Poaching, project players, residency qualifications etc.

by **Biltong** Tue 23 Oct 2018, 8:23 pm

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.

by Guest Sat 27 Oct 2018, 9:56 am

Taylorman wrote:
Engine#4 wrote:Why can't NZ franchises match Irish/Scottish/Welsh salaries?

Because we dont have as many fat arses on seats. What is this? Dumb day?

England: 55 million
Wales 3 million
Scotland 4 million
Ireland 5 million

NZ: 4 million.

Youre suggesting no one takes a train ride across the border to watch a match? No english fans travel to Murrayfield?

For club games very few travel across borders. But yes they do travel for 6 nations games. Are you saying the wealth of the clubs is based on the 6 nations? You do know that England, France and Wales have privately owned clubs? They are not union run. 6 nations money doesn’t just get divided up amongst the pro teams in those countries.

by Engine#4 Sat 27 Oct 2018, 9:59 am

If they get €1 for every 1NZ$ they would earn in NZ you mean. I know there's a discrepancy in average salary between NZ and Ireland given our different cost of living, economies etc. but it's not 2:1. I'm surprised that NZ clubs are only able to offer so much less than Irish clubs.

Taylorman English fans don't travel to Murrayfield to watch Pro 14 games, no.

by Guest Sat 27 Oct 2018, 10:03 am

What would James Lowe be on at his Irish club?

by Guest Sat 27 Oct 2018, 10:04 am

The Oracle wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
Engine#4 wrote:Why can't NZ franchises match Irish/Scottish/Welsh salaries?

Because we dont have as many fat arses on seats. What is this? Dumb day?

England: 55 million
Wales 3 million
Scotland 4 million
Ireland 5 million

NZ: 4 million.

Youre suggesting no one takes a train ride across the border to watch a match? No english fans travel to Murrayfield?

For club games very few travel across borders. But yes they do travel for 6 nations games. Are you saying the wealth of the clubs is based on the 6 nations? You do know that England, France and Wales have privately owned clubs? They are not union run. 6 nations money doesn’t just get divided up amongst the pro teams in those countries.

You say wealthy clubs but do you just mean wealthy club owners that tolerate large year-on-year financial losses? That’s nothing to be proud of and then say ‘SH should just pay their players more’. Implying NH rugby is amazing because ludicrously wealthy club owners don’t care about spending big on player salaries and losing money is not really that impressive.

by Engine#4 Sat 27 Oct 2018, 10:12 am

Good question, no idea. He did say he got a significant pay rise when he moved but you generally need a central contract to make the big bucks in Ireland. I had heard a non-centrally contracted Leinster first teamer earns about 100k but that is purely anecdotal. You'd imagine Lowe earns more than that.

by Guest Sat 27 Oct 2018, 10:22 am

I don’t have specifics either but I’m thinking SR salaries in NZ would be $150 - 300k (guess), which is actually pretty darned good compared to the average kiwi salary of around $60k. A SR player should be living well in NZ. Housing is currently expensive in NZ due to immigration and population growth but the cost of living is not ridiculous. The top ABs earn over $1 million. So they’re sorted. I always thought NZ players go north and say they get paid more because of currency conversions and them saving money to take home.

by Guest Sat 27 Oct 2018, 11:01 am

ebop wrote:
The Oracle wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
Engine#4 wrote:Why can't NZ franchises match Irish/Scottish/Welsh salaries?

Because we dont have as many fat arses on seats. What is this? Dumb day?

England: 55 million
Wales 3 million
Scotland 4 million
Ireland 5 million

NZ: 4 million.

Youre suggesting no one takes a train ride across the border to watch a match? No english fans travel to Murrayfield?

For club games very few travel across borders. But yes they do travel for 6 nations games. Are you saying the wealth of the clubs is based on the 6 nations? You do know that England, France and Wales have privately owned clubs? They are not union run. 6 nations money doesn’t just get divided up amongst the pro teams in those countries.
You say wealthy clubs but do you just mean wealthy club owners that tolerate large year-on-year financial losses? That’s nothing to be proud of and then say ‘SH should just pay their players more’. Implying NH rugby is amazing because ludicrously wealthy club owners don’t care about spending big on player salaries and losing money is not really that impressive.

I didn’t say wealthy you fool. I said wealth. I asked Tman whether he thought the wealth, I.e. the income/available finances, of clubs in England, France and Wales, were based on 6 nations income. Because how else would someone travelling from England to Murrayfield have any affect on club finances (his claim)?

by Pot Hale Sat 27 Oct 2018, 12:05 pm

ebop wrote:What would James Lowe be on at his Irish club?

Probably around €160k plus performance/win bonuses from PRO14/EPCR comps. He only joined Leinster mid-season and his appearances are restricted due to the non-European player rule.

Foreign-capped high quality test players like a Cruden or Piutau command the big money and there’s very few of those in the 660-odd players in the PRO14. The only ex-AB in the PRO14 is Alby Mathewson, a 4-cap NZ who’s on a 3 month injury cover contract until December this year.

by **Biltong** Sat 27 Oct 2018, 12:18 pm

Taylorman wrote:
Engine#4 wrote:Why can't NZ franchises match Irish/Scottish/Welsh salaries?

Because we dont have as many fat arses on seats. What is this? Dumb day?

England: 55 million
Wales 3 million
Scotland 4 million
Ireland 5 million

NZ: 4 million.

Youre suggesting no one takes a train ride across the border to watch a match? No english fans travel to Murrayfield?

Yeah I thought that one was obvious, but I suppose there are people to whom it isn't

by No 7&1/2 Sat 27 Oct 2018, 12:19 pm

But you also have fewer players to pay.

by No 7&1/2 Sat 27 Oct 2018, 12:22 pm

Commentary from the sh media is a bit lacking in rule understanding if evidence from the summer and today's game is anything to go by. What's it like for in nz etc? Any better?

by Pot Hale Sat 27 Oct 2018, 12:41 pm

Biltong wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
Engine#4 wrote:Why can't NZ franchises match Irish/Scottish/Welsh salaries?

Because we dont have as many fat arses on seats. What is this? Dumb day?

England: 55 million
Wales 3 million
Scotland 4 million
Ireland 5 million

NZ: 4 million.

Youre suggesting no one takes a train ride across the border to watch a match? No english fans travel to Murrayfield?

Yeah I thought that one was obvious, but I suppose there are people to whom it isn't

It’s not obvious. Why would English fans be going to watch Edinburgh in Murrayfield - it’s a different league? And Ireland is on a different island. PRO14 clubs rely on home fan attendance - very few fans travel away outside their union with perhaps Munster being an exception on occasion.

The comparison with the three Celtic unions is a good one.

by Pot Hale Sat 27 Oct 2018, 10:22 pm

A few current numbers in Irish Rugby on this topic:

254 Players total in senior squads and academies - not including Sevens or Women's Squads
204 are Irish-born - 80%

The Foreign-born 50 come from 11 different countries
Eng 13;SA 13;NZ 12; Aus 5; Nig/Fra/Spa/Can/USA/Geo/Zim - 1 each

The 31 SH-born players make up 12% of the total:
- 6 are non-Irish eligible - they're already capped - 4 of whom finish in June '19.
- 6 have birth parents/grandparents with some moving before 18yo.
- 4 have been Irish residency-capped
- 4 have Irish residency-qualified (under 3-year rule) but not been capped.
- 5 can still qualify under 3-year rule if still contracted beyond 31 Dec 2020.
- 6 are not residency-qualified and uncapped but could only qualify after 1 Jan 2023 at the earliest.

So by end of 2018/19 season, only 2 players in Irish Rugby will not be eligible to be, or become, Ireland-qualified.

It'll be interesting to see who might be signed before then. (Last season 57 players left the provinces/academies - retirement, released, play Ireland 7s, or new contract elsewhere - SH 14; Eng 1; USA 1; and 31 Irish-born.)

by Taylorman Sat 27 Oct 2018, 10:49 pm

Pot Hale wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
Engine#4 wrote:Why can't NZ franchises match Irish/Scottish/Welsh salaries?

Because we dont have as many fat arses on seats. What is this? Dumb day?

England: 55 million
Wales 3 million
Scotland 4 million
Ireland 5 million

NZ: 4 million.

Youre suggesting no one takes a train ride across the border to watch a match? No english fans travel to Murrayfield?

Yeah I thought that one was obvious, but I suppose there are people to whom it isn't

It’s not obvious. Why would English fans be going to watch Edinburgh in Murrayfield - it’s a different league? And Ireland is on a different island. PRO14 clubs rely on home fan attendance - very few fans travel away outside their union with perhaps Munster being an exception on occasion.

The comparison with the three Celtic unions is a good one.

The concentration of the populations outside England is also much higher and we have two ‘islands’ as well

Scotland is 70,000 km2 , ireland and nthn ireland 100, wales 20 and NZ is larger than the UK in area, yet 1/20 of the population. Lots of people in small places make for big crowds that dont have to travel far. Sounds like canned sardines stuff compared to the space we have.

Though the crowds at the typical club matches dont look overly massive but Im aware finals and matches at the test grounds And my thinking is frankly theres a lot of watchers where in NZ playing the game is paramount. We’re an active lot and gone are the days when the big rugby match was the only thing going so we’re spread thinky across a lot of activities. No doubt others are as well. But our isolation ensures that virtually no one but locals attend matches in NZ outside test matches.

by Pot Hale Sat 27 Oct 2018, 11:12 pm

Taylorman wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
Engine#4 wrote:Why can't NZ franchises match Irish/Scottish/Welsh salaries?

Because we dont have as many fat arses on seats. What is this? Dumb day?

England: 55 million
Wales 3 million
Scotland 4 million
Ireland 5 million

NZ: 4 million.

Youre suggesting no one takes a train ride across the border to watch a match? No english fans travel to Murrayfield?

Yeah I thought that one was obvious, but I suppose there are people to whom it isn't

It’s not obvious. Why would English fans be going to watch Edinburgh in Murrayfield - it’s a different league? And Ireland is on a different island. PRO14 clubs rely on home fan attendance - very few fans travel away outside their union with perhaps Munster being an exception on occasion.

The comparison with the three Celtic unions is a good one.

The concentration of the populations outside England is also much higher and we have two ‘islands’ as well

Scotland is 70,000 km2 , ireland and nthn ireland 100, wales 20 and NZ is larger than the UK in area, yet 1/20 of the population. Lots of people in small places make for big crowds that dont have to travel far. Sounds like canned sardines stuff compared to the space we have.

Though the crowds at the typical club matches dont look overly massive but Im aware finals and matches at the test grounds And my thinking is frankly theres a lot of watchers where in NZ playing the game is paramount. We’re an active lot and gone are the days when the big rugby match was the only thing going so we’re spread thinky across a lot of activities. No doubt others are as well. But our isolation ensures that virtually no one but locals attend matches in NZ outside test matches.

Yeah - it's largely the same in Ireland, Wales and Scotland, T-man. Very similar. And average club attendances in Wales and Scotland are less than SR matches in NZ. Some of the Irish ones aren't busting either. Of course finals get bigger attendances - stands to reason - same everywhere. Leinster is the one exception - so it doesn't make sense to make that the point of comparison.

But your original premise that it is large attendances at NH club matches is what generates the dollars in PRO14 rugby to pay large salaries is wide of the mark. First, the salaries aren't that large which is why there's no big profile test stars in the teams. Secondly, most of the teams are union-onwed and receive funding from their union (same as NZ), but are not franchises with private sector input as you have in NZ.
I suspect that if you were to look at the respective annual turnovers of the three unions and compare with NZRU, then NZRU would be top of the list. It's how unions choose to spend or invest their monies is more important.

Edit: There's an interesting interview with the guy in charge of player contracts in NZRU who talks about the trends and upcoming changes and that for the most part the money is generating in France, and increasingly so in Japan. The Japanese are thinking of running two seasons during 2020 which would make it very attractive to some of the NZ top starts to take a sabbatical for just a year out.

by Taylorman Sat 27 Oct 2018, 11:49 pm

Pot Hale wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
Engine#4 wrote:Why can't NZ franchises match Irish/Scottish/Welsh salaries?

Because we dont have as many fat arses on seats. What is this? Dumb day?

England: 55 million
Wales 3 million
Scotland 4 million
Ireland 5 million

NZ: 4 million.

Youre suggesting no one takes a train ride across the border to watch a match? No english fans travel to Murrayfield?

Yeah I thought that one was obvious, but I suppose there are people to whom it isn't

It’s not obvious. Why would English fans be going to watch Edinburgh in Murrayfield - it’s a different league? And Ireland is on a different island. PRO14 clubs rely on home fan attendance - very few fans travel away outside their union with perhaps Munster being an exception on occasion.

The comparison with the three Celtic unions is a good one.

The concentration of the populations outside England is also much higher and we have two ‘islands’ as well

Scotland is 70,000 km2 , ireland and nthn ireland 100, wales 20 and NZ is larger than the UK in area, yet 1/20 of the population. Lots of people in small places make for big crowds that dont have to travel far. Sounds like canned sardines stuff compared to the space we have.

Though the crowds at the typical club matches dont look overly massive but Im aware finals and matches at the test grounds And my thinking is frankly theres a lot of watchers where in NZ playing the game is paramount. We’re an active lot and gone are the days when the big rugby match was the only thing going so we’re spread thinky across a lot of activities. No doubt others are as well. But our isolation ensures that virtually no one but locals attend matches in NZ outside test matches.

Yeah - it's largely the same in Ireland, Wales and Scotland, T-man. Very similar. And average club attendances in Wales and Scotland are less than SR matches in NZ. Some of the Irish ones aren't busting either. Of course finals get bigger attendances - stands to reason - same everywhere. Leinster is the one exception - so it doesn't make sense to make that the point of comparison.

But your original premise that it is large attendances at NH club matches is what generates the dollars in PRO14 rugby to pay large salaries is wide of the mark. First, the salaries aren't that large which is why there's no big profile test stars in the teams. Secondly, most of the teams are union-onwed and receive funding from their union (same as NZ), but are not franchises with private sector input as you have in NZ.
I suspect that if you were to look at the respective annual turnovers of the three unions and compare with NZRU, then NZRU would be top of the list. It's how unions choose to spend or invest their monies is more important.

Edit: There's an interesting interview with the guy in charge of player contracts in NZRU who talks about the trends and upcoming changes and that for the most part the money is generating in France, and increasingly so in Japan. The Japanese are thinking of running two seasons during 2020 which would make it very attractive to some of the NZ top starts to take a sabbatical for just a year out.

Yes my own argument didnt convince me either which I guess makes going to one of England, France or Japan more attractive. When someone like Luatua describes the respective Bristol and NZ salary offers as ‘night and day’ its still clear this is going to be ongoing. And it does make Leinsters efforts impressive if theyre dominating sides with much bigger salaries on the other side. Odd almost.

Mind you, Ive just heard that 8 of the oz squad have higher salaries than NZs highest Read, go figure, so certainly understable that a players ability certainly isnt measured by his salary.

by Artful_Dodger Sun 28 Oct 2018, 12:11 am

Taylorman wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
Engine#4 wrote:Why can't NZ franchises match Irish/Scottish/Welsh salaries?

Because we dont have as many fat arses on seats. What is this? Dumb day?

England: 55 million
Wales 3 million
Scotland 4 million
Ireland 5 million

NZ: 4 million.

Youre suggesting no one takes a train ride across the border to watch a match? No english fans travel to Murrayfield?

Yeah I thought that one was obvious, but I suppose there are people to whom it isn't

It’s not obvious. Why would English fans be going to watch Edinburgh in Murrayfield - it’s a different league? And Ireland is on a different island. PRO14 clubs rely on home fan attendance - very few fans travel away outside their union with perhaps Munster being an exception on occasion.

The comparison with the three Celtic unions is a good one.

The concentration of the populations outside England is also much higher and we have two ‘islands’ as well

Scotland is 70,000 km2 , ireland and nthn ireland 100, wales 20 and NZ is larger than the UK in area, yet 1/20 of the population. Lots of people in small places make for big crowds that dont have to travel far. Sounds like canned sardines stuff compared to the space we have.

Though the crowds at the typical club matches dont look overly massive but Im aware finals and matches at the test grounds And my thinking is frankly theres a lot of watchers where in NZ playing the game is paramount. We’re an active lot and gone are the days when the big rugby match was the only thing going so we’re spread thinky across a lot of activities. No doubt others are as well. But our isolation ensures that virtually no one but locals attend matches in NZ outside test matches.

Yeah - it's largely the same in Ireland, Wales and Scotland, T-man. Very similar. And average club attendances in Wales and Scotland are less than SR matches in NZ. Some of the Irish ones aren't busting either. Of course finals get bigger attendances - stands to reason - same everywhere. Leinster is the one exception - so it doesn't make sense to make that the point of comparison.

But your original premise that it is large attendances at NH club matches is what generates the dollars in PRO14 rugby to pay large salaries is wide of the mark. First, the salaries aren't that large which is why there's no big profile test stars in the teams. Secondly, most of the teams are union-onwed and receive funding from their union (same as NZ), but are not franchises with private sector input as you have in NZ.
I suspect that if you were to look at the respective annual turnovers of the three unions and compare with NZRU, then NZRU would be top of the list. It's how unions choose to spend or invest their monies is more important.

Edit: There's an interesting interview with the guy in charge of player contracts in NZRU who talks about the trends and upcoming changes and that for the most part the money is generating in France, and increasingly so in Japan. The Japanese are thinking of running two seasons during 2020 which would make it very attractive to some of the NZ top starts to take a sabbatical for just a year out.

Yes my own argument didnt convince me either which I guess makes going to one of England, France or Japan more attractive. When someone like Luatua describes the respective Bristol and NZ salary offers as ‘night and day’ its still clear this is going to be ongoing. And it does make Leinsters efforts impressive if theyre dominating sides with much bigger salaries on the other side. Odd almost.

Mind you, Ive just heard that 8 of the oz squad have higher salaries than NZs highest Read, go figure, so certainly understable that a players ability certainly isnt measured by his salary.

Leinster are mind boggling, as an Ulster fan I am incredibly jealous. When Leinster played Wasps, the Wasps team included Willie le Roux and Lima Sopoaga amongst others, guys that are on crazy crazy money to be there. Leinster hit them for 50 (literally) with a team consisting of 14 Irish players (not Irish qualified, genuinely Irish) the one exception in the starting 15 being James Lowe who is the form winger in European club rugby right now. Bristol are spending silly amount of money, allegely Piutau is well into the millions with his contract there and it hasn't worked. They are looking like relegation material already.

Leinster's academy system has to be at least very close to the likes of Crusaders, it is so good that other Irish sides are starting to fill up with Leinster seconds and thirds.

In saying all of that, they are undoubtedly spending a huge amount on keeping Irish stars in Ireland, guys like Sexton, Furlong and Leavy. I don't see any issue with that as it's not the same as spending money on foreign imports who are taking opportunities away from local players, thereby hindering the national team. The Irish model is robust, it is based around spending on academies and local stars and only supplementing that with foreign players here and there hence the current cap of 4 foreigners per province at maximum. To reiterate what Pot has said above, the Irish model very closely emulates the NZ one, the only real difference is that Ireland brings in the odd foreign star whereas NZ brings in none. But it's a system that has brought us a lot of success at both club and international level. To reiterate him again, it's also about clever use of monies, resources and perhaps most importantly player welfare. We aren't bringing in anything like the doe that the English and French are, we just use it much more efficiently.

by Pot Hale Sun 28 Oct 2018, 12:16 am

Taylorman wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
Engine#4 wrote:Why can't NZ franchises match Irish/Scottish/Welsh salaries?

Because we dont have as many fat arses on seats. What is this? Dumb day?

England: 55 million
Wales 3 million
Scotland 4 million
Ireland 5 million

NZ: 4 million.

Youre suggesting no one takes a train ride across the border to watch a match? No english fans travel to Murrayfield?

Yeah I thought that one was obvious, but I suppose there are people to whom it isn't

It’s not obvious. Why would English fans be going to watch Edinburgh in Murrayfield - it’s a different league? And Ireland is on a different island. PRO14 clubs rely on home fan attendance - very few fans travel away outside their union with perhaps Munster being an exception on occasion.

The comparison with the three Celtic unions is a good one.

The concentration of the populations outside England is also much higher and we have two ‘islands’ as well

Scotland is 70,000 km2 , ireland and nthn ireland 100, wales 20 and NZ is larger than the UK in area, yet 1/20 of the population. Lots of people in small places make for big crowds that dont have to travel far. Sounds like canned sardines stuff compared to the space we have.

Though the crowds at the typical club matches dont look overly massive but Im aware finals and matches at the test grounds And my thinking is frankly theres a lot of watchers where in NZ playing the game is paramount. We’re an active lot and gone are the days when the big rugby match was the only thing going so we’re spread thinky across a lot of activities. No doubt others are as well. But our isolation ensures that virtually no one but locals attend matches in NZ outside test matches.

Yeah - it's largely the same in Ireland, Wales and Scotland, T-man. Very similar. And average club attendances in Wales and Scotland are less than SR matches in NZ. Some of the Irish ones aren't busting either. Of course finals get bigger attendances - stands to reason - same everywhere. Leinster is the one exception - so it doesn't make sense to make that the point of comparison.

But your original premise that it is large attendances at NH club matches is what generates the dollars in PRO14 rugby to pay large salaries is wide of the mark. First, the salaries aren't that large which is why there's no big profile test stars in the teams. Secondly, most of the teams are union-onwed and receive funding from their union (same as NZ), but are not franchises with private sector input as you have in NZ.
I suspect that if you were to look at the respective annual turnovers of the three unions and compare with NZRU, then NZRU would be top of the list. It's how unions choose to spend or invest their monies is more important.

Edit: There's an interesting interview with the guy in charge of player contracts in NZRU who talks about the trends and upcoming changes and that for the most part the money is generating in France, and increasingly so in Japan. The Japanese are thinking of running two seasons during 2020 which would make it very attractive to some of the NZ top starts to take a sabbatical for just a year out.

Yes my own argument didnt convince me either which I guess makes going to one of England, France or Japan more attractive. When someone like Luatua describes the respective Bristol and NZ salary offers as ‘night and day’ its still clear this is going to be ongoing. And it does make Leinsters efforts impressive if theyre dominating sides with much bigger salaries on the other side. Odd almost.

Mind you, Ive just heard that 8 of the oz squad have higher salaries than NZs highest Read, go figure, so certainly understable that a players ability certainly isnt measured by his salary.

As I said earlier, Leinster is the one exception. It has better finances and a bigger playing budget as a result - but most of it is going on Irish player salaries as they only have four foreign players in their squad of 44 senior players. Rugby Australia is barking - the notion that Quade Cooper would be on €600k a year and allowed to play club rugby because his coach wouldn't pick him for SR team is just nuts.

by Pot Hale Sun 28 Oct 2018, 12:43 am

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Leinster are mind boggling, as an Ulster fan I am incredibly jealous. When Leinster played Wasps, the Wasps team included Willie le Roux and Lima Sopoaga amongst others, guys that are on crazy crazy money to be there. Leinster hit them for 50 (literally) with a team consisting of 14 Irish players (not Irish qualified, genuinely Irish) the one exception in the starting 15 being James Lowe who is the form winger in European club rugby right now. Bristol are spending silly amount of money, allegely Piutau is well into the millions with his contract there and it hasn't worked. They are looking like relegation material already.

Leinster's academy system has to be at least very close to the likes of Crusaders, it is so good that other Irish sides are starting to fill up with Leinster seconds and thirds.

In saying all of that, they are undoubtedly spending a huge amount on keeping Irish stars in Ireland, guys like Sexton, Furlong and Leavy. I don't see any issue with that as it's not the same as spending money on foreign imports who are taking opportunities away from local players, thereby hindering the national team. The Irish model is robust, it is based around spending on academies and local stars and only supplementing that with foreign players here and there hence the current cap of 4 foreigners per province at maximum. To reiterate what Pot has said above, the Irish model very closely emulates the NZ one, the only real difference is that Ireland brings in the odd foreign star whereas NZ brings in none. But it's a system that has brought us a lot of success at both club and international level. To reiterate him again, it's also about clever use of monies, resources and perhaps most importantly player welfare. We aren't bringing in anything like the doe that the English and French are, we just use it much more efficiently.

Artful - good response. On the foreign/non-Irish eligible/qualified point - the 2012 quota guidelines are 4 NIE + 1 NIQ for each of Leinster, Munster & Ulster. Connacht - no quotas as such. So 12 NIE+ 3 NIQ =15 players in total was the supposed target.

The reality of how they're made up for the last three years has been different. Currently, it's:
Leinster 2 NIE + 2 NIQ - Fardy, Tomane + Gibson-Park, Lowe
Munster - 2 NIE + 3 NIQ - Botha, Taute + Cloete, Kleyn, Marshall
Ulster 1 NIE + 1 NIQ - Coetzee + van der Merwe
Connacht - 1 NIE +3 NIQ - Godwin + Butler, Horwitz, C Fainga'a.

6 NIE + 9 NIQ is the reality. Meanwhile the number of IQ-born players keeps increasing year on year.

by Taylorman Sun 28 Oct 2018, 1:44 am

Pot Hale wrote:
Artful_Dodger wrote:

Leinster are mind boggling, as an Ulster fan I am incredibly jealous. When Leinster played Wasps, the Wasps team included Willie le Roux and Lima Sopoaga amongst others, guys that are on crazy crazy money to be there. Leinster hit them for 50 (literally) with a team consisting of 14 Irish players (not Irish qualified, genuinely Irish) the one exception in the starting 15 being James Lowe who is the form winger in European club rugby right now. Bristol are spending silly amount of money, allegely Piutau is well into the millions with his contract there and it hasn't worked. They are looking like relegation material already.

Leinster's academy system has to be at least very close to the likes of Crusaders, it is so good that other Irish sides are starting to fill up with Leinster seconds and thirds.

In saying all of that, they are undoubtedly spending a huge amount on keeping Irish stars in Ireland, guys like Sexton, Furlong and Leavy. I don't see any issue with that as it's not the same as spending money on foreign imports who are taking opportunities away from local players, thereby hindering the national team. The Irish model is robust, it is based around spending on academies and local stars and only supplementing that with foreign players here and there hence the current cap of 4 foreigners per province at maximum. To reiterate what Pot has said above, the Irish model very closely emulates the NZ one, the only real difference is that Ireland brings in the odd foreign star whereas NZ brings in none. But it's a system that has brought us a lot of success at both club and international level. To reiterate him again, it's also about clever use of monies, resources and perhaps most importantly player welfare. We aren't bringing in anything like the doe that the English and French are, we just use it much more efficiently.

Artful - good response. On the foreign/non-Irish eligible/qualified point - the 2012 quota guidelines are 4 NIE + 1 NIQ for each of Leinster, Munster & Ulster. Connacht - no quotas as such. So 12 NIE+ 3 NIQ =15 players in total was the supposed target.

The reality of how they're made up for the last three years has been different. Currently, it's:
Leinster 2 NIE + 2 NIQ - Fardy, Tomane + Gibson-Park, Lowe
Munster - 2 NIE + 3 NIQ - Botha, Taute + Cloete, Kleyn, Marshall
Ulster 1 NIE + 1 NIQ - Coetzee + van der Merwe
Connacht - 1 NIE +3 NIQ - Godwin + Butler, Horwitz, C Fainga'a.

6 NIE + 9 NIQ is the reality. Meanwhile the number of IQ-born players keeps increasing year on year.

Four players is still a lot if theyre quality, best in position buys. Add four players of equal top/ higher than Super rugby quality starters to each of our Super rugby sides and theyd be off the planet. Instead, we have them removed. Blues havent got a player of Piutaus or Luatuas quality and Chiefs havent replaced Lowe. So the combined effect of Ireland gaining and our teams losing can be significant when we are dealing with higher quality players.

In our local basketball comp we allow two imports and theyre usually lower NBA level but they make all the difference, bring in the fans are do much of the scoring. So although it might sound few, four is critical to making a good side a much better side.

Point taken though.

by Pot Hale Sun 28 Oct 2018, 2:11 am

Taylorman wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:
Artful_Dodger wrote:

Leinster are mind boggling, as an Ulster fan I am incredibly jealous. When Leinster played Wasps, the Wasps team included Willie le Roux and Lima Sopoaga amongst others, guys that are on crazy crazy money to be there. Leinster hit them for 50 (literally) with a team consisting of 14 Irish players (not Irish qualified, genuinely Irish) the one exception in the starting 15 being James Lowe who is the form winger in European club rugby right now. Bristol are spending silly amount of money, allegely Piutau is well into the millions with his contract there and it hasn't worked. They are looking like relegation material already.

Leinster's academy system has to be at least very close to the likes of Crusaders, it is so good that other Irish sides are starting to fill up with Leinster seconds and thirds.

In saying all of that, they are undoubtedly spending a huge amount on keeping Irish stars in Ireland, guys like Sexton, Furlong and Leavy. I don't see any issue with that as it's not the same as spending money on foreign imports who are taking opportunities away from local players, thereby hindering the national team. The Irish model is robust, it is based around spending on academies and local stars and only supplementing that with foreign players here and there hence the current cap of 4 foreigners per province at maximum. To reiterate what Pot has said above, the Irish model very closely emulates the NZ one, the only real difference is that Ireland brings in the odd foreign star whereas NZ brings in none. But it's a system that has brought us a lot of success at both club and international level. To reiterate him again, it's also about clever use of monies, resources and perhaps most importantly player welfare. We aren't bringing in anything like the doe that the English and French are, we just use it much more efficiently.

Artful - good response. On the foreign/non-Irish eligible/qualified point - the 2012 quota guidelines are 4 NIE + 1 NIQ for each of Leinster, Munster & Ulster. Connacht - no quotas as such. So 12 NIE+ 3 NIQ =15 players in total was the supposed target.

The reality of how they're made up for the last three years has been different. Currently, it's:
Leinster 2 NIE + 2 NIQ - Fardy, Tomane + Gibson-Park, Lowe
Munster - 2 NIE + 3 NIQ - Botha, Taute + Cloete, Kleyn, Marshall
Ulster 1 NIE + 1 NIQ - Coetzee + van der Merwe
Connacht - 1 NIE +3 NIQ - Godwin + Butler, Horwitz, C Fainga'a.

6 NIE + 9 NIQ is the reality. Meanwhile the number of IQ-born players keeps increasing year on year.

Four players is still a lot if theyre quality, best in position buys. Add four players of equal top/ higher than Super rugby quality starters to each of our Super rugby sides and theyd be off the planet. Instead, we have them removed. Blues havent got a player of Piutaus or Luatuas quality and Chiefs havent replaced Lowe. So the combined effect of Ireland gaining and our teams losing can be significant when we are dealing with higher quality players.

In our local basketball comp we allow two imports and theyre usually lower NBA level but they make all the difference, bring in the fans are do much of the scoring. So although it might sound few, four is critical to making a good side a much better side.

Point taken though.

Agree completely. A few years ago, I’d have said the provinces were getting in high quality buys, who did the business, got the fans roaring and got some tries on the board. Not so much now, it’s hit and miss. Leinster get it right more often than not and as we’ve discussed before on other forums, they don’t always have to be high profile players either. Sometimes, the chemistry is just right. I had a lot of time for Hayden Triggs when he was with Leinster, Piennar rocked at Ulster, but Piutau was a bust in my view. Tom McCartney at Connacht, solid consistent player - great team guy when he was selected. Schalk van der Merwe? Sheesh - gives props a bad name. Gerhard van den Heever - eh who?

Sometimes what a coach is looking for is a solid glue player, nothing exceptional - delivers a 7/10 performance. But it’s a 7/10 every game, every week. Plays 18-20 games for the club whilst the test players are away and delivers.

by Taylorman Sun 28 Oct 2018, 2:35 am

Yep helps if the four actually live up to their expectations. In Piutaus case at 20 and a million a season is impossible to turn down. Three years later and potentially three mill in the bank, the equiv of 100k a year for thirty years hes set for life, and could still return to nz at 24 a millionaire and play for the ABs if he wanted.

He has the style and quality that is sought after here. I know Hansen was fuming when he left and for me remains, outside the unfortunate saga with Nacewa, our most key loss. Cruden would be next.

Could be said Heyman tops them all but he turned his back so quick after 2007 good riddance as far as I was concerned.

by Guest Sun 28 Oct 2018, 1:49 pm

Remember also that clubs are not always looking for a superstar, marquee signing. They’re sometimes looking for someone to cover for when the local intentional players are away. That NZ has a policy of not picking players who play out side NZ actually makes them even more attractive. The likes of Parkes and McNicoll at the Scarlets (not going into the whole morals of Wales selection, etc) were not brought in as superstar marquee signings (because, well they’re not at that level). They were brought in to cover for Scarlets’ high number of Welsh internationals in those positions who would be away a lot - Jonathan Davies, Scott Williams, Liam Williams, Steff Evans, etc. Being kiwis means they are not suddenly going to get called up if they start playing awesome rugby.

by Artful_Dodger Sun 28 Oct 2018, 4:29 pm

Pot Hale wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:
Artful_Dodger wrote:

Leinster are mind boggling, as an Ulster fan I am incredibly jealous. When Leinster played Wasps, the Wasps team included Willie le Roux and Lima Sopoaga amongst others, guys that are on crazy crazy money to be there. Leinster hit them for 50 (literally) with a team consisting of 14 Irish players (not Irish qualified, genuinely Irish) the one exception in the starting 15 being James Lowe who is the form winger in European club rugby right now. Bristol are spending silly amount of money, allegely Piutau is well into the millions with his contract there and it hasn't worked. They are looking like relegation material already.

Leinster's academy system has to be at least very close to the likes of Crusaders, it is so good that other Irish sides are starting to fill up with Leinster seconds and thirds.

In saying all of that, they are undoubtedly spending a huge amount on keeping Irish stars in Ireland, guys like Sexton, Furlong and Leavy. I don't see any issue with that as it's not the same as spending money on foreign imports who are taking opportunities away from local players, thereby hindering the national team. The Irish model is robust, it is based around spending on academies and local stars and only supplementing that with foreign players here and there hence the current cap of 4 foreigners per province at maximum. To reiterate what Pot has said above, the Irish model very closely emulates the NZ one, the only real difference is that Ireland brings in the odd foreign star whereas NZ brings in none. But it's a system that has brought us a lot of success at both club and international level. To reiterate him again, it's also about clever use of monies, resources and perhaps most importantly player welfare. We aren't bringing in anything like the doe that the English and French are, we just use it much more efficiently.

Artful - good response. On the foreign/non-Irish eligible/qualified point - the 2012 quota guidelines are 4 NIE + 1 NIQ for each of Leinster, Munster & Ulster. Connacht - no quotas as such. So 12 NIE+ 3 NIQ =15 players in total was the supposed target.

The reality of how they're made up for the last three years has been different. Currently, it's:
Leinster 2 NIE + 2 NIQ - Fardy, Tomane + Gibson-Park, Lowe
Munster - 2 NIE + 3 NIQ - Botha, Taute + Cloete, Kleyn, Marshall
Ulster 1 NIE + 1 NIQ - Coetzee + van der Merwe
Connacht - 1 NIE +3 NIQ - Godwin + Butler, Horwitz, C Fainga'a.

6 NIE + 9 NIQ is the reality. Meanwhile the number of IQ-born players keeps increasing year on year.

Four players is still a lot if theyre quality, best in position buys. Add four players of equal top/ higher than Super rugby quality starters to each of our Super rugby sides and theyd be off the planet. Instead, we have them removed. Blues havent got a player of Piutaus or Luatuas quality and Chiefs havent replaced Lowe. So the combined effect of Ireland gaining and our teams losing can be significant when we are dealing with higher quality players.

In our local basketball comp we allow two imports and theyre usually lower NBA level but they make all the difference, bring in the fans are do much of the scoring. So although it might sound few, four is critical to making a good side a much better side.

Point taken though.

Agree completely. A few years ago, I’d have said the provinces were getting in high quality buys, who did the business, got the fans roaring and got some tries on the board. Not so much now, it’s hit and miss. Leinster get it right more often than not and as we’ve discussed before on other forums, they don’t always have to be high profile players either. Sometimes, the chemistry is just right. I had a lot of time for Hayden Triggs when he was with Leinster, Piennar rocked at Ulster, but Piutau was a bust in my view. Tom McCartney at Connacht, solid consistent player - great team guy when he was selected. Schalk van der Merwe? Sheesh - gives props a bad name. Gerhard van den Heever - eh who?

Sometimes what a coach is looking for is a solid glue player, nothing exceptional - delivers a 7/10 performance. But it’s a 7/10 every game, every week. Plays 18-20 games for the club whilst the test players are away and delivers.

Disagree on Piutau, he won Ulster a lot of games and was vital in developing Stockdale outside him. Schalke van der Merwe was a bizarre signing and has been catastrophically bad. He has barely played and when he has he's been useless.

by Pot Hale Sun 28 Oct 2018, 6:56 pm

Taylorman wrote:Yep helps if the four actually live up to their expectations. In Piutaus case at 20 and a million a season is impossible to turn down. Three years later and potentially three mill in the bank, the equiv of 100k a year for thirty years hes set for life, and could still return to nz at 24 a millionaire and play for the ABs if he wanted.

He has the style and quality that is sought after here. I know Hansen was fuming when he left and for me remains, outside the unfortunate saga with Nacewa, our most key loss. Cruden would be next.

Could be said Heyman tops them all but he turned his back so quick after 2007 good riddance as far as I was concerned.

Piutau is 27 now, T-man? He did a year at Wasps in 2015/16 and then two years at Ulster which probably netted him after tax about £1m (NZ$2m) up to June this year. If he turned down the reputed £800-900k a year from Bristol for the next 3 seasons, would he really be a chance for the ABs now at 27?

by Taylorman Sun 28 Oct 2018, 8:27 pm

Oh yup he left older than I thought. Its my personal opinion he'd still be AB quality if he returned now. The UK experience may even be the clincher for a tournament like the World cup.

by carpet baboon Sun 28 Oct 2018, 8:28 pm

What I find a bit odd is Taylor and ebops attitude to Carl hayman . He owed you nothing. The fact you choose to disparage him shows the utter lack of class either of you have.
What have either have you two ever achieved in rugby? I'm guessing fu"*k all.
Yet you think you can judge him?
What a pair of Poopie you are.

You do know the all blacks winning has absolutely no reflection on yourselves? Your just fans. You didn't do sh*t.

by Taylorman Sun 28 Oct 2018, 8:33 pm

carpet baboon wrote:What I find a bit odd is Taylor and ebops attitude to Carl hayman . He owed you nothing. The fact you choose to disparage him shows the utter lack of class either of you have.
What have either have you two ever achieved in rugby? I'm guessing fu"*k all.
Yet you think you can judge him?
What a pair of Poopie you are.

You do know the all blacks winning has absolutely no reflection on yourselves? Your just fans. You didn't do sh*t.

Tough, deal with it rag monkey.

One thing I'm also certain of is we don't owe you anything.

You'd be happy for say Sexton to play for the Crusaders next year and forego the world cup.

Well thats great. Each to his own.

by **Biltong** Sun 28 Oct 2018, 8:49 pm

carpet baboon wrote:What I find a bit odd is Taylor and ebops attitude to Carl hayman . He owed you nothing. The fact you choose to disparage him shows the utter lack of class either of you have.
What have either have you two ever achieved in rugby? I'm guessing fu"*k all.
Yet you think you can judge him?
What a pair of Poopie you are.

You do know the all blacks winning has absolutely no reflection on yourselves? Your just fans. You didn't do sh*t.

you have the right to question their judgement of Carl Hayman, yet you judge them by calling them names?

Keep it clean please

by Taylorman Sun 28 Oct 2018, 9:04 pm

Biltong wrote:
carpet baboon wrote:What I find a bit odd is Taylor and ebops attitude to Carl hayman . He owed you nothing. The fact you choose to disparage him shows the utter lack of class either of you have.
What have either have you two ever achieved in rugby? I'm guessing fu"*k all.
Yet you think you can judge him?
What a pair of Poopie you are.

You do know the all blacks winning has absolutely no reflection on yourselves? Your just fans. You didn't do sh*t.

you have the right to question their judgement of Carl Hayman, yet you judge them by calling them names?

Keep it clean please

Apologies from me to...

As fans watching players disappear from your screens after reaping the benefits of the very system that supported you and never to be seen anymore by the bucket load is something some don't have to watch every year for now decades. Heyman just up and left and left the AB's, who were struggling after 2007 to regroup and fight from a long way back to win it in 2011. The flak they took after that comp was huge, and Heyman took the easy, money way out rather than help the side that supported him so well at their time of need. They got up in spite of Heyman so for me he sits alone, out on a limb.

Sure its his prerogative but no ones gonna tell me how to feel about that. Especially if they aint had to go through it all- as a fan.

by No 7&1/2 Sun 28 Oct 2018, 9:23 pm

Hope you keep that same standard of judgment on name calling for yourself.

by **Biltong** Sun 28 Oct 2018, 9:48 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hope you keep that same standard of judgment on name calling for yourself.

If I don't report me. Simple.

by Taylorman Sun 28 Oct 2018, 11:20 pm

The Oracle wrote:Remember also that clubs are not always looking for a superstar, marquee signing. They’re sometimes looking for someone to cover for when the local intentional players are away. That NZ has a policy of not picking players who play out side NZ actually makes them even more attractive. The likes of Parkes and McNicoll at the Scarlets (not going into the whole morals of Wales selection, etc) were not brought in as superstar marquee signings (because, well they’re not at that level). They were brought in to cover for Scarlets’ high number of Welsh internationals in those positions who would be away a lot - Jonathan Davies, Scott Williams, Liam Williams, Steff Evans, etc. Being kiwis means they are not suddenly going to get called up if they start playing awesome rugby.

I think that policy of not selecting outside has an end date. With more ABs playing overseas than in Super rugby now the imbalance is going to get worse. A Giteau type rule of 60 tests might come in for those who want to get the most out of their career while they can given theyve served NZ rugby well is probably the first option. Means we can blood new players in the position and call on the guns if necessary at the same time. The win win cliche. That would benefit the north as well as I dont believe all our players maintain AB like standards for a number of reasons.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 29 Oct 2018, 9:07 am

How would you know Taylor. You don't watch nh rugby.

by Sgt_Pooly Mon 29 Oct 2018, 10:41 am

Hayman was such a loss, the true stand out Tight head of his generation.....what a player.

by **Biltong** Mon 29 Oct 2018, 12:29 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hayman was such a loss, the true stand out Tight head of his generation.....what a player.

With that I agree, had huge respect for him. Well still have.

by Taylorman Mon 29 Oct 2018, 12:53 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:How would you know Taylor. You don't watch nh rugby.

Dont need to to know that. Playing for Bristol is hardly going to be as motivating as playing for the Bled.

by **LondonTiger** Mon 29 Oct 2018, 1:20 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hayman was such a loss, the true stand out Tight head of his generation.....what a player.

One of the very few high profile Kiwi imports to have done well up here. Usually it has been the guys with a point to prove who have thrived.

by Taylorman Mon 29 Oct 2018, 6:22 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hayman was such a loss, the true stand out Tight head of his generation.....what a player.

One of the very few high profile Kiwi imports to have done well up here. Usually it has been the guys with a point to prove who have thrived.

And what point is that? That he cant handle coming back from a world cup loss so ditched his mates and took the easy route to club rugby. Okay then, great point.

And that makes it one more than any major success the other way. There are others, northerners just dont like admitting it. Lowe is what? The ‘form wing in Europe’ according to one. Odd, he was never that here. Easy peasies huh?

by Exiledinborders Mon 29 Oct 2018, 7:31 pm

Taylorman wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hayman was such a loss, the true stand out Tight head of his generation.....what a player.

One of the very few high profile Kiwi imports to have done well up here. Usually it has been the guys with a point to prove who have thrived.

And what point is that? That he cant handle coming back from a world cup loss so ditched his mates and took the easy route to club rugby. Okay then, great point.

And that makes it one more than any major success the other way. There are others, northerners just dont like admitting it. Lowe is what? The ‘form wing in Europe’ according to one. Odd, he was never that here. Easy peasies huh?

He is not the form wing in Europe so your point is nonsense. I suspect most European Rugby fans have never heard of him.

Hayman was clearly being included in the no point to prove group so your question asking what the point was is nonsensical.

As for players going to New Zealand and succeeding that is because virtually none go there. Why would any talented player go there to earn far less money and in many cases deny themselves the chance of international honours?

by Taylorman Mon 29 Oct 2018, 7:50 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hayman was such a loss, the true stand out Tight head of his generation.....what a player.

One of the very few high profile Kiwi imports to have done well up here. Usually it has been the guys with a point to prove who have thrived.

And what point is that? That he cant handle coming back from a world cup loss so ditched his mates and took the easy route to club rugby. Okay then, great point.

And that makes it one more than any major success the other way. There are others, northerners just dont like admitting it. Lowe is what? The ‘form wing in Europe’ according to one. Odd, he was never that here. Easy peasies huh?
He is not the form wing in Europe so your point is nonsense. I suspect most European Rugby fans have never heard of him.

Hayman was clearly being included in the no point to prove group so your question asking what the point was is nonsensical.

As for players going to New Zealand and succeeding that is because virtually none go there. Why would any talented player go there to earn far less money and in many cases deny themselves the chance of international honours?

I didnt say he was the form wing, a northerner did. So clearly you cant all decide.

I didnt say Heyman had a point to prove LTiger did. You have at the same time people saying players are great, some saying theyr poor. Piutau a very recent one on this thread. Some said Ruan P was great at Ulster yet returned straight to the 3N and flopped completely.

Correct about none going there, not so sure about the talent but its also clear money doesnt determine how good a player is. You'd think at least one elite would have enough by now and take on the challenge as a personal one.

But nah...too hard. At least Heyman cut his teeth here. And it showed.

by **LondonTiger** Mon 29 Oct 2018, 8:48 pm

Some people need to learn how to read. I never said Heyman had a point to prove.

by Taylorman Mon 29 Oct 2018, 8:56 pm

LondonTiger wrote:Some people need to learn how to read. I never said Heyman had a point to prove.

'One of the very few high profile Kiwi imports to have done well up here. Usually it has been the guys with a point to prove who have thrived.'

Its not the reading, its the ambiguous writing. The second sentence could be seen as confirming the first.

Though what point there is to prove for any of our guys is still a mystery. They go for the money. Thats it. Same reason NHers dont come here as recently spelt out here. If the money wasnt better, they wouldnt go. Why would they?

Aint rhetoric grand?

by Exiledinborders Mon 29 Oct 2018, 9:43 pm

Taylorman wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Some people need to learn how to read. I never said Heyman had a point to prove.

'One of the very few high profile Kiwi imports to have done well up here. Usually it has been the guys with a point to prove who have thrived.'

Its not the reading, its the ambiguous writing. The second sentence could be seen as confirming the first.

Though what point there is to prove for any of our guys is still a mystery. They go for the money. Thats it. Same reason NHers dont come here as recently spelt out here. If the money wasnt better, they wouldnt go. Why would they?

Aint rhetoric grand?

Of course they come for the money.

Some make a great success of their time here. Others sink without trace. I am not sure that tells us much about the relative standards.

by Taylorman Mon 29 Oct 2018, 10:35 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Some people need to learn how to read. I never said Heyman had a point to prove.

'One of the very few high profile Kiwi imports to have done well up here. Usually it has been the guys with a point to prove who have thrived.'

Its not the reading, its the ambiguous writing. The second sentence could be seen as confirming the first.

Though what point there is to prove for any of our guys is still a mystery. They go for the money. Thats it. Same reason NHers dont come here as recently spelt out here. If the money wasnt better, they wouldnt go. Why would they?

Aint rhetoric grand?
Of course they come for the money.

Some make a great success of their time here. Others sink without trace. I am not sure that tells us much about the relative standards.

No it doesn't tell you anything at all. That can only be measured accurately at test level as that's the only time you get the genuine articles facing off.

Moving to a new environment, new style, new coaching, new grounds, new expectations etc is enough to put many off but as time goes on and more do it it should get easier with better support systems in place. Weren't as many kiwis when Heyman went compared to now.

Frankly as a fan I don't care if the younger ones fail. They take the risk and they choose not to make as good a go as possible for the AB jersey. Sink or swim I say. Lowe and Piutau are in that category. Lowe may have eventually made the Abs had he stuck with the Chiefs but he gave that up. All for them making money but they become outcasts for fans. Not as kiwis but for AB fans. If I were in their same position I'd expect that fans at home would be disappointed.

The older All Blacks fine. Theyve earned their place to do whatever they want. No prob with Carter, Nonu, Smith, all who would probably still have been AB's for at least another year.

by Yoda Mon 29 Oct 2018, 11:00 pm

Crickey, I knew some people take the game seriously but wow. You do hopefully realise its just a game and that if someone chooses to earn money else where it's not a national crime. I would love to see you speak your mind to Carl hayman and tell him he's not put blood sweat and tears into the jersey and shouldn't earn a crust for his family in a short playing career. Perhaps the intense hysterical media and fan mania about a loss may have been a driving factor for some of these all blacks to seek less intense environments and enjoy playing without pressure?

by Taylorman Tue 30 Oct 2018, 1:41 am

Yoda wrote:Crickey, I knew some people take the game seriously but wow. You do hopefully realise its just a game and that if someone chooses to earn money else where it's not a national crime. I would love to see you speak your mind to Carl hayman and tell him he's not put blood sweat and tears into the jersey and shouldn't earn a crust for his family in a short playing career. Perhaps the intense hysterical media and fan mania about a loss may have been a driving factor for some of these all blacks to seek less intense environments and enjoy playing without pressure?

No need to get carried away, especially with that moniker. Hug

Heyman will have been well aware of the fact that rugby fans didnt like him and others leaving but was well aware kiwis also acknowledge the need to look after the future for the short time they can.

He also acknowledged for some its hard to up and leave but at the time it suited him. And that's fine. Everyones on the same page with that. It is only in the purist sense of being an AB fan that its annoying seeing player after player moving on to soon, only to have to watch the rest struggle with the loss and play through it.

Howlett was another, though he got a bit shafted in 07, being ousted by Roko and Sivi where most here thought Howlett would have made more of an impact. Jumping on cars after the quarter didnt go down well but he picked up and moved on to Munster in what seemed an ok career. They seemed to welcome him there.

Each to his own for sure but perhaps if you were say, Irish, and has Sexton, SOB, Murray, Kearney and a couple of others all move to Super rugby after the Argentina loss you might not have been happy either...as a fan.

by **profitius** Tue 30 Oct 2018, 5:01 am

Taylorman wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hayman was such a loss, the true stand out Tight head of his generation.....what a player.

One of the very few high profile Kiwi imports to have done well up here. Usually it has been the guys with a point to prove who have thrived.

And what point is that? That he cant handle coming back from a world cup loss so ditched his mates and took the easy route to club rugby. Okay then, great point.

And that makes it one more than any major success the other way. There are others, northerners just dont like admitting it. Lowe is what? The ‘form wing in Europe’ according to one. Odd, he was never that here. Easy peasies huh?

James Lowe was named in super rugbys team of the season in 2017.
https://sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/2017-super-rugby-team-of-the-year/

by Taylorman Tue 30 Oct 2018, 7:22 am

profitius wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hayman was such a loss, the true stand out Tight head of his generation.....what a player.

One of the very few high profile Kiwi imports to have done well up here. Usually it has been the guys with a point to prove who have thrived.

And what point is that? That he cant handle coming back from a world cup loss so ditched his mates and took the easy route to club rugby. Okay then, great point.

And that makes it one more than any major success the other way. There are others, northerners just dont like admitting it. Lowe is what? The ‘form wing in Europe’ according to one. Odd, he was never that here. Easy peasies huh?

James Lowe was named in super rugbys team of the season in 2017.
https://sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/2017-super-rugby-team-of-the-year/

But he wasnt good enough to be selected as an All Black, kinda a prequisite for form wing here. We dont have outsiders good enough to be the form wing here though Nadolos probably the exception.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 30 Oct 2018, 7:26 am

Ultimately, complaints about the way rugby union is going as a professional sport are worthless if we can't measure them against a description of how the sport ought to be structured and, just so we don't stray too far into the land of make-believe, how we can move toward it from where we are now. I can't find much of that in this thread.

It's also a bit rich to hear complaints coming from the direction of SANZAR without any recognition of their own unions' culpability in why we are where we are.

It's well known that Australia and New Zealand were the most eager to have a Rugby World Cup. The tournament became a key catalyst in making players aware of the enormous disparity between their commercial value, and the money they were allowed to make as amateurs (remember, you couldn't even take money for writing a book or newspaper column without being shunned by the sport).

Then, it was SANZAR players and institutions which were in the vanguard of the move to take rugby union professional.

New Zealand does have a small population (albeit it has grown 30% since 1995) but that was no secret back then, and not the only determinant of whether professional sport can succeed. The UK and Ireland aren't just lucrative sports markets on account of wealth and population size, it's because they have avid sports fans prepared to be a paying audience.

We just saw that tickets had to be given away for the recent Mitre 10 final. Tman said earlier that New Zealanders have more things to do nowadays than support their local clubs. It seems very remiss of the NZRU to push for the game to go professional, and then proceed to lose the enthusiasm of its domestic audience.

In all probability, New Zealand looked to hitch its wagon to Australia, which had a well-developed professional sports market even back then. The idea probably was to create the world's premier rugby competition, which would occupy a key spot in the Australian market, while also being a valuable product to push to overseas markets.

For a variety of reasons - few of them to do with anything happening in the North - Super Rugby has proved to be an inadequate commercial vehicle. The NZRU did not cultivate the domestic earning power of levels below Super Rugby, or the shorter sevens code, and it's hard to see how the international calendar can be expanded, so Super Rugby was the NZRU's sole bet and it has failed to deliver.

It didn't look a particularly bad bet at the time, so I'm not going to claim I'd have done anything different. Still, if you are going to push to open up the market for professional rugby, then you can't complain if your chosen strategy can't then supply sufficient opportunities for your own players.

It's also hard to know why players should be expected to forsake working outside New Zealand when the NZRU has, since John Hart, always appointed a coach to the national job, who has first gained experience working overseas.

by Sponsored content