American Player Blocked by Clause in Contract to travel to the World Cup

by MBTGOG Sun 24 Jul 2011, 1:12 pm

One omission from the squad is San Francisco Golden Gate lock Samu Manoa, who has signed a professional contract with English Premiership Club, Northampton Saints.

"Samu Manoa will not be traveling to RWC," said O'Sullivan.

"Unfortunately, a clause in his contract prevents him from traveling to RWC. While I wish Samu every success as a professional rugby player and respect his decision to take up a contract overseas, it is disappointing we were only made aware of his unavailability for RWC as recently as three weeks ago."

Very disturbing this. I'd like to know what the clause is because no clause should be above the iRB laws with regards to player release to their national side.

http://planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_7059118,00.html

by blackcanelion Sun 24 Jul 2011, 1:27 pm

If its tre surely Northhampton can be stood down from tournements. Even football and basketball don't do this.

by **Ozzy3213** Sun 24 Jul 2011, 1:36 pm

Samu Manoa????

Really???

Surely he is a Pacific Island(er)???

by MBTGOG Sun 24 Jul 2011, 1:38 pm

I don't know. In all likelihood has that family history but that's not the point.

No way and I mean no way should this be happening!

by Turkster Sun 24 Jul 2011, 1:46 pm

Toulon tried to get Henson to sign a contract that said he wouldn't be going to the World Cup, maybe this bloke just put his professional contract ahead of his World Cup ambitions.

by maestegmafia Sun 24 Jul 2011, 1:50 pm

This is appalling behaviour.

There is no way a club should allowed to prevent any players international ambitions.

by Cumbrian Sun 24 Jul 2011, 2:00 pm

Would like to see what Northampton have to say about it, doesn't look good though.

by Suspicious lurker Sun 24 Jul 2011, 2:00 pm

One word, DISGRACEFUL

by **Notch** Sun 24 Jul 2011, 2:17 pm

Poor form from Northampton, would like to see the IRB investigate this- there should be penalties for such behaviour.

by Mr Thunder Sun 24 Jul 2011, 2:22 pm

"Really???

Surely he is a Pacific Island(er)???"

Heritage means nothing these days. Manu Tuilagi plays for England. Half of Samoa seems to play for New Zealand at times.

by Manu's Boxing Coach Sun 24 Jul 2011, 2:30 pm

It depends whether the player agreed to this situation when he signed the contract and if his international ambitions were strong enough he wouldnt have signed the contract. Also Northampton probably signed him to be used during the world cup and dont want to sign a back up player who is not going to be available when they will use him.

by Smirnoffpriest Sun 24 Jul 2011, 2:32 pm

I'd like to get some more facts before condeming Northampton - and as has been said the player may have just signed a clause saying he doesn't want to go to the WC -

But if there are clauses like that then they are disgraceful and shouldn't be legal as the IRB rules (ie those saying players are available in Int windows) should overrule all such clauses.

by Geordie Sun 24 Jul 2011, 3:42 pm

" Half of Samoa seems to play for New Zealand at times.."

Thats untrue.....but the majority of the samoan team are New Zealanders is a fact.

Im not sure i believe this story. Why would Northampton block a player going to the WC....

ill wait to here what Saints say...

by Irish Curry Sun 24 Jul 2011, 3:58 pm

This cant be true it goes against IRB rules as far as i know. It marks a new low in rugby history if its true though.

by bedfordwelsh Sun 24 Jul 2011, 4:21 pm

Surely its all down to COntracts though. If he signed one saying he would be available during the WC then its legally binding isnt it?

by Thomond Sun 24 Jul 2011, 5:13 pm

Appaling if true. Shame on the Saints.

by HammerofThunor Sun 24 Jul 2011, 5:18 pm

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.

IRB Regulations on player release [found here]

I imagine Northampton are not letting him go until the window and the USA have said they won't take him then. If not then the Saints need to be suitably punished [up to being thrown out of union].

by wrfc1980 Sun 24 Jul 2011, 6:58 pm

Is this much different to Nacewa of Leinster? Although no contract has been signed Leinster have come to an agreement with Nacewa which has persuaded him to stay in Ireland during the world cup rather than join up with Fiji

by Thomond Sun 24 Jul 2011, 6:59 pm

Nacewa doesn't want to play for Fiji that's the big difference.

by _Ignited_ Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:05 pm

I think people are jumping the gun a bit in having a go at the Saints. Im sure a lot of clubs in the NH are looking specifically to fill gaps in their squads that will be depleted during the RWC. I don't know much about Manoa, but if he offered a contract on the basis of being available during the RWC he has made a commitment to the Saints when he signed.

If he wants to go to the RWC he would need to seek an arrangement with Saints - get out of contract/compensate them. Messy.

by MBTGOG Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:26 pm

Ignited,

No he doesn't. It would be unfair dismissal if they were to let him go because of that.

by Thomond Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:28 pm

There is a good chance the Saints could let him go but if they went to the CAS they would certainly have a good chance win their case.

by Rava Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:34 pm

I think the rule is quite clear. If Saints are preventing him playing in the WC then they need to answer some questions.

However: -
While O'Sullivan says a clause in his contract prevents him from joining the squad it isn't clear if the clause was agreed between the parties with the player being fully aware of the situation. I can't see Saints blatantly flaunting the rules.

It's a precedence I wouldn't want to see encouraged though!

by MBTGOG Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:35 pm

Anyone else think Eddie O'Sullivan might be stirring the pot with this comment?

by _Ignited_ Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:38 pm

MBTGOG,

Surely if he was approached and offered a contract on the basis he was available during the RWC - and this was included in the contract - if he then choose (as he is free to do under IRB regulations) to attend the RWC - he would then make his own contract void? I would imagine he has freely signed up to a contract which included a voluntary derogation of the IRB reg. to fulfill the Saints needs. Or he just didn't expect to go to the RWC and has committed to his club career.

And don't get me wrong - i think he wants to go to the RWC he should go. I would imagine he would sit down with the Saints and talk it through and they would come to a mutual agreement.

And yes it does sound like EOS is stirring it.

by MBTGOG Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:44 pm

Ignited,

I imagine that is the case but a clause like that is illegal under iRB guidelines and therefore would mean if he were let go he'd have right to take them to court on the grounds of unfair dismissal.

by _Ignited_ Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:55 pm

MBTGOG,

Although it would be illegal if Northampton refused to release a player that wanted to attend matches in an IRB window - I would think a case was brought the spirit of the contract would dictate the outcome - mainly that both parties (Saints & Manoa) clearly understood their respective commitments and what that entailed.

If that ever happened I think the player would also be held responsible for their actions.

I personally think it will be a non-issue - the player will sort it one way or the other. Its not often you get many player/club issues that are not resolved.

by aucklandlaurie Sun 24 Jul 2011, 8:05 pm

Interesting. anyone that thought that a rugby player with the name Samu Manoa should be playing for a pacific Island??
The U.S.A. has not only a state but territtories that are Islands in the Pacific.If manu Samoa came from Hawaii or American Samoa he would at least be travelling on a U.S. passport. which to me makes it more appropriate that he plays for the U.S. as opposed to some New Zealand passport holders that play for England...

by HammerofThunor Sun 24 Jul 2011, 8:28 pm

ignited, anything in his contract that suggests he won't play for his country are null and void and if Northampton tried to enforce it they could be kicked out of the game (worst case). He could quite happily go the WC and then sit the rest of his contract at Saints on the bench of the A side.

The IRB Regulations (that I quoted above) specifically state that no contract can stop a player representing his country during one of the IRB sanctioned games.

by Rava Sun 24 Jul 2011, 8:45 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:ignited, anything in his contract that suggests he won't play for his country are null and void and if Northampton tried to enforce it they could be kicked out of the game (worst case). He could quite happily go the WC and then sit the rest of his contract at Saints on the bench of the A side.

The IRB Regulations (that I quoted above) specifically state that no contract can stop a player representing his country during one of the IRB sanctioned games.

It will only be an issue if the club are preventing him from representing his country. If he has chosen to enter the contract willingly then there is no issue. I think the player has decided to put his professional career ahead of a couple of games this summer and EOS is making more of it than needs to be.

by **Notch** Sun 24 Jul 2011, 9:38 pm

However if he has a change of heart and Saints try to stop him, then they can be held to account by the IRB. Possibly even if the contract is dissolved should he decide to go to the World Cup could end up in a long, messy legal battle.

by MBTGOG Sun 24 Jul 2011, 9:47 pm

Surely if you don't want trouble with call ups then why sign someone likely to be called up to their national side?

by **Notch** Sun 24 Jul 2011, 9:48 pm

Because you believe you can influence them enough to turn their back on their national side.

by MBTGOG Sun 24 Jul 2011, 9:49 pm

True, especially if they come from a small enough nation, in rugby terms.

by **Notch** Sun 24 Jul 2011, 9:51 pm

Yeah. It's a case of you can play for your national side... or you can have a job.

It's a bit Blackmaily but that's probably just one of the consequences of professionalism.

by HammerofThunor Sun 24 Jul 2011, 9:56 pm

Rava wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:ignited, anything in his contract that suggests he won't play for his country are null and void and if Northampton tried to enforce it they could be kicked out of the game (worst case). He could quite happily go the WC and then sit the rest of his contract at Saints on the bench of the A side.

The IRB Regulations (that I quoted above) specifically state that no contract can stop a player representing his country during one of the IRB sanctioned games.

It will only be an issue if the club are preventing him from representing his country. If he has chosen to enter the contract willingly then there is no issue. I think the player has decided to put his professional career ahead of a couple of games this summer and EOS is making more of it than needs to be.

My point is that it's not the contract thats stopping him from joining up. If a contract exists that says he won't be playing in the World Cup it's meaningless and any club that tries to enforce such a contract would be sanctioned. He may well have agreed not to play for the US but no [rugby] contract can stop him representing hi country if he wants to.

by formerly known as Sam Mon 25 Jul 2011, 10:10 am

Depends what the issue is here;

1) If Saints are trying to force players to give up their international aspirations then a hard line should be taken.

but if;

2) They are refusing to let him join up until the international window opens re the PRL agreement then there is nothing wrong with that at all.

by lostinwales Mon 25 Jul 2011, 10:12 am

Isnt it great that Saints are prepared to give this guy a chance to earn a proper salary for playing a game he obviously loves?

by TheGreyGhost Mon 25 Jul 2011, 10:16 am

Mr Thunder wrote:"Really???

Surely he is a Pacific Island(er)???"

Heritage means nothing these days. Manu Tuilagi plays for England. Half of Samoa seems to play for New Zealand at times.

Can we stop with this kind of ill-educated nonsense please. You'll find that that the majority of the Samoan team are actually New Zealander's by birth, rather than the other way around.

You'll probably find that the player in question is from American Samoa. Which would explain the American representation and the Samoan name. Not difficult is it?

As for foreign nationals representing an international team, I think Mr Thunder and his pals had better shussssh about that, since England are by far the most overt offenders, fielding so many recent New Zealand Maori, and League representatives.

by nottins Mon 25 Jul 2011, 10:24 am

Change the record TGG.

by HammerofThunor Mon 25 Jul 2011, 10:27 am

TheGreyGhost wrote:As for foreign nationals representing an international team, I think Mr Thunder and his pals had better shussssh about that, since England are by far the most overt offenders, fielding so many recent New Zealand Maori, and League representatives.

One and two respectively in the last 4 years? That's "so many"? I know New Zealand is a small country but I think you need to work on your sense of scale.

Now if you had said South Africans...

by BATH_BTGOG Mon 25 Jul 2011, 10:37 am

Looks like 'the Saints' angel

are anything but, But we all knew that already! Very Happy

Maybe he doesn't want to wear the USA 3rd kit!

by snoopster Mon 25 Jul 2011, 10:41 am

From a few seconds of searching on Google -

According to Paul Keeler, who coached Manoa with the SFGG club, Manoa has a incentives in his contract that pay off if he starts 20 games. Northampton plays seven Aviva Premiership matches during the World Cup, and if Manoa started all of them, he would be well on his way toward earning that incentive.

So if this is true then Saints aren't blocking him at all - he's opted out to earn more money. Either way, either O'Sullivan or this guy are talking rudey poo... and I have to be honest, I'm leaning towards it being O'Sullivan. Still, I guess the main thing for him is that most people are too lazy to try and spend a minute or two googling to find out more about this story so his version is the one they'll remember,

by ScarletSpiderman Mon 25 Jul 2011, 10:52 am

Most likely it is a case of the Saints only wanting to release him during the IRB window, and O'Sullivan trying to twist their arem by kicking up a fuss. I am sure that the Saints are probably better versed in the IRB rules and regs than the majority of us on here and, like them or not, would not breech them, but maybe would hang on to this gentleman as long as allowed.

That said it will be interesting to see what the final outcome of this is.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 25 Jul 2011, 11:06 am

nottins wrote:Change the record TGG.

I'll stop pointing out how many foreigners there are in the England squad when folks stop making the daft, and ill-informed accusation that the All Blacks are full of Samoans. Honestly, you make yourselves sound like such fools when you talk this tiko.

by Portnoy Mon 25 Jul 2011, 11:08 am

.siht elbmarcsnu ot ekil d'I

...emit ni kcab gnioG
1. Was Samu Manoa a nailed-on USA starter - or even a squad member?
2. Was he prepared to forgo any international pretensions in order to sign a contract for the Saints?
3. Were the Saints at fault for offering a conditional contract?
4. Should Samu Manoa be hung out to dry rather than Northampton?

by Portnoy Mon 25 Jul 2011, 11:26 am

I know that I wish that Geordan would make a decision on this (in the Tigers' favour).

Tough times in the Jeff in RWC years. You need your club captain to stand up.

by MBTGOG Mon 25 Jul 2011, 11:28 am

Portnoys,

Are you saying Murphy should choose Leicester over Ireland?

by nottins Mon 25 Jul 2011, 11:29 am

TheGreyGhost wrote:
nottins wrote:Change the record TGG.

I'll stop pointing out how many foreigners there are in the England squad when folks stop making the daft, and ill-informed accusation that the All Blacks are full of Samoans. Honestly, you make yourselves sound like such fools when you talk this tiko.

When asked to point out ALL those foreigners in thecurrent England squad, you fail to do so. Or include such players Mike Catt

by Portnoy Mon 25 Jul 2011, 11:36 am

MBTGOG wrote:Portnoys,

Are you saying Murphy should choose Leicester over Ireland?

I'm saying that I'd prefer Geordan to choose Leicester over Ireland.

But I'd go with his choice.

by Sponsored content