Poaching, project players, residency qualifications etc.

First topic message reminder :

Continue here about the greatness of NH rugby players, the money the clubs have, the greatness of the SH rugby players and the leak to the north.

Other topic is full

Etc.

Who else is lowe eligible for? A pi nation?

Good explanation Pot.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Who else is lowe eligible for? A pi nation?

He's of Maori and English descent. As I understand it, that means he's currently eligible for New Zealand and England.

He may be from the distant past but before his grandparents otherwise why wouldn't leinster have played him in Europe.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He may be from the distant past but before his grandparents otherwise why wouldn't leinster have played him in Europe.

!

I think you might have something there, 7.

Come on, Pot - educate us on the technicalities. You've been doing brilliantly up to this point

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Who else is lowe eligible for? A pi nation?

He's of Maori and English descent.   As I understand it, that means he's currently eligible for New Zealand and England.

Quick call him into the England squad and call him 'non-project player who's happens to be English even though his family have been fannying around in the colonies'. Drop the microphone and

Yoda wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Who else is lowe eligible for? A pi nation?

He's of Maori and English descent.   As I understand it, that means he's currently eligible for New Zealand and England.

Quick call him into the England squad and call him 'non-project player who's happens to be English even though his family have been fannying around in the colonies'. Drop the microphone and      

Sure the lad wouldn't leave Leinster for a mere International side! It's crazy thinking!

He doesn't qualify anyway. Unless we can somehow acquire him against his will and make him stay for 5 years.

SecretFly wrote:

Yoda wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Who else is lowe eligible for? A pi nation?

He's of Maori and English descent.   As I understand it, that means he's currently eligible for New Zealand and England.

Quick call him into the England squad and call him 'non-project player who's happens to be English even though his family have been fannying around in the colonies'. Drop the microphone and      

Sure the lad wouldn't leave Leinster for a mere International side!  It's crazy thinking!

I wouldn't either, will he wear the emerald green? That would be one hell of a signing!

I've been on some many threads I don't know which I'm on now.  Some of us were talking about that on a thread just a little earlier Yoda...maybe this very one, don't have time to look.
It'd be still two years before he qualified on resident grounds and he's got arthritis issues already.  He'd be a gamble to wait for as other players slip in earlier than he could.
Anyway, it's his character I like best.  He's a wild kinda guy but loveable - like an eager puppy.  Brings fun to the game and to those around him....but then he's lethal too when the real work begins.  Nice combination.

Gees I only popped in to see when we were getting James Lowe only to discover Guns is on world tour and Billy has declared allegiance to Holland.

eirebilly wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

War then, Guns.  Let's try war - quite often the truth finder when it comes to Nationality.

Europe falls apart on suspicions and a bunch of new Brexits!  It's all so confusing but one thing is clear -  Holand has declared war on Ireland.

Now were the hell does Billy sit - both in his mind and in yours?

Will he be obedient to Holland, join up and fight against Ireland?  Will he try to keep his head down and avoid the war?  Will be return to Ireland to fight with us?  Will he stay in Holland to be an agent for us or a double agent for them or a treble agent for us?  
If Ireland lose will he be tried for treason against Holland if he came back to fight with us?  If Ireland win, will you be in the firing squad when he's tried for treason against us if he wore their uniform?

You undoubtedly regard him as Irish when you debate him in rugby so maybe we're all insulting Holand when we accept Billy as naturally Irish in the auld rugby chat?

Best stop all this nonsense now. I think we are all very much aware of what Guns is trying to do and to be honest, its not really worth entertaining

What am I trying to do? We are having a debate around citizenship and what that means. I'm really only pointing out the facts.

rodders wrote:Gees I only popped in to see when we were getting James Lowe only to discover Guns is on world tour and Billy has declared allegiance to Holland.  

You're not. He's going to play for England .. call it the Ben Te'o route to international rugby

Made in New Zealand, refined in Ireland, hit with the injury curse stick by England

Swing Lowe

Biltong gave a broad subject title to this thead, so it can cover a lot ground. However, a lot of issues are getting conflated.

When rugby union players are looking at personal compensation, outside of the very top players in the top teams, the best deals are available in the North (Japan is in the north hemisphere side).

In most sports, top professionals move to the most lucrative opportunities. Japanese baseball players want to try their hand in the MLB, European hockey and basketball players go to the NHL and NBA; Georgian and Mongiolian wrestlers go to Japanese sumo; the European football leagues attract talent from the all over the world; top cricketers go to the IPL.

Oh, and British rugby league players go to Australia.

Anyone who thinks European players don't play in the south because they probably aren't good enough is overlooking a couple of points. The gap between the standard of Australian and English rugby league play has been much wider than union for decades, and yet the NRL clubs have been only too happy to employ English talent. Since they can pay more than many English clubs, the players often go. If the incentives are right, players move.

In the amateur era, New Zealand rugby union sides sought out players from the North through informal networks. That's how John Gallagher became an All Black, and why Martin Johnson represented New Zealand U21. The incentives are so skewed the other way in union now, that flow, which was never big in the first place, has virtually stopped

There is no moral high or low ground here. Sport wants the best players it can get.

South Africa, New Zealand and Australia are right to be concerned about losing players to other leagues because it risks making the domestic leagues look underpowered. The other issue is losing players to the national side, and that is really an issue peculiar to rugby union.

James Graham and Sam Burgess play in Australia, but still turn out for England. Neymar represents Brazil from France, while Messi does so for Argentina from Spain. Australian Test cricket hopeful Travis Head is one of many overseas players to play for an English county.

South Africa and Australia have relaxed their criteria to some degree but New Zealand still refuses to countenance selecting people playing outside the country. England also has the policy but, beyond some high profile cases, it has not been anything like the issue for SANZAAR .

It's hard to think that anyone would complain about player drain from the national team, if players everywhere in the world were still available for selection. Perhaps we ought to ask ourselves why this happens in our sport, and hardly any others. Then we should ponder how to structure the global club and international season, to ensure we aren't such an anamoly.

If we can get that bit right, then the issue of residency qualification will be less significant. One of the main reasons players are willing to consider turning out for a team, which, on the surface, might not seem like their first choice national side is because they want to play international rugby, and their current club. region, province or franchise contract means they are either out of contention, or well down the pecking order.

Well that's a pretty sensible summary. There were a few Irish players that went South in the early days of professionalism before we established our own professional structures in Ireland. Peter Clohessy for one played for the Queensland reds for a while. It doesn't happen anymore as there really isn't much in it for them to do so.

Yeah good summary rugby fan.

The number of SH-born players in the PRO14 European teams has been falling in the last 3 years. It may be a RWC cycle thing and we’ll see an increase again after RWC 19.

Or maybe we won’t if the WISI unions keep developing domestic players and invest in their domestic pathways. That certainly seems to be the trend. And Wales, Italy and Scotland are slightly behind Ireland on this track so their domestic numbers are going to bear fruit even more in next 2-3 years.

It then comes down to how many France, England and Japan are willing to accommodate.

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:He may be from the distant past but before his grandparents otherwise why wouldn't leinster have played him in Europe.

!

I think you might have something there, 7.

Come on, Pot - educate us on the technicalities.  You've been doing brilliantly up to this point

I hadn’t thought of that. My mistake.

Good post Rugby Fan

Rugby Fan. Not to be confused with RugbyFan1000! Different beasts.

Rugby Fan wrote:Biltong gave a broad subject title to this thead, so it can cover a lot ground. However, a lot of issues are getting conflated.

When rugby union players are looking at personal compensation, outside of the very top players in the top teams, the best deals are available in the North (Japan is in the north hemisphere side).

In most sports, top professionals move to the most lucrative opportunities. Japanese baseball players want to try their hand in the MLB, European hockey and basketball players go to the NHL and NBA; Georgian and Mongiolian wrestlers go to Japanese sumo; the European football leagues attract talent from the all over the world; top cricketers go to the IPL.

Oh, and British rugby league players go to Australia.

Anyone who thinks European players don't play in the south because they probably aren't good enough is overlooking a couple of points. The gap between the standard of Australian and English rugby league play has been much wider than union for decades, and yet the NRL clubs have been only too happy to employ English talent. Since they can pay more than many English clubs, the players often go. If the incentives are right, players move.

In the amateur era, New Zealand rugby union sides sought out players from the North through informal networks. That's how John Gallagher became an All Black, and why Martin Johnson represented New Zealand U21. The incentives are so skewed the other way in union now, that flow, which was never big in the first place, has virtually stopped

There is no moral high or low ground here. Sport wants the best players it can get.

South Africa, New Zealand and Australia are right to be concerned about losing players to other leagues because it risks making the domestic leagues look underpowered. The other issue is losing players to the national side, and that is really an issue peculiar to rugby union.

James Graham and Sam Burgess play in Australia, but still turn out for England. Neymar represents Brazil from France, while Messi does so for Argentina from Spain. Australian Test cricket hopeful Travis Head is one of many overseas players to play for an English county.

South Africa and Australia have relaxed their criteria to some degree but New Zealand still refuses to countenance selecting people playing outside the country. England also has the policy but, beyond some high profile cases, it has not been anything like the issue for SANZAAR .

It's hard to think that anyone would complain about player drain from the national team, if players everywhere in the world were still available for selection. Perhaps we ought to ask ourselves why this happens in our sport, and hardly any others. Then we should ponder how to structure the global club and international season, to ensure we aren't such an anamoly.

If we can get that bit right, then the issue of residency qualification will be less significant. One of the main reasons players are willing to consider turning out for a team, which, on the surface, might not seem like their first choice national side is because they want to play international rugby, and their current club. region, province or franchise contract means they are either out of contention, or well down the pecking order.

In terms of League not every tom dick and harry can play in the NRL, only the best ones, which is why only a few from the north are there. NZ is in a similar position but due to proximity and a greater standard of players are good enough to have a semi competitive team as well as dozens of players throughout the other sides, yet we are, like England, rarely able to beat the oz side, though we just did recently.

The NRL is also a massive drain on our rugby youth. Because they have muliti tiered club sides theyre able to offer kids still playing first xv contracts.

A good summary but I dont agree about having no moral high ground in sport. SH rugby is being decimated by constant extraction from the north to the extent that it is now in real terms in its current course heading for extinction in terms of the way we have known it.

SANZAAR is trying to address it and failing badly but is limited in its capacity to do so. So although Im all for individuals doing what they can for themselves a gravy train is being created and is on a track going faster and faster and at some point is going to derail.

Someone needs to be responsible for the future of the clubs while the greedy clubs and lured players are driving this train to an inevitable collision.

For me that makes the clubs and the caretakers of our sport morally responsible to addressing these issues. World rugby needs to reign in these clubs and if need be remove the ability for them to play it if they cant do so for the overall betterment of the sport.

We all know theyre too spineless to do so and the trend will continue but for now the north can continue on their little false plateau and frankly I look forward to it all collapsing around them

Rugby Fan wrote:

James Graham and Sam Burgess play in Australia, but still turn out for England. Neymar represents Brazil from France, while Messi does so for Argentina from Spain. Australian Test cricket hopeful Travis Head is one of many overseas players to play for an English county.

That's maybe part of the reason why Brazil as a National team have lost all their pizazz...and to a degree Argentina too.  These places/Nations end up losing their most promising players to the European Leagues (BIG Money) and so suffer the consequences, and indeed, often the players themselves lose something as European football is big biz, losing is bad biz, players have to play a more structured/pragmatic game to try to lessen the losses.  You learn how to play a more..... well, boring game.... and those habits can stick.

Anyway, I don't see why any Nation has to agree, or should agree to pick their players from a different Nation's clubs.  That to me is simply another way of saying let only certain countries/blocs have the Big Time World Leagues.  Don't fight it, acquiesce, accept; don't expect too much of your local club because your best players have outgrown you and should be allowed rush to the big Leagues that pay them much more.  
So for example then, big English high spending clubs, big French high spending clubs or even in the possible future, big German, Spanish or Italian high spending clubs get all the kudos, delight their 'local' fans year after year after decade, and feck everyone else....'sure support one of our Super Clubs, you eejits!'

It's just seems to be a neat argument for dragging the highest brand of rugby, with the biggest profit margins, the highest salaries, the best coaches...etc, etc..... to Europe.  To me that's an increasingly boring sporting world if rugby chases the football model.  Europe has enough.  It's greedy.  It wants everything on its doorstep, right outside the sitting room window.  No bullet trains or planes needed, just good boots.  That would suit Lord perfectly

Taylorman. Quick question what could world rugby do to reign in these clubs? I mean legally without infringing on a person's right to work?
Now I'm no legal eagle but I think world rugby would legally have absolutely no hope in stopping players playing for whoever they want to, or forcing any clubs not to employ who they want.
Aslo havnt NZ shown the way of win at all costs mentality? So why so upset when everyone else copy's that attitude?

carpet baboon wrote:Taylorman. Quick question what could world rugby do to reign in these clubs? I mean legally without infringing on a person's right to work?
Now I'm no legal eagle but I think world rugby would legally have absolutely no hope in stopping players playing for whoever they want to, or forcing any clubs not to employ who they want.
Aslo havnt NZ shown the way of win at all costs mentality? So why so upset when everyone else copy's that attitude?

World rugby need to own the sport. How they do that I dont know. But to suggest theres no morality here isnt right either. Yes NZ have led the way but they deploy largely their own resources to do so. We also provide the basis of the winning of many northern sides via our playing and coaching resources. As someones said we are now the Brazil of rugby and will soon head down the same path internationally.

So be it. I just look forward to the clubs in the north going under. Change is good. Isnt it?

Taylorman wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Taylorman. Quick question what could world rugby do to reign in these clubs? I mean legally without infringing on a person's right to work?
Now I'm no legal eagle but I think world rugby would legally have absolutely no hope in stopping players playing for whoever they want to, or forcing any clubs not to employ who they want.
Aslo havnt NZ shown the way of win at all costs mentality? So why so upset when everyone else copy's that attitude?

World rugby need to own the sport. How they do that I dont know. But to suggest theres no morality here isnt right either. Yes NZ have led the way but they deploy largely their own resources to do so. We also provide the basis of the winning of many northern sides via our playing and coaching resources. As someones said we are now the Brazil of rugby and will soon head down the same path internationally.

So be it. I just look forward to the clubs in the north going under. Change is good. Isnt it?

You keep talking about morality. Who's morality? Professional sports morality? Professional business morality? Any one of the recognised 35000 versions of Christianity's morality?
I

Taylorman wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Taylorman. Quick question what could world rugby do to reign in these clubs? I mean legally without infringing on a person's right to work?
Now I'm no legal eagle but I think world rugby would legally have absolutely no hope in stopping players playing for whoever they want to, or forcing any clubs not to employ who they want.
Aslo havnt NZ shown the way of win at all costs mentality? So why so upset when everyone else copy's that attitude?

World rugby need to own the sport. How they do that I dont know. But to suggest theres no morality here isnt right either. Yes NZ have led the way but they deploy largely their own resources to do so. We also provide the basis of the winning of many northern sides via our playing and coaching resources. As someones said we are now the Brazil of rugby and will soon head down the same path internationally.

So be it. I just look forward to the clubs in the north going under. Change is good. Isnt it?

I think you’re over egging your contribution there, especially when referring to playing resources. I could understand your point if an NH club side contained the majority of its starting 15 from NZ. But in reality an NH side might have a couple of NZ first teamers max. Hardly ‘providing the winning basis’. Those two or so players do not do it all on their own. Name a team and I’m sure you’ll find the NZ players are the minority in the squad.

I don't think Saracens have any NZ players do they?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I don't think Saracens have any NZ players do they?

Yep, but even if they had 1 or 2, like some sides, I think it’s a stretch to attribute all of their wins to those two players.

Or looking at it another way, my side the Dragons have had a few NZ players and we won diddly squat!

The Oracle wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Taylorman. Quick question what could world rugby do to reign in these clubs? I mean legally without infringing on a person's right to work?
Now I'm no legal eagle but I think world rugby would legally have absolutely no hope in stopping players playing for whoever they want to, or forcing any clubs not to employ who they want.
Aslo havnt NZ shown the way of win at all costs mentality? So why so upset when everyone else copy's that attitude?

World rugby need to own the sport. How they do that I dont know. But to suggest theres no morality here isnt right either. Yes NZ have led the way but they deploy largely their own resources to do so. We also provide the basis of the winning of many northern sides via our playing and coaching resources. As someones said we are now the Brazil of rugby and will soon head down the same path internationally.

So be it. I just look forward to the clubs in the north going under. Change is good. Isnt it?

I think you’re over egging your contribution there, especially when referring to playing resources. I could understand your point if an NH club side contained the majority of its starting 15 from NZ. But in reality an NH side might have a couple of NZ first teamers max. Hardly ‘providing the winning basis’. Those two or so players do not do it all on their own. Name a team and I’m sure you’ll find the NZ players are the minority in the squad.

Its all relative and obviously not as direct as NZers winning games directly, although it happens now and then. The combined effect of NZ, SA, Arg, Oz players and coaches has certainly changed the landscape. As I keep saying, remove them all today instantly and the place would literally fall apart, especially if we all got to select our 60 odd ABs.

Remove anyone not born in NZ from the NZ scene as everyone keeps pointing out here and we wouldnt notice a ripple.

Better yet, get our resources back all at once and the north would suffer for years trying win and replace at the same time.

When you get to the point when you can say you would stand up without any external off the shelf buy ins, then your rugby will be respected. Until then, its just a gluttony of baa baa sides.

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Taylorman. Quick question what could world rugby do to reign in these clubs? I mean legally without infringing on a person's right to work?
Now I'm no legal eagle but I think world rugby would legally have absolutely no hope in stopping players playing for whoever they want to, or forcing any clubs not to employ who they want.
Aslo havnt NZ shown the way of win at all costs mentality? So why so upset when everyone else copy's that attitude?

World rugby need to own the sport. How they do that I dont know. But to suggest theres no morality here isnt right either. Yes NZ have led the way but they deploy largely their own resources to do so. We also provide the basis of the winning of many northern sides via our playing and coaching resources. As someones said we are now the Brazil of rugby and will soon head down the same path internationally.

So be it. I just look forward to the clubs in the north going under. Change is good. Isnt it?

I think you’re over egging your contribution there, especially when referring to playing resources. I could understand your point if an NH club side contained the majority of its starting 15 from NZ. But in reality an NH side might have a couple of NZ first teamers max. Hardly ‘providing the winning basis’. Those two or so players do not do it all on their own. Name a team and I’m sure you’ll find the NZ players are the minority in the squad.

Its all relative and obviously not as direct as NZers winning games directly, although it happens now and then. The combined effect of NZ, SA, Arg, Oz players and coaches has certainly changed the landscape. As I keep saying, remove them all today instantly and the place would literally fall apart, especially if we all got to select our 60 odd ABs.

Remove anyone not born in NZ from the NZ scene as everyone keeps pointing out here and we wouldnt notice a ripple.

Better yet, get our resources back all at once and the north would suffer for years trying win and replace at the same time.

When you get to the point when you can say you would stand up without any external off the shelf buy ins, then your rugby will be respected. Until then, its just a gluttony of baa baa sides.

Yeah, SA will be much better off if they had to remove players in the Spr.ingbok squad that wasnt born in SA, and get back all their player stock.

Our Franchises will be infinetely stronger, and our Bok team the better for it.

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Taylorman. Quick question what could world rugby do to reign in these clubs? I mean legally without infringing on a person's right to work?
Now I'm no legal eagle but I think world rugby would legally have absolutely no hope in stopping players playing for whoever they want to, or forcing any clubs not to employ who they want.
Aslo havnt NZ shown the way of win at all costs mentality? So why so upset when everyone else copy's that attitude?

World rugby need to own the sport. How they do that I dont know. But to suggest theres no morality here isnt right either. Yes NZ have led the way but they deploy largely their own resources to do so. We also provide the basis of the winning of many northern sides via our playing and coaching resources. As someones said we are now the Brazil of rugby and will soon head down the same path internationally.

So be it. I just look forward to the clubs in the north going under. Change is good. Isnt it?

I think you’re over egging your contribution there, especially when referring to playing resources. I could understand your point if an NH club side contained the majority of its starting 15 from NZ. But in reality an NH side might have a couple of NZ first teamers max. Hardly ‘providing the winning basis’. Those two or so players do not do it all on their own. Name a team and I’m sure you’ll find the NZ players are the minority in the squad.

Its all relative and obviously not as direct as NZers winning games directly, although it happens now and then. The combined effect of NZ, SA, Arg, Oz players and coaches has certainly changed the landscape. As I keep saying, remove them all today instantly and the place would literally fall apart, especially if we all got to select our 60 odd ABs.

Remove anyone not born in NZ from the NZ scene as everyone keeps pointing out here and we wouldnt notice a ripple.

Better yet, get our resources back all at once and the north would suffer for years trying win and replace at the same time.

When you get to the point when you can say you would stand up without any external off the shelf buy ins, then your rugby will be respected. Until then, its just a gluttony of baa baa sides.

It happens now and then? Yep, and more often than not a local French/English/Irish player wins it too. I think in your head the teams here are absolutely dripping with NZ players. It’s just not the case.

I agree that some look like baa baa sides.  Mainly in France. But that is different to your original claim that it is NZ players solely that are winning stuff up here. If you take Wales or Ireland, for example. Would we ‘collapse’ if we lost NZ players tomorrow, as you suggest? Absolutely not. Why would they?

I reckon you lot would have a few more foreign players if you tried to run 12-14 pro teams too! NZ is the nation that produces the most top quality rugby players, has a conveyor belt of talent, rugby is the national sport yet only 5 pro sides? So of course England and France, with other sports like Football competing for participation, are going to need to buy players from the rest of the world to service that many positions. That’s why in places like Wales we needed to shrink as we couldn’t sustain 10 pro teams.

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Taylorman. Quick question what could world rugby do to reign in these clubs? I mean legally without infringing on a person's right to work?
Now I'm no legal eagle but I think world rugby would legally have absolutely no hope in stopping players playing for whoever they want to, or forcing any clubs not to employ who they want.
Aslo havnt NZ shown the way of win at all costs mentality? So why so upset when everyone else copy's that attitude?

World rugby need to own the sport. How they do that I dont know. But to suggest theres no morality here isnt right either. Yes NZ have led the way but they deploy largely their own resources to do so. We also provide the basis of the winning of many northern sides via our playing and coaching resources. As someones said we are now the Brazil of rugby and will soon head down the same path internationally.

So be it. I just look forward to the clubs in the north going under. Change is good. Isnt it?

I think you’re over egging your contribution there, especially when referring to playing resources. I could understand your point if an NH club side contained the majority of its starting 15 from NZ. But in reality an NH side might have a couple of NZ first teamers max. Hardly ‘providing the winning basis’. Those two or so players do not do it all on their own. Name a team and I’m sure you’ll find the NZ players are the minority in the squad.

Its all relative and obviously not as direct as NZers winning games directly, although it happens now and then. The combined effect of NZ, SA, Arg, Oz players and coaches has certainly changed the landscape. As I keep saying, remove them all today instantly and the place would literally fall apart, especially if we all got to select our 60 odd ABs.

Remove anyone not born in NZ from the NZ scene as everyone keeps pointing out here and we wouldnt notice a ripple.

Better yet, get our resources back all at once and the north would suffer for years trying win and replace at the same time.

When you get to the point when you can say you would stand up without any external off the shelf buy ins, then your rugby will be respected. Until then, its just a gluttony of baa baa sides.

Yeah, SA will be much better off if they had to remove players in the Spr.ingbok squad that wasnt born in SA, and get back all their player stock.

Our Franchises will be infinetely stronger, and our Bok team the better for it.

Yes and imagine if the situation were reversed, take a few hundred professionals from the northern scene and put them in ours so we can have forty clubs playing. Imagine them coping with several internationals leaving from all four or five countries every year.

Thats the comparison here. So to hear that promising ‘schoolboys’ get picked up from Samoa or Tonga is a joke in comparison to what we put up with.
Frankly, with that many people I just wish theyd hurry up and learn how to play this game and stand up on their own.
With football as well it gives the impression that the whole of europe are amass of couch potatoes with money where these two sports are concerned. Honestly.

Does that make you a couch potato without money? After all, we're all couch potatoes on here if talking in professional sporting terms

Youre embarassing yourself again Taylorman.

I'm just an ordinary couch spud. Couch potatoes have a few too many chips on their shoulders.

Collapse2005 wrote:Youre embarassing yourself again Taylorman.

Not as much as your rugby is chump. Truth hurts huh?

Stop looking overseas. How hard is it? Grow your own set for once.

How about instead of paying Lowe a million dollars buy as many kids a free set of rugby boots as you can. But no, no profit in that for years huh, too hard.

Well this all sounds very familiar. T-man and Biltong attempting to convince the unconvinceable.

You’re wasting your time.

Pot Hale wrote:Well this all sounds very familiar.   T-man and Biltong attempting to convince the unconvinceable.

You’re wasting your time.  

Yeah we know that Poth, feels good getting it out there though. Cos when the chooks come home to roost

Taylorman wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Well this all sounds very familiar.   T-man and Biltong attempting to convince the unconvinceable.

You’re wasting your time.  

Yeah we know that Poth, feels good getting it out there though. Cos when the chooks come home to roost

Well you know my views on the issues already so I won’t waste my breath. I still see this as Unions v Clubs rather than the hackneyed hemisphere battle but each to his own.

Pot Hale wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Well this all sounds very familiar.   T-man and Biltong attempting to convince the unconvinceable.

You’re wasting your time.  

Yeah we know that Poth, feels good getting it out there though. Cos when the chooks come home to roost

Well you know my views on the issues already so I won’t waste my breath.   I still see this as Unions v Clubs rather than the hackneyed hemisphere battle but each to his own.

Lowes a good example of the type of frustration we see regularly. A players who's sole dream will have been to play for the AB's (an assumption of course but for a NZ kid in rugby a very common one) instead is forced into being realistic and settle for his playing days somewhere he never dreamed of playing. (No NZ kid dreams of playing for Leinster, believe me- though some nameless turkey will no doubt offer one of Schmidts kids).

So his compromise is compensated with dollars and for us purists of the game, a sad thing to see, again, and again, and again.

Sure he'll embrace the change, partly because its a requirement, partly because he's made the decision to turn his back on the dream, and make the most of it, maybe even love it.

Had Lowe stayed, in all possibility he could have turned his game around here as he did with Leinster, but we'll never know.

The point is, the dream is changing. Its now, dont worry, if you dont get to play for the AB's you can always go to Leinster, or Munster, or Sanyo etc.

Piutau was the same, all ready to blow the AB world open, then to us fans, hes gone. Just like that. No warning, off.

And in the same instance, some poor schmuck winger at Leinster, who dreamed of playing wing for Leinster and Ireland, has to watch some off the shelf AB reject block his dream...just dandy.

These are now happening in larger numbers despite you thinking theyre reducing. They might be reducing in your area, but for us they're still going somewhere else in bigger numbers, where, I dont care.

So if it all falls to pieces as it probably will, good. Bad medicine is best shared.

Good post there tman.

I don't often agree with Taylorman but that is bang on.

And so the cycle continues.

You seem to be missing a very simple thing. Which is more important rugby or family?
Isn't it our moral duty to do what's best for our family.
Rugby is entertainment for us. For them it's a job.
Who are we to sit about judging them on there choices because we want them to show "loyalty" for our own selfish enjoyment.

Piutau has spoken about how his choice was what was best for his family, who are we to say that's wrong?

Careers can be cut short in a second. How many retirements bin the last 12 months?

And yet some of you are sitting around hoping it all falls apart because someone has made a choice about what's best for them without thinking about your feelings? Your upset that they won't entertain you the way you want them to

Dreams are wonderful, but life's a bit more complicated.

carpet baboon wrote:You seem to be missing a very simple thing. Which is more important rugby or family?
Isn't it our moral duty to do what's best for our family.
Rugby is entertainment for us. For them it's a job.
Who are we to sit about judging them on there choices because we want them to show "loyalty" for our own selfish enjoyment.

Piutau has spoken about how his choice was what was best for his family, who are we to say that's wrong?

Careers can be cut short in a second. How many retirements bin the last 12 months?

And yet some of you are sitting around hoping it all falls apart because someone has made a choice about what's best for them without thinking about your feelings? Your upset that they won't entertain you the way you want them to

Dreams are wonderful, but life's a bit more complicated.

10000%

My family is my first identity above my country above my province etc. Id say its the same for most honest people. You nailed it.

Biltong wrote:Good post there tman.

Only in the Trumpian dystopia we now live in, is it normalised for such a passive aggressive post, containing various digs at people be approved by authority.

Sure there were some valid points that can be debated, but neither side really wants to listen to the other. Everyone believes only their own point of view is valid. We are seeing the same arguments in so many threads I am starting to wonder which users are from a Moscow troll bit farm, cutting and pasting their "opinions" backed by alternative facts.

Good post Carpet Baboon.

This sport that we get our entertainment from, that we thrill in seeing the big hits and the savage blows, is actually the sport that leads to physical problems for most pros when they leave the sport, joint problems, mobility problems, arthritis, problems getting other work after they finish. It's a tough sport, a short career and a long retirement. If I need to look after my family and make sure we're OK when I retire at 36 and can barely walk then I'll make my choices in line with that. If it means playing overseas for a bit more money and my family OK with it, then so be it. Is it selfish for Lowe to do that? Or is it selfish for Taylorman to expect it? You can't know the pressures these guys (all over the planet, not just in NZ) are under to make sure they take care of themselves and their family beyond rugby. One small innocuous knock and your career can be over. Yet T'man would have them chained to the pitch in Waikato on a bin man's salary just so he can see them play each week. I don't think it's the players' morals in question here really.

On another note Taylorman, which player would get rid of in the current S14 in order to put Lowe back into Super Rugby? You talk about taking all of these players back but that means demoting players from the current Super Rugby sides. So who goes? Whose career do ruin to put him back in? Or to bring Savea back? Or Brad Shields?

carpet baboon wrote:You seem to be missing a very simple thing. Which is more important rugby or family?
Isn't it our moral duty to do what's best for our family.
Rugby is entertainment for us. For them it's a job.
Who are we to sit about judging them on there choices because we want them to show "loyalty" for our own selfish enjoyment.

Don't think anyone is 'judging' them.... but rather holding valid and differing opinions on them or the system that was in operation until the five year thing came in.

I know what you mean to say about those players being in control of their own personal journeys in as much as they can be, but opinions are still interesting things and sometimes the idea that people are 'judging' others often too readily closes down the distribution of valid opinions. It suggests a discussion itself is probably bordering on invalid - which in itself is a judgement on opinion itself  

After all, in very recent years many people have been openly accused of being racist, sexist, homophobic, trans phobic, fascist, ageist, leftist, rustic, backward, far-right, alt right, communist, libtard, conservative, snowflake, nationalist, globalist and chickenschidt.

I've probably been called all of them in the last two years or so .... but, serious point - people have to man up (no not human up or person up....MAN up)  
They have to live with criticism, own it and live with it.  Motives will always be questioned, just like the true motives of a player that leaves a knee in by mistake or takes a man out in the air - we 'judge'/discuss his motives.  Only he knows the truth but we discuss his actions.  Some people simply don't like the idea of 'International' mercenaries.  Rules allowed it - fine but the discussion is a good one.

They might not like the idea of international mercenaries, but we live in a world where money is king, would you turn down a better paid job just because the uniform is different?
Because ultimately that's all it is. A new jersey

carpet baboon wrote: we live in a world where money is king

Yeah, I'd turn down a lot of jobs actually even if the money was good...but that's a whole other topic.

For now, what you said that I highlighted is the only total truth in this thread. All Hail Money.