Heineken Cup no nearer a resolution

[tigerburnie]

FFR licence to LNR - however they cannot prevent under law, the component businesses of LNR from conducting their lawful right to operate. To do so is an illegal restraint.

The only reason it hasn't been contested so far is - rather like our salary cap - all those component businesses have agreed to accept the restriction as their involvement in LNR. As soon as membership of LNR becomes disadvantageous they will leave - and then FFR cannot prevent them from legal operations

So the FFR don't have the authority to demand much of anything in reality

(taken from a learned friends post on the unoffy)

[biffer]

Can you ask him what the different point of law would be from the ruling that the English clubs lost the last time round?

The EU has in the past been sympathetic to rules which maintain single sporting structures in individual territories. The laws around restraint of trade have been granted exceptions in the case df sport, due to the principle of specificity, which is why sports organisations are allowed to operate as cartels when it comes to selling tv rights, and why it isn't a restraint of trade to, for example, prevent George North playing international rugby for France.

[cidermark]

Not selecting George North, nor indeed any player who plays outside of their home union, for their national team isn't a restraint of trade.

Quite a number of rugby playing countries have a policy that states that a player might not be selected to represent their National team if they choose to play outside of their borders.

It's the players choice - chase the bucks and risk losing their place in the national team or go to a country where the clubs have no salary cap and secure your future at the risk of never playing for your country again.

[arickett]

[ulist=][/ulist]

do we even know if the ERC contract with Sky was put put for public tender as it is legally required to do so? seemed to be a deal out of he blue and given their practice so far I doubt BT would have been shy of making a big offer

Information about the ERC SKY deal is as scarce as information about the PRL BT deal, but given the due diligence records of the two organisations, I'll suspect the ERC had their ducks in a row.

First time ever then. To baggy and other friends over the water why do you think having your European cup decide be one french man who has a "intresting history" and has as much intrest in irish rugby as he does english a good thing?

[snipewatson]

FFR licence to LNR - however they cannot prevent under law, the component businesses of LNR from conducting their lawful right to operate. To do so is an illegal restraint.

The only reason it hasn't been contested so far is - rather like our salary cap - all those component businesses have agreed to accept the restriction as their involvement in LNR. As soon as membership of LNR becomes disadvantageous they will leave - and then FFR cannot prevent them from legal operations

So the FFR don't have the authority to demand much of anything in reality

(taken from a learned friends post on the unoffy)

You've had the error of that statement explained to you already today.

[biffer]

Not selecting George North, nor indeed any player who plays outside of their home union, for their national team isn't a restraint of trade.

Quite a number of rugby playing countries have a policy that states that a player might not be selected to represent their National team if they choose to play outside of their borders.

It's the players choice - chase the bucks and risk losing their place in the national team or go to a country where the clubs have no salary cap and secure your future at the risk of never playing for your country again.

I think you misunderstand me. Under European restraint of trade law, any European citizen should be able to play for any European National team, and should be able to change international team at any time. So from a restraint of trade point of view, if it's in George North's interests to stop playing for Wales and start playing for France, he would be allowed to do so if restraint of trade laws were fully enacted. Obviously that would be an idiotic situation, so the EU Commission recognises this as specificity and allows the IRB to enforce its own rules around International qualification.

[cidermark]

I'm not particularly up on my European legislation, however, I believe that, whilst a European national is entitled to work within the EC, they are not entitled to become citizens until they can fulfil certain criteria set by that country.

Non-EC immigrants (for long term) require some kind of 'sponsorship', whereby a government, organisation, business, etc, may sponsor a foreign national, not only to entitle them to work, but also for citizenship. e.g. Zola Budd

In the world of sport (not the '70's Saturday programme ), you can not represent a nation unless you are a citizen of the same.

[biffer]

In the world of sport (not the '70's Saturday programme ), you can not represent a nation unless you are a citizen of the same.

Yeah, but the point I'm making is that that is contrary to restraint of trade legislation. The RFU is dicriminating against Frenchmen by not allowing them to play for England. However it's recognised that it would be obvious nonsense to apply restraint of trade to sport in that particular way, so it's treated as an exception.

It's one of the ways that it's recognised that sport doesn't have to have restraint of trade applied fully in the same way as other industries i.e. it's a special case and sometimes restraint of trade doesn't apply (and sometimes it does).

[cidermark]

You are correct biffer, you can't restrict anyone from employment without reasonable grounds.

However, your argument suggests that setting a 'job specification' is, somehow, discriminating against someone who doesn't meet that criteria!

The Kiwi's, Aussies, Saffas, Welsh, English, French (except they don't need to worry) and the Irish (?) unions have all stated that players playing for clubs outside of their borders would not be considered for first choice selection. They haven't said that they can never play for anyone ever again - just that they don't think that it's best for the national team.

Personally, I don't agree with the policy. Unfortunately contractual details such as player release comes into their decision.

[biffer]

I don't really see what this got to do with my point. Let's try another example.

At the moment under EU law, Johnny Sexton should be allowed to play for the French National team this weekend.

[Baggy Trousers]

First time ever then. To baggy and other friends over the water why do you think having your European cup decide be one french man who has a "intresting history" and has as much interest in irish rugby as he does english a good thing?

For me it's a good thing purely because the Unions will continue to run the HC & Amlin. I simply would not trust the likes of Nigel Wray, Bruce Craig & a few of the French owners to do anything that was in anybodies interests but their own.

The lunatics running the asylum, there are of course clubs owned by their fans, members clubs & I'd have more confidence if that was the ownership of the clubs, but a bunch of egomaniac millionaires? No thanks.

[tig1]

I don't really see what this got to do with my point. Let's try another example.

At the moment under EU law, Johnny Sexton should be allowed to play for the French National team this weekend.

I assume the answer to that is yes.

International teams are invitational aren't they ? He doesn't need to be under contract to them, nor be a national, or resident. The French union could give their shirt to whoever they want couldn't they ?

The Barbarians are based in the UK, but invite players from all over the world.

[biffer]

I don't really see what this got to do with my point. Let's try another example.

At the moment under EU law, Johnny Sexton should be allowed to play for the French National team this weekend.

I assume the answer to that is yes.

International teams are invitational aren't they ? He doesn't need to be under contract to them, nor be a national, or resident. The French union could give their shirt to whoever they want couldn't they ?

The Barbarians are based in the UK, but invite players from all over the world.

Not quite the same thing with the baabaas. The point is legally sexton could play for France or whoever the hell else he wanted to but he's prevented by irb regs - so the regs conflict with EU law, but an exception is granted in the best interests of the sport.

[tig1]

The answer is yes.

International coaches work for many countries during their career, regardless of their nationality.

The players they coach are restricted from doing so during their playing careers just by sporting laws.

A player of course could challenge it, like bosman did, but it would pointless as no individual nation is going to pick that player and contrevene the rules of their governing body

[snipewatson]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... ation.html
And so it continues. I know this is effectively the same story again, but this time in English and from the Torygraph.