Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

'I was really disappointed': Beauden Barrett refutes sabbatical report

(Photo by Dan Mullan/Getty Images)

Contrary to reports last week, Beauden Barrett did not approach New Zealand Rugby regarding a bold deal that would see the All Blacks utility back spend two years overseas while remaining eligible for the national side following the coming Rugby World Cup.

ADVERTISEMENT

The New Zealand Herald broke the news that Barrett had requested what would have amounted to a landmark deal, allowing the 31-year-old to spend two seasons abroad before returning home to NZ ahead of the 2027 World Cup. Crucially, while based outside of New Zealand, Barrett would have been allowed to continue playing for the All Blacks.

The Spinoff revealed on Sunday, however, that it was not Barrett or his agent who approached NZR. Indeed, it was an NZR representative who first brought the idea to Barrett.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

“I love playing for the All Blacks and still believe I have something to offer, but as my career is nearer the end than the start, I’m also keen to explore other options and experiences,” Barrett told the Spinoff.

“I was really disappointed by the [report’s] implication that I’d tried to put myself above the rules, though. One of the first things that’s drummed into you in rugby is that nobody is bigger than the team and I believe in that idea wholeheartedly.”

NZR released a statement confirming Barrett’s side of the story:

“In discussions with Beauden about his potential to remain in New Zealand beyond the World Cup, NZR management raised a possible option of him playing for the All Blacks in between participating in offshore competitions in one year of a much longer term. All parties were aware that further discussion and decision on this remained subject to NZR board decision.

“Any suggestion that Beauden proactively came to NZR seeking exceptional treatment is incorrect. He remains a highly regarded employee of NZR.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Ultimately, the board ruled out the possibility of the unique arrangement after objections from the Super Rugby franchises and provincial unions.

Barrett’s agent, Warren Alcock, confirmed to the Spinoff that they were considering all options following the 2023 World Cup but that a move offshore was certainly a possibility.

Barrett has previously been linked with French powerhouse Racing 92. Should the former World Rugby Player of the Year, New Zealand will be left with few experienced options in the No 10 jersey, with fellow All Blacks Richie Mo’unga already signalling his intentions to head overseas in 2024.

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 1 hour ago
'Passionate reunion of France and New Zealand shows Fabien Galthie is wrong to rest his stars'

Where? I remember saying "unders"? The LNR was formed by the FFR, if I said that in a way that meant the 'pro' side of the game didn't have an equal representation/say as the 'amateur' side (FFR remit) that was not my intent.


But also, as it is the governing body, it also has more responsibility. As long as WR looks at FFR as the running body for rugby in France, that 'power' will remain. If the LNR refuses to govern their clubs use of players to enable a request by FFR (from WR) to ensure it's players are able to compete in International rugby takes place they will simply remove their participation. If the players complain to the France's body, either of their health and safety concerns (through playing too many 'minutes' etc) or that they are not allowed to be part in matches of national interest, my understanding is action can be taken against the LNR like it could be any other body/business. I see where you're coming from now re EPCR and the shake up they gave it, yes, that wasn't meant to be a separate statement to say that FFR can threaten them with EPCR expulsion by itself, simply that it would be a strong repercussion for those teams to be removed (no one would want them after the above).


You keep bringing up these other things I cannot understand why. Again, do you think if the LNR were not acting responsibly they would be able to get away with whatever they want (the attitude of these posters saying "they pay the players")? You may deem what theyre doing currently as being irresponsible but most do not. Countries like New Zealand have not even complained about it because they've never had it different, never got things like windfall TV contracts from France, so they can't complain because theyre not missing out on anything. Sure, if the French kept doing things like withholding million dollar game payments, or causing millions of dollars of devaluation in rights, they these things I'm outlining would be taking place. That's not the case currently however, no one here really cares what the French do. It's upto them to sort themselves out if they're not happy. Now, that said, if they did make it obvious to World Rugby that they were never going to send the French side away (like they possibly did stating their intent to exclude 20 targeted players) in July, well then they would simply be given XV fixtures against tier 2 sides during that window and the FFR would need to do things like the 50/50 revenue split to get big teams visiting in Nov.

307 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ 'England's blanket of despair feels overdone - they are not a team in freefall' 'England's blanket of despair feels overdone - they are not a team in freefall'
Search