Simon Porter: Player Agent on NZ Rugby taking legal action against Ineos for a breach of contract

Ineos has described New Zealand Rugby's legal action as unfortunate, as the two parties clash over a strained sponsorship agreement. 

Ineos failed to pay their first 2025 instalment of an $8 million a year deal, which NZR see as confirmation they've exited the arrangement early. 

The Sir Jim Ratcliffe-owned petrochemical company claims they tried to negotiate a solution before legal action hit the table. 

Local player agent Simon Porter told Mike Hosking the parties will have had extensive discussions already. 

He says this would have been a last resort, and NZR would have been trying really hard to get Ineos across the line first. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
As if New Zealand Rugby didn't need more trouble there,
right off to court after calling and the lawyers has
resulted in US and their sixty year sponsorship partner bailing
after only three it's a breach of contract, scrap. Simon
Porter is managing director of Halo Sport, which is rugby's
most influential player business. He's one of the sport's most
influential player agents. I hope I have an over soldier there, Simon.

(00:20):
Morning to you, good.

Speaker 2 (00:22):
Morning, good morning. Now it's always humbling in Tesla.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
Well that's good. Do you know what's happened here? I mean,
do you is there a lot of scuttle but behind
the scenes and we're all going, you know, oh yeah
we saw this coming or not?

Speaker 2 (00:34):
No, not really. I think there were a few whispers
around the place last year sort of off the back
of reckless investment into Manchester United, but really don't know.
That's what would be quite interesting if it ever does
see the light of day in court with pleadings, et cetera,
to see what is behind it. But no, it sort
of came a little bit out of the.

Speaker 1 (00:53):
Blue because the risk the union take is that in
the us have got a counter argument, which is we
were expecting as part of the contract ABC dn E
and none of that's happened.

Speaker 2 (01:02):
Hence we've gone, yeah, that that is one way it
could be. Or they might just be backing themselves that
the All Blacks, being one of the biggest brands in
the world, can just replace them quite easily given what
there is to offer with space on the Jersey and
the training jusey, etcetera, and going yep, well we've broken
the contract, but you've now got a duty to mitigate
your loss and go and find a replacement for that hole,

(01:24):
and that they might just be backing themselves that New
Zealand can do that, But I think New Zealand have
to protect themselves by getting the proceedings in Really, so.

Speaker 1 (01:33):
You think they're making the right move?

Speaker 2 (01:36):
Who's that in New Zealand? Right? Yeah? Yeah, I just
don't think they've probably got another option. Look, and I'm
sure one thing, you know, scuttled up behind the scenes,
et cetera. Discussions would have been going like this will
be last resort, this isn't the first thing they'll do.
They would have been trying really hard to get in
across the line et cetera. And so I would have
thought to protect their position, they probably have to be

(01:59):
in the proceed needs to say hey, well we're actually serious,
and you know you've got a front with cash, even
if they are trying to find a replacement. I think,
you know, is a is a very rusty lawyer. I
think you probably just have to you know, you've got
to protect your position. Begin the proceedings in.

Speaker 1 (02:15):
In what court would this be held and over what
time frame would it unfold?

Speaker 2 (02:20):
Well, there'll be a jurisdiction clause in the contract, which,
given that New Zealand are based, when he's in a
Rugany's based obviously in New Zealand, I would have thought
it's probably in the High Court here in New Zealand.

Speaker 1 (02:33):
Okay, it would be my guess, and presumably.

Speaker 2 (02:36):
Insisted on an English clause for other world of law
for the contract. And I just don't actually know.

Speaker 1 (02:41):
The interesting thing for me is that this is a
fifty five billion and when I say billion, I mean euros,
so it's one hundred billion dollar plus company. And they're claiming,
allegedly this morning that times are a bit tight in petrochemicals,
you know, six six, seven, eight, million dollars worth of
business is not falling it because I mean that's not
a reason is it to walk away from a contract?

Speaker 2 (03:01):
No, something's happened there. Yeah, I don't know. I honestly
don't know. They could. Yeah, well, I mean they've got
I mean it's very hard with always sponsori contract designed
you effectively give up a bundle of right. So they
gave them the training Jersey. I think there's a spot
on the shorts, which was a new initiative by New

(03:22):
Zealand Rugby. And then it'll say they get to see
a number of player hours where you know, players come
and they're available for photo shoots or they're available for
in person appearances, et cetera. Like to say that you
haven't provided something. It's probably pretty difficult because they are
extremely prescriptive contracts.

Speaker 1 (03:41):
Is six years unusual?

Speaker 2 (03:43):
No, Well, they did the fun of Jersey with our
trade was six years, and a lot of the contracts
that have done we're all six year contracts that were
done at a similar time. Now, probably that is collective
agreements normally run three years, so I imagine that they try
to get two cycles of collective agreements to give certainty

(04:04):
when you're doing collective agreement negotiations.

Speaker 1 (04:07):
Is eight million a good deal? I was surprised at
how low it was to be, Frank, I.

Speaker 2 (04:13):
Don't know if that's actually the number right, but there's
a lot of those for a team that only plays
fourteen games a year, you know, compared to a Major
League Baseball team that plays one hundred and sixty or
you know anything, it's probably not bad in the in
the scheme of things of their other partners, you know,

(04:34):
it's right up there as one of their top deals.
I think the Turner was about two hundred and sixty
eight million last year, and about one hundred and twenty
of that was sponsorship front of Juicy pay a Lot
because that is the premium spot. So you know, look
at and all those deals were done before and he's
in a MBI commercial split off and before civil it

(04:55):
was really done because you know, if you look back
at the timing. So this is actually a really interesting
little exercise now to see if they do go out
and try to replace you, if they get another sponsor
or one of their existing sponsors who's not on the
jersey to step up and fill the hole.

Speaker 1 (05:10):
Is the market the point eight million you can't get
it locally, it has to be a big player internationally.

Speaker 2 (05:16):
Yep. Yeah. If you look at their sponsors, then generally
they are from abroad, in big foreign companies, because you know,
they're just that's probably one of the biggest changes in
the sponsorship landscape over the last sort of fifteen years
is that you know that the numbers needed to run
these teams and to run these organizations are so huge

(05:37):
that you know you kind of have no option but
to position it as a as a global brand attracting
global sponsors.

Speaker 1 (05:44):
Interesting stuff, all right, So I appreciate your expertise. Simon
port Halo, Sport Managing Director.

Speaker 2 (05:49):
For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks they'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.