Changes to provincial teams player qualifications

First topic message reminder :

http://www.irishrugby.ie/news/25137.php

In short here's the juicy bits:

- One non-Irish eligible (NIE) player only in each of the 15 field positions across the provinces of Leinster, Munster and Ulster e.g. one foreign player allowed across all three teams per position.*
- For the 2013/14 season and onwards, for any given position involving a contracted NIE player, a province will not be permitted to renew that NIE player contract or bring in a new NIE player into that same position in its squad.
- All future provincial injury replacement players must be eligible for selection for Ireland.
- All future provincial non-Irish eligible player contracts will be position specific.

* The Connacht professional side is external to this process as it has recently commenced a new programme of structural and performance development agreed with the IRFU.

Ok, to be honest I had to read that a few times before I could even understand it. And now that I've read it I'm asking myself if I really do understand it.

From what I can make out:

Point 1 states that if, for example, Ulster have an NIE scrum half, then Munster and Leinster must have IE scrum halves. Not just in the team, but the entire squad.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Is that what point 1 is saying? I'm having trouble reading it any other way. So on the plus side we will no longer have the situation where every prop on the island is NIE. Ok, that's good, I guess. Now... who gets to decide who is giving up their props? Who gets to keep the NIE one?

Point 2 states that once an NIE players contract is up, they're gone. And the next player in must be IE

Goodbye Douggie Howlett, nice to have known ya, now get lost. No new contracts.

Very stupid decision. Teams will either offer ludicrously long contracts to keep the likes of Howlett and Nacewa, or they'll offer normal contracts and either break the bank to get marquee players, or they'll make offers and get snubbed. In the end this policy is an incentive to go for uncapped foreign players who will become IE after 3 years, so if you offer them a 3 year contract as an NIE, as soon as their contract expires they are IE and can renew. This is strengthening the 'project player' approach, I don't like that. Fans love Nacewa, Pienaar and Howlett and the IRFU are biting off their nose to spite their face.

The IRFU seem to think all you ever need is an internationally capped NIE for a short contract and that's enough, the young lads will come through almost immediately after. Let's call this The Rocky Elsom effect. It comes with absolutely no guarantees.

Again with point 4, if contracts are given out on a position specific basis, who gets to decide which of two provinces, both in search of a centre, say, get to sign one once an agreement is made.

I find this who announcement badly thought out. The Rock effect was so positive the IRFU seem to be getting a bit too sure of themselves. Yes the point of the provinces is to feed the international team, but the provinces have been much more successful than the national team recently and this plan could put that in jeopardy.

Stag have to disagree here.

Wales have won 2 6N in the last decade and for 7 of those years finished below Ireland. Given that and the Provincial success in Ireland I think our record is, by far, the better one. A victory in a WC QF doesn't change that.

I wouldn't change our structure for theirs at any price

Just looking at it as we speak it could be like this

1: Wian Du Preez/ Van Der Merwe
2: Strauss (Project)
3: White/Afoa/Botha
4: Sykes
5: Muller (at lock can we put one at 4 and one at 5????)
6: Diak (Project<???>)
7:
8: Warrenburg
9: Pienaar
10: Berquist
11: Daneilli
12: Mafi
13: Chambers
14: Howlett
15: Nacewa/Payne (Darcy is IQ yes?)

Is that it?

As I said though only 3 of those players are both NIE and have contracts for the first year of the new system - Afoa, Sykes and Payne. The rest will be Irishmen or out of contract.

So, 7 is free. Who ordered the Richie McCaw special?

geoff998rugby wrote:Stag have to disagree here.

Wales have won 2 6N in the last decade and for 7 of those years finished below Ireland. Given that and the Provincial success in Ireland I think our record is, by far, the better one. A victory in a WC QF doesn't change that.

I wouldn't change our structure for theirs at any price

I wouldn't change the structure either.

Im just saying that the Welsh team has won more trophies than us in recent years. They have made it further it in the RWC than us. Their national team is better supported than us.

However we wipe the floor with them provincially. IMO the IRFU is hedging its bets. Taking actions to strenghten the national team by putting an obstacle in the path of the provinces (probably assuming they are strong enough to overcome it). It could work but I am against it.

Im quite happy to have only 1 Six Nations and the HECs. However I think that the lack of trophies internationally and our failure to get beyond 1/4 finals (or pool stages) of RWC in contrast with our provinces titles have forced IRFU hand.

Do you think we'd get away with that lock situation?

As I read it Pete you can have two locks, two centres, two props, two wingers.

It says 1 per position 1-15. That would imply that two second rows are allowed.

We will be allowed 2 locks under the new rules.

Wales have only won one more trophy than Ireland in the last decade and overall havea n inferior record.

red_stag wrote:
However I think that the lack of trophies internationally and our failure to get beyond 1/4 finals (or pool stages) of RWC in contrast with our provinces titles have forced IRFU hand.

I asked the question earlier...does anyone actually feel that a lack of player resources cost us another GS or a place in the RWC SF? I'd say it was more to do with poor tactics and selection.

The provinces have already supplied Kidney with a nice big juicy player pool to chose from.

Do the three provinces need NIE locks? Ulster have Muller, so that's one. DOC, POC, Ryan, MOD & Nagle are at Munster and can all do the job. Toner, Cullen & Browne at Leinster, we might have Sykes but I don't think we need him.

It's like picking players for football in school. Under the new system some province will have a lock they don't need, just because they got to pick last.

geoff998rugby wrote:Wales have only won one more trophy than Ireland in the last decade and overall havea n inferior record.

If you count the Triple crown as a trophy then we've won more. The victories over SH opposition are heavily in our favour too.

The original press release mentions consulation - well I am hearing this doesn't appear to have involved the managment at the provincial level, at least in any depth, and that there are a number of less than please indivduals at the moment.

There may be trouble ahead......

roddersm wrote:

red_stag wrote:
However I think that the lack of trophies internationally and our failure to get beyond 1/4 finals (or pool stages) of RWC in contrast with our provinces titles have forced IRFU hand.

I asked the question earlier...does anyone actually feel that a lack of player resources cost us another GS or a place in the RWC SF? I'd say it was more to do with poor tactics and selection.

The provinces have already supplied Kidney with a nice big juicy player pool to chose from.

I agree with this. For the recond I am against these proposals. I consider them detrimental to Irish rugby. I am just saying what I think the IRFU mentality is.

Would you have to play one of the locks at 4 and one at 5? Does it really matter other than where they pack down in the scrums? Do 4 and 5 always use the same scrum position? What about 6 and 7? Plenty of teams play left and right or have non-traditional skills in those positions. If you got McCaw as a 6 and he binded on the blindside of the scrum but did everything else the same as when he was a 7 does it matter?

red_stag wrote:I am just saying what I think the IRFU mentality is.

Deteriorating rapidly

The onset of dementia is not to be mocked Greybeard.

HammerofThunor wrote:From reading it my gut feeling is that you can't renew contracts for NIE players if there is already an NIE player in that position. So if Nacewa's contract runs out and there's another full back he doesn't get a renewal. If there aren't any NIE full backs about he can get a renewal. I expect a call has to go round to the other two provinces before the renewal to see if they want an NIE full back and then the IRFU decide who gets one.

It's badly put written but I don't think it means NIE can ever get a contact renewal.

Since they're now allowed 5 NIE players anyway that means 15 across the 3 provinces. It sounds like there are a lot of possible clashes with this so it does suggest these NIE are focused in particular positions. Isn't this a sign there is a problem?

For the 2013/14 season and onwards, for any given position involving a contracted NIE player, a province will not be permitted to renew that NIE player contract or bring in a new NIE player into that same position in its squad.

Thunor, I think you are mis-interpreting that clause. I think its clear that under the new rule a NIQ player will be here for one contract only and obviously cannot be replaced by another NIQ.

red_stag wrote:The onset of dementia is not to be mocked Greybeard.

They won't remember

That why it daft.

You can imagine a player standing in defence and letting a player past him for a try.

The captain goes up to him and says "What the ******** hell do you think you are playing at, you total ****hole"

Reply: Sorry skip I was signed as a 13 and I was standing in the 15 position the IRFU say I can't tackle him"

Rava wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:From reading it my gut feeling is that you can't renew contracts for NIE players if there is already an NIE player in that position. So if Nacewa's contract runs out and there's another full back he doesn't get a renewal. If there aren't any NIE full backs about he can get a renewal. I expect a call has to go round to the other two provinces before the renewal to see if they want an NIE full back and then the IRFU decide who gets one.

It's badly put written but I don't think it means NIE can ever get a contact renewal.

Since they're now allowed 5 NIE players anyway that means 15 across the 3 provinces. It sounds like there are a lot of possible clashes with this so it does suggest these NIE are focused in particular positions. Isn't this a sign there is a problem?

For the 2013/14 season and onwards, for any given position involving a contracted NIE player, a province will not be permitted to renew that NIE player contract or bring in a new NIE player into that same position in its squad.

Thunor, I think you are mis-interpreting that clause. I think its clear that under the new rule a NIQ player will be here for one contract only and obviously cannot be replaced by another NIQ.

Yeah, I've re read it and agree.

geoff998rugby wrote:That why it daft.

You can imagine a player standing in defence and letting a player past him for a try.

The captain goes up to him and says "What the ******** hell do you think you are playing at, you total ****hole"

Reply: Sorry skip I was signed as a 13 and I was standing in the 15 position the IRFU say I can't tackle him"

red_stag wrote:

roddersm wrote:

red_stag wrote:
However I think that the lack of trophies internationally and our failure to get beyond 1/4 finals (or pool stages) of RWC in contrast with our provinces titles have forced IRFU hand.

I asked the question earlier...does anyone actually feel that a lack of player resources cost us another GS or a place in the RWC SF? I'd say it was more to do with poor tactics and selection.

The provinces have already supplied Kidney with a nice big juicy player pool to chose from.

I agree with this. For the recond I am against these proposals. I consider them detrimental to Irish rugby. I am just saying what I think the IRFU mentality is.

I'm slowly coming around to at least sensing more what the IRFU are worried about and the problems of the future they are trying to address. We can all give out about the IRFU, and I've put my ten cents worth of thought on this topic above earlier, but there is actually one thing we can't accuse the IRFU of - and that is a lack of long forecast thinking. They are perhaps the best at it in the world and it has seen the fruits that we have enjoyed in the last decade. Ireland and provinces came from virtually nothing in the amateur era to what we are today. Not the best by any means but growing...always growing; and using our finite resources more effectively than most unions.

So I'm beginning to think about that and wonder what the worries are that the IRFU have. To reflect on Rodder's comment, I think the IRFU are actually afraid that they will have a glut of homemade genuine talent in the next decade and that because of the limits of four provinces, much of that talent will necessarily be pushed, forced away.

Already we see a glut of sorts whereby players of reasonably equal abilites cannot get equal space to play top level rugby consistently. So I think that rather than worrying that NIQ players are stopping the development of Irish players, I think the IRFU worry that too many talented Irish players (that have been given academy training and finance) might actually seep away due to increasing pressure.

In short, the IRFU know they have to find room for more Irish players to compete at home. A large part of the reasoning seems to be about simply finding space rather than being unduly worried about a dearth of Irish talent.

Thunor, I think you are mis-interpreting that clause. I think its clear that under the new rule a NIQ player will be here for one contract only and obviously cannot be replaced by another NIQ. .

Will the provinces then just sign up NIQ players on big long term contracts whilst Irish players are kept on shorter term contracts to facilitate the squad stability?

From reading through this i think its quite reamarkable

usually the unions are the conservative ones who dont want change
now its all the fans on here.

The way i see it, we are looking to cut are number of foriegn players and increase our irish players playing top level rugby.

We want to insure we have all positions covered.

All our h cup wins have came on the back of brilliant performances from irish players with some help from one or two niq's,

This wont change it will just mean that we will have irish players on the bench, not some hack from down south.

also We are not a rich country or union. the way i see it we have to make cuts

do i want to cut doug howlett or or do i want to let two young irish lads go to the premiership

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Thunor, I think you are mis-interpreting that clause. I think its clear that under the new rule a NIQ player will be here for one contract only and obviously cannot be replaced by another NIQ. .

Will the provinces then just sign up NIQ players on big long term contracts whilst Irish players are kept on shorter term contracts to facilitate the squad stability?

The contracts have to be sanctioned by the IRFU so I wouldn't expect to see long term one's coming in.

D24tress wrote:From reading through this i think its quite reamarkable

usually the unions are the conservative ones who dont want change
now its all the fans on here.

The way i see it, we are looking to cut are number of foriegn players and increase our irish players playing top level rugby.

We want to insure we have all positions covered.

All our h cup wins have came on the back of brilliant performances from irish players with some help from one or two niq's,

This wont change it will just mean that we will have irish players on the bench, not some hack from down south.

also We are not a rich country or union. the way i see it we have to make cuts

do i want to cut doug howlett or or do i want to let two young irish lads go to the premiership

I don't see where these new proposals will cut the numbers!

Maybe we can't afford the high wages of a NIE due to lack of sponsors etc.

Geoff could say more about it.

red_stag wrote:Maybe we can't afford the high wages of a NIE due to lack of sponsors etc.

Geoff could say more about it.

Isn't that up to the provinces, though? If Toyota one day pulled the plug on Munster and as a result they couldn't afford Howlett, for example, isn't that Munsters problem? The really big names are affordable thanks to sponsorship, not the IRFU investment.

(Not picking on Munster, just using an example)

The thing is the profile of the Munster and Leinster NIE players is not that high.

No harm to them but Botha Howlett and Nacewa apart would you put any of them down as exceptional players

Up to now my understanding is that Irish rugby is balancing the books - a recession may change where that balance lies of course

red_stag wrote:Maybe we can't afford the high wages of a NIE due to lack of sponsors etc.

Geoff could say more about it.

I hope Rory McIlroy keeps winning Golf tournaments

SecretFly wrote:
In short, the IRFU know they have to find room for more Irish players to compete at home. A large part of the reasoning seems to be about simply finding space rather than being unduly worried about a dearth of Irish talent.

Yes ok in theory but lets take Leinster who have a lot of talent. To be competitive on two fronts Leinster need a big squad so they have guys like Carr, Dom Ryan etc who can't make the HEC cut....now Leinster have a surplus in certain positions that other provinces may be short in so the solution is that the players leave to get gametime....

However in reality you can't force players to play for another province if thay don't want to and another issue is why would Schmidt want to let players go and leave himself short of injury cover?

You could use other examples like Faloon or Whitten at Ulster, Nagle at Munster etc.

You are right Roddersm, you can't force players to play for other provinces if they don't want to (in theory anyway!!).

I'm sure the plan will need fine tuning as I'm sure they haven't considered all ramifications just yet. That happens when the talking starts, in the media, amongst players etc. All that has to come.

But there is a serious issue growing in Ireland year by year, and that is the successful conveyor belt of young potentials rising. No longer are they a bunch of men that you can easily divide down the line of Journeymen and Real Prospect. All these guys are prospects in the making and we're running out of room rapidly to constantly put them under the challenges required to establish whether they are or not.

Ireland and its stay-at-home policy is quickly crowding up. A solution is required - will the IRFU get it right? Well, that's the debate that has just started.

Anyone else see the AIL getting affected by this?

SecretFly wrote: Ireland and its stay-at-home policy is quickly crowding up.

I have been wondering about this for some time - if I was Faloon, Porter, Whitten or Cochrane I am not sure I would stay at Ulster to be honest. For the sake of their careers they might be better going to a low English Premership side or a top Div 1 side.

SecretFly wrote:but there is actually one thing we can't accuse the IRFU of - and that is a lack of long forecast thinking. They are perhaps the best at it in the world and it

Maybe they look good compared to some of our neighbouring unions. But it seems they're starting to believe to much in their own brilliance. They're not geniuses. They gave EOS a 4 year contract before the 2007 World Cup. Everyone pointed out what an odd decision it was. They were right. It was a disaster. Remember the ticket price fiasco when Lansdowne opened? Alarm bells were ringing straight away among fans. They really took the fans for granted and presumed they'd turn up for any price. They didn't. Maybe they're taking the fans for granted again and presuming they'll keep turning up at the provinces in the same numbers when performances drop.

I don't mind the idea of having more Irish players playing for the provinces at all. It's just that these rules are so inflexible it's almost laughable. We've just looked at them and identified numerous ridiculous scenarios that could arise. Like I said earlier though, the IRFU already has enough control over signings to achieve the desired effect. It seems like they've gotten this goal, which I agree with. More Irish player, less NIQ players. But they've fleshed it out into a "plan" using some idiotic committee of administrators without the input of actual rugby managers, coaches, players, fans etc.

SecretFly wrote:
Ireland and its stay-at-home policy is quickly crowding up. A solution is required - will the IRFU get it right? Well, that's the debate that has just started.

I've thought for a while that the IRFU should take a more proactive role in helping facilitate moves abroad (maybe they do??) for players who have potential but just can't get sufficient game time at any of the provinces. Maybe try and build the relationship with London Irish again or another club. The reality is that we only have 4 teams, of which only 3 play in the HEC.

I'd rather see young players carve out a career in England than sit on the bench or play in the B&I cup until they are 28.

We should continue to try and keep the best talents in the country and priortise selection of home based players but I think the IRFU should really try and help as many players get 1st team rugby as possible even if its outside of Ireland. Its the only way to widen the player pool in the long term.

Forgive me for tipping in as an NIE, but I wonder if this Grauniad article is relevant to the topic?: Emigration hurts gaelic games

Asbo - its not really the same for GAA as the sports are amatuer. The very best players all have day jobs and they are the same as any other men in their early 20s - prime candidates for emigrations.

The rugby ones are professional athletes who have a job and a wage coming in the door.

red_stag wrote:Asbo - its not really the same for GAA as the sports are amatuer. The very best players all have day jobs and they are the same as any other men in their early 20s - prime candidates for emigrations.

The rugby ones are professional athletes who have a job and a wage coming in the door.

Yes, I realised that, but in terms of the economic climate, is central funding for the provinces going to have to take a sharp drop maybe?

I'd imagine that it would although rugby seems to be an industry that is surviving the recession in some ways.

There is a massive reduction in the amount of people travelling to watch matches especially to the likes of France or Italy.

Grey

I think we are arguing the same point from different angles mate.

The IRFU article talks about the financials a bit....basically the IRFU are saying that the majority of their revenue comes from the National side, which is being used to prop up the provinces i.e. the National side is heavily subsidising the provinces.

Basically the IRFU want a better return on their investment, in terms of producing 1st team players from the acadamies, which they are funding to the tune of 2.5m per province.

The provinces don't seem in a very strong position to argue really.

Im not sure the provinces are arguing. Seems to be just us.

Not according to Geoff stag...I'm just saying that they not in a strong position to be able to push back on this if those figures are accurate.

roddersm wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
Ireland and its stay-at-home policy is quickly crowding up. A solution is required - will the IRFU get it right? Well, that's the debate that has just started.

I've thought for a while that the IRFU should take a more proactive role in helping facilitate moves abroad (maybe they do??) for players who have potential but just can't get sufficient game time at any of the provinces. Maybe try and build the relationship with London Irish again or another club. The reality is that we only have 4 teams, of which only 3 play in the HEC.

I'd rather see young players carve out a career in England than sit on the bench or play in the B&I cup until they are 28.

We should continue to try and keep the best talents in the country and priortise selection of home based players but I think the IRFU should really try and help as many players get 1st team rugby as possible even if its outside of Ireland. Its the only way to widen the player pool in the long term.

I was going to say the say the same, if it's about getting more Irish Players Playing then build the relationship back up with London Irish. Let the Forwards that need gametime go there, and the Backs to Connacht or something like that, it'd be better to build a relationship back up with London Irish than to handicap the Provinces. Loan deals for young players to LI, Irish players get game time and LI get more Squad depth everyone's a winner.

Any news on how the 12.30 Q&A went?

roddersm wrote:The IRFU article talks about the financials a bit....basically the IRFU are saying that the majority of their revenue comes from the National side, which is being used to prop up the provinces i.e. the National side is heavily subsidising the provinces.

Basically the IRFU want a better return on their investment, in terms of producing 1st team players from the acadamies, which they are funding to the tune of 2.5m per province.

The provinces don't seem in a very strong position to argue really.

Of course the majority of the cash is spent on the provinces. The Irish team flies 5-6 times a year and hotels have to be paid etc. Now compare that with the amount of times a province will need to travel and incur expenses in both the Rabo and in Europe, The IRFU's facts conveniently leave out how a province is in operation for many more weeks of the year than the national side, if Ireland played 26+ matches a year it'd cost more.

Lies and damn lies.

Yes Asbo

They asked a load of questions. I see Greybeard asked one or two as well.

I'll summarise a few Qs now.

geoff998rugby wrote:The original press release mentions consulation - well I am hearing this doesn't appear to have involved the managment at the provincial level, at least in any depth, and that there are a number of less than please indivduals at the moment.

There may be trouble ahead......

I hope so. If these aren't watered down how on earth are we meant to keep up the English and French superclubs? A system which has yielded 4 Heineken Cups since 2006 is NOT broken.

I didn't realise until this came out how disillusioned I was with Test Rugby. I suppose I've come to realise that the Heineken Cup offers the chance to see a similar standard of rugby in a stadium with better atmosphere at a lower price. It is expensive to go and watch Ireland play and the fixtures are the same every year- it doesn't have the variety of club rugby.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Any news on how the 12.30 Q&A went?

Complete farce, an own goal for the IRFU- would have been better not to have a Q&A than to ignore all the hard questions and give semi-irrelevant marketing blurb style answers to the rest.