Poaching... The benefits and the drawbacks...?

I read a response to a post early by a young Englishman who sees the future in English rugby being the fact that, as a wealthy rugby nation, they have more draw to poach talent from around the world than anyone else, bar maybe France. He see's this as the inevitable future, citing the Kiwis successes of the years being due to their ability to pilfer the islanders.

Interesting thought, and worthy of a thread of its own.

As some of you may know from my previous threads I am very much against poaching and was ashamed of the way my beloved Wales were so blatantly guilty hiring foreigners with little connection to Wales to play for us in the late nineties and the WRU were then rightfully accused of falsifying foreign born players right to qualify for them by the IRB. Something I am glad we have put well behind us now concentrating on developing young Welsh players through our accademies.

So...! The poaching debate continues.

It was a big story pre world cup though what have been the plusses and the minuses, the bonuses and the draw backs of having players that were born in other countries playing for your nation...?

Has there been a difference in the performance of players that may have been born in other countries but qualified through residency and playing in the youth schemes of the country they now represent over players that were not...?

Is poaching players a good thing or a bad thing in hindsight of the recent RWC experience so far...?


A link to the mentioned discussion below.

https://www.606v2.com/t16470-between-now-and-2015-rugby-world-cup?foe

lol

its not a good thing but its life

mm,

Morning buddy, this could really get the fur flying lol.

My own view is that the IRB really need to crack down again on this as (and we all as guilty as each other).

I think the whole residency and qualify period needs to be looked at.

I am ok with players like Faletau and Tuilagi to name but two because they were brought here by their parents and had little choice in the matter and have been brought up in the respective countries they now play for.

But I am against encouraging adults over here such as Flutey, Waldrum and for us few years back Jones Hughes, Marinos, Luscombe etc.

These guys I feel are only here because they know they wouldn't get into the native national side, Arlidge in Japan FFS.

In the British Isles we will always have cross country qualified players because of our geographic closeness etc and I suppose Ben Morgan is the high profile one at the moment, will he choose Wales or England.

My kids for arguments sake can play for Wales through myself and Mrs Bedford, England through birth (ggggrrrrrr) or Ireland through grand parents.

Yes it is a similar situation in that respect to what the Kiwis have with the islanders, where most of their team were born in NZ to parents who originated outside NZ.

My own children could have played for Wales or Ireland, my grand children could play for Wales,Ireland, France, Israel, South Africa, Australia or Scotland and i guess for England through residency.

Like you i am hoping that when the IRB does make its review of the Laws in the next twelve months, please don't expect it pre Six nations, that residency qualification will be tightened up to prevent adult players who have failed to qualify for tier one nations playing for another.

Though i would also like to see the rules being altered in some way to benefit the lower tiered nations and help them progress.

Not sure how it could be done but believe it would be worth while all the same.

residency qualified players are vital to the smaller tier 2/3 nations, without them these nations will struggle to progress. The IRB IMHO have set the residency bar low in order to help them, tier 1 nations like England (and many others) have benifited as a result.

Be clear that changing residency rules will impact other nations outside of our small island.

these laws wont be changed- its a massive deal and goes way beyond sport(human rights laws)- if players qualify they qualify. the point is simple, no sporting union has the right to tell someone what they are, its upto the person in question!!. NZ have the choice of the best from plenty of countries, the somoans and figis of this world only get the failed players. The englands of this world will allways also be in a position where they have more of a draw to poach than others due to the size and money of the union. As you have said wales tried this before but only got failed players from other countries(they only went to waes because they couldnt get into there other national squads). So wales are on a very good path to producing there own good players. Englands and WALES cricket team on the other hand like the all blacks do very well from this approach. But england fooitball team will never ever go down that route- which i suppose is something to respect, just like wales is doing with rugby at present

I don't think poaching or whatever else you want to call it will ever stop.

The world is getting smaller, people emigrate all the time due to job opportunities. It is only natural that the same thinng will happen in rugby union.

Unless the IRB makes a law that says you may only represent the country you were born in or you moved to before a certain age, the residency law can always apply whether we like it or not.

I am of the opinion that this whole poaching thing is a non issue. Why? Becuase it doesn't matter. no country will ever build the best team in the world on a consistent basis of imports only. It simply just isn't possible.

The only negative aspect of poaching I see is the guys that lose out on representing their country becuase of poaching.

Those are the guys we need to feel empathise with.

"Unless the IRB makes a law that says you may only represent the country you were born in or you moved to before a certain age"

i dont even think they could make that decsion, because it goes against human rights laws

exactly.

mystiroakey wrote:"Unless the IRB makes a law that says you may only represent the country you were born in or you moved to before a certain age"

i dont even think they could make that decsion, because it goes against human rights laws

Which Human Rights laws are those?

I think you mean fair trade, or employment laws... I really don't think amnesty international will get involved in the dealings of the IRB.

Back in the dark ages,when I first bought a computer I was with Freeserve,.There rugby forum included a gentleman by the name of JOVIAL JIM.
It was during 2003 RWC,we came to the following conclusions.
Players of emigrants,say for argument Samoa ,born in NZ or bought up from an early age[under15].
This at the time applied to All Blacks only,the player had a choice,BUT once the choice was made.AT any level Schoolboy,agegroup,sevens,Junior or A side to full International that was it.
Currently,if parents are of mixed countries players can play for,either of parents team.OR the host country if it is different to the parents,OR by the Grandparents if different,OR by residenceof 3 years.PROVIDING they have not represented a team at test level.
I would increase residency to 5 years,do away with the Grand parents qualification.
Include a clause that qualified players in tier 2 sides,can pick former All Blacks or Wallabies.
If my family emigrates to say Australia,with me when I am young,I would consider myself an Ozzie.etc.
Indeed I maybe related distantly By my Mothers sisters,to Joe Roff[wallaby player they emigrated when I was very young.

maestegmafia wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"Unless the IRB makes a law that says you may only represent the country you were born in or you moved to before a certain age"

i dont even think they could make that decsion, because it goes against human rights laws

Which Human Rights laws are those?

I think you mean fair trade, or employment laws... I really don't think amnesty international will get involved in the dealings of the IRB.

i think employment laws etc is more of a problem when it comes to club sport- the whole (how could we stop a certain amount of non brits playing in the premiership- its ok to stop non eu, but eu is a very grey area)

It boils down to The basic human right of being able to be a resident/national of a country if that country allows you to.(i am not saying this is fact at all just making an observation)

1. If a player came to wales at 14 for example and got residency or a passport how can a sporting body tell that person they are not welsh
2. if a player has a parent or a grandparent of another country and applies and gets a passport for that other country how can a sporting body tell that person they are not from that other country...

If they tried- it could go to the international courts and the person in question would surely win

Its going to be difficult to really control.

I think the ones that all nations rugby fans complain at are :

1) the ones who obviously cant make their own teams and just come over for the money then make it by residency....Fourie, Flutey, Cockbain, The Chainsaw (Scotland) etc etc

2) Those who have already played for another team in rugby league. Hape, Vainikolo, Brad Thorne etc etc.

I personally believe alot of problems would be solved simply by increasing the residency rule to 5 - 7 years, and that if you have represented another nation at rugby league / B teams (Maori's etc) already you should not be eligable.




and the

mystiroakey wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"Unless the IRB makes a law that says you may only represent the country you were born in or you moved to before a certain age"

i dont even think they could make that decsion, because it goes against human rights laws

Which Human Rights laws are those?

I think you mean fair trade, or employment laws... I really don't think amnesty international will get involved in the dealings of the IRB.

i think employment laws etc is more of a problem when it comes to club sport- the whole (how could we stop a certain amount of non brits playing in the premiership- its ok to stop non eu, but eu is a very grey area)

It boils down to The basic human right of being able to be a resident/national of a country if that country allows you to.(i am not saying this is fact at all just making an observation)

1. If a player came to wales at 14 for example and got residency or a passport how can a sporting body tell that person they are not welsh
2. if a player has a parent or a grandparent of another country and applies and gets a passport for that other country how can a sporting body tell that person they are not from that other country...

If they tried- it could go to the international courts and the person in question would surely win

That is nothing to do with human rights, that is employment law.

As an England fan I don't like it, not necessarily because they aren't homegrown, but because there are better options that are English anyway.

maestegmafia wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"Unless the IRB makes a law that says you may only represent the country you were born in or you moved to before a certain age"

i dont even think they could make that decsion, because it goes against human rights laws

Which Human Rights laws are those?

I think you mean fair trade, or employment laws... I really don't think amnesty international will get involved in the dealings of the IRB.

i think employment laws etc is more of a problem when it comes to club sport- the whole (how could we stop a certain amount of non brits playing in the premiership- its ok to stop non eu, but eu is a very grey area)

It boils down to The basic human right of being able to be a resident/national of a country if that country allows you to.(i am not saying this is fact at all just making an observation)

1. If a player came to wales at 14 for example and got residency or a passport how can a sporting body tell that person they are not welsh
2. if a player has a parent or a grandparent of another country and applies and gets a passport for that other country how can a sporting body tell that person they are not from that other country...

If they tried- it could go to the international courts and the person in question would surely win

That is nothing to do with human rights, that is employment law.

why do you think that?

you dont need to be a resident or national to work in any country(you can do it on a visa), but to play for a national team you need to. If someone tells you you cant play for a country's sporting team even though you are a resident or a national- that is going against your own human rights- I really am struggling with your thought proicess if you think that is todo with employment laws

EnglishReign wrote:As an England fan I don't like it, not necessarily because they aren't homegrown, but because there are better options that are English anyway.

Bar maybe Tuilagi, who has a lot of maturing to do, but he is very young, the foreign imports haven't worked for England at all.

Maybe as with many other countries who tried this before importing "talent" will be a forgotten embarrassing experiment left in the past...

Here is the list of foreign born players in the 45 man training squad from the Telegraph.

Dylan Hartley (New Zealand moved at 15)
Simon Shaw (Kenya moved at 16)
Manu Tuilagi (Samoa moved at 13)
Charlie Sharples (Born Hong Kong)
Delon Armitage (Born Trinidad)
Joe Simpson (Born Australia)
Riki Flutey (New Zealand Moved to England 2005)
Hendre Fourie (SA Moved to England 2005)
Matt Stevens (SA Moved to England in 2002)
Shontayne Hape (New Zealand moved to England in 2003)
Mouritz Botha (SA moved to England in 2006)
Thomas Waldrom (New Zealand moved to England in 2010)
Alex Corbisiero (USA Moved to England 1993)


I dont think any of those played in the last England match, the knock out game against France, apart from Matt Stevens and Tuilagi. Corbisiero should have been selected ahead of Stevens, who was getting pasted against any decent opposition.

Corbisiero and Tuilagi did most of their School Rugby in england at English schools, went through the youth system. There seems to be a big difference between them and players like Botha, Fourie, Flutey, Hape and Waldrom.

There is a certain element of society that always throws the 'human rights' argument willy nilly without having any understanding of what it is they are talking about (what a surprise)

Mystir, what article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would pertain or would domestic legislation derogate UDHR?

And from that list....the following should be in the next squad

Dylan Hartley (Has got a hell of a lot to prove this season...Gray, Webber could easily take his spot)
Manu Tuilagi (Awesome...nailed on at 13)
Charlie Sharples ( Needs to be given games in the 6n)
Delon Armitage (Challenging Foden now)
Joe Simpson (Useful backup)
Alex Corbisiero (Would be my starting LH)

The rest should not be in the squad....including Stevens (who i appreciate played mostly LH when he is a TH...but) i just dont think is good enough. Id be looking at Henry Thomas for the TH spot etc

GeordieFalcon wrote:And from that list....the following should be in the next squad

Dylan Hartley (Has got a hell of a lot to prove this season...Gray, Webber could easily take his spot)
Manu Tuilagi (Awesome...nailed on at 13)
Charlie Sharples ( Needs to be given games in the 6n)
Delon Armitage (Challenging Foden now)
Joe Simpson (Useful backup)
Alex Corbisiero (Would be my starting LH)

The rest should not be in the squad....including Stevens (who i appreciate played mostly LH when he is a TH...but) i just dont think is good enough. Id be looking at Henry Thomas for the TH spot etc

All of those have played most of their rugby in the english system.

Yeah thats the right.,..and thats what it should be....people like Hape, Flutey, Botha, Waldrom...should be nowhere near the England team.

The thing is the rules apply to ALL countries NH and Japan pay bigger wages than SH or League now.Most come North for cash and to get game time,often they will already have been capped.
At RWCs All Blacks and Boks especially have agents waving cheque books etc.
BUT if you take the case of players coming to get game time and cash uncapped.
THEY maybe eligible but you don`t have to pick them for your teams,Riki Flutey is a case in point.
Some jibes were made he was`nt good enough to make the Hurricanes regularly.
Since the competion was Tana Umaga,Ma`a Nonu,and Conrad Smith it is not that surprising.

Gatts wrote:There is a certain element of society that always throws the 'human rights' argument willy nilly without having any understanding of what it is they are talking about (what a surprise)

Mystir, what article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would pertain or would domestic legislation derogate UDHR?

Gatts what the heck are you talking about. Its a basic human right to call youirself from a nation in which you want to if that foremantioned nation accepts you. There is no legislation needed, although there probally is(although i am not gonna bother looking for it!!!- If a sporting body wanted to call you something different then YOU COULD TAKE IT TO INTERNATIONAL COURT.

mystiroakey wrote:

Gatts wrote:There is a certain element of society that always throws the 'human rights' argument willy nilly without having any understanding of what it is they are talking about (what a surprise)

Mystir, what article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would pertain or would domestic legislation derogate UDHR?

Gatts what the heck are you talking about. Its a basic human right to call youirself from a nation in which you want to if that foremantioned nation accepts you. There is no legislation needed, although there probally is(although i am not gonna bother looking for it!!!- If a sporting body wanted to call you something different then YOU COULD TAKE IT TO INTERNATIONAL COURT.

There is a certain element of society that always throws the 'human rights' argument willy nilly without having any understanding of what it is they are talking about (what a surprise)

Mystir, what article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would pertain or would domestic legislation derogate UDHR?

Calm down, pick up your dummy, put it back in and ANSWER THE QUESTION or stop spouting about stuff you, yet again, know nothing about.
If you don't like being called on your ignorance take it to International court (whatever that is, the only one i am aware of is in the Hague and is for war criminals)

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yeah thats the right.,..and thats what it should be....people like Hape, Flutey, Botha, Waldrom...should be nowhere near the England team.

+1

The three simplest changes would be:
1 - Removing the qualification by grandparent's place of birth: gets rid of Waldrom at least until he qualifies through residency
2 - Preventing changing national allegiences if you have represented another IRB member nation at any other international sport (not just rugby league): prevents the likes of Hape, Paul and Vainikolo switching to England (not sure with Brad Thorn - did he start as an All Black or a Kangaroo?)
3 - Extending the definition of representative rugby to include regional select sides such as the Maoris.

I think in the modern world, some residency qualification will always be available (although whether 3 years is sufficient is a question to debate), and it would be difficult (from an employment law / restraint of trade perspective) to prevent a player representing their adopted nation if they were a citizen of that country.

maestegmafia wrote:I am very much against poaching and was ashamed of the way my beloved Wales were so blatantly guilty hiring foreigners with little connection to Wales to play for us in the late nineties and the WRU were then rightfully accused of falsifying foreign born players right to qualify for them by the IRB.

As you say there is a big difference between picking legally qualified players through the residence/grandparent ruling and what Wales did.

Let´s cut out the word poaching for a start. That would be a welcome change.

The NZRFU doesn´t have a ship trawling round the South Pacific snatching boys from their beds. Poaching implies illegal taking. All of the so-called foreign players playing for NZ have fulfilled the residency requirements of the IRB.

The question is allowing foreign players to play for another country. When does a foreigner become a national. If we persist in using this prejudiced word poaching, we are inviting ignorance and prejudice to enter the debate.

I think it's up to sporty women to bag the more talented players as husbands, sorting out the 'next generation'.

From a Scotland perspective, I'm in favour of good "poaching", but not in favour of bad poaching.

Bad poaching: Brendan Laney, Andrew Mower and Dan Parks

Good poaching: John and Martin Leslie, Glenn Metcalfe and Nathan Hines


Seriously though, the rules do need to be tightened here, particularly the residency rules (although not before Visser qualifies to play for Scotland).

dummy_half wrote:The three simplest changes would be:
1 - Removing the qualification by grandparent's place of birth: gets rid of Waldrom at least until he qualifies through residency
2 - Preventing changing national allegiences if you have represented another IRB member nation at any other international sport (not just rugby league): prevents the likes of Hape, Paul and Vainikolo switching to England (not sure with Brad Thorn - did he start as an All Black or a Kangaroo?)
3 - Extending the definition of representative rugby to include regional select sides such as the Maoris.

I think in the modern world, some residency qualification will always be available (although whether 3 years is sufficient is a question to debate), and it would be difficult (from an employment law / restraint of trade perspective) to prevent a player representing their adopted nation if they were a citizen of that country.

Dummy Brad Thorn played State of Origin (arguably the pinnacle in league because test league only has three competitive teams) and once a player plays Origin he can´t play for another country. So he was a Kangaroo but then switched to NZ. I wouldn´t have a problem with preventing a player from playing a national sport for one country and then playing union for another. But the rules weren´t like that. The NZRFU didn´t poach him. He wanted to fulfill his childhood dream of playing for the ABs so he chose to play for NZ.

Why is residency a problem when actucal poaching of dual qualified players who have gone through another Unions age gradfe system ( by Unions effectivly buying them with club contracts as in Evans brother and now Tom Ryder) is fine because they had a relative who was once form the second country.

Because of the blood. The blood I say.

EDIT: Also if someone makes a a decision as an adult to move to a country for whatever reason he can never truly be a part of the country. However if someone's parents happened to be born in the country or the player was forced there as a child it is ok.

The trouble with these types of articles is that there is always a slightly xenophobic tone about them, lets be honest most of us could trace are families back to another country etc, example based on my family roots I could have played for England, Wales, Aus and France.

I agree the residency rule needs to be looked at, but once that person is classed a citizen and hasn't played for another country at their chosen sport I don't think anyone has the right to stop them from doing so.

This topic has already been done to death, and the fact it's raised its head again says more about person who raised it than the issue itself, just another cheap shot.

Why is the "poaching" issue such a popular topic?

You will never stop people from moving to other countries. People emigrate for all sorts of reasons, but the main one is because they beleive they can bet better opportunities for themselves and a better life as a result of it.

So, if you can't stop it, even if they change the residency rule to a more stringent set of qualifying rules to represent your new adopted country, you will still not stop it.

How many players have actually been lost by the ex country through this. I am guessing very little, becuase on of the reasons these guys to move ( once they are professionals already) is because they don't see themselves making it in the native land.

People who emigrate with their parents whilst they are still in school can't be seen as poached anyway because they haven't yet established themselves as professional rugby players.

This is a total non issue in my opinion.

+1

biltongbek wrote:Why is the "poaching" issue such a popular topic?

It gives maestegmafia a chance to have a pop at England while dressing it up as a 'serious' issue.

It’s a sad situation that people feel the need to do this.

Oh come on, don't all give up yet! No one has mentioned half of the things on my "eligibility thread bingo" yet...

screamingaddabs, i assume you have finished your wrk for the day, and now feel the need to shoot the hoops with some bloggers.

Sorry

I thought the reason for this thread was clear...!

As written in the OP

maestegmafia wrote:I read a response to a post early by a young Englishman who sees the future in English rugby being the fact that, as a wealthy rugby nation, they have more draw to poach talent from around the world than anyone else, bar maybe France. He see's this as the inevitable future, citing the Kiwis successes of the years being due to their ability to pilfer the islanders.

Interesting thought, and worthy of a thread of its own.

A link to the mentioned discussion below.

https://www.606v2.com/t16470-between-now-and-2015-rugby-world-cup?foe

Anyhow here is the original post that spurned the topic...!

mystiroakey wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

mystiroakey wrote: and the only two teams that can get to that level(the all blacks) is england or france- will they- not sure- but they can

You'll have to explain that statement because it makes absolutely no sense without a thorough explanation...!

what are you trying to say lad that other nations in the NH have resourecs to get to the all blacks level- lol, dont even try pal. They are just to good at present- as there national game and there constant island robbing tactics (who seem perfectly breed for rugby) the samller NH countries have less that zero chance of getting to that level- but because france and england have alot of money, alot of resource, alot of pros,coaches to choose from, and alot of draw to also poach- well its just obvious!!

This thread is about whether the CONCEPT of poaching is a modern phenomenon in Rugby Union that defines the wealthier teams success and future success due to their wealth and ability to attract foreign players...


So to continue:

It was a big story pre world cup though what have been the plusses and the minuses, the bonuses and the draw backs of having players that were born in other countries playing for your nation...?

Has there been a difference in the performance of players that may have been born in other countries but qualified through residency and playing in the youth schemes of the country they now represent over players that were not...?

Is poaching players a good thing or a bad thing in hindsight of the recent RWC experience so far...?

I can't think of any major player who was playing first team rugby at this RWC for a tier 1 side that was residents qualified only to answer your question bar Dan Vickerman.

Did you notice a lack of passion in Dan Vickerman because he's as Australian as a cucumber sandwich?

All the others such as Hape did not feature. Those who moved to their adopted nations as kids do not count.

If you want to look at a real story of tapping up I would suggest you look into the ARU in the early 00s and look into Dan Vickerman & Clyde Rathbone.
Both bokke U21 and pure bred saffas.. Then suddenly tapped up and relocated to AUS where they quickly get capped.

Flutey, Hape, Fioure, Botha et al of late all came to the UK on their own accord and were club players for years before ENG knocked on their door.

The ARU went straight to the tree on the otherhand in SA's own backyard.

Rathbone was hailed to be the next big thing in SA rugby... he captained the U21 team to victory in the JRWC yet all of a sudden left for no reason.

Very much a hate figure in SA still.... for players like Flutey, Botha & Fioure, its fine... they were never good enough in their home country so got their blessing.... Rathbone & Vickerman on the otherhand.... they would have been boks, but they sold out.
Many bokke see Rathbone demise as karma.

"1 - Removing the qualification by grandparent's place of birth: gets rid of Waldrom at least until he qualifies through residency
2 - Preventing changing national allegiences if you have represented another IRB member nation at any other international sport (not just rugby league): prevents the likes of Hape, Paul and Vainikolo switching to England (not sure with Brad Thorn - did he start as an All Black or a Kangaroo?)
3 - Extending the definition of representative rugby to include regional select sides such as the Maoris."

Dummy,

I think this would go along way towards sorting things...and is what most international fans are roughly wanting.

I would go one step further:
4) Increase the residency law from 3 years to 5/6/7....

To be fair this thread actually IS slightly different, though it nearly descended to the same level as other eligibility threads. I think it's interesting that not many "poached" players made it into the starting line up. Is it because if they were good enough they would play for their original country? Fairly average players sometimes have a run of form that gets them into international teams for a limited period. Do they fall into that category? Personally I think it's just chance that it turned out this way. We will get more residency players as globalisation increases and nationality becomes increasingly meaningless/hard to define. Occasionally they will be very good, most of them, like most players who get capped, will get a few caps then disappear (vainikolo anyone?). There will always be more non-residency players in the major teams though I reckon and of course there will always be this discussion about whether residency rules should be changed.

There we go, I added to the debate and everything :-)

screamingaddabs wrote:To be fair this thread actually IS slightly different, though it nearly descended to the same level as other eligibility threads. I think it's interesting that not many "poached" players made it into the starting line up. Is it because if they were good enough they would play for their original country? Fairly average players sometimes have a run of form that gets them into international teams for a limited period. Do they fall into that category? Personally I think it's just chance that it turned out this way. We will get more residency players as globalisation increases and nationality becomes increasingly meaningless/hard to define. Occasionally they will be very good, most of them, like most players who get capped, will get a few caps then disappear (vainikolo anyone?). There will always be more non-residency players in the major teams though I reckon and of course there will always be this discussion about whether residency rules should be changed.

There we go, I added to the debate and everything :-)

Succinctly put mate...!

I Think this fella thinks along the same lines too...

EnglishReign wrote:As an England fan I don't like it, not necessarily because they aren't homegrown, but because there are better options that are English anyway.

Vainikolo was a bit of a one-off case really - English elligible by residency and expected to be a cross-code success so was fast-tracked into the England setup straight after his move from RL to RU (with the added consideration that if he had been a big success straight away the ABs might have had a serious look at him). As it happened, his code switch revealed as many flaws in his game as it did strengths, and showed that he wasn't really worthy of an international call up.

Hape was much more a case of an RU club wanting him, rather than the RFU, so I don't find it quite so much a case of exploiting the letter of the rules. His selection for England does appear to have been based on club form, although you could argue there were other, younger, players in equally good form for their clubs at the same time.

It is a valid point that many (most?) of the Aus/NZ/Bok pro players who move to the Aviva, Pro 14 or Magners are the second level journeymen pros - might be good enough to be in the Super 15 but aren't really challenging for international honours in their homelands. As such, they are unlikely to make most of the 6Ns sides significantly stronger than the home-grown equivalent (well, other than a 10 moving to Scotland ).

It may be a bigger problem in the medium term for the PI nations, if their players start to move abroad before they have been capped, as the earning potential from being (say) an England international must be sufficiently higher than that of a Fiji interational to make playing out the 3 year residency worthwhile. To some extent, the likes of Manu T and Faletau have already been lost to their original countries because of this financial disparity (not that there are any issues with either's right to choose to represent England and Wales rather than Samoa and Tonga, since both developed their game largely or entirely within the country they now represent).

Poaching George North doiesnt seem to have done Wales much good, looks like they will end the torunament with a record of won 1 lost 3 against their tier one rivals.

maestegmafia wrote:

Succinctly put mate...!

I Think this fella thinks along the same lines too...

EnglishReign wrote:As an England fan I don't like it, not necessarily because they aren't homegrown, but because there are better options that are English anyway.

Aye, but my point was also that that this is to be expected - because it is statistically likely that a player won't be in the team for long and because the "poached" players tend to be worse than their countrymen that they left. Assuming the "new" side is as capable of creating good players as the "old" they will still not be quite good enough.

My other point was that this will increase as the concept of nationality is eroded by globalisation and it is the reason it seems to be more of a "problem" now.

But yeah, I wasn't very succinct, but then it was 22:00 at night and I'd had a long day (need smiley of a tiny violin)