census Johnston: "There will be consequences"
Top