Armitage Shanks himself to England (Possibly)

[Vamos los azules]

There is no restraint of trade - his trade is playing rugby, not being selected for the International representative team - which is a judgement call in any case. There is no restraint on him plying his trade.

But what if he said I was an International Rugby Player before my move to France and the RFU are stopping me continuing as an International Rugby Player. I know it is semantics but surely that is what the Law is all about.

No-one has a right to be an international rugby player just because they have been in the past. The argument you are suggesting regarding the international selectors stopping a player being an international could just as easily be made by Nick Easter. He hasn't retired. He still wants to play for England. The RFU are stopping him continuing as an international rugby player too by not selecting him because of his age. Do you believe he should be taking a case against the international selectors as well? If you do, where do you stop?

[leinster4life13]

But the likes of Easter were not told, "we are not picking you because you moved to Durham, if you move back to Ealing, we will pick you again", Fat Armitage has been explicitly told he is not being picked based on his geographic location, no other reason.

[Morf]

But the likes of Easter were not told, "we are not picking you because you moved to Durham, if you move back to Ealing, we will pick you again", Fat Armitage has been explicitly told he is not being picked based on his geographic location, no other reason.

He's been explicitly told he wouldn't be considered for selection. There is a difference and any other wording used would be a bit silly on their part.

[simonokeeffe]

Toulon have said Armitage is playing this weekend so hes not moving this season

[Vamos los azules]

But the likes of Easter were not told, "we are not picking you because you moved to Durham, if you move back to Ealing, we will pick you again", Fat Armitage has been explicitly told he is not being picked based on his geographic location, no other reason.

They aren't saying they would definitely pick him if he was playing in England, just that he isn't being considered because he plays in France.

There are rumours about him having had a falling out with one of the England Saxons coaches a few years ago. If Cipriani was still not being welcomed back because of his history when they were scratching around for someone to play 10 on the NZ tour then anything that did happen could well still count against Armitage even if he was playing in England.

[The Doc]

There is no restraint of trade - his trade is playing rugby, not being selected for the International representative team - which is a judgement call in any case. There is no restraint on him plying his trade.

But what if he said I was an International Rugby Player before my move to France and the RFU are stopping me continuing as an International Rugby Player. I know it is semantics but surely that is what the Law is all about.

I think you are missing the point. Representing your country isn't a trade. Playing the game is his trade. Nothing is stopping his ability to ply his trade. The fact he is playing it is actually proof of that.

So no.... Its not a valid argument legally

[simonokeeffe]

BBC further reporting that Bath wanted central funding to (part) buy out his contract but werent given any and they seemingly didnt want to pay out so much