S Shingler is tied to Wales

First topic message reminder :

Confirmation of the IRB hearing: Shingler case Shame for the lad

Am I the only one who thinks he should have refused the under 20's cap, not because it would have kept his options open, but because taking it in those circumstances was:
1 selfish as others would gladly had it
2 disrespectful to the shirt
3 incredibly Machiavellian for a 19 year old.

Glas, I would agree - it wouldn't sit well with you or me, but then neither of us are Steven Shingler and know the exact circumstances under which he was making decisions? I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt

I assume he was 'advised' by his agent? No 19 year old has the presence of mind to act that way of his own accord. It was pisspoor advice, but he didn't have to follow it.

Look, the WRU and the IRB had to make a stand on this or every player and country would make a mockery of who they should represent. Imagine if a player from New Zealand for instance let us say Dan Carter, went to France to boost his pension, then decided that he could get into the French team and earn a few extra quid, so he then asks the NZRU to scrap his caps so he could represent France where would this end. I know that what I have said is a more extreme situation but in theory this is what they are trying to put a halt to. Also this will eventually stop countries from capping foriegn players that have earned residency after representing the poorer nations so to speak. At the end of the day a president has been set and everyone now knows where they stand on this situation, so only good for the game can come out of it in my opinion.

Shame Shingler didn't have the confidence in his own abilities and push for a Welsh call up

Shame Shingler took the easy option of international rugby because Scotland asked

Shame Shingler signed for a rubbish English team (I do sympathise with the emergence of Priestland)

Shingler even did that Wales v England S4C advert so what was the boy thinking?!

So what do we honestly think will happen, where will it go from here? The committee made a decision strictly under the laws as they stand, while noting that the laws could well change soon and also pointing out that the proposal to change the laws was reached before their decision? So buck passed back up the line to the full Council which meets in May (I think?) - wouldn't be surprised to see the new recommended rules enacted and Shingler's case treated as an exception to the old (now agreed to be flawed) rules. Any thoughts (rather than national rantings)?

Theres no way they will apply any new regualtions retrospectively.

I assume the changes will be more making sure things are tighter and less ambiguously worded rather than a fundamental shift away from how an A team is defined and what ties a player.

Ben Morgan was quite capable of turning down a Saxons shirt then making a choice to turn down Wales and go crawling back to his himeland anyway. Why cant other players be trusted to make decisions?

Should George North not be considered tied to Wales because hes too young to know what a gross mistake hes making chucking away any chance of ever winning a world cup?

No. The general principle is fine. Its the nitty grity detail that needs sorting out.

i think its fair to say that yes george north is to young to be tied down to wales- he will realise very soon how english he is

mystiroakey wrote:i think its fair to say that yes george north is to young to be tied down to wales- he will realise very soon how english he is

Now if that ain't gonna stir the pot, nothing will.

If he realises he's english will he stop scoring trys

RubyGuby wrote:If he realises he's english will he stop scoring trys

Unless they're charge-downs which are the new black (tries)

RubyGuby wrote:If he realises he's english will he stop scoring trys

Perhaps, but he will tackle a lot more.

[quote="Chunky Norwich"]

Chjw131 wrote:[


Or perhaps they should just give up and hand the next George North back to England.

Fixed that for you Chunky

It appears to me that the WRU has won the technical and legal argument but lost the moral one.

How old was Shingler when he played the game, I seem to remember that he was only 18.

An U20's side is not a side that should be designated as the "A" team, it may not mean to be one; but it is, a mechanism to stop a lot of players who get a few stars in their eyes at the thought of international rugby at 18 or so from making objective decisions when they are old enough to about who they want to play for. There may also be parental pressure at that age to play for the country of one of the parents when they may later want to play for instance, for the country of their birth.

The IRB would appear to agree with this as they have stated that an U20's side should NOT be designated as a countries "A" team. If you can’t afford one, do without.

It appears to me that the WRU has won the technical and legal argument but lost the moral one.

Moral one? There are rules so we don't have to even consider that Poopie or nothing would get done and we would have a referendum on every question! Flip moral one.

Glas a du wrote:

It appears to me that the WRU has won the technical and legal argument but lost the moral one.

Moral one? There are rules so we don't have to even consider that Poopie or nothing would get done and we would have a referendum on every question! Flip moral one.

It is one particular deeply flawed rule that is shortly (May 15th) to be overturned by the IRB Council. They will AFTER they have done this consider the Shingler case. As the new rule (ie Under 20 not allowed to be 2nd team) will then be formally in place they will say that the 2 IRB rulings to date have been technically correct but in the interests of fairness they must overturn those decisions and Shingler can declare for Scotland.
I think this will be a good result and leave nobody with any real egg on their face and means that going forward the rules should be crystal clear ie Senior Team, A Team or 7s Team.

malky1963 wrote:

Glas a du wrote:

It appears to me that the WRU has won the technical and legal argument but lost the moral one.

Moral one? There are rules so we don't have to even consider that Poopie or nothing would get done and we would have a referendum on every question! Flip moral one.

It is one particular deeply flawed rule that is shortly (May 15th) to be overturned by the IRB Council. They will AFTER they have done this consider the Shingler case. As the new rule (ie Under 20 not allowed to be 2nd team) will then be formally in place they will say that the 2 IRB rulings to date have been technically correct but in the interests of fairness they must overturn those decisions and Shingler can declare for Scotland.
I think this will be a good result and leave nobody with any real egg on their face and means that going forward the rules should be crystal clear ie Senior Team, A Team or 7s Team.

+1 Agreed, Malky, think that is what will happen

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:It appears to me that the WRU has won the technical and legal argument but lost the moral one.

Could you please clarify what action lacked morality by the WRU?You appear to be spouting guff.

I think this will be a good result

Agreed

and leave nobody with any real egg on their face

Disagree. The IRB will be seen to be making the rules up on the hop and responding to each individual case by bending their own poor rules in accordance to how loud the public outcry is. They set up this mess and getting rid of the under 20's as a qualifying team in any circumstances is a poor knee jerk reaction. Better to have clear rules:

Anybody who plays for:
1 The full international side
2 The second international side (if any)
3 The sevens international side
4 The under 20's side

will not be able to represent any other country irrespective of satisfying any or all other qualifying criteria. To do this, the same qualification tests should apply to all of these teams.

Under their proposed rules players will be able to play under the colours of multiple countries, just what the rules are designed (supposedly) to avoid, in televised "Internationals". Teenagers will be touting themselves around for any sort of cap.

Then when that is a mess they will go overboard in tightening the system up again. It is a farce.

The big argument against making ALL U20 play binding is that it will simply put dual qualified players off taking part at all.
On one hand they would not want to be tied to the "lesser" union, on the other they may be worried that theyll never get to play international if they commit ( like Shingler) a level above themsleves and instead hang on till they are surer of their potential and place in the pecking order at A level.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:The big argument against making ALL U20 play binding is that it will simply put dual qualified players off taking part at all.
On one hand they would not want to be tied to the "lesser" union, on the other they may be worried that theyll never get to play international if they commit ( like Shingler) a level above themsleves and instead hang on till they are surer of their potential and place in the pecking order at A level.

Good point - the other thing is that some Unions might be more unscrupulous than others and not necessarily pick their best u20 team but pick players once just to 'capture' them for the future. This is much less likely to happen with an A team or the 7s.

Seconded - Glas a Du that is.

In a sense the JWC tournament already forces you to do this by insisting that ALL squad members get at least one game (I think? - he says nervously with self-doubt!!)

Taffineastbourne wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:It appears to me that the WRU has won the technical and legal argument but lost the moral one.

Could you please clarify what action lacked morality by the WRU?You appear to be spouting guff.

Simples; tying in players when they are kids who do not necessarily know what they want, it is not moral to do that. I believe Wales are the only country in the 6N that have nominated their U20 side as the “A” team. The other teams understand the problems the kids might have. The IRB would appear to agree.

I did say that the WRU did not necessarily mean it to be a catchall, but it has become one. If they cannot afford a second team, don't nominate one or nominate "Cardiff Rovers over 55's" if they have to.

Players with dual nationality when that young do not always know who they really want to align with and will often choose the first side that comes along with an offer. As a said there can be parental pressure; for example a rugby mad Welsh father of a kid born in England and brought up in England with an English mother not into sport. There is likely to be pressure from the father to take the Wales option if it is offered before an English one. With the player base England have at U20, there is a distinct likelihood of Wales making the offer first.

Why should that kid be tied to Wales for the rest of his life, when by the time he is 20-21, he may feel that he is more English than Welsh. If he chooses to say no, he becomes a black sheep with Wales, if he says yes he is barred from the nation of his birth. If he plays for England at U20 level he can still revert to Wales if he so wishes, inconsistent and unfair to both player and country.

Watching the England v Wales U20 game last week, there were kids of 17 out there, they are unlikely to know what they really want at that age, so don't tie them in.

pete you raise a good point- age level should be about promoting talent thats all. when you get in to international A or reserve teams is when you should get to the point of no return for my money.

Offcourse if the players dont play at age level in fear of being tied , then they may never even get to there top level anyway through lack of experience!!

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:It appears to me that the WRU has won the technical and legal argument but lost the moral one.

Could you please clarify what action lacked morality by the WRU?You appear to be spouting guff.

Simples; tying in players when they are kids who do not necessarily know what they want, it is not moral to do that. I believe Wales are the only country in the 6N that have nominated their U20 side as the “A” team. The other teams understand the problems the kids might have. The IRB would appear to agree.

I did say that the WRU did not necessarily mean it to be a catchall, but it has become one. If they cannot afford a second team, don't nominate one or nominate "Cardiff Rovers over 55's" if they have to.

Players with dual nationality when that young do not always know who they really want to align with and will often choose the first side that comes along with an offer. As a said there can be parental pressure; for example a rugby mad Welsh father of a kid born in England and brought up in England with an English mother not into sport. There is likely to be pressure from the father to take the Wales option if it is offered before an English one. With the player base England have at U20, there is a distinct likelihood of Wales making the offer first.

Why should that kid be tied to Wales for the rest of his life, when by the time he is 20-21, he may feel that he is more English than Welsh. If he chooses to say no, he becomes a black sheep with Wales, if he says yes he is barred from the nation of his birth. If he plays for England at U20 level he can still revert to Wales if he so wishes, inconsistent and unfair to both player and country.

Watching the England v Wales U20 game last week, there were kids of 17 out there, they are unlikely to know what they really want at that age, so don't tie them in.

I would have thought finances and where the player lives would also have a significant bearing on things - take my own lad, dual Scots- and English-qualified, I'd love him to play for Scotland one day (if he's good enough) but would imagine that he would rise thru the English age-group sides simply as a matter of convenience - travelling from the south-west up to Embra would be time-consuming, expensive and frankly unnecessary

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:It appears to me that the WRU has won the technical and legal argument but lost the moral one.

Could you please clarify what action lacked morality by the WRU?You appear to be spouting guff.

Simples; tying in players when they are kids who do not necessarily know what they want, it is not moral to do that. I believe Wales are the only country in the 6N that have nominated their U20 side as the “A” team. The other teams understand the problems the kids might have. The IRB would appear to agree.

I did say that the WRU did not necessarily mean it to be a catchall, but it has become one. If they cannot afford a second team, don't nominate one or nominate "Cardiff Rovers over 55's" if they have to.

Players with dual nationality when that young do not always know who they really want to align with and will often choose the first side that comes along with an offer. As a said there can be parental pressure; for example a rugby mad Welsh father of a kid born in England and brought up in England with an English mother not into sport. There is likely to be pressure from the father to take the Wales option if it is offered before an English one. With the player base England have at U20, there is a distinct likelihood of Wales making the offer first.

Why should that kid be tied to Wales for the rest of his life, when by the time he is 20-21, he may feel that he is more English than Welsh. If he chooses to say no, he becomes a black sheep with Wales, if he says yes he is barred from the nation of his birth. If he plays for England at U20 level he can still revert to Wales if he so wishes, inconsistent and unfair to both player and country.

Watching the England v Wales U20 game last week, there were kids of 17 out there, they are unlikely to know what they really want at that age, so don't tie them in.

My mistake.I was under the impression that 18 was the age of majority.When did it change back to 21?.I missed this!
Think you'll find that France do to-hence the Shingler situation.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:The big argument against making ALL U20 play binding is that it will simply put dual qualified players off taking part at all.
On one hand they would not want to be tied to the "lesser" union, on the other they may be worried that theyll never get to play international if they commit ( like Shingler) a level above themsleves and instead hang on till they are surer of their potential and place in the pecking order at A level.

So instead of telling a small amount of players to committ or lose out, you would rather all
under 20 internationals to be able to tout themselves around the World to the highest bidder?

Shingler is Welsh.

He has spent all his life in Wales, has a thick Swansea accent and has played at all levels for Wales.

He played for Wales U20's on about 16 occasions over 2 years.

The only think this is about is he knows he is well down the pecking order for Wales but would walk in to the Scotland squad and team as a 10 or 12.


This is just pure opportunism on his part.

I have no time for anyone who says that 20 is too young to know who you are and all that nonsense.

The kid has barely even been to Scotland other than on some family holidays, don't tell me he feels a real life long yearning to pull on the Scotland jersey. If that was the case then he wouldn't have pulled on a Welsh one many many times.

The WRU have done nothing wrong here morally or legally. They have adhered to the rules.

If the IRB then change those rules and back date them then they will look like a laughing stock even more than they usually do.

If this is the case then I think we will see a rise in A team games where each side puts out 22 uncapped players to tie them in. And it will be meaningless.

Why should those nations who cant afford or just don't want an A team suffer, is that fair? And I don't just mean Wales this could apply to any number of countries.

At 18 you are an adult in every respect, except rugby it seems.

KIDS !

Does anyone have staff/colleagues aged 18-20 who you refer to as kids, or treat differently as you think they are too young to do the same job or make the same decisions as older staff ?

These are not kids they are young adults, who appear to be compus mentus enough to drink, vote, reproduce, drive, etc.

More pertinently they are all old enough to sign professional rugby contracts at club level and yet the poor lambs are all confused when it comes to knowing what country they would like to play for? And all this despite playing and being trained by one country since they were schoolboys in most cases.

"Thick Swansea accent" - I like that part - Straight out of Twin Town

The irony is, Barritt and Botha know they are South African and they are adults who play for England. Its a funny old world eh!

Irish Londoner wrote:KIDS !

Does anyone have staff/colleagues aged 18-20 who you refer to as kids, or treat differently as you think they are too young to do the same job or make the same decisions as older staff ?

These are not kids they are young adults, who appear to be compus mentus enough to drink, vote, reproduce, drive, etc.

More pertinently they are all enough to sign professional rugby contracts at club level and yet the poor lambs are all confused when it comes to knowing what country they would like to play for? And all this despite playing and being trained by one country since they were schoolboys in most cases.

I agree with the bold bit completly, if players are brought up in that said country and have been playing at various age levels then they should never switch, if the home union is putting money into developing a player then that plyer should be that unions, however in some cases kids move countries and 2 unions have breed the player up so its not clear cut is it!!

I dont really agree with the rest, many young sportsmen are just sheltered kids that have problems making decisions.

"Does anyone have staff/colleagues aged 18-20 who you refer to as kids,
or treat differently as you think they are too young to do the same job
or make the same decisions as older staff ?"


i have employed about 4 18 year olds and all have left the job within weeks if not days, whereas on the whole my staff turnaround is very low

doctornickolas wrote:Shingler is Welsh.

He has spent all his life in Wales, has a thick Swansea accent and has played at all levels for Wales.

He played for Wales U20's on about 16 occasions over 2 years.

The only think this is about is he knows he is well down the pecking order for Wales but would walk in to the Scotland squad and team as a 10 or 12.


This is just pure opportunism on his part.

I have no time for anyone who says that 20 is too young to know who you are and all that nonsense.

The kid has barely even been to Scotland other than on some family holidays, don't tell me he feels a real life long yearning to pull on the Scotland jersey. If that was the case then he wouldn't have pulled on a Welsh one many many times.

The WRU have done nothing wrong here morally or legally. They have adhered to the rules.

If the IRB then change those rules and back date them then they will look like a laughing stock even more than they usually do.

If this is the case then I think we will see a rise in A team games where each side puts out 22 uncapped players to tie them in. And it will be meaningless.

Why should those nations who cant afford or just don't want an A team suffer, is that fair? And I don't just mean Wales this could apply to any number of countries.

At 18 you are an adult in every respect, except rugby it seems.

DrNick, are you suggesting that Wales have then been using their U20 side to tie in players cos there's a lot more U20 games than A games? That would smack of outright gamesmanship, surely? If you don't think it fair that "those nations who can't afford or just don't want an A team suffer", how can it be possibly fair that those sides can gain an advantage?! We need some logic here

doctornickolas wrote:Shingler is Welsh.

He has spent all his life in Wales, has a thick Swansea accent and has played at all levels for Wales.

He played for Wales U20's on about 16 occasions over 2 years.

The only think this is about is he knows he is well down the pecking order for Wales but would walk in to the Scotland squad and team as a 10 or 12.


This is just pure opportunism on his part.

I have no time for anyone who says that 20 is too young to know who you are and all that nonsense.

The kid has barely even been to Scotland other than on some family holidays, don't tell me he feels a real life long yearning to pull on the Scotland jersey. If that was the case then he wouldn't have pulled on a Welsh one many many times.

The WRU have done nothing wrong here morally or legally. They have adhered to the rules.

If the IRB then change those rules and back date them then they will look like a laughing stock even more than they usually do.

If this is the case then I think we will see a rise in A team games where each side puts out 22 uncapped players to tie them in. And it will be meaningless.

Why should those nations who cant afford or just don't want an A team suffer, is that fair? And I don't just mean Wales this could apply to any number of countries.

At 18 you are an adult in every respect, except rugby it seems.

This isn't about just Shingler, it's about all dual qualified kids. They do not have to be 20, indeed if they are 20, they are not U20. If you think that at 18 most kids are sure of their place in this world and where they belong you are deluded, especially when it comes to family vs country.

As far as I am aware Wales are the only top tier nation to designate their U20's as the official "A" side. The WRU named them as such when they did away with a proper "A" team. I do not think they thought it through properly, it was just the next team down the line.

If you think that the current law is correct you must also agree that to make it fair to other countries, there should be a law that no player capped by other countries U20's side can ever play for Wales.

France also took advantage of this unfair rule - arguably they were even worse as they sometimes had an A team

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

doctornickolas wrote:Shingler is Welsh.

He has spent all his life in Wales, has a thick Swansea accent and has played at all levels for Wales.

He played for Wales U20's on about 16 occasions over 2 years.

The only think this is about is he knows he is well down the pecking order for Wales but would walk in to the Scotland squad and team as a 10 or 12.


This is just pure opportunism on his part.

I have no time for anyone who says that 20 is too young to know who you are and all that nonsense.

The kid has barely even been to Scotland other than on some family holidays, don't tell me he feels a real life long yearning to pull on the Scotland jersey. If that was the case then he wouldn't have pulled on a Welsh one many many times.

The WRU have done nothing wrong here morally or legally. They have adhered to the rules.

If the IRB then change those rules and back date them then they will look like a laughing stock even more than they usually do.

If this is the case then I think we will see a rise in A team games where each side puts out 22 uncapped players to tie them in. And it will be meaningless.

Why should those nations who cant afford or just don't want an A team suffer, is that fair? And I don't just mean Wales this could apply to any number of countries.

At 18 you are an adult in every respect, except rugby it seems.

This isn't about just Shingler, it's about all dual qualified kids. They do not have to be 20, indeed if they are 20, they are not U20. If you think that at 18 most kids are sure of their place in this world and where they belong you are deluded, especially when it comes to family vs country.

As far as I am aware Wales are the only top tier nation to designate their U20's as the official "A" side. The WRU named them as such when they did away with a proper "A" team. I do not think they thought it through properly, it was just the next team down the line.

If you think that the current law is correct you must also agree that to make it fair to other countries, there should be a law that no player capped by other countries U20's side can ever play for Wales.

Well-past-it, France currently do as well, and one or two other top sides may have done so from time-to-time

You keep banging on about 18 year old kids.Get your facts right!

[/quote]I would have thought finances and where the player lives would also have a significant bearing on things - take my own lad, dual Scots- and English-qualified, I'd love him to play for Scotland one day (if he's good enough) but would imagine that he would rise thru the English age-group sides simply as a matter of convenience - travelling from the south-west up to Embra would be time-consuming, expensive and frankly unnecessary[/quote]

Yes at schoolboy and junior level that would be fine, I don't think anyone would expect him to travel to Scotland to play under 15's, schools or whatever, but there equally has to be a cut off somewhere. I'd say once the development sides start investing serious money and coaching time in you and paying you to play rather than the other way round.

As a matter of interest, who does your son want to play for - Scotland, England or whoever asks first ? And is he aware that once he makes that call he's stuck with it for life ?

malky1963 wrote:France also took advantage of this unfair rule - arguably they were even worse as they sometimes had an A team

yes, how dare they act in this manner when the rules are rubbish and the guidance even worse!

Look home Malky.

As a Scotsman, I do not really think Wales have done that much wrong, but are still tarred by the brush with the whole affair.

I still wonder about two things though

How can Wales not afford an A team? really - even Scotland can, and we don't have two deep fried mars bars to rub together. This smacks of 'tie in as many as we can as early as we can' while nothing against the rules in that is a little too 'professional' for my liking

Why have a paper to sign, if they did not need it, as it was 'cast iron' laws

But apart from that I think the SRU and Shingler come out looking worst in this case

He's only 4, so plenty of time to change his mind, altho currently he wants to play for Scotland and Ireland (I blame his uncle Hoog for that!). Also he has no idea about the concept of 'life' - told me he wants to live with me forever the other day, the great big jessie!

So should Rhys Llewleyn a Bridgend born and bred lad who recentley played for NZ U20 be restricted to only playing for NZ now since they've "invested in him"

gowales wrote:So should Rhys Llewleyn a Bridgend born and bred lad who recentley played for NZ U20 be restricted to only playing for NZ now since they've "invested in him"

gowales, no, definitely not, and that wouldn't be the case under the current rules cos even tho NZ don't have an 'A' team (Junior ABs), they have not designated their U20s (Baby Blacks) as their second senior team. So i believe that he still qualifies for both?

He does, but by the logic of some of the people on here. He would be betraying the NZRU

gowales wrote:He does, but by the logic of some of the people on here. He would be betraying the NZRU

Sorry, might have given the wrong impression, was furiously agreeing with you

Oh no don't take it the wrong way. I know you were

gowales wrote:So should Rhys Llewleyn a Bridgend born and bred lad who recentley played for NZ U20 be restricted to only playing for NZ now since they've "invested in him"

Why is he playing for NZ - does he live out there ? More to the point does he consider himself a Welshman or a New Zealander ? And yes if the NZ RFU are spending money on him then yes he should be a Kiwi.

Glas a du wrote:

malky1963 wrote:France also took advantage of this unfair rule - arguably they were even worse as they sometimes had an A team

yes, how dare they act in this manner when the rules are rubbish and the guidance even worse!

Look home Malky.

Glas a du

The rule is flawed and that is why the IRB Rugby and Regulations Committee has recommended

'that that the designation of the Under 20 side as the next senior national representative team should no longer be sustained.
This issue will be considered by the IRB Council at its Special Meeting on May 15, 2012.' (source IRB website)

There is nothing wrong with changing a bad rule.

Irish Londoner wrote:

gowales wrote:So should Rhys Llewleyn a Bridgend born and bred lad who recentley played for NZ U20 be restricted to only playing for NZ now since they've "invested in him"

Why is he playing for NZ - does he live out there ? More to the point does he consider himself a Welshman or a New Zealander ? And yes if the NZ RFU are spending money on him then yes he should be a Kiwi.

He moved to NZ because he got a scholarship to a top school. Who knows what he considers himself, only he can answer that.

I think it would be ridiculous to take away his option to play for Wales simply because he moved to NZ to make a better life for himself. He's Welsh so he should be able to play for Wales, but he might consider himself a kiwi now.

Irish Londoner wrote:

gowales wrote:So should Rhys Llewleyn a Bridgend born and bred lad who recentley played for NZ U20 be restricted to only playing for NZ now since they've "invested in him"

Why is he playing for NZ - does he live out there ? More to the point does he consider himself a Welshman or a New Zealander ? And yes if the NZ RFU are spending money on him then yes he should be a Kiwi.

Really? They haven't bought him. He's not a slave they've had to train up for a particular task (they only do that with polynesians ). What about if they decided to go into law? Or become a banker? Or doctor? Damn the traitor! String 'em up I say.

Unions invest in rugby. They do this to maximise the potential of the playing population. They invest in grassroots and schools rugby probably down to U8 level. They do this as they're promoting rugby to all as part of the IRB.

As shame really as if we could claim compensation for 'stolen' players we'd be able to backrupt the SRU (and use it to pay off SANZAR)