More Force Controversy - Gits Contract

[The InnFORCEr]

I caught the Lateline News on Nine last night and during the sports report they mentioned about our WA weekend papers reported Gits extended contract, and then went onto to say the "Channel 9 can reveal that Matt Giteau actually signed for $6 million over 5 years in his original contract which contravene ARU rules".

I have had a look about this morning but cannot find it or anything about it online.

[BLR]

I saw that too, seeing as SMH didn't get a wiff of it I think it's just a bit of bs...

[KenyaQuin]

Bugger..hope there's nothing in it..

Talking about sport reports, saw Sports Tonight (C10) last night and they had a good few minutes worth on the Force (including a brief chat with Lackie). Good to see the boys finally getting positive airtime.

[Darren]

I recall there was talk of $6million over 5 years when he first signed ...

[Darren]

Here's the article: ABC Sport - Rugby Union - Giteau poised to join Force in record deal: report

[The InnFORCEr]

Interesting

[BLR]

Maybe he was signed up for 5 years with a get out option after three?

[The InnFORCEr]

Maybe he was signed up for 5 years with a get out option after three?

I'm not sure how it contravened ARU rules, perhaps contarcts are a 3 or 4 year max??

[BLR]

I'm not sure how it contravened ARU rules, perhaps contarcts are a 3 or 4 year max??

I think the contravention was that they signed him for 5 years but only announced they signed him for three years....lying about the length....at least that's what the report on channel nine led me to think...

[AndyS]

I'm not sure how it contravened ARU rules, perhaps contarcts are a 3 or 4 year max??

In which case surely that article would have said as much. Lote signed for 5 years, but that probably doesn't mean anything as the ARU openly stated that no contracting rules applied to him. I can't see how this can be anything though, as the ARU surely signed the same deal as RWA and Matt - I assume they read it and were happy with the conditions. Even if Matt indicated to the Force from the start that he would probably extend the contract, that would not have been binding and I doubt even the ARU could come up with a way of fining the Force for an indication of intent. If so, every player that said he was happy and couldn't see himself moving would get his team fined - start with the Reds if Greg Holmes hasn't actually put pen to paper.

[gustafsl]

I think the contravention was that they signed him for 5 years but only announced they signed him for three years....lying about the length....at least that's what the report on channel nine led me to think...

Can't really see this being a problem. If they had signed him for five years what do they have to gain out of saying it is only three years? Also, doubt they even have a requirement to release any information. My understanding is they sign the player, let ARU know of the contract (as they have to approve it) and then that is it. If they want to hold a press conference and announce it to the public then so be it. Obviously the information would eventually get out as other teams would be able to know what players are coming off contract.

[BLR]

Can't really see this being a problem. If they had signed him for five years what do they have to gain out of saying it is only three years? Also, doubt they even have a requirement to release any information. My understanding is they sign the player, let ARU know of the contract (as they have to approve it) and then that is it. If they want to hold a press conference and announce it to the public then so be it. Obviously the information would eventually get out as other teams would be able to know what players are coming off contract.

That's what confused me with the report when I head it on Nine...probably the reason why it hasn't been anywhere else yet....I think he actually said it was all a rumor too, either the media and getting together to make a huge case or the current case at the moment is so weak that they don't want to pursue it...

[RuckNMaul]

Maybe he was signed up for 5 years with a get out option after three?

but hes only been with us for 2 so far

[laura]

I heard that he signed for 3 with the option of an extra 2. I don't mind what happened in the past, he said he's here to stay so lets just be grateful of that fact and let ARU have their whinge.

[The InnFORCEr]

but hes only been with us for 2 so far

That's right Krusher, we were originally told his contract was until end of 2009 and now they have said he has re-signed for an extra two years until the end of 2011, but it appears that he may have actually signed for five until 2011 originally, but we were only told about the first three


P.S - Did you know you know you share the nick name of Krusher with Mark Gasniers brother??