Scottish foreigners long term impact?

by Gordy Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:53 pm

Scotland have publicly comeout and said they intend on recruiting foreign players for Glasgow and Edinburgh. What do people make of this. Clearly the idea is to get these players nationalised and get them into the national team. How damaging is this to the Scottish youth developmet or to any up-and-coming Scottish player? The message seems to be that born-and-bred players are not good enough, and that getting foreign recruits to paper over the lack of quality coming through is the solution. What long term effect will this have? Isnt this sacrificing long term benefits of developing the domestic game? Seems like a desperate move that will not lead to the developmet of Scottish talent and could end up with an international side more akin to the Baa Baa's than an actual Nation.

by **Biltong** Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:57 pm

The only consideration for me is if and when Scotland starts capping South Africans, does Scotland become my second favourite team, or do I pick my second favourite team based on where my favourite south africans play? Whistle

It could mean considering the following factors.

1. Which team has the most South Africans.
2. Where do my favourites play.

Scottish foreigners impact on the future National side? Idunno10

Scottish foreigners impact on the future National side? Idunno10

by Gordy Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:14 pm

Scotland have publicly comeout and said they intend on recruiting foreign players for Glasgow and Edinburgh. What do people make of this. Clearly the idea is to get these players nationalised and get them into the national team. How damaging is this to the Scottish youth developmet or to any up-and-coming Scottish player? The message seems to be that born-and-bred players are not good enough, and that getting foreign recruits to paper over the lack of quality coming through is the solution. What long term effect will this have? Isnt this sacrificing long term benefits of developing the domestic game? Seems like a desperate move that will not lead to the developmet of Scottish talent and could end up with an international side more akin to the Baa Baa's than an actual Nation.

by Gordy Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:15 pm

Apolgies I appear to have placed this is the wrong section. I have ammended it to its appropriate location.

by Thomond Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:16 pm

You're talking about bringing somewhere up to 20 of Non-Scottish born players into the country, how many will actually play for Scotland. Ireland tried this and I think Strauss will be the only one to get a senior cap because of it. It won't have a huge effect I don't think. I would say you're making too big a deal of it.

by **Biltong** Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:20 pm

The only consideration for me is if and when Scotland starts capping South Africans, does Scotland become my second favourite team, or do I pick my second favourite team based on where my favourite south africans play? Whistle

It could mean considering the following factors.

1. Which team has the most South Africans.
2. Where do my favourites play.

Scottish foreigners impact on the future National side? Idunno10

by Tattie Scones RRN Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:23 pm

It might.....and I mean might show indications that a larger playing pool could mean a third pro-team if more SQ players are developed?

by doctor_grey Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:24 pm

Edinburgh is almost identical to Pretoria. Same weather. No one will know the difference.

by **Biltong** Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:25 pm

doctor_grey wrote:Edinburgh is almost identical to Pretoria. Same weather. No one will know the difference.

Yeah, like ..erm, one day out of a millenium. Shocked

by Gordy Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:28 pm

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:It might.....and I mean might show indications that a larger playing pool could mean a third pro-team if more SQ players are developed?

Interesting point, but Im not sure I agree. The move looks to be trying to inject some competitiveness in the existing 2 sides as they are now. And to me that can only mean an admission there isnt enough quality coming through. I fear it is a short term solution to a long term problem. Scotland need to focus on developing their own talent from within, not relying on foreign imports to make up the numbers.

by wales606 Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:33 pm

biltongbek wrote:The only consideration for me is if and when Scotland starts capping South Africans, does Scotland become my second favourite team, or do I pick my second favourite team based on where my favourite south africans play?

It could mean considering the following factors.

1. Which team has the most South Africans.
2. Where do my favourites play.

Don't worry Biltong - soon you will be able to say your side won, no matter which side won.

by **Biltong** Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:41 pm

Due to you complaining about my obsession with emoticons, I now have to answer you without using emoticons. (sigh)

HaHaHaHaHa. (big teeth)

Good one Wales606 (thumbsup)

by wales606 Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:43 pm

biltongbek wrote:Due to you complaining about my obsession with emoticons, I now have to answer you without using emoticons. (sigh)

HaHaHaHaHa. (big teeth)

Good one Wales606 (thumbsup)

Scottish foreigners impact on the future National side? Smiley-laughing024

by **Biltong** Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:48 pm

by anotherworldofpain Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:25 pm

Sure thing is that now Scotland beating Australia who beat South Africa who beat England who Beat France who Beat New Zealand at home last time then Scotland are the new best team in the world and will become net export of the rugby player?

by wales606 Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:53 pm

anotherworldofpain wrote:Sure thing is that now Scotland beating Australia who beat South Africa who beat England who Beat France who Beat New Zealand at home last time then Scotland are the new best team in the world and will become net export of the rugby player?

Yes, my team once beat your team who 4 years ago beat your team who once upon a time beat your team...so mine is the best.

Brilliant logic Laugh

by Shifty Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:24 pm

Another generation of under achieving kilted Kiwis maybe? Headscratch

Back to the policy of assuming that anyone with a Southern Hemisphere accent must be a better rugby players than a native. broken

by anotherworldofpain Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:56 pm

wales606 wrote:
anotherworldofpain wrote:Sure thing is that now Scotland beating Australia who beat South Africa who beat England who Beat France who Beat New Zealand at home last time then Scotland are the new best team in the world and will become net export of the rugby player?

Yes, my team once beat your team who 4 years ago beat your team who once upon a time beat your team...so mine is the best.

Brilliant logic

THankyou for a compliment Wales606 king

I learn logic like this from 606v2 censored

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:36 pm

AlynDavies wrote:Another generation of under achieving kilted Kiwis maybe?

Like Lineen, John Leslie, Martin Leslie and Glenn Metcalfe you mean??

The only failed "Kilted Kiwi" I can think of is Brendan Laney.

Most of our more rubbish players have been our very own sadly.

by Geordie Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:06 pm

Well it depends....

1) Its all very well saying their going to bring in lots of foreigners...(im sure they dont mean lots) but it will be tricky. Youngsters from abroad will still be looking to get in to their national team. Older players mean they havent been picked and so Scotland are still brining in not the best players.

2) We (England ) brought in loads of Journeymen in to the club teams at the expense of youngsters. However now we have reduced this and generally the only foreigners coming in are (generally) quality...with the youngsters getting plenty of gametime...with the knockon effect being an improved national team.

I think Scotland need to focus on getting the academies working...get the best coaches in...they shown they have talent...Hogg, Ritchie Gray, etc etc and if they are going to bring in foreigners ( i actually dont like that policy even England playing foreigners) make sure they are quality...like John Leslie, or young Denton.

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:11 pm

I agree with the point that we need to be very selective with who we target. Hopefully no-one is advocating journeymen. Sometimes you need to recruit NSQ players (e.g. Talei) to fill a squad gap. Also no issue with that. But I really hope we don't end up bringing in average players in the hope that in 3 years time they'll be Scottish.

Don't think Nel or Visser fall into that category.

by TJ1 Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:42 pm

All countries do this. I think its wrong. I would be more happy if the residence qualification was 7n years

some imports have been great servants of the Scottish game - Sean Lineen for example - others have been a waste of space and money - Brendon Laney anyone?

by blackcanelion Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:51 pm

I think its a sad day for world rugby. Let me get this right: Scotland has a plan to bring in non Scotland qualified players at a young enough age to play for Scottish regions to qualify for the national team on residency grounds. I can't imagine a decision that has a worse long term inpact on the international game.

by anotherworldofpain Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:01 am

Not to condensate about Scotland, but what kind of player you think would go live there with the plan to one day hope to qualify for the team who finish last in the 6N all the time?

Not much ambition from any other rugby country?

by Majestic83 Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:04 am

The last bunch of kilted kiwis we had ended up being part of the last real successful Scottish team and winning the last ever 5 nations.
I dunno if i would say Brendan Laney was a failure, he got a lot of stick for being picked straight of the plane from nz which wasn't his fault but he did a lot of good stuff in a Scotland shirt, was just a shame he was surrounded by some pretty poor players like Marcus Di Rollo.

by Hound_of_Harrow Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:21 am

I see this as a response to improving the two Scottish pro teams' chances of qualifying for the HC. Assuming the changes and qualification rules for the HC, as proposed by the French and English leagues see the light of day.

That's a different subject and has been debated.

by blackcanelion Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:46 am

A significant part of the problem for me is the precedent it sets. It says it is all right for a national team to actively recruit young foriegners (bearing in mind the current regs are pretty lax anyway) to develope their team. It breaks an unspoken barrier. It ultimately won't be just Scotland doing it, it will extend down to a younger and younger level. We already see this in rutgby league in Australia, with school age kids being brought over (e.g. Sonny Bill Williams, Benji Marshall), and an increasing pressure for these players to play for Australia. The pressure is already on as many proffessional sides have rules regarding nationally qualified players (e.g. NZ, Australia, SA, Ireland etc) or enticements from the national body to make players national (e.g. England).

Hopefully, it will get some action at IRB level and put in place better national qualifications (e.g. 10 year residenct rule)

by blackcanelion Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:51 am

Just thought of a solution to my quandry. Set up an under 16 national side as NZ's secondary side. Organise 5 internationals a year, cap as many players as possible (e.g. 100+).

by boomeranga Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:36 am

blackcanelion wrote:A significant part of the problem for me is the precedent it sets. It says it is all right for a national team to actively recruit young foriegners (bearing in mind the current regs are pretty lax anyway) to develope their team. It breaks an unspoken barrier. It ultimately won't be just Scotland doing it, it will extend down to a younger and younger level. We already see this in rutgby league in Australia, with school age kids being brought over (e.g. Sonny Bill Williams, Benji Marshall), and an increasing pressure for these players to play for Australia.

A little Wiki research shows the 2012 Anzac Test squad from NZ (19 players) included 7 Australian born players, five of which grew up here, and a couple which appear to have never lived in NZ (Hoffman and Beale). We had one NZ born player - James Tamou who came with his family at 13. It's not us doing the poaching in rugby league.

by **Biltong** Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:23 am

This is becoming a very worrying situation. Last night on Supersport they gave a list of South Africans who have played for England in the last decade, there were ten players.

That is a significant percentage of players being capped from another country. Since 2000 there has been 125 players capped of which 10 is South African, then when you consider the cricket situation as well it becomes rather alarming.

by mckay1402 Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:20 am

for me this just shows yet again how out of touch the SRU are. Instead of spending a bit of money developing talent in Scotland, of which I'm pretty sure there must be a fair bit they are looking elsewhere. It's almost like the SRU is run by people who hate Scottish rugby

by blackcanelion Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:36 am

boomeranga wrote:
blackcanelion wrote:A significant part of the problem for me is the precedent it sets. It says it is all right for a national team to actively recruit young foriegners (bearing in mind the current regs are pretty lax anyway) to develope their team. It breaks an unspoken barrier. It ultimately won't be just Scotland doing it, it will extend down to a younger and younger level. We already see this in rutgby league in Australia, with school age kids being brought over (e.g. Sonny Bill Williams, Benji Marshall), and an increasing pressure for these players to play for Australia.

A little Wiki research shows the 2012 Anzac Test squad from NZ (19 players) included 7 Australian born players, five of which grew up here, and a couple which appear to have never lived in NZ (Hoffman and Beale). We had one NZ born player - James Tamou who came with his family at 13. It's not us doing the poaching in rugby league.

You are right about the NZ league side. The Australian press were all over it at the time (although the journalism was pretty shoddy- about the same as the kiwi jounos claiming Tamou). It does very well out of the children of expat kiwis and kids who have grown up in Australia. I don't have a problem with Tamou. I'll add that we also have two recent kiwis who is an out and Australians and qualified through the Warriers (Nathen Fien and Brent Webb).

What I am talking about is the later. The reality is that scouts for Australian league clubs are found throughout NZ. These clubs take some school players offshore where they are put into feeder Schools/clubs (e.g. Sonny Bill), or offered trials to kiwi school age players in Australia on school trips (e.g. Marshall was in Australia for touch). A number of these players end up playing for Australian schools (e.g. Marshall) essentially on the basis of a sports scholorship (which also happens sometimes with PI rugby players on scholorships and the NZ schools side, although pretty much all end up playing for their national side at senior level). I don't believe that Fien or Webb should have played for the Kiwis and I do think the movement of players for sporting reasons should be disconnected from national selection.

Back to the original post. My feeling is rugby is largely driven by the international game. Most club/regional sides are to some degree subsidised by their unions with funds from the international game. The national game is by it's nature different from the club game. If you want to sustain it you have to ensure that nationality is important. I have no problem with Scotland seeking out potential scottish players (i.e. born there or with parentage but grown up somewhere else) and enticing them to play for Scotland (This is essentially what Samoa does). But the idea of systematically attracting foriegn players and seeking to convert them on the basis of residency seems to me to be wrong.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:33 am

In small measures (along similar lines to Ireland), I see this as a practical acknowledgement that our playing pool is simply too small. Our youth structures remain inadequate, so it is vital that they be properly reformed at the same time as this 'project player' initiative too. I guess that Scotland have simply been open about their intent here when there are plenty of other unions that simply do the same thing by stealth

Braveheart

by Cryptoyourisan Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:53 am

It's a terrible idea. Any South African who is good enough for the 'boks will generally be capped by the 'boks, assuming Meyer doesn't turn out to be as insane as PdV. Pat Lambie didn't choose to play for Scotland because A) despite his eligibility for Scotland, he's South African and B) he's good enough to play for the 'boks. Ergo, we're ending up with, at best, average South African players who may still be better than what we are producing in Scotland at the moment but how is that situation meant to improve when a large percentage of game time over three years is going to players who are not eligible to play for Scotland?

I actually think the residency rule is a better rule than being able to qualify through a grandparent who was born in Scotland and lived there for all of three days before their family moved out to the colonies. However, the SRU actively overlooking long-term youth development in favour of this hare-brained scheme seems nigh on suicidal, in my opinion. The argument about ensuring quality before we ship foreign players in doesn't follow for me as Brendan Laney seems to have been quite highly rated by Kiwis before he came across here.

by Manky-Flanker Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:35 am

biltongbek wrote:This is becoming a very worrying situation. Last night on Supersport they gave a list of South Africans who have played for England in the last decade, there were ten players.

That is a significant percentage of players being capped from another country. Since 2000 there has been 125 players capped of which 10 is South African, then when you consider the cricket situation as well it becomes rather alarming.

As a Scotsman, I would love Scotland to be in South Africa's position of losing players overseas.

Currently South Africa enjoys high participation rates in sports, this leads to greater competition and standards and ultimately more top flight rugby players being produced. The Boks take the cream of the crop and the rest have little opportunity to play international rugby other than go abroad, as you say 10 South Africans capped since 2000 for England.

Now consider the alternative. Imagine participation rates in South African sport were dismally low. Less young people play the sport, lower standards, less opportunities and less rugby players produced. The good players that are produced will more or less be guaranteed a Bok jersey, and there will be few if any looking to go overseas for a cap. I think you would find this state of affairs far more alarming.

Sadly Scotland is in the latter category, while South Africa enjoys the former. Don't be too worried about supersport stats Biltong. Enjoy the fact that rugby is strong in South Africa. Players playing abroad is a telltale sign of that thumbsup

by blackcanelion Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:56 am

10 South africans. That's a lot. Only 7 kiwis. We're just talking about England in the last 10 years right?

by **Biltong** Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:11 pm

Yes, blackcanelion.

by **Biltong** Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:16 pm

Manky-Flanker wrote:
biltongbek wrote:This is becoming a very worrying situation. Last night on Supersport they gave a list of South Africans who have played for England in the last decade, there were ten players.

That is a significant percentage of players being capped from another country. Since 2000 there has been 125 players capped of which 10 is South African, then when you consider the cricket situation as well it becomes rather alarming.

As a Scotsman, I would love Scotland to be in South Africa's position of losing players overseas.

Currently South Africa enjoys high participation rates in sports, this leads to greater competition and standards and ultimately more top flight rugby players being produced. The Boks take the cream of the crop and the rest have little opportunity to play international rugby other than go abroad, as you say 10 South Africans capped since 2000 for England.

Now consider the alternative. Imagine participation rates in South African sport were dismally low. Less young people play the sport, lower standards, less opportunities and less rugby players produced. The good players that are produced will more or less be guaranteed a Bok jersey, and there will be few if any looking to go overseas for a cap. I think you would find this state of affairs far more alarming.

Sadly Scotland is in the latter category, while South Africa enjoys the former. Don't be too worried about supersport stats Biltong. Enjoy the fact that rugby is strong in South Africa. Players playing abroad is a telltale sign of that

You are correct in me having to be thankful that rugby is trong here. It does still seem worrying however that so many South Africans represent other countries, it isn't only England, there is France, Italy, USA, Australia etc.

Soon Scotland will be looking to do it, you could argue that I should be proud of the fact that south Africans represent these nations, but my return question is are these countries' fans proud of that.

I would hate t if we had Aaron Cruden move to SA (If he never represented NZ of course) and three years later he wins a test match for us against NZ.

I fact that to me is not being proud at all, I feel if my country competes against another, I want to say my country is better not our pro system that can afford to buy players.

by fa0019 Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:03 pm

I myself wouldn't like it if we filled our side with foreign imports... not because I am xenophobic but because I don't think its the answer to long-term success on the rugby field.

The truth is, for many nations such as ourselves we have only been able to keep up with professionalism by taking advantage of players groomed in other nations.

This is mainly down to

a) the sport being relatively small in numbers in our country.
b) money in the game is low
c) they are coaching kids better in other countries.

By recruiting players like Botha, Visser, Strauss, Rathbone etc teams are ignoring the issues at home and they will in turn get worse.

The cost of foreign recruiting is probably quite high, and these guys loyalty will always be in question.. are they playing for us because they really want to or is it for other factors... i.e. family stability, money, rejection from home nations etc???

If a guy wants to come and play for us lets say Jim Hamiliton because his Da was in the army meaning he moved his family where the army told him to do then thats no problem.
If a guy like Mike Catt moved to us as a teenager by chance and then stayed and accustomed himself to the country then thats fine too.

I would say BB that SA are just as guilty as some nations however, its just they do their poaching before they become established players. Craven Week gets representatives from Namibia and Zimbabwe as well as the provinces of SA. The best players from U14 onwards get offered scholarships to the best schools in SA... these kids almost always pledge their first alligence to the boks. Some of the guys like Beast only joined a SA based setup post matric.

Their are a handful of players who grew up all around southern Africa which became boks in last 20 years, most without SA blood in them.

The difference between a team like ENG and a team like SA is that ENG doesn't do any recruiting of kids, generally they only take rejects... i.e. the harm placed on parent nation is minimised. SA, AUS & NZ do tend to pinch kids from poorer national sides via the above example which in part prevents them from becoming better as nations and developing the sport further in these countries.

I don't think any nation in world rugby is whiter than white. Probably the only team not to do this is Argentina... they never tend to import players and have lost a far number esp. to Italy; Castrogiovanni, Parisse, Dominguez etc.

by blackcanelion Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:54 pm

The difference between a team like ENG and a team like SA is that ENG doesn't do any recruiting of kids, generally they only take rejects... i.e. the harm placed on parent nation is minimised. SA, AUS & NZ do tend to pinch kids from poorer national sides via the above example which in part prevents them from becoming better as nations and developing the sport further in these countries.

I can say from an NZ perspective this tends to be greatly exagerated. For instance are 129 All Blacks in the last 10 years. I'm not sure that any of them came here on Rugby scholorships. There are a lot of PI's. Most are born here, and almost all of the rest came as young children. Sitivini Sivivatu could be considered to be pinched (although he came as a football player so doesn't meet your criteria). Foreign players who came here as adults in this time were Steve Devine (Australia), Greg Rawlinson (SA) and Saimone Taumoepeau (Tonga). I'm not sure anybody fits your category (The only ones that I can think of that might fit into that category are Schwalger, Anesi and Lauaki - and that's because I can't remember the exact age they were when they arrived).

I think a lot of people get confused because they don't realise that NZ has a relatively large PI poulation (i.e. there are more kiwi samoans than there are somoans in Western Samoa). They also get confused when they read about dual qualifications for many PI players, or read that NZ schools offer sports scholorships to children from the islands.

by **Biltong** Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:55 pm

I would say BB that SA are just as guilty as some nations however, its just they do their poaching before they become established players. Craven Week gets representatives from Namibia and Zimbabwe as well as the provinces of SA. The best players from U14 onwards get offered scholarships to the best schools in SA... these kids almost always pledge their first alligence to the boks. Some of the guys like Beast only joined a SA based setup post matric.

FA, the circumstances are totally different, big numbers of southern african boys come to SA for the benefit of elite schools which by the same token is rugby schools, these guys get opportunity to develop their talents here which is not possible in their own countries, they make livings here out of rugby and many move on from there, by enlarge the majority of tem make SA their home for a better life in a stronger economy.

The few that make it in SA at international level is minute in comparison to the benefit they get from it.

We don't go hunt for them, we provide them an opportunity.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:04 pm

blackcanelion wrote:The difference between a team like ENG and a team like SA is that ENG doesn't do any recruiting of kids, generally they only take rejects... i.e. the harm placed on parent nation is minimised. SA, AUS & NZ do tend to pinch kids from poorer national sides via the above example which in part prevents them from becoming better as nations and developing the sport further in these countries.

I can say from an NZ perspective this tends to be greatly exagerated. For instance are 129 All Blacks in the last 10 years. I'm not sure that any of them came here on Rugby scholorships. There are a lot of PI's. Most are born here, and almost all of the rest came as young children. Sitivini Sivivatu could be considered to be pinched (although he came as a football player so doesn't meet your criteria). Foreign players who came here as adults in this time were Steve Devine (Australia), Greg Rawlinson (SA) and Saimone Taumoepeau (Tonga). I'm not sure anybody fits your category (The only ones that I can think of that might fit into that category are Swalger, Anesi and Luaki - and that's because I can't rmember the exact age they were when they arrived).

I think a lot of people get confused because they don't realise that NZ has a relatively large PI poulation (i.e. there are more kiwi samoans than there are somoans in Western Samoa). They also get confused when they read about dual qualifications for many PI players, or read that NZ schools offer sports scholorships to children from the islands.

I heard recently, blackcanelion, that due to the mining boom in Australia, we can expect to see a great deal many more "Island" players turning out for Australia in the future?

by blackcanelion Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:14 pm

I think you can already see it in both league and union. Australia is the economic hub in the south pacific. We get a lot of migration from the islands as well and a lot of kiwis are moving across the Tasman at the moment. Good for the game I reckon.

by beshocked Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:23 pm

You'll probably see more young Scots moving to the Top 14 and AP.

If I was Scottish I would look to pump money into London Scottish and use it as a 3rd club for developing players in the AP.

by fa0019 Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:24 pm

I'm not saying the unions mentioned have an agenda to pinch young gifted players, schools I assume are independent of SARU but its undeniable that the process does indirectly pinch young talented players from other countries.

These guys weren't unpolished diamonds either... they were good enough to be scouted and get the 1 or 2 full scholarships per school on offer in a massive competition.. i.e. these guys will be the best of the best in their position/age grade in the country.

Beast for instance went to school in ZIM, played all his age grade rugby in ZIM and only came to SA as an adult... to join the Sharks academy. Should Beast be playing for SA???

The same goes for a young bulls player, Adongo. Kenyan, played for Kenyan age grade and was scouted playing for U19 or U21. Now pledging himself to SA, a bit of a unit, makes Spies look small, not sure if he'll make it but its possible.

These guys aren't rejects from their own country... they're have no blood ties, no heritage with their country and came to SA as adults. Should they be able to play for SA?

The only other examples of this I can think of is Rathbone & Vickerman in the professional era... and the first example mentioned certainly makes most bokke blood boil when mentioned.

by **Biltong** Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:35 pm

If they come here after school, and goes to an academy they shouldn't qualify for us for at least 7 years.

by **NeilyBroon** Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:46 pm

I agree with beshocked, London Scottish are an up-and-coming club, that said I feel there's a high risk of the premiership getting rid of relegation altogether in which case it'll be very difficult to build on the talent in London Scottish, but I do believe that we should be looking to use them as a cheap third club. So long as they don't turn out like London Pacific Islanders *cough* sorry I mean Irish.

by Sponsored content