John Barclay to move to Leicester from Glasgow?

"
Barclay's days as a Warrior numbered?

Posted 7 hours, 10 minutes ago
Glasgow Warriors openside John Barclay could leave the side at the end of the season with The Times linking him with a move to Leicester Tigers."

Could be a good move on his part and good for Glasgow to bring through young exciting players!

I think it would be fantastic for Scotland and for Barclay, less so for Glasgow which would leave them with just Fusaro but it would allow Fusaro regular game time and I'm sure another back row can cover.

I think Glasgow would do well to hold onto him for another season he seems to be hitting form and it would give ample time to bed in a new back up open side

123456789 wrote:I think it would be fantastic for Scotland and for Barclay, less so for Glasgow which would leave them with just Fusaro but it would allow Fusaro regular game time and I'm sure another back row can cover.

Why would it be fantastic for Scotland? He'll be playing more in the Jeff.

Barclay was actually associated with a move to Tigers in 2011 but it didn't happen. I recall that at the end of last season JB was making noises about moving on when Lineen left but I think he left it too late and so signed a single year extension. Dot, UiG, Schiz and others will correct me if that's wrong.

The reason it might be a go-er this time is because the Tigers are in the market for an openside and lost the pursuit of Kvesic to Gloucester.

I heard that they are simultenously approaching JB at Glasgow and Steffon Armitage at Toulon - the kicker being that if Leicester takes SA, JB may go to Toulon as a direct replacement.

I asked more about the JB move on the 'rumours' thread but didn't receive a answer. I am trying not to take this personally.

George Carlin wrote:I asked more about the JB move on the 'rumours' thread but didn't receive a answer. I am trying not to take this personally.

Take it personally, it was meant that way


With just two sides, Scottish rugby almost needs players to move to other countries to free up spaces for up and coming players. I am sure that John Barclay still has a lot to offer, but it now feels as if a lot of time (and opportunity) have passed since the Killer Bs days. Johnnie Beattie has shown how a move to a different league can revitalise a career.

profitius wrote:

123456789 wrote:I think it would be fantastic for Scotland and for Barclay, less so for Glasgow which would leave them with just Fusaro but it would allow Fusaro regular game time and I'm sure another back row can cover.

Why would it be fantastic for Scotland? He'll be playing more in the Jeff.

He will gain though playing real competitive rugby every game.

Exiledinborders wrote:

profitius wrote:

123456789 wrote:I think it would be fantastic for Scotland and for Barclay, less so for Glasgow which would leave them with just Fusaro but it would allow Fusaro regular game time and I'm sure another back row can cover.

Why would it be fantastic for Scotland? He'll be playing more in the Jeff.

He will gain though playing real competitive rugby every game.

He has that already. What he'll get now is more of it for more of the season.

LondonTiger wrote:

George Carlin wrote:I asked more about the JB move on the 'rumours' thread but didn't receive a answer. I am trying not to take this personally.

Take it personally, it was meant that way

I think with Fusaro looking more like the first choice, and RV being signed up as a replacement for Gus, Barcs could be off in the summer. It would be a shame for Glasgow, but it's another big wage off the budget and Fusaro has plenty of talent. Scottish rugby will be better for their top players playing week in week out as well!

profitius wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

profitius wrote:

123456789 wrote:I think it would be fantastic for Scotland and for Barclay, less so for Glasgow which would leave them with just Fusaro but it would allow Fusaro regular game time and I'm sure another back row can cover.

Why would it be fantastic for Scotland? He'll be playing more in the Jeff.

He will gain though playing real competitive rugby every game.

He has that already. What he'll get now is more of it for more of the season.

If anything it will be worse for Scotland. It can only benefit Scotland to have their best players playing together for Glasgow and Edinburgh week in week out. Granted they are a bad club but Grays move to Sale has been a disaster.

GunsGerms wrote:If anything it will be worse for Scotland. It can only benefit Scotland to have their best players playing together for Glasgow and Edinburgh week in week out. Granted they are a bad club but Grays move to Sale has been a disaster.

I disagree. If all the best players stay in Scotland then the chances for younger players to get serious gametime in meaninful matches is much limited. Obviously you do not want to see every player leave - but with just the two professional sides it can cause problems if the best stay. Take Euan Murray - by playing in England there are two spots available in Scotland to enable other players to get regular matches. Johnnie Beattie was stagnating in Scotland and the move to France has revitalised him. Barclay has the ability to be playing in the 6Ns (is he injured?) but has certainly been overtaken by Rennie at 7. Shoudl he move to Tigers it would increase the number of Scottish open-sides competing in the HEC (well for one year- maybe).

Agreed Tiger. More exiles mean more spots freed up for other players to get regular professional gametime and that choice is good for everyone when internationals come around.

The only wrinkles seem to be (a) getting French clubs to release you for interntional training squads and (b) being out of sight and therefore out of mind, despite actually playing very well (aka the 'Gareth Delve Problem').

LondonTiger wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:If anything it will be worse for Scotland. It can only benefit Scotland to have their best players playing together for Glasgow and Edinburgh week in week out. Granted they are a bad club but Grays move to Sale has been a disaster.

I disagree. If all the best players stay in Scotland then the chances for younger players to get serious gametime in meaninful matches is much limited. Obviously you do not want to see every player leave - but with just the two professional sides it can cause problems if the best stay. Take Euan Murray - by playing in England there are two spots available in Scotland to enable other players to get regular matches. Johnnie Beattie was stagnating in Scotland and the move to France has revitalised him. Barclay has the ability to be playing in the 6Ns (is he injured?) but has certainly been overtaken by Rennie at 7. Shoudl he move to Tigers it would increase the number of Scottish open-sides competing in the HEC (well for one year- maybe).

Dont you think it would be better for the better players/International players to be retained in Scotland and the up and coming ones to go to the AP and develop there? That way the SRU have control over the Internationals and they get to play together week in week out. This is the system in Ireland by and large and it works well.

Three of Scotlands best players playing in the AP, Beattie, Barclay and Grey cant be great for Scotland.

George Carlin wrote:Agreed Tiger. More exiles mean more spots freed up for other players to get regular professional gametime and that choice is good for everyone when internationals come around.

The only wrinkles seem to be (a) getting French clubs to release you for interntional training squads and (b) being out of sight and therefore out of mind, despite actually playing very well (aka the 'Gareth Delve Problem').

Or the Alex Grove problem.

Easily our best outside centre.

If Barclay moves to Leicester then Fusaro obviously looks like the number one openside at the club but from what I've seen and read of the Scotland U20s this season then Adam Ashe could seriously contend for the 7 shirt next season as well.

GunsGerms wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Stuff

more stuff

Dont you think it would be better for the better players/International players to be retained in Scotland and the up and coming ones to go to the AP and develop there? That way the SRU have control over the Internationals and they get to play together week in week out. This is the system in Ireland by and large and it works well.

Three of Scotlands best players playing in the AP, Beattie, Barclay and Grey cant be great for Scotland.

Ireland have double the number of pro teams vs Scotland, so more places and more chances. IRFU have more funding - so less incentive for players to move for cash. Meanwhile it could be argued that McFadden and Fitzgerald may have developed better if one of the more established players had moved on from Leinster. Sexton moving to France gives Madigan a really good oppotunity. It is a tricky one (and something we have failed at with George Ford).

there is no perfect solution - but I still feel that with just two teams Scotland need to accept that not all their best players can or will stay.

There is nothing wrong with players playing outside of their countries club system, especially one as limited as ours, even if you are in a stable club with a good squad the guys that you play alongside week in week out constantly changes due to injury, in professional rugby this is a fact of life. Barclay is a professional who has been brought up through the ranks alongside the vast majority of his team mates in the Scotland squad, the notion that he will forget who they are and how they play is idiotic. He will benefit enormously from the level of competition that exists in his new club for places and in the tournaments that the club is involved with and can bring his experience back to the national team which will benefit the team as a whole.

In my personal opinion the SRU is running our pro clubs in the wrong way. They should look at the clubs as a conveyor belt for bringing through young talent. To achieve this they need to have a core of 4-5 older, experienced players who are on long term contracts and who have the right attitude to mentor younger players and with the coaching team help them develop. The younger players should be employed with a view to moving on when appropriate interest is there and when there is a suitable replacement for them in the team.

Frank Hadden was wrong about many things, not least his decision to give preferential selection to Scotland based players. All that this achieved was to make the international players spot at their club certain thus depriving Scotland of the opportunity to develop new talent and making our existing stars complacent because they would keep their place until retirement or injury. This started to change under Andy Robinson and that change needs to continue or else we will find ourselves back in the annual play off with Italy to avoid the wooden spoon.

I believe it would be fantastic for Scotland because Barclay looks jaded and since 2010, when he was arguably the best openside in the Northern Hemisphere, he lost his starting place to Rennie and now is struggling to get past Fusaro. He needs something to get him on form again, I disagree on the idea that Glasgow and Edinburgh should be conveyor belts, if rugby is t grow in Scotland people need to see a winning side week in, week out. Clubs need to compete for the top titles, at the same time they also need to be helping the national side. I see no point in Barclay sitting on a huge contract but playing poorly for Glasgow and Scotland, on the other hand if Richie Gray has stayed it would have been fantastic - rugby in Scotland needed a figurehead and Gray was becoming that, if they could convince him to return it would be fantastic and hopefully he would be a better player than before.

GunsGerms wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:If anything it will be worse for Scotland. It can only benefit Scotland to have their best players playing together for Glasgow and Edinburgh week in week out. Granted they are a bad club but Grays move to Sale has been a disaster.

I disagree. If all the best players stay in Scotland then the chances for younger players to get serious gametime in meaninful matches is much limited. Obviously you do not want to see every player leave - but with just the two professional sides it can cause problems if the best stay. Take Euan Murray - by playing in England there are two spots available in Scotland to enable other players to get regular matches. Johnnie Beattie was stagnating in Scotland and the move to France has revitalised him. Barclay has the ability to be playing in the 6Ns (is he injured?) but has certainly been overtaken by Rennie at 7. Shoudl he move to Tigers it would increase the number of Scottish open-sides competing in the HEC (well for one year- maybe).

Dont you think it would be better for the better players/International players to be retained in Scotland and the up and coming ones to go to the AP and develop there? That way the SRU have control over the Internationals and they get to play together week in week out. This is the system in Ireland by and large and it works well.

Three of Scotlands best players playing in the AP, Beattie, Barclay and Grey cant be great for Scotland.

Possibly, but sides wouldn't be interested in signing foreign up & commers when they have their own to develop, they're principally after already established big match players to sprinkle in and challenge for top spots or silverware.