Manu cites partner as reason to stay put

By CHRIS RATTUE

All Blacks prospect Deacon Manu says his partner's changed employment situation is the reason he wants to quit his contract with Auckland.

This week the Employment Court ruled it had jurisdiction to hear Waikato's claim that the two-year contract the 23-year-old prop signed with Auckland is invalid.

At the least, Manu's ability to start next season's Super 12 is under threat. At worst, in the unlikely event he refuses to honour a court-validated Auckland contract, he could be sidelined for two years.

On Tuesday in Wellington, Judge Coral Shaw dismissed the New Zealand and Auckland rugby unions' objection to the court's jurisdiction.

The earliest court hearing date is probably in February - the Super 12 starts on February 23 - although all parties hope to avoid proceedings.

Auckland this year headhunted Manu, the rising front-row star who has played for Waikato, the Chiefs, New Zealand Maori, Colts and Universities.

Manu was also on standby for the just-completed All Blacks tour to Europe, indicating he is a World Cup candidate.

Auckland had four meetings with Manu before he signed a contract on July 5 to play for them - and by inference the Blues - in the 2003 and 2004 seasons.

But in mid-September, Manu told Auckland he wanted out of his contract. By that stage Waikato had put behind them the disappointments of recent seasons, and their renewed form was seen as a reason Manu wanted to stay.

The Herald understands, however, that Manu told Auckland his schoolteacher partner Paula had been offered a job she could not refuse and he needed to stay in Hamilton.

Waikato - who have already won New Zealand Rugby Union approval to secure an un-named prop should Manu not return to them - claim the Auckland contract is invalid.

Under an agreement with the players' union, the NZRFU employs the country's professional players and seconds them to the unions.

But Auckland signed Manu as an independent contractor, something Auckland chief executive David White describes as an oversight.

"We were in transition from the old procedure to the new collective agreement," says White. "But the validity of the contract has been confirmed by our own legal advice and supported by the NZRFU.

"It's important for the integrity of rugby contracts that we don't roll over with this. You can't let players pick and choose.

"Deacon did not go into this with his eyes closed. He is a very professional, intelligent man and he committed himself to play for us.

"Deacon informed us he wanted out just five days before the Super 12 selection cut-off date. It left us in a very difficult situation."

And former test cricketer White is not about to roll over on the issue.

"We'd like to see it resolved out of court ... The ball is solely in Deacon's court. He's got to make the move."

Mediation on October 14 and a meeting between Auckland, Waikato and New Zealand a week later failed to find a solution.

Already the wrangle has involved submissions to the Employment Court citing precedents from as far away as the Supreme Court of Florida.

White's Waikato counterpart, Gary Dawson, says Auckland's claim of an "oversight" doesn't wash, and it is they who are damaging the integrity of the rugby contract system.

"The New Zealand union spent a lot of money on the players' collectives and the 27 unions all knew how it worked. They all signed.

"We're saying to [the NZRFU] they are breaking their own rules endorsing the Auckland contract."

Dawson says there are basic differences between collective and contract agreements. But the crux of Waikato's argument is that the NZRFU is blatantly disregarding its own rules.

The sensible solution, he says, is for Auckland to stop chasing a reluctant player and accept compensation instead.

"I'm not saying Deacon should get off scott free. He may have to buy his way out," says Dawson. "I'd like to think that, in the same situation, we would let the player go.

"Player welfare is important. What's the use of forcing him? He is not doing this on a whim ...

"But there are fundamental issues at stake here that we are quite prepared to work through [in the courts] ... although we'd like to resolve it for Deacon before that."