Re: John Mitchell's interview..

"Kip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> He is in direct control of their selection, hence remuneration. He is
> a superior. Not a huge deal of difference.

There is a substantial difference. Mitchell has said that he discussed the
reasons with the players why he wasn't selecting them - the NZRU didn't do
that with Mitchell. Seemingly at no point did they "performance manage" him
to ensure they were following the contract as he had signed it. And *that*
is the one point that no-one has picked up. If the NZRU was unhappy with his
performance, and his contract allowed for things like media liason to be
covered, then they should have acted way before they did - that will be
another aspect taken into account if Mitchell takes a personal grievance.

With regard to remuneration, this is set by the NZRU, presumably with match
payments for tests on top of what they earn - because they are contracted by
the NZRU whether Mitchell selects them or not has no bearing on what they
are paid per se, only what performance benefits they pick up.

Ultimately though, what this does show is that the NZRU overall has a long
way to go before they can be considered "professional".

--
Mr Scebe
Losers always whine about their 'best'.
Winners go home and fuck the prom queen".
~Sean Connery in "The Rock"