MATT GITEAU REJECTS $1.6M FORCE OFFER

[AndyS]

It is an interesting situation he is now in. My reading of the article in the West today is that, having rejected the offer made, he won't be getting another. If that is the case, it would have to have damaged his negotiating position. I wonder whether the Tahs might stick their oar in because, if not, why would they pay him big bucks to return to Canberra?

It will be interesting to see what the Force does with the release request. If past history is anything to go by, they will have missed the Australian contracting window and won't be able to make any approaches to other players. That means any replacement would have to be from outside, and there is no real time for that either. So I wouldn't be surprised to see them deny the release, particularly as the ARU has said that his contract stands. If it goes to law, I would have thought it would the contract that would be the binding document and I wouldn't think that contains anything about Firepower or any other third party contracts - it couldn't, otherwise the ARU wouldn't have signed off on it. The burden will be on Giteau to demonstrate that Firepower formed part of his inducements, and if he could he would surely be stuffed by the ARU for not cooperating with their investigation into contracts.

The people who would least like to see this go to law will be the ARU. If Giteau made his case, it would effectively mean that any player sharing sponsors with the club will be able to make the same claim. The end result of that would be that club and player sponsorships would have to be kept separate (very difficult when the players are then the recognisable faces of the team) or the clubs end up having to guarantee, maybe even underwrite, player sponsorships. What would that then say about the legality of the ARU protocols when the specifically prohibit underwriting?

[Tazzmania]

I agree that too many are taking for granted that he is going to ask for an early release.

At this point both the Brumbies and Force have chosen the bulk of their 2009 squads based on the personnel they expected to have, while the Brumbies will have no hesitation in taking Matt early surley it would be unfair to the players chosen to fill those positions with contarcts for next season, and the converse for the Force, they based thioer choices on what they expected to have.

I know it is not an ideal world, and at such a late stage of preceedings for 2009 Super 14, I strongly believe that Matt will honour his contract, giving us time to build a repacement and Brumbies to make room for him.

In the end the Super 14 teams are there for the greater good of the Wallabies, do not forget Matt and the other Force players will be Wallaby team mates for some time to come, and he would want to make the chnage back as smooth as possible.

[JediKnight]

Anyone else get the irony of it being Sharpie who threw Giteau the hospital pass when he got clattered.....?!?!?

"Here you go, Matty-boy.....take this back to Canberra with you!!!!!!"

[Jehna]

So, in effect, nothing's changed since all these extraordinary headlines started?

Gits is still with the Force for 2009, and I imagine like a few other players has no contract for 2010, and will cross that bridge when he comes to it.

Right. Back to reading my e-mails from my Kiwi "friends"...

Exactly! I really think that the reaction to this entire story has been completely exaggerated. Basically we're in exactly the same position we were in a week ago. Gits may not have signed with the Force under the conditionso of this new deal but he also hasn't signed with anyone else. That's it. Full stop. All this talk about how this means he is going to seek an early release, or he'll leave at the end of 2009, or sign with the Brumbies etc is simply speculation. We are no closer to knowing if any of this is true than we were prior to the offer. There could be a million reasons explainig why Gits rejected the offer from ET mining that aren't related to him wanting to leave the club. So personally i'm not stressing and I certainly am not condemning him for what essentially ends up being his 'inaction.'

I believe he is contracted to the Force till 2011 also, but he has a clause in his contract which would allow him to choose to leave for another province after the 2009 season.

I was under the impression that he was contracted until 2009 with an optional clause to extend that contract until 2011. So essentially the opposite...

[AndyS]

Basically we're in exactly the same position we were in a week ago...There could be a million reasons explainig why Gits rejected the offer from ET mining that aren't related to him wanting to leave the club.

Perhaps, but I wouldn't be real optimistic. It is sponsorship, so I can actually think of very few reasons for him knocking back the money other than an unwillingness to commit to the duration. The only other reason I could see as likely would be a problem with the company or individuals involved in the offer. I suppose it could be pure petulance over the last contract, but you'd hope his agent would have something to say about that.

That said, his statement that "...I've declined the offer. It's not what everyone seems to think it is though. That's all I can say about it," is intriguing, so you may be right and there is something else entirely going on.

I was under the impression that he was contracted until 2009 with an optional clause to extend that contract until 2011.

My recollection is the same as Coach's - he is actually signed through to 2011, but the contract includes a clause allowing him to field offers at the end of 2009. If he were to do nothing, the Force contract would roll on.

[KenyaQuin]

My recollection is the same as Coach's - he is actually signed through to 2011, but the contract includes a clause allowing him to field offers at the end of 2009. If he were to do nothing, the Force contract would roll on.

And here's my recollection. Contract of 5 years is a no-no under ARU guidelines so way around it was a 3 year contract with a 2 year extension option. Would be similar to the current contract flava-of-the-month deals such as that of JOC which are said to be "2 year contracts" but are really 1 year deals with a 1 year extension option.

[Jehna]

That was my thought KQ. NOt to mention that with a '5 year contract with a pull out option after 3' it does seem to fly against the concept that players can't be approached by clubs officially to sign for time they are still contracted to another club for

[AndyS]

"But the sting in the tail came when the Force revealed Giteau's agreement includes a clause allowing him to listen to other offers from Australian Super 14 sides before the provincial component of his contract kicks in for 2010 and 2011."
Giteau commits to ARU until 2011 - Breaking News - Sport - Breaking News

[The Big I]

If Giteau leaves it would be amusing if he went to Europe. It would kill the ACt supporters.

[Jehna]

"But the sting in the tail came when the Force revealed Giteau's agreement includes a clause allowing him to listen to other offers from Australian Super 14 sides before the provincial component of his contract kicks in for 2010 and 2011."
Giteau commits to ARU until 2011 - Breaking News - Sport - Breaking News

I guess it could be read either way. Depends on the wording of the specific clause