In the recent ‘global international window’ in June, those who followed Argentina’s Pumas against the touring French may have wondered how the French T14 clubs managed, yet again, to avoiding releasing Puma players to their national team.
The T14 competition, incidentally, finished on June 9 this year.
The answer is that they struck a deal with the UAR, in which the bulk of the Pumas French-based players (aside from the retiring Felipe Contemponi and initially the ageing warrior Rodrigo Roncero) were rested in June, so as not to exceed the ‘player welfare’ limits on how many games can be played in a year.
The difficulty with this answer is that the agreement itself was in contravention of IRB Regulation 9.
Regulation 9 (“Availability of players”), after amendment in the last two years, is quite clear on a number of matters, and emphasises them by repeating them several times throughout the Regulation.
First, players have a right to play for their country, and must be free to exercise that right. This is explicitly stated in Reg. 9.3.
Secondly, international rugby is paramount, and players must be released in the applicable international windows. For the TRC teams, these are now three weeks in June, six of the eight weeks of the TRC in August to October, and three weeks in November.
Thirdly, “…a Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club is obliged to release a Player to the Union for which the Player is eligible…in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation 9.”
Fourthly, “[No] 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.”
Also in Reg. 9.3, “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.”
Finally, clubs cannot impose conditions on or seek payment for player release in the appointed window periods.
The Argentine-French agreement was to the effect that in order to allow the Puma players from the top 14 their mandatory annual rest periods, the Pumas would not select the T14 players in the June window, but would select them for TRC. The agreement has been clothed in the guise of a player welfare matter, but it is like the emperor’s new suit. The agreement breaches Regulation 9 in at least four respects.
The players’ right to play for their country has been compromised. The clubs’ conduct in entering the agreement has inhibited the players’ appearance for the Pumas. The agreement itself is a prohibited arrangement under 9.3. The clubs have effectively breached Reg 9.4 by imposing a condition on the later release of the players for TRC.
No doubt the explanations for what happened will trumpet it as a victory for player welfare and rest. Do not be fooled. What has happened is that because the French club season goes for so long, it is impossible to fit the prescribed rest periods into the year alongside the three relevant release windows for the main southern hemisphere sides.
The intent and effect of the new Regulation 9 is clear. The players must be available and released in the international windows. Any conduct (very widely defined) that prevents or even discourages that is prohibited. The regulations themselves were designed to account for player welfare in the setting of the windows in the first place, as stated in the preamble.
What has occurred this year is that the T14 clubs have stolen the June test window away from the Puma team, in breach of Regulation 9, to use it for a rest period that their own extensive season does not provide.
One could mount a strong argument that the LNR, in organising the T14 at the current length of that competition, resulting in the ensuing compromise on player availability, is by that act alone committing “conduct or otherwise” that “may inhibit, prevent, discourage, disincentivise or render unavailable any Player from selection, attendance and appearance in a National Representative Team”.
It is time for the IRB to take serious action.
Sluggy
Roar Guru
In recent news, Argentina U20 captain Juan Cruz Guillemain, 20, and Pampas XV and Jaguars player Lisandro Gomez Lopez, 24, have signed with Stade Francais. I am not aware of the immediate Puma prospects of these players. Perhaps this indicates that this T14 club will continue to employ Argentinians who may be called up for the Pumas, but it would be interesting to hear how likely that is on their current form.
Sluggy
Roar Guru
Ben S, This is was Richard Cockerill said: Leicester Tigers will not be offering Argentine wing Horacio Agulla a new contract for next season because of his likely international commitments. The 27-year-old, whose deal expires in the summer, is expected to be in Argentina's Four Nations squad. That would mean him missing pre-season and not returning until early October. Director of rugby Richard Cockerill told BBC Radio Leicester : "He's a bit disappointed, as we are a little bit, but you have to make tough choices." Cockerill said Agulla's fellow countrymen could also find it difficult to win new contracts in England. "Unfortunately for him that's the case and that may be the case for lots of the Argentine players because you will never have them for the pre-season," Cockerill added. "They only turn up half way through the season to play for you and that will be a difficult one for lots of people." That was on the BBC website on 24 JANUARY this year - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/16703457 Leicester made a policy decision months ago, yet it does not seem its such a "difficult one" as was predicted. There are no reports of mass sackings. As I said, the only information on the players in France I have is anecdotal at this point, The facts will leak out over time. As to the Tigers developing two local wingers instead of paying an import, I don't actually see that as a bad thing.
Ben S
Roar Guru
As far as I'm aware they were compliant and nobody is moaning - not the French or Argentines. I'd be more intrigued if somebody like Mr Degas had some criticisms, but he doesn't, only of your piece. I've never seen these rumours on the internet, and as such have no interest in them. Pointless. I'm pretty sure you can't suggest what Leicester could or couldn't have done given the fact that you, or I, don't work for the Tigers.
Sluggy
Roar Guru
CN, see response to Ben S - covers some of your queries. And the players do not need to have any term written into their contract to be released in the IRB regulated windows; they only need that if, say, they only contract to be available December to May.
Sluggy
Roar Guru
Ben, The players should have been released in the June window. They were not. They had to be released for the 4N anyway, and the clubs have released them earlier in July when the would have had to rest them if they didn't rest in June. As is all set out in the article. The rumours - see above post - are that Hernandez & another player renegotiated with pay cuts to reflect the new international schedule. Leicester could have done a similar deal if they wanted - it is the deal Bath did with the player.
Sluggy
Roar Guru
RF, the clubs have known about the 4N window for a while. So they should be adjusting contract fees if that is the proper market effect. "No-one was offering Leicester any money for Agulla’s increased international commitments." Are you suggesting they should? [And Reg 9.3 & 9.4 prohibit that on my reading.] Sure they won't get as much mileage out of him. But for Leicester to say they would refuse to contract a star player because he would have to be released smacks of grandstanding. Why not pay him 9/12s as much as before (which anecdotally is what happened to at least 1 Puma in Europe recently). Its not as if the UAR isn't paying them match fees. The spare money could be used to develop younger home grown players. Incidentally the Regs provide the National Union have to organise the injury insurance, so there is coverage there in case of severe injury. As to suggesting something better, I'm suggesting that actual compliance with the Regs would be better for two reasons: 1) The Pumas would have been at full strength in their home tests, better for the spectators, the broadcasters, the viewers (I found somewhere to watch it) and IMHO better for the team to build combinations, training and playing is always better than all the camps ever organised. 2) They would have the same build-up as the other three teams, which has the element of fairness. On a different note, I was fairly surprised to hear Thomas the tank engine got called into the England team. He must have worked hard and improved his game significantly, so good for him.
Rugby Fan
Roar Guru
You are adding in the release dates for the matches themselves. If three days preparation was sufficient, then why do you think Argentina have taken their players to the US for two weeks of fitness work and also scheduled sessions and warm-up games at home ahead of TRC? It's the same reason England prefer not to include France-based players in their squad: the IRB release dates don't give you enough time with the squad. The RFU brokered a deal with the Premiership clubs to allow players named to an Elite Player Squad to have additional squad time beyond the mandated windows, for which the RFU compensates the clubs financially. No non-English clubs are covered by the deal, so England told players in France that they could only be considered if they signed contracts which included time away for national squad training. The upshot would be a reduction in the value of the contract so few players insisted on it. UAR wanted their players for longer than the French clubs were obliged to release them. This is the compromise which the two sides reached. If you think it's such a bad deal, then the onus is one you to propose something better. If the French clubs stuck to their obligations, then the UAR doesn't get preparation time. Are you actually saying that Argentina is being unreasonable wanting access to players for more fitness and training sessions? I think you also need to expand on why you think Leicester are being petulant. Leicester took a huge hit with so many of their squad players away at the World Cup. It led to the club's worst ever start to an Aviva Premiership season. Not only did it threaten to derail their challenge for the title, at one stage, they were well out of the running for automatic Heineken Cup qualification . This is a club which needs to manage player resources very carefully. They already hit a speed bump with kiwi Thomas Waldrom. He was signed by the Tigers in the belief he would never be away on international duty because New Zealand don't select overseas players. There was always a chance he would become qualified for England through residency but that would take three years, during which Leicester expected to have sole access to his services. As it turned out, Waldrom qualified immediately when his wife remembered his grandmother was born in England. This was hardly ideal for the club but they at least get compensation from the RFU while he's away. No-one was offering Leicester any money for Agulla's increased international commitments. There's a good reason why Bath can sign the winger and it has nothing to do with being more enlightened than Leicester. They've just had a miserable year. They finished 8th in the League which means they missed out on qualification for the Heineken Cup. They can accomodate Agulla because their schedule is less demanding next season. They also have fewer players on the books with heavy international commitments - partly as a consequence of recent underperformance. If Gary Gold was running Leicester, I doubt whether he would have been as keen to sign the Argentinian.
Colin N
Guest
"They were obligated under Reg 9 to do this, and as you properly concede, it was well known this was coming." Quite and they've released them, so what are you complaining about? You haven't really contested any of the points I made in the post above as of yet. Re: Agulla. Leicester Tigers have a salary cap to abide by and as a result released him, particularly when his contract was endng. Instead they've brought in, as Ben S states, two wingers who probably cost the same as Agulla and are extremely talented. It's just sensible management. "Rumours about other Puma players salaries being cut abound. It is hardly as if NH clubs have been taken by surprise." Deal with the same point here really. If the rumours of pay being cut are true then they are acting on the fact that their players will miss half of the season, so obviously the clubs have planned for this. If the Argentinean players don't like the deal then they can try and find somewhere else if they want. But of course, as stated above, SANZAR franchises can't fit them in. Quite frankly - I feel like I'm repeating myself here - you will have to suck it up unfortunately. Unless SANZAR do something about their season (after all it's their responsibility since Argentina are now playing in their tournament) then you will just have to accept it. I've never been a fan of the way the French deal with the club vs country scenario, but on this occasion they've not done anything wrong. Like England, with some of their players who play in France, they write into their contact that they have to be released for international duty at a certain time. Perhaps the Argentina players have done/will do the same?
Derm
Roar Guru
Sluggy - because theyre better than the locals? I know thats what SH commentators like to think as the principal reason. A much more pragmatic one is that French clubs in particular but not exclusively pick foreign born players ibecause they are available at particular times of the year when other squad members are playing in one of the three NH test windows. Same happens with Aviva and Pro12 clubs as well. This is an easy, predictable beat up of European/French rugby by SH commentators. The recent influx of English players into the T14 has come with an edict from the RFU that only players in the Aviva Premiership will be considered for England squad selection. Players heading there and signing up to contracts know that is the case. Same as NZ and Australia do to their players. Play at home or else.... Some would call it wise player pool depth management, others might see it as restrictive practices and a closed shop mentality. Argentine players are clear they are going to have play a long season. Having a fourth test window to satisfy SH comp requirements has not been required up to now for French clubs. You can't switch a system overnight, it's naive to think they can. The Pampas XV in SA rugby is a good start to devoloping Argentine talent. More needs to be done by SANZAR to integrate UAR into its comps. That will take time - in the meantime, there's inevitably going to be bumps along the way.
Ben S
Roar Guru
If you comprehend that the French clubs are abiding by the regulations then what is the point of your article? I'm confused? Why do the Tigers look petulant? They released a foreign player who wouldn't be available for a period of weeks and brought in two English wingers in his place. What rumours?
Ben S
Roar Guru
I would imagine that Argentine rugby benefits from the fact their players are being exposed to world class talent and a professional schedule, likewise the Georgians and Pacific players. When Samoa beat Australia it was, according to parts of the Australian media, down to the fact that a lot of Samoans play in Europe. Further, not all Argentine players playing in France are flogged.
Sluggy
Roar Guru
Colin, in saying - "to be fair, the French clus have released the players for the Rugby Championship." you make it sound like largesse on their part. They were obligated under Reg 9 to do this, and as you properly concede, it was well known this was coming. Aguila just changed clubs to one that accepted he would be playing internationally for much of June - November; Leicester have come out of this looking very petulant, IMHO. Rumours about other Puma players salaries being cut abound. It is hardly as if NH clubs have been taken by surprise.
Sluggy
Roar Guru
5 days prior, 3 weeks in June, 6 of 8 in TRC and 3 in November. Its actually about 12 weeks plus around 20 extra days depending on how the 2 x week breaks fall in the TRC.. 15/52 weeks. Plenty of time to build combinations and tactics, and for the players to get across the fitness level required.
Sluggy
Roar Guru
Pot, "Well, as seems to happen with a lot of these issues, SH commentators only see what they want to see" - can you give me particulars of how the T14 fielding test players from the Pumas etc trickles down (to borrow a Reaganism) to an advantage for their home countries? We are talking about players being flogged through a 29 week season by the clubs, who bought them in because they were better than the locals, right? In any event it seems that the UAR is moving towards centrally contracting its core squad; what we need to do is fit them in a Super rugby conference. Everyone talks about travel problems, but if you offerred them Sanzar saleries to play in a team home based in SA I wonder what would happen...?
Colin N
Guest
Oh and to add on the final point, as admirable as it is for the 'big three' to add Argentina to the competition, perhaps they should have thought about the wider implications and, as a result, done something about it. I'm right in thinking that Super Rugby didn't need to be expanded? If that was the case then the Rugby Championship would have been earlier and wouldn't have impacted on the northern hemisphere season so much.
Colin N
Guest
It's a rather difficult situation this one and I feel the article rather misses the point. I understand the ruling and, to be fair, the French clus have released the players for the Rugby Championship. However, don't you think that it's slightly harsh for the Top 14 clubs to be without their first team players when they've invested time, money and effort into them, particularly when, although this is technically an international window, the extension of Super Rugby and now the Rugby Championship has seen the southern hemisphere season significantly extended? I suppose you could argue that it's something these sides have known about for a while, but it seems rather disingenuous to blame French sides. If we talk hypothetically, should these players not be playing for northern hemisphere teams because of the Rugby Championship, where exactly are they going to go? Play in their domestic league where there is no real high-class competition? Lets be honest, in the short-term at least, the SANZAR nations are hardly going to invest in Argentinean talent, which is where the whole irony lies. The SH has incorporated Argentina, yet most of their best players ply their trade in Europe, so unless SANZAR are going to find space for a Super Rugby team where their best players can play, then at the moment these types of 'arguments' will be regular occurences and, as I said before, it's not exactly the NH clubs who are to blame.
Colin N
Guest
"From my understanding top Argentinan players are paid pretty badly anyway the French unions saw it as win win they got the players with few international commitments and for half the cost of a sanzar player" If they were so 'badly' paid at French clubs then I'm sure they would go and play in England or the Pro 12. I'm pretty sure there would be a fair few English, Welsh, Irish etc clubs who would be after Hernandez's signature should they be able to afford him.
Derm
Roar Guru
Where did your understanding come from? Doc Felipe Contemponi was very well paid at Leinster, Emric.
Derm
Roar Guru
You are being wonderfully naive in your outlook, KPM. Stamping your foot online won't shift thinking nor will battering or bullying. The consequences of Argentina joining the 4N will play out naturally over time with player numbers reducing in NH leagues and Super Rugby being gradually persuaded/forced into admitting more foreign players into its teams instead of the current closed shop, as well as the emergence of a dedicated team for Argentina. As Saliosi pointed out earlier, a squad has been assembled for the 4N. A 35 year old Contemponi will not be part of it. Nor should he be. The Doc has had his best days already behind him. Hope he enjoys his break - he deserves it.
Emric
Guest
From my understanding top Argentinan players are paid pretty badly anyway the French unions saw it as win win they got the players with few international commitments and for half the cost of a sanzar player