3 years has nothing on 5 years

First topic message reminder :

With all the hoo ha in football about 5 year qualification rules and how it is ruining the national game, does this throw some un-wanted light on the Rugby and its pitifully short 3 years.

In all honesty in all the radio debates, I am surprised no-one has mentioned rugby as an alternative example, but if it turns our that football finds that 5 years is too short a time for qualification for a national team, do you think the Rugby world will take notice and look at its 3 years?

My personal opinion is 3 years is a joke and it should be 5 years (at least), so maybe football have it right already

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I think the PI nations are a special case, but I dont think anyone else has the same problems at the moment.

I think South Africa are facing a similar problem, but that is with fringe international talent.  Have a look at the Rabo sides, and have a look at how many time-serving, project-players are from SA.

Not arguing there.

I was thinking more that the issue with the PI nations is having no money to support any kind of decent infrastructure at home as well as having large expat communities in, well, NZ mainly. You cannot and should not restrict their ability to sell their skills for what they can get abroad. I dont think project players do much good for anyone but you cant stop their children being brought up in different countries and sometimes choosing those countries for their homes and their rugby playing allegiance

And yet international rugby would be a great deal poorer without them, so they should be a special case as far as who they play for and how they qualify. How you work that 'special case' out though is beyond me

quinsforever wrote:good for small nations initially. would be very unpopular with NZ and SA.

bad for international rugby too. will turn off the fans over time, as the inevitable corollary of this is central contracts, and international players for hire.

and international rugby is the golden goose...

The IRB could have a cap on the maximum numbers selected to avoid teams with 23 imports. A few better players would improve the weaker teams and make games more competitive - so rather than killing those teams it could be the impetus they need to start causing upsets.

I agree it would be unpopular with NZ and SA, because they see players who have come through their systems being adopted by other nations. However they create more players than they can pay professionally, and they have first pick. If they are to continue to skim off the quality cream, they need to produce the same quantity of milk below, otherwise fewer kids would go into the game in the first place and ultimately the quality at the top would be reduced.
NZ and SA need players to go overseas to ensure there is no stagnation from a logjam of ageing players at home. Why shouldn't those natural market forces be reflected in the Test arena? My proposal is that those emigrating players aren't always snapped up by the biggest purse.

Aukster, believing we have first pick is being a little naive.

A guy like CJ Stander left when he had one season of pro rugby in SA, he has already said he wouldn't mind playing for ireland.

Money bought him, we can't select every 20 year old potential star just to ensure nobody else gets them after.

Our talent drain is getting younger and younger, so I disagree with us getting first pick, it will only get worse over time.

Why do you think SARU have now selected our U20 team to be our second team?

At least this way we can prevent some of our good youngsters not to represent other countries.

At the end of the day it is what it is, some benefit, others lose out.

Money makes the world go round, it can now buy you anything, even pride and bragging rights.

we can't select every 20 year old potential star just to ensure nobody else gets them...

They do in France. I'd suggest the SANZAR sides put their B teams in a pacific competition as a nominated second team to provide further development and stop the drain - but Id probably be accused of being either communist or Cuban.

No way would Argentina do that dude!

GloriousEmpire wrote:

we can't select every 20 year old potential star just to ensure nobody else gets them...

They do in France. I'd suggest the SANZAR sides put their B teams in a pacific competition as a nominated second team to provide further development and stop the drain - but Id probably be accused of being either communist or Cuban.

thats disrespectful

The fact he compares argentina to a communist nation is borderline autistic from his point of view and racist to the rest of the world

i say boo to that

Didn't realise Oz were in big financial trouble, not so good.

Maybe they'll put their cheque books away for a bit

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11141274

Not more unions in trouble.. it's not working out is it!!!

And we know what the aussies are like. If they keep losing they won't watch... They are used to being a sporting power and it's going t!ts up for them internationally. Watch Aussie rules benefit as a result

Yeah, it's just so competitive over there. I know people say NRL is more popular, and it is, but it seems like even NRL teams play in half empty stadiums. I'm no expert on Oz sport, but ARL seems like the big one so you're probably right there. Oz football have had two 6-0 drubbings in last two games and the coach was sacked. Bosnich reckons they should go for Fergie, can't see that happening.

Not being funny but there is literally no chance fergie will manage aus..I can't see him leaving united infill he dies(he still works there in a consulting capacity)

Obviously we are playing another ashes and we are favs for it. They are getting better and obviously have home advantage. But this is a team that was the equivelent of the ABs of cricket not that long ago.

mystiroakey wrote:Not being funny but there is literally no chance fergie will manage aus..I can't see him leaving united infill he dies(he still works there in a consulting capacity)

Obviously we are playing another ashes and we are favs for it. They are getting better and obviously have home advantage. But this is a team that was the equivelent of the ABs of cricket not that long ago.

talking of top sports in Aus, what was the fallout from that AFL team doping thing? and is aussie rules still ahead of rugby union in terms of participation and money in Aus?

Biltong wrote:Aukster, believing we have first pick is being a little naive.

A guy like CJ Stander left when he had one season of pro rugby in SA, he has already said he wouldn't mind playing for ireland.

Money bought him, we can't select every 20 year old potential star just to ensure nobody else gets them after.

Our talent drain is getting younger and younger, so I disagree with us getting first pick, it will only get worse over time.

Why do you think SARU have now selected our U20 team to be our second team?

At least this way we can prevent some of our good youngsters not to represent other countries.

At the end of the day it is what it is, some benefit, others lose out.

Money makes the world go round, it can now buy you anything, even pride and bragging rights.

Seems to be a contradiction in the same post there... anyway if SARU don't have first pick on their own players are they the ones being naive? It seems they have so little faith in their ability to identify the best talent, that they have to keep them all just in case.

How many CJ Standers do you think Ireland could attract and afford? If SARU are more concerned about stopping one or two such players leaving rather than focusing on the dozens they want to develop into Test players, perhaps it is their internal structures they need to be worried about.

quinsforever wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Not being funny but there is literally no chance fergie will manage aus..I can't see him leaving united infill he dies(he still works there in a consulting capacity)

Obviously we are playing another ashes and we are favs for it. They are getting better and obviously have home advantage. But this is a team that was the equivelent of the ABs of cricket not that long ago.

talking of top sports in Aus, what was the fallout from that AFL team doping thing? and is aussie rules still ahead of rugby union in terms of participation and money in Aus?

I am not the biggest knowledge on Aus domestic sport mate..

I heard about the scandals and the Aus associations seemed to say all the right things. But what do you do when almost everyone could be guilty??


I would just have thought fans drift back to domestic sport when international sport goes a bit sour and that AFL is the biggest draw domestically.

Why are there no aussies about here anymore. where is Linebreaker(wasnt that the aussie mod?)

mystiroakey wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Not being funny but there is literally no chance fergie will manage aus..I can't see him leaving united infill he dies(he still works there in a consulting capacity)

Obviously we are playing another ashes and we are favs for it. They are getting better and obviously have home advantage. But this is a team that was the equivelent of the ABs of cricket not that long ago.

talking of top sports in Aus, what was the fallout from that AFL team doping thing? and is aussie rules still ahead of rugby union in terms of participation and money in Aus?

I am not the biggest knowledge on Aus domestic sport mate..

I heard about the scandals and the Aus associations seemed to say all the right things. But what do you do when almost everyone could be guilty??


I would just have thought fans drift back to domestic sport when international sport goes a bit sour and that AFL is the biggest draw domestically.

Why are there no aussies about here anymore. where is Linebreaker(wasnt that the aussie mod?)

The AFL and NRL have always been the bigger sports, but they have gone out of control in recent years.  Between the two of them they soak up over $400m per year of direct tv money whereas football gets about $40m and rugby $25m.  The NRL announced Monday they were upping their club payments to $7.5m per club per year whereas the the super clubs look like having their $4.4m reduced.  Rugby is really struggling.  It garners little exposure and hasnt got the money to mount much of a fight.   Yesterday's paper contained one story on rugby, and it was the very last sports story.  With the Wallabies playing this weekend, while League and Aussie Rules are now in offseason, that is a pretty sad indication of where we are at.

In relation to the drug scandal, there are two clubs (Essendon - AFL and Cronulla - NRL) who are the focus.  Essendon have had their coach and three others banned for 12 months, but players have not been banned as yet.  The suggestion is that many players were naive, but not necessarily complicit, but certainly a few sound like they will be banned as well.  The Essendon head coach who was banned was huge news as he was like the Martin Johnson or Richie McCaw of aussie rules.  A genuine golden boy, until this.

As I understand it, the drugs involved were weight control peptides for which there is no established testing procedure.  ASADA, our drug agency, suspected there was a trend developing in the general population  whereby young body obsessed blokes were getting as yet uncertifed for human use drugs over the internet, and using them to reduce their bodyfat.   As the drugs were still largely experimental, there are not established testing procedures, so if sports people were taking them, there was no way to detect it.  

ASADA called in another agency (Australian Crime Commission) who have authority to marshall others like Federal Customs and the Federal Police to carry out investigations into near anything, and between them they began tracing shipments they suspected could be these kinds of drugs.  Following the shipments obviously led to people, and it turned out one particular guy was connected with a Doctor  who had involvement with three pro-clubs.  One of the clubs was cleared, and the other two are those above.  

It sounds like its now tied in legal knots as the way they investigated was unusual.  ASADA has clearly defined legal powers around what to do following a positive sample, but there are no positive samples for any banned substance.  In the Essendon case, it was the AFL who have banned the Golden Boy and his assistants for bringing the game into disrepute, not ASADA.

Ta dude.

Isn't there a bit more it. I'm fairly sure that a bunch of rooster players have been implicated in a human growth hormone scandal. Sander Earl has admitted drug use and I think he implicated the Raiders medical staff. Danny Wicks was found with a syringe. I think ASADA were investigating at least Manly, Crunella, Penrith and Newcastle. On another note the kangaroos were tested as they left for the UK.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Biltong wrote:Aukster, believing we have first pick is being a little naive.

A guy like CJ Stander left when he had one season of pro rugby in SA, he has already said he wouldn't mind playing for ireland.

Money bought him, we can't select every 20 year old potential star just to ensure nobody else gets them after.

Our talent drain is getting younger and younger, so I disagree with us getting first pick, it will only get worse over time.

Why do you think SARU have now selected our U20 team to be our second team?

At least this way we can prevent some of our good youngsters not to represent other countries.

At the end of the day it is what it is, some benefit, others lose out.

Money makes the world go round, it can now buy you anything, even pride and bragging rights.

Seems to be a contradiction in the same post there... anyway if SARU don't have first pick on their own players are they the ones being naive? It seems they have so little faith in their ability to identify the best talent, that they have to keep them all just in case.

How many CJ Standers do you think Ireland could attract and afford? If SARU are more concerned about stopping one or two such players leaving rather than focusing on the dozens they want to develop into Test players, perhaps it is their internal structures they need to be worried about.

What you are suggesting is that SA should simply cap every youngster left right and centre... shouldn't a player be capped purely based on merit rather than a simple act of laws of averages "one of these 20 props will make it, I'm not sure which so lets cap them all now to keep them available for SA and SA only".

What many in SA didn't like about CJ was the unapologetic aggressive manner that the IRFU used to get their man... they threw a ton of money at a young and talented kid in his first season in professional rugby... he wasn't being ignored and Meyer had already enquired about him publicly.

What was Meyer and SARU meant to do, promise him the world even though professionally it would be wrong to make promises of that kind? Even if he was a Schalk Burger type talent that itself would be ethically wrong. For me they took the right stance.

Should they have had a 2nd team.. perhaps but rugby is still in a transition from being an amateur sport with traditional handshake values and a professional one where there are no rules bar those written specifically by the IRB, everything else is fair game. Some are faster then others at the poaching level, not a dig at Ireland but I'm sure its not that much of a contraversy there compared to SA given many have become used to it with the Jack Charlton years.

fa0019 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Biltong wrote:Aukster, believing we have first pick is being a little naive.

A guy like CJ Stander left when he had one season of pro rugby in SA, he has already said he wouldn't mind playing for ireland.

Money bought him, we can't select every 20 year old potential star just to ensure nobody else gets them after.

Our talent drain is getting younger and younger, so I disagree with us getting first pick, it will only get worse over time.

Why do you think SARU have now selected our U20 team to be our second team?

At least this way we can prevent some of our good youngsters not to represent other countries.

At the end of the day it is what it is, some benefit, others lose out.

Money makes the world go round, it can now buy you anything, even pride and bragging rights.

Seems to be a contradiction in the same post there... anyway if SARU don't have first pick on their own players are they the ones being naive? It seems they have so little faith in their ability to identify the best talent, that they have to keep them all just in case.

How many CJ Standers do you think Ireland could attract and afford? If SARU are more concerned about stopping one or two such players leaving rather than focusing on the dozens they want to develop into Test players, perhaps it is their internal structures they need to be worried about.

What you are suggesting is that SA should simply cap every youngster left right and centre... shouldn't a player be capped purely based on merit rather than a simple act of laws of averages "one of these 20 props will make it, I'm not sure which so lets cap them all now to keep them available for SA and SA only".

What many in SA didn't like about CJ was the unapologetic aggressive manner that the IRFU used to get their man... they threw a ton of money at a young and talented kid in his first season in professional rugby... he wasn't being ignored and Meyer had already enquired about him publicly.

What was Meyer and SARU meant to do, promise him the world even though professionally it would be wrong to make promises of that kind? Even if he was a Schalk Burger type talent that itself would be ethically wrong. For me they took the right stance.

Should they have had a 2nd team.. perhaps but rugby is still in a transition from being an amateur sport with traditional handshake values and a professional one where there are no rules bar those written specifically by the IRB, everything else is fair game. Some are faster then others at the poaching level, not a dig at Ireland but I'm sure its not that much of a contraversy there compared to SA given many have become used to it with the Jack Charlton years.

Not sure if you're directing that response at me fa0019, but I'm certainly not suggesting SA cap every youngster right left and centre (and forwards too!). Caps should indeed be merited and capping a player to "prevent" them playing for anyone else is unethical.

My suggestion was that there should be long residency qualification periods (5-7 years) for those countries with loads of professional teams. This would discourage uncapped players from going there purely to qualify for their Test team. Smaller nations would still have a three year period and Test nations with no professional teams could have special IRB dispensation to still have a limited number of "imported" players.

Regarding Stander, Meyer/SARU don't have to make any promises - CJ is available now for Bokke selection and up until the point where he is capped by someone else, so what's the problem?

Aukster, although we do select overseas based players for the Springboks (which in my opinion is wrong) Meyer is not allowed to select uncapped players from overseas.

Wasn't directed directly at you mate, rather the whole conversation itself.

CJ was in his first season, the only person who made such an impact recently in his first season was Etzebeth and Goosen... both who took the SR competition by storm... both world class players from their first game. Not of the same calibre but I suspect he would have been a bok by now.

SA was just alarmed by the manner at which it happened. Josh Strauss' move to Glasgow was less intense in the minds of most bok supporters... same situation but the difference is that Strauss had been around a few years more, we'd seen that he was good but probably just not good enough and he left with most people's blessing.

Similar to the Jake White scholarship at the university of Canberra.... giving scholarships to South African kids still in school for full paid degree and entry into the brumbies academy.

Picking an apple off the floor is one thing, picking it off someone's tree so to speak is another.

Biltong wrote:Aukster, although we do select overseas based players for the Springboks (which in my opinion is wrong) Meyer is not allowed to select uncapped players from overseas.

Also

I believe its part of Standers contract to refuse bok call ups. He has to make himself available for Ireland for it to remain valid. Why they gave so much money to such a young and reasonably inexperienced kid.

fa0019 wrote:

Biltong wrote:Aukster, although we do select overseas based players for the Springboks (which in my opinion is wrong) Meyer is not allowed to select uncapped players from overseas.

Also

I believe its part of Standers contract to refuse bok call ups. He has to make himself available for Ireland for it to remain valid. Why they gave so much money to such a young and reasonably inexperienced kid.

I take you have nothing to back that up as that would be illegal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/20599267

would that suffice? His project player contract which had to be signed off by the IRFU requires him to make himself available for Ireland..... which surely would be null and void if he answered a bok call up.

8 or 9 years minimum.

I just wonder how fans really feel about the fact that their teams are bolstered by guys like Stander, I am not talking of the bravado or lip service, but rather how they feel deep down inside.

Do they still feel true to themselves if they have bragging rights when they are ploughing with another country's cattle, are they still proud, or do they just wave it away with "Well, he chose to play for us"?

It does very much depend on an individual basis though doesn't it. I wasn't mad keen on Flutey representing us but I don't mind Mauritz Botha both qualify the same way. i'd be proud to see someone like Ewers play for us after his family fled Zimbabwe. I think with any change of rules you'll always get cases you don't agree with. Personally I think there should be more input from managers and unions on a case by case basis to say well yeah Flutey qualifies but lets face it he probably considers himself a Kiwi and has already represented them in a different sport.

I may be being harsh on Flutey as I obviously don't know the guy but it illustrates my point.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It does very much depend on an individual basis though doesn't it. I wasn't mad keen on Flutey representing us but I don't mind Mauritz Botha both qualify the same way. i'd be proud to see someone like Ewers play for us after his family fled Zimbabwe. I think with any change of rules you'll always get cases you don't agree with. Personally I think there should be more input from managers and unions on a case by case basis to say well yeah Flutey qualifies but lets face it he probably considers himself a Kiwi and has already represented them in a different sport.

I may be being harsh on Flutey as I obviously don't know the guy but it illustrates my point.

Flutey had played for the Maoris but it was Hape who had played RL for NZ. I could be wrong but I think it turned out much later that Flutey has an English grandparent - but it was all a bit tenuous.

Flutey was good up until he got crocked on the Lion's tour. Hape was always just average.

boomeranga wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Not being funny but there is literally no chance fergie will manage aus..I can't see him leaving united infill he dies(he still works there in a consulting capacity)

Obviously we are playing another ashes and we are favs for it. They are getting better and obviously have home advantage. But this is a team that was the equivelent of the ABs of cricket not that long ago.

talking of top sports in Aus, what was the fallout from that AFL team doping thing? and is aussie rules still ahead of rugby union in terms of participation and money in Aus?

I am not the biggest knowledge on Aus domestic sport mate..

I heard about the scandals and the Aus associations seemed to say all the right things. But what do you do when almost everyone could be guilty??


I would just have thought fans drift back to domestic sport when international sport goes a bit sour and that AFL is the biggest draw domestically.

Why are there no aussies about here anymore. where is Linebreaker(wasnt that the aussie mod?)

The AFL and NRL have always been the bigger sports, but they have gone out of control in recent years.  Between the two of them they soak up over $400m per year of direct tv money whereas football gets about $40m and rugby $25m.  The NRL announced Monday they were upping their club payments to $7.5m per club per year whereas the the super clubs look like having their $4.4m reduced.  Rugby is really struggling.  It garners little exposure and hasnt got the money to mount much of a fight.   Yesterday's paper contained one story on rugby, and it was the very last sports story.  With the Wallabies playing this weekend, while League and Aussie Rules are now in offseason, that is a pretty sad indication of where we are at.

In relation to the drug scandal, there are two clubs (Essendon - AFL and Cronulla - NRL) who are the focus.  Essendon have had their coach and three others banned for 12 months, but players have not been banned as yet.  The suggestion is that many players were naive, but not necessarily complicit, but certainly a few sound like they will be banned as well.  The Essendon head coach who was banned was huge news as he was like the Martin Johnson or Richie McCaw of aussie rules.  A genuine golden boy, until this.

As I understand it, the drugs involved were weight control peptides for which there is no established testing procedure.  ASADA, our drug agency, suspected there was a trend developing in the general population  whereby young body obsessed blokes were getting as yet uncertifed for human use drugs over the internet, and using them to reduce their bodyfat.   As the drugs were still largely experimental, there are not established testing procedures, so if sports people were taking them, there was no way to detect it.  

ASADA called in another agency (Australian Crime Commission) who have authority to marshall others like Federal Customs and the Federal Police to carry out investigations into near anything, and between them they began tracing shipments they suspected could be these kinds of drugs.  Following the shipments obviously led to people, and it turned out one particular guy was connected with a Doctor  who had involvement with three pro-clubs.  One of the clubs was cleared, and the other two are those above.  

It sounds like its now tied in legal knots as the way they investigated was unusual.  ASADA has clearly defined legal powers around what to do following a positive sample, but there are no positive samples for any banned substance.  In the Essendon case, it was the AFL who have banned the Golden Boy and his assistants for bringing the game into disrepute, not ASADA.

great post, cheers. good learnings there - cant say the same for the euro cup ding-dong threads i am also following

Biltong wrote:I just wonder how fans really feel about the fact that their teams are bolstered by guys like Stander, I am not talking of the bravado or lip service, but rather how they feel deep down inside.

Do they still feel true to themselves if they have bragging rights when they are ploughing with another country's cattle, are they still proud, or do they just wave it away with "Well, he chose to play for us"?

I know it seems like a cop out to say, but I tend to vary my opinion depending on the player. Using recently imported, and 'time serving' players in Wales. I would not be too happy to see George Earle play for Wales, even though I think he is a good player. When he signed for the Scarlets his agent said something along hte lines of George wanting to play in the 2015 RWC, and that he would have completed his residency in time to qualify for Wales. IMO that is just wrong, as this was said before he had even lived in the country. Whereas if someone like Johan Snyman, or even Jacobie Adriaanse, we selected for Wales after 'serving their time', I might not mind as much as they have said that they like it here etc, but never tht they came here with the aim of becoming internationals.

Getting all mixed up then aren't I! But to me it doesn't matter if they were average or brilliant. Sometimes qualification sits ok with me sometimes it doesn't; over the same rule. Representing the Maori may also be a hint to how he felt though?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Biltong wrote:I just wonder how fans really feel about the fact that their teams are bolstered by guys like Stander, I am not talking of the bravado or lip service, but rather how they feel deep down inside.

Do they still feel true to themselves if they have bragging rights when they are ploughing with another country's cattle, are they still proud, or do they just wave it away with "Well, he chose to play for us"?

I know it seems like a cop out to say, but I tend to vary my opinion depending on the player.  Using recently imported, and 'time serving' players in Wales.  I would not be too happy to see George Earle play for Wales, even though I think he is a good player.  When he signed for the Scarlets his agent said something along hte lines of George wanting to play in the 2015 RWC, and that he would have completed his residency in time to qualify for Wales.  IMO that is just wrong, as this was said before he had even lived in the country.  Whereas if someone like Johan Snyman, or even Jacobie Adriaanse, we selected for Wales after 'serving their time', I might not mind as much as they have said that they like it here etc, but never tht they came here with the aim of becoming internationals.

I don't think it is a cop out, although I think it is pretty much the same scenario whether a player openly admits he is there to qualify for another country or not.

The reality is whether we call them project players, potentially qualified players or already qualified players, the intent is there from the start, otherwise they wouldn't have been contracted in that manner.

Having said all that, I doubt anything is ever going to change, there are enough countries that can benefit from such systems, even Australia has no qualms about "importing" players, and as you say, some may come over just because they can't get a professional contract in NZ, SA, Pacific Islands or wherever, so they can become naturalised as well.

The trend will only grow, it isn't going to stop, that is the nature of Professional sport.

So whether we think 3, 5, 7 years residency it really makes little difference at the end of the day.

Personally I won't embrace it, if a player grew up in SA and benefitted from our system, by all means , I will see him a product of our development system, Beast is the one player that comes to mind as not having benefitted from our system over the past decade or more, as much as I like him as a player, Zimbabwe could have benefitted a great deal more from having him represent them than we could.

blackcanelion wrote:Isn't there a bit more it. I'm fairly sure that a bunch of rooster players have been implicated in a human growth hormone scandal. Sander Earl has admitted drug use and I think he implicated the Raiders medical staff. Danny Wicks was found with a syringe. I think ASADA were investigating at least Manly, Crunella, Penrith and Newcastle. On another note the kangaroos were tested as they left for the UK.

More to it than systemic doping?  That's pretty f'bad I'd suggest!  

I think though there is a difference between blokes like Wicks and Earl being caught, and what was going on at Essendon / Cronulla. I don't believe for a second that our sport is drug free (or anyone else's really), and there will always be individuals on it,  but club level is bad.  What those clubs have done is what is embarrassing for us.  

On the other clubs you mention, there has been probably 10 or 12 rumored at different stages of the year, but nothing backed up.  Who knows what that means.  I like that they are digging is about all I can add.

One suspicion I do have is whether Dr Dank is being fed to us as a scapegoat.  So much has been made to revolve around him and his associations.  If someone is putting spin on the story, I'd say he is their primary tool.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Getting all mixed up then aren't I! But to me it doesn't matter if they were average or brilliant. Sometimes qualification sits ok with me sometimes it doesn't; over the same rule. Representing the Maori may also be a hint to how he felt though?

Maybe its just wishful thinking on my part but despite Flutey playing at a high level in NZ his story is more like M Botha than some - in that he had got into a bad place in NZ and came over to England for a fresh start. I dont think he came here looking to play rugby for England. I think there is more of a question over the ex RL NZ guys - Paul, Hape and Vainikolo. It did seem at that point that there was an active policy within the RFU in going after them and the results speak for themselves

fa0019 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/20599267

would that suffice? His project player contract which had to be signed off by the IRFU requires him to make himself available for Ireland..... which surely would be null and void if he answered a bok call up.

"Stander moved from South African club the Bulls as a project player, which means he has committed to seeking Irish residency and being eligible to play for Ireland in three years' time."

This is the BBC journalistic interpretation of what a project player means. If being Irish eligible was a condition of his employment that could be construed as rascist. I can't imagine the IRFU would leave themselves so open to litigation... then again...

Auxter if his contract is for 3 years or more then he will be eligible!


Not once within the statement does it say he is committed to playing for ireland only!

It may imply it, but it doesn't state it, so no grounds for litigation

and another one's gone...

article in the times online today...

"The controversial Scotland policy of recruiting foreign players who can qualify for the national side on residential grounds has been given another boost when Cornell du Preez, the South African flanker who played a starring role in Edinburgh’s weekend win over Munster, announced he intends to follow that path and switch his allegiance.
Because he has only just arrived in Scotland, it will be the autumn internationals of 2016 before he could qualify, but in his first start, he showed that he might be worth waiting for and there was no doubting the determination in his voice as he explained how he turned down an offer to play for Western Force in Perth, Australia, to chase his dream of playing international rugby.
He is the fourth foreign player currently in the Scottish system who has made public his intention of trying to play for Scotland — Wilem Nel, at ­Edinburgh, plus Josh Strauss and Mike Cusack, at Glasgow Warriors, are the others — but with Mike Coman and Sam Beard still to arrive from New Zealand, that number could grow. There are 13 players at Edinburgh with no Scottish qualification, and only four of them are already capped.
Asked why he had opted to play in Scotland rather than Australia, Du Preez was unequivocal: “The chance to play international rugby,” he said before adding that the personal influence of Alan Solomons and Omar Mouneimne, coaches he had worked with at the Southern Kings in South Africa who are now in charge at Edinburgh, had also been a big factor."

mystiroakey wrote:Auxter if his contract is for 3 years or more then he will be eligible!


Not once within the statement does it say he is committed to playing for ireland only!

It may imply it, but it doesn't state it, so no grounds for litigation

Agreed - that's my point. There's nothing to stop SARU selecting CJ Stander for the Boks other than their own internal policy

Yes true- no reason at all why you couldn't call on him and you are right if the irish tried to block(well they can't can they!! its just not possible or legal!)

lostinwales wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I also agree with this three years is a joke, but in GB as we are an island with three countries stuck together and one country that is part of another, I know it sounds weird, and we all see ourselves as British our residency rules are a bit different, for example, I have family living in both England and Scotland, but my cousins see themselves as Welsh and they class their children as Welsh also, even though their kids were born in the countries where their jobs took them, so we have grey areas there because there are no cultural differences and we all use the same money and when our brave service men and women are out in the middle east they are all British and we are proud of them all, what I do not agree with are people who for what ever reason cannot make it in their own country so they come over here to get "capped", and to be honest, and this is not a dig, but the main culprits are England and Scotland, it will not be long before those two have a national side without any indigenous British people playing, but I suppose this is the way the world is going. 

If only that were so. I think I had better leave it at that.

Back to the main subject area I was amused a couple of years ago when England played Wales they both had the same number of English born backs..

Come on then, enlighten me what is the big culture shock between our two countries, England and Wales ?

I dont really want to go there as it could just turn into an anti Welsh rant which will serve no purpose. I know it is very much a horses for courses thing, and I would qualify things by saying I did meet some lovely welsh people and things are not universal, just as there more than your fair share of English idiots and bigots if you go looking for them (especially in the Mumbles if you must know).

I lived in Swansea for 7 years and hated it. I never expected things and people to be as different from what I was used to as it turned out, and before moving was genuinely excited about the new opportunity that was there and being by the sea.

Prior to that I lived in several different UK cities including London for several years. I have now moved to the NW and am, quite frankly, loving it.

Quote/para quote (its from memory) from Milton Jones I heard the other day ' And then I became an eco protester. Usually its hard for someone to become an eco protester because you have to get used to living in a hole, but I am from Swansea so I was alright'

7 years in a Swansea call centre would be more than enough to turn anyone off the place. Average length of service is about 9 months before they move on to a proper job elsewhere.

Apologies if this is already posted above, but an excellent article on passport swappers from the BBC Sport site

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/24522180

Biltong wrote:I just wonder how fans really feel about the fact that their teams are bolstered by guys like Stander, I am not talking of the bravado or lip service, but rather how they feel deep down inside.

Do they still feel true to themselves if they have bragging rights when they are ploughing with another country's cattle, are they still proud, or do they just wave it away with "Well, he chose to play for us"?

I'm totally against it and feel that it waters down the jersey by having a club like signing playing.


On the other hand if a player has Irish heritage than fair enough. Jake Heenan in Connacht for example has just arrived from NZ. He just missing out on automatic qualification by one generation but he has heritage (Irish name for example) so I wouldn't mind if he played for Ireland. Same with Tom Court and Isaac Boss who both have Irish grandparents.

Biltong wrote:I just wonder how fans really feel about the fact that their teams are bolstered by guys like Stander, I am not talking of the bravado or lip service, but rather how they feel deep down inside.

Do they still feel true to themselves if they have bragging rights when they are ploughing with another country's cattle, are they still proud, or do they just wave it away with "Well, he chose to play for us"?

... except the team isn't bolstered by hordes of imports. Richardt Strauss is the only one to have represented Ireland via residency qualification and I see nothing wrong with him and a few others playing for Ireland. Someone like him who has been prepared to come over and fight for a provincial place with no guarantee of ultimate Test selection shows far more commitment to the country than say Michael Bent who was plucked from relative obscurity straight into an Ireland shirt. It carries far more weight with me when a player earns the right to play for Ireland through hard work, ability and patience rather than parachute in the lucky recipient of ancestral lotto.

Perhaps some countries treat their players like cattle, so maybe it is no surprise if they seek new pastures where they will be welcomed into a new herd - I certainly do.

and when central contracting becomes the norm, and players with multiple eligibility or via residency start effectively offering themselves out to the highest bidder? ridiculous and should be stopped.

otherwise...i would hire an awesome 17yr old kiwi for example, on a club contract with quins lets say, with a sub-clause in the player contract which states that if they choose to play for england and represent them at saxons or higher by the age of 21, they are guaranteed a £100,000 per annum from the RFU in addition to their club salary...

its a very slippery slope aukster

Except you can't have nationality as a condition of employment - it's against the law as discussed above.

The Great Aukster wrote:Except you can't have nationality as a condition of employment - it's against the law as discussed above.

how are future contingent bonus payments anything to do with nationality being a condition of employment?

and anyway, yes you can have nationality as a condition of employment in a legal and technical sense. for example, in order to apply for most jobs in the UK and Ireland you need either a valid passport or that from another EU country. so nationality is already, clearly, a condition of employment.

I dont think so mate- you could apply on a working visa as well.. I am not sure if anyone is allowed to stop someone applying that has that.

sorry mysti but on this one i know different. my firm does not hire people on visas (due to the length of the contract offered) and is not interested in sponsoring people for visas. therefore, being an EU citizen is a requirement of the job spec.

nothing illegal about that.

but this is beside the point that if i offer some 17yr old kiwi a big bonus if he plays for saxons or the full england team before the age of 21 (or pick a number), that is 100% legal. doesnt say anything about nationality, right to work, eligibility. nothing. and yet its legal. which is why i say all this is a very slippery slope.

how did Aus recruit this new kid Solomona mentioned earlier in this or maybe another thread? with money.