Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread XII (The Byrne Supremacy)

Dubinusa

Jenkins!!!! Not Henkins.

pickarooney

Hang on, a mutant hybrid centre-lock might be just what we need!

redlough

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120274287#Comment_120274287

The biggest problem for calling up replacements when in Japan/NZ/Aus etc is the time difference. So if you call up a player it will take them 24-48 hours to get to the country, but then they have jet lag, different climate etc etc. So it is a huge transition compared to someone hoping into a plan and flying two hours to France etc

Geeta

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119818486#Comment_119818486

I'd be of the opinion that we probably will drop him now as playing international rugby does negate the benefits of keeping someone like that around in the squad.

I think that on a review of EU Law it would be advisable that the IRFU and Leinster Rugby didn’t do that. The law states that any discrimination based on any ground such as race, ethnic or social origin, membership of a national minority shall be prohibited. Within the scope of the application of the law any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. This calls into question the IRFU’s entire foreign player policy and the above example illustrates the conflict between IRFU policy and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Article 21.2. Although it could be argued that Vakh consents to this discrimination if he opts to play abroad it raises an interesting question about the viability of such a policy as stated by the IRFU and its exponents. 

The historical background of the law and applying it to international rugby appears to be logical and lies in favour of dividing up international sport on the basis of nationality but it’s scope as applied to clubs or organisations underneath that level explicitly states the ability to refuse foreign nationals entry to the game on the basis of nationality is prohibited. It states for the purposes of employment non-nationals should be afforded same employment rights as nationals. The term “fundamental rights” as opposed to “human rights” when referring to those rights which are inherent in individuals assumed by the state as opposed to inherent in the individual universally, should not be of concern here. Although there may be significant similarities and overlap between those concepts, the substantive content of the differences between those concepts is not applicable here. The law does not purport to analyze the validity of such assumptions 

These rights are also granted to non-nationals who are protected by EU Law. EU Law currently grants freedom of movement to EU citizens but also to third country nationals who are not from within the internal market but are citizens here. The law states that nationality in this instance should not lead to unequal treatment in employment. Nationality, thus should not as a matter of law be a valid way to distinguish between domestic citizens and non-nationals beneath international level. Yet international rugby remains organized on the basis of nationality. This however, shall only apply to those born in their country and the 5 year rule of residency can also be applied here. As applied to the club game, since residency requirements are more likely to be fulfilled by domestic players than by foreign players, the Court has held that differentiating on the basis of nationality is indirectly discriminatory, and therefore unlawful, unless justified and proportionate. 

In defence of the IRFU, the scope of its application is broad and far reaching. The Court of Justice has accepted that nationality rules in national team sports are matters of purely sporting interest which have nothing to do with economic activity and therefore outside the scope of EU Law. In this instance, the structures within which the IRFU pays players directly might give rise to some cause for concern. It has in later cases considered that some rules are inherent to the organization and proper functioning of sport and therefore do not constitute a breach of law. Despite such guidance form the Court of Justice, EU law has maintained that neither sporting activities nor nationality discrimination in sport can be excluded from EU Law. Lisbon Treaty. 

Even where some sports have European level governing bodies, their rules often leave domestic governing bodies, in this case the IRFU, with significant margins of discretion regarding the access of non-nationals to domestic competitions. The governing body may find it difficult to demonstrate that its longer residence requirement is proportionate and thus acceptable under EU Law. Does this mean the IRFU are in breach in Vakhs case because he grew up here? In the case of the IRFU, It’s application is an extension of the foreign player rule but it brings the fundamental application of that policy into disrepute if proven against the players fundamental rights. It is clear that the principles of “fairness and openness” which are reinforced by Article 165 of the Lisbon Treaty have not yet been uniformly adhered to by the IRFU. It may be that they lack the specific expertise  and specialist knowledge required in order to ensure that their practices comply with EU Law and in particular non-nationals are able to access this sport where appropriate. Bosman is the leading case here. That is where I took most of the law relating to the above.

I understand the nature of rugby in Ireland is business based and bottom line decisions are required, and if a player is not Irish eligible or qualified you are likely to be cut by the nature of having only four professional teams. However, the background of that has changed slightly, we now have squads of 60 + players all good enough to start in the firsts. 

While it is tempting to select only Irish qualified players for the squad it is not a wise thing to do and is short sighted. The reason anyone takes to the rugby field is to play for your country and Vakh is no different in wanting to play for his homeland. Hyper competitive nationalism is all well and good but should be tapered with a degree or respect and responsibility to the outside world in which our nation plays. 

That requires respecting observing and accepting players rights who are not Irish qualified to play here. Why, in Vakhs instance he was raised here, but good rugby blood was brought in from the outside to improve our country. Some will argue why not promote and create that good rugby blood internally? if we nourish only within and ignore and reject outright the outside without respect towards them, we will fall flat on our faces. It is important internal ambition doesn’t stifle good relations with our peers and in this instance I would like to Vakh extended in 2024 as he is within the top 45 players on our books or third choice in his position.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120278633#Comment_120278633

Have you been working on that post since November?!

Podge_irl

In this instance, the structures within which the IRFU pays players directly might give rise to some cause for concern

I would have said the exact opposite. The IRFU is allowed take consideration of eligibility for the national team into consideration and they are the ones employing the provincial players.

Exclamation Marc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120278633#Comment_120278633

There are so many problems with this wild interpretation it's not even worth getting into.

Outside of that, Vakh is absolutely not third in his position. He's a player who's played 520 minutes and never started for Leinster over 6 seasons. He's clearly behind Furlong, Ala'alatoa and Clarkson (who has 8 starts for Leinster, significantly more minutes over 4 seasons and has started for Leinster when Vakh has been on the bench). Vakh will be let go because he's never pressed on to challenge even the second string props and is approaching 27.

I wish him the absolutely best and hope he succeeds in his next role but he's simply not made the grade at Leinster and they'd be better investing in an academy prop at this point for the fourth spot.

Geeta

Why let him go now then? It’s a bit coincidental it would happen now just after he has declared for Georgia. It is clearly stated and enshrined in EU Law Vakhs rights here. Any attempt to let him go now would be a direct contravention of EU Law and in fact it has highlighted the absolute archaic nature of the IRFUs policy on foreign players. It’s against EU Law straight up. As for Clarkson I would argue he is well underneath Vakh although not in terms of minutes. In terms of ability absolutely.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120278967#Comment_120278967

There's a difference between letting him go and choosing not to offer him a new contract.

The fact he's opted to make himself NIQ makes him a less attractive prospect to Irish rugby.

The goal is to win matches and produce players to help Ireland win matches. There is a finite pool of contract money to dispense, so it's now better spent on a different player.

In any event, even absent the Georgian situation, it's questionable if they'd have given him another renewal. You're free to have those views on his ranking in the prop stocks (and fwiw I don't particularly rate Clarkson either), but the Leinster coaches don't really rate him. Cian Healy is Leinster's third choice tighthead realistically, and then there is a fair bit of optimism about Rory McGuire in the Academy and potentially Paddy McCarthy down the road (jury still out on which side he focuses as a pro).

It would make sense for Abdaladze himself to go to France or England, possibly make a bit more money and play more regularly.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120278967#Comment_120278967

Why let him go now then?

while serbian did mention "that we probably will drop him now " i dont think anyone is suggesting breaking his contract (hes contracted to the end of 2024) as that would certainly be illegal.

if he does go before the end of 2024 season it will be mutual consent ie leinster wiil be happy for him to seek and gain employment elsewhere.

Exclamation Marc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120278967#Comment_120278967

Its a lot more nuanced than you're making it out to be. But let's say it is that black-and-white (it's absolutely not), hes not being let go now. And even if he was, if Leinster paid out the rest of his contact, they're not in breach of any EU laws. He's not a permanent employee, he's a contract employee.

Exclamation Marc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120278967#Comment_120278967

Also, if Clarkson was "well underneath" Vakh in terms of ability, then Vakh wouldn't be sitting on the bench whilst Clarkson is starting. People generally get minutes and starts because they're better than others in that position.

CIARAN_BOYLE

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120278735#Comment_120278735

There was a French case regarding EU law and making clubs play French qualified players a few years back.

The end result was that as the French union didn't own the French clubs the French union there couldn't be laws making the French clubs favour French qualified players.

The implication was clear that if the French union did own the French clubs (like the irfu own the Irish provinces) there can be laws making the Irish provinces favour Irish qualified players.

This was previously established in a case regarding German professional hockey.

Geeta

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120279008#Comment_120279008

The type of contract is not necessarily important here. What matters here is the motive behind that decision. I’d say 90% of contracted Leinster players are renewed unless retiring, injured or are in a position with a lot of upcoming talent and very few opt to leave. If the conditions for his non-renewal are illegal and he decides to challenge that legality I would say the contracting nature of renewal and non-renewal are irrelevant. As shown in Bosman the nature of the motive behind the decision of non-renewal is what counts.

Geeta

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120279048#Comment_120279048

See above. Nuance and nature of contract don’t exempt motive behind the decision making process which is what counts here.

Geeta

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120279074#Comment_120279074

Not necessarily so. Young players are often given ample gametime to blood them in and accustom them to the pro game. More often than not, this involves fielding teams with majority of players fourth choice in their position. The amount of game time doesn’t necessarily reflect players standing in the squad. Any time I have seen Vakh play he rampages through opposition players and is very productive and destructive in the loose and is a very strong scrummager. I can’t say the same for Clarkson. Vakh has a very strong case for renewal if he chooses to go down that road and his rights are backed up for his renewal by law.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120279180#Comment_120279180

I’d say 90% of contracted Leinster players are renewed unless retiring, injured or are in a position with a lot of upcoming talent and very few opt to leave.

No, this absolutely isn't the case. Just last season Leinster lost about 6 players I think they would have been keen to retain.

You're the only one saying "the conditions for his non-renewal are illegal" and you're patently wrong there. The reason for his non-renewal would be because Leinster don't think he's good enough.

He wasn't starting or getting a whole lot of minutes long before his decision to get capped by Georgia.

AdamD

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120279196#Comment_120279196

He has very little case for renewal. He has barely made the pitch in his 5 years here and has a horrendous injury record. You're talking utter nonsense.

sydthebeat

Absolutely no one has any right to a fixed term contract renewal in Ireland. It's up to the employer at the end of the contract to renew or not.

Geeta

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120279203#Comment_120279203

You're the only one saying "the conditions for his non-renewal are illegal" and you're patently wrong there. The reason for his non-renewal would be because Leinster don't think he's good enough.

What I’m saying is that if the decision takes into account his playing for Georgia and his inability therefore to play for Ireland, then he has a good case, and yes I would say watertight, under EU Law for renewal. It would be for the court to decide if this was a factor in the decision and I will tell you, the timing of this decision, if it were taken by Leinster Rugby, will not play in Leinsters favour. I have highlighted my view on his rampaging ability around the field in any game I have seen him play. Were the conditions therefore for non-renewal, it would have to be determined, based on his nationality therefore and the implementation an illegal policy by the IRFU under the foreign player rule.

Serbian

Wow ok, wasn't expecting a reply like that. Obviously European employment law is complex and there are many legal points raised by Geeta, but none of them apply here. The relevant points here boil down to the fact that Vakh is a contract worker with a specific end date. Ireland and Leinster are free to renew or not renew that contract, and don't have to give a reason.

As quoted, I did say that we are likely to drop him now, but the reality is he was never getting picked in the first place. He's not at the level Leinster need him to be at, so he will get released at the end of his contract, and that's not in contravention of any Irish or European law.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120279299#Comment_120279299

Your opinions on his "rampaging ability" are irrelevant. The people who's opinions matter (the Leinster coaches) disagree. They have consistently ranked him way down the order (in addition to some injury problems etc) long before there was ever an issue over his nationality.

Leinster are not required to give a reason for why they would offer not to extend his contract (but even if they were they wouldn't be so stupid as to suggest it was because of his nationality). His contract will simply come to its end, and that will be it.

Even if he attempted to bring the "watertight" challenge you suggest, he would not succeed as he would have no ability to prove his non-renewal was because of his decision to declare for Georgia.

Dubinusa

Leinster won't and should not offer him another contract. He's not good enough.

Podge_irl

The IRFU are allowed take his eligibility for Ireland into consideration before giving him a contract anyway.

Dubinusa

No Furlong again! Something must be seriously be wrong. This has become a common problem for him. He's played next to nothing all year.

Dubinusa

We should be fairly well set for the Edinburgh tilt. I expect that Larmour and J.O.B will be released.

It's a possibility that Henshaw gets back on the field. This match imo, was always a dodgy one. Now with us getting players back, I am optimistic. We should have a good run out.

Geeta

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120279336#Comment_120279336

Indeed it is in contravention of Irish and EU Law. You are saying that his declaring for Georgia will have no role in the decision made but it has in the past been stated by Nucifora as playing a role in whether a foreign player is signed. He has also stated that if domestic player pathways are in danger of being impended by the signing of a foreign player it will be a factor in whether or not to sign them. That is against EU Law and your simplistic rebuttal of my argument by saying that it isn’t a factor at play if not provable is incorrect. Even an implied policy is enough to win here and if implemented with a combination of other factors it would be sufficient to prove his case. All Vakh has to show is that the decision making process is based on factors like the above and would implicitly denigrate his ability to sign or put him at a disadvantage.

stephen_n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120279184#Comment_120279184

It’s a professional club, you speak of motives as if there is some unfair process here. The IRFU have rules about NIQ players. Vakh knew by playing for Georgia he would make himself NIQ. He made that choice and fair play to him.

The reality is Vakh is 4th choice tighthead with a pretty poor injury record. He could be 5th choice by the time his contract is up. There’s a good chance his contract would not have been renewed regardless of him being NIQ.

Dubinusa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120280022#Comment_120280022

Vakh will be lucky to get a contract anywhere. What's he going to sue for? The salary of a 4th choice tight head.

DelMcG

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120279452#Comment_120279452

Sadly true. Nothing to do with his newly-minted international status - as noted, he knew full well what impact declaring for Georgia would have on his career.

He just hasn't kicked on as well as anyone would have hoped and he's been overtaken. Even if he was still Ireland-qualified, I doubt he'd have been renewed. He's 27 years old now and he's never actually started a game of professional rugby. He's only ever worn the 18 shirt for Leinster and for Georgia.