Inoke Male says England are vultures..

England are vultures - Fiji coach

Www.planetrugby.com 26th October 2012 13:37


Fiji coach Inoke Male has slammed England, France, Australia and New Zealand for "poaching" youngsters from the Pacific Island nations.

Male comments come in the wake of England naming New Zealand-born Saracens prop Mako Vunipola, the son of former Tongan international Fe'ao Vunipola, in their squad for the November internationals where he will join Manu Tuilagi, whose elder brothers have played for Samoa.

"There are several players not available to us for this tour because they want to play for other countries," Male told the Times ahead of Fiji's clash with England at Twickenham on November 10.

"Young players now want to pursue options for other countries rather than coming on tour which is not a good sign.

"We have got a lot of problems caused by European countries, especially France and England, who have taken some of our players through their academies when they were young.

"England and France have got a lot of players to pick from already and, as a small country, for our players to be poached from us is not acceptable.

"There is one very talented player we wanted to select who went to an English academy and he is now 16-years-old and has opted to play for England.

"It is very obvious what is happening. If you go to the secondary school championships you will see scouts from Australia, New Zealand and England trying to find your players who want to go overseas. They are taking our young players like vultures.

"I will not tell you the specific players but I know of players who get invited to the UK when they are 14," added the Fiji coach.

"Now as 17-year-olds they are opting to play for England. That means everybody here who is young wants to play for England.

"As a good player that's what they choose and we respect that but it is mainly because of the money. That's what happened when boys are given the option. We need the IRB to stop this rule or change it."

Toby Faletau

Male couldn't have said it any better. England and France are ruining the international arena by turning it into a big club game! Come on IRB, sort this out.

And how are England and France doing that please Morgan...and Irelands "project player" and Wales picking players like Faletau and Cockbain etc is any different?

If youngsters are leaving the PI's to come here to college....thats their choice...and the rules of the IRB should make sure they cant play for England..or anyone else but those they qualify for.

I dont want an England team listing like a PI 15...Vunipola, Vunipola, Tuilagi, etc...

Interesting apparently Mako Vunipola and Toby Faletau played for the same
Club at the same time at New Panteg RFC. The Vunipolas have spent most of their lives in Wales, so if we are poaching them, it's from Wales. Or New Zealand where they were born

There's an article in the Independent that accuses French clubs of offering financial incentives to PI players not to go to the World Cup.

If true it's a disgrace. A person should never be dissuaded from representing their country, especially on the biggest stage of all.

Male has a point but he should raise it with the IRB, and anyway Faletau and Manu have lived and played most of their rugby in Britain so I don't have a problem with them choosing to play for Wales & England.

I was trying to resist but, but..... If Wales only chose players born in Wales their current team would look very different

Major problem and the IRB should set its stall out now. It's either;

i. let anyone play for anyone they damn well please (the free market option, if you will).

or

ii. you can only play for the country of your, or your father's, birth. (these residency & grandparents' rules are a nonsense).

Problem solved.

disneychilly wrote:There's an article in the Independent that accuses French clubs of offering financial incentives to PI players not to go to the World Cup.

If true it's a disgrace. A person should never be dissuaded from representing their country, especially on the biggest stage of all.

Same with Qera the Gloucester flanker, he is 26 but Gloucester had convinced him to play for them this autumn and not for Fiji, they are reluctantly releasing him because they have too.

This is completely wrong on so many levels.

They said: "We received a request on Monday morning from the Fijian management requesting Akapusi's services as they have been hit by withdrawals in their build up," he said.

"Under the current IRB regulations in these circumstances, we can't actually prevent a player's release and we'll obviously miss him because he's been in great form for us.

"However, we are of the understanding that this is just for the one match. So, we look forward to him returning to the club very shortly and wish him well in the meantime."

Though when you consider that assorted Pacific Islander teams have "lost" potential players like Faletau, both Vunipolas, Manu Tuilagi, the New Zealander of PI heritage etc you can see why they are frustrated ay the situation. But te overall lifestyle offered by these big Western Countries can't be competed with and what do they do? Turn away eligible immigrants because they are too good at rugby? Make them feel isolated once they are there so their kids don't want to play for their new country? Actively poaching is bad but in the examples
I've seen this hasn't been what has happened

It's important to make a distinction between club scouts and international scouts. Clubs are perfectly entitled to scout young overseas players. If they end up choosing to play for England after 3 then that suits the England management, but it's not a conspiracy on the part of the national setup to poach teenagers.

lostinwales wrote:I was trying to resist but, but..... If Wales only chose players born in Wales their current team would look very different

Hmm.! This thread is about wealthy nations poaching from the poor ones. Not whether you have an english and a welsh or irish parent and you can chose one of two wealthy home nations...!

Casartelli wrote:Major problem and the IRB should set its stall out now. It's either;

i. let anyone play for anyone they damn well please (the free market option, if you will).

or

ii. you can only play for the country of your, or your father's, birth. (these residency & grandparents' rules are a nonsense).

Problem solved.

The only issue with that is for instance, Faletau came to Wales aged 7 with his family. So he has lived virtually all his life here, all his family and friends are here. This is all he knows. He grew up wanting to play for Wales. But under your scheme he would only be allowed to play for Samoa, which despite being a big part of his heritage, is somewhere he has never really lived.

There does need to be a residence option but I just think the 3 years is just not enough. But if its true that England are poaching them when they are 14 then they will get around any rules very easily. Even if you made it 7 years they would still be eligible by 21.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Though when you consider that assorted Pacific Islander teams have "lost" potential players like Faletau, both Vunipolas, Manu Tuilagi, the New Zealander of PI heritage etc you can see why they are frustrated ay the situation.

Don't think this is his point though as surely he wouldn't have considered any of these players to be poached, especially Faletau or the Vunipola's (who were born in New Zealand anyway). As someone has already pointed out it will be the clubs if anyone who are 'poaching' and nothing to do with the international set up. After that it comes down to how exactly would he want the qualification process changed to avoid players choosing to represent a country they may very well have moved to at a young age.

I don't think Faletau would want to play for Samoa seeing as his from Tonga.

Ireland are vultures too. "If everyone else is doing it then why shouldn't we" is the main excuse. It turns my stomach to hear that.

This is actually quite comparable to young Irish footballers serving apprenticeships with top division English clubs. The likes of Frank Stapleton, Paul McGrath, Liam Brady and Denis Irwin were all recruited to play for English clubs as 15/16 year olds. They were given the opportunity to play at the highest level and earn a good living. It just happens that geographically it was very easy for them to go home to represent their country internationally.
I have no doubt that if Ireland was situated in the south Pacific and these players had been recruited to play for English clubs they would for sheer logistical reasons have declared for England. It’s a small world, but it aint that small.

maestegmafia wrote:

disneychilly wrote:There's an article in the Independent that accuses French clubs of offering financial incentives to PI players not to go to the World Cup.

If true it's a disgrace. A person should never be dissuaded from representing their country, especially on the biggest stage of all.

Same with Qera the Gloucester flanker, he is 26 but Gloucester had convinced him to play for them this autumn and not for Fiji, they are reluctantly releasing him because they have too.

This is completely wrong on so many levels.

They said: "We received a request on Monday morning from the Fijian management requesting Akapusi's services as they have been hit by withdrawals in their build up," he said.

"Under the current IRB regulations in these circumstances, we can't actually prevent a player's release and we'll obviously miss him because he's been in great form for us.

"However, we are of the understanding that this is just for the one match. So, we look forward to him returning to the club very shortly and wish him well in the meantime."

Both spot on. The only incentive for these guys to go to England and France is cash. They can earn a good living and get it topped up by playing for the national teams. The criteria on residency needs to be changed by the IRB to stop these vultures who are purposely scouting for the talent they can not produce. I do feel for these nations, but in fairness to New Zealand they offer scholarships to youngsters from their neighbouring pacific islands, develop them into professionals and then they return home to play for their country. The incentive in NZ and Aus is strictly rugby at the highest levels.

In principle I'm against the quick 3 year residency (or even the more creative idea of young boys sponsored or supported to come over to 'study') getting you a ticket onto a national team - giving you a good career jump and preventing a player who has grown up all his life in said nation, that you've just joined on a purely professional and personal career basis, from playing for that team.

BUT.............. who is going to stop doing it first? If England (and I'm just using them as an example) force you to meet South Africans and Oceanic players when you play against them, and if you suffer accordingly - then you're going to try to rebalance the competitiveness by finding your own.

So where is the momentum going to come from to nip this creeping 'club globalisation' of 'national' rugby union in the bud? If indeed we actually want to stop it (and I'm sure there are enough people that actually don't want it stopped out there!) then we're all going to have to be forced to stop it from on-high, because otherwise nobody is going to stop it voluntarily and the urge is just going to increase.

The idea of International rugby becoming just an excuse for yet another 'Club' event ...well, in truth, I'd just prefer International rugby to end rather than perpetuate a silly lie.

Sub, a good point, though distance is not the only part of the equation. The difference in earnings between playing rugby for England for a few hundred grand sterling a year and playing for free for Fiji is massive. Too massive.

Why are England the only bad guys here?

Everyone is doing it.

"There is one very talented player we wanted to select who went to an English academy and he is now 16-years-old and has opted to play for England."

A little surprising that Male was looking to select a 16 year old player for this tour. He doesn't want to name names, but I'd struggle to think of any of England's U16 or U17 squads who would be anywhere near senior international rugby level, whether they have Fijian genes or not.

The other side of the coin is Josh Matavesi, a Cornishman born and bred with a Fijian father, who is in Fiji's touring squad.

England certainly have a history of poaching Fijians for the 7's squad, but the likes of Drauniniu and Damu moved to UK for their careers in the armed forces. I can't recall England recruiting Fijians for the senior squad or age groups (I'm open to coreection on that). Tuilagi and Vunipola (and Faletau) are effectively 2nd generation immigrants, having moved with their families, while Matavesi actually is 2nd generation.

I'd be surprised if there are English scouts actively recruiting 14 year olds from the islands - they would be big and risky investments - but not surprised if they are already here with their families.

HERSH wrote:Why are England the only bad guys here?

Everyone is doing it.

My post expressly implies that plenty other sides are doing it.... including my own IRELAND - another 'nation' joining the Bad boy's 'club' Everyone is doing it or will eventually be forced to do it - but I don't like it and I think globally tighter rules should be introduced to force everyone to end it in unison - thus ending any considered advantages in unison.

The problem is the IRB are doing absolutely didly about it...and a distinct lack of movement would suggest ARENT going to do anything about it.

I'm no fan of the 3 year rule but I think there is a flip side to this whole argument. I haven't got any stats to back this up but what would you say the ratio was of number of Fijian/Tongan/Samoan players playing in the European or Sanzar leagues was compared to the number of players that actually go on to represent those countries? If it wasn't at least 10 to 1 I'd be amazed. So for every 10 players furthering their experience and earning a living playing in professional leagues they lose 1 to that country? Admittedly those numbers have been pulled out of the air but the point is that surely the benefit to these countries of having their players play across the world is more than what they lose when a few players chose to play for another country?

But Toadfish, that's addressing the pros and cons for the 'poor' nations.

My problem would be with the pros or cons for the vultures and why a blind eye is being turned to 'vulturism', and how inceasingly the presence of 'vulturism' in some nations will pressure more nations, perhaps unwilling nations, into following the trend in order to sustain competitiveness. And the whole thing becomes self-perpetuating with nobody willing or able to apply brakes without losing ground on competitiveness.

I have no problem with people coming across to earn a living...if a fijian/ SA/Kiwi/Aussie/ Papua New Guinean etc etc is a top rugby player then he should earn some money from it.

What i dont want is that person simply then selected for that countries national team.

I also HATE the fact that people can represent Rugby League for NZ....yet play for England in Union because of residency whilst playing LEague!!!

Flutey - Played for the Maoris...three years residency then played for England ...HOW?? WHy??
Henry Paul / Vainikolo - NZ Rugby League to England RU....NO NO NO!!

Cross code swapping allegiences should be stopped NOW...(even Brad Thorn did it)

A sensible set of governing rules need to be brought in to govern it something like an 8 year eligibilty rule.

I wonder if even people like the Armitages would have been eligable as they were brought up in Trinidad, lived for years in France THEN came to England.

Sadly i still think Botha would have been eligable as hes been here years!

SecretFly wrote:But Toadfish, that's addressing the pros and cons for the 'poor' nations.

My problem would be with the pros or cons for the vultures and why a blind eye is being turned to 'vulturism', and how inceasingly the presence of 'vulturism' in some nations will pressure more nations, perhaps unwilling nations, into following the trend in order to sustain competitiveness. And the whole thing becomes self-perpetuating with nobody willing or able to apply brakes without losing ground on competitiveness.

But my response was to the OP article in which the guy is complaining about losing players? I'd say the flip side to that is that for every one he loses he's probably going to get many times that number coming back better prepared for international rugby.

It terms of your point on 'vulturism' I'm yet to see evidence of a national team incentivising a youth age player to come and play in another country. As mentioned above however I'm sure it happens a lot at club level though and I can't see anything wrong with it if it offers the player a brighter future. What happens then when the player decides he wants to play for that country is where it gets a bit shady but I think a longer residency period coupled with an acceptance that it's the players damn choice who the hell he wants to represent should put the argument to bed for me.

If you don't know what nationality you are by the time your 15 then you have an identity crisis - Simples - the rest is just mercenary and is making a mockery of our sport and our nations and national pride

See the below article in todays telegraph about Botha. Now I know he is a different kettle of fish to what this discussion is about but read that and tell me you don't think he's earned the right to represent the country he's chosen.

Now I woudn't pick him as I don't think he's good enough but I think what is often forgotten in a lot of these debates is what the player wants. By all means increase the residency rule. Make it 7 years or 10 years if you want but as long as no rules are being broken I think you have to respect a players choice.

In todays Telegraph:

"For this blond bear of a second-row forward, transplanted from his native South Africa at 22, will erase all suspicions about the strength of his national allegiance the second he dons the red rose at Twickenham on Saturday.

“When I watched the Olympic Opening Ceremony, I felt such pride,” he explains. “This country has been great to me.

"The moment when Mo Farah won his second gold and brought the country together was just extraordinary. It’s what we strive for as the England team. When you have the feeling of the nation behind you, it’s a massive driving force.”

These are no idle protestations of loyalty. For Botha’s journey to a 10th England cap against Fiji this weekend has been nothing if not circuitous.

From being told by Cape Town Stormers that he was too small for a lock, to travelling to games for Bedford Athletic in a tiny minibus while holding down a job as a carpet-cleaner, the 30 year-old intuits the essence of graft.

He comfortably qualifies for an England shirt under the three-year residency rule, and now that he has exhibited the talent to wear one, he is desperate not to relinquish it.

“It wasn’t until I was in my third season at Bedford that I began developing a desire to play for England,” Botha says.

“You develop a passion and pride for your country over time, and I’m definitely there now.

"Every so often you need to take yourself out of your shoes and look at it from an outsider’s perspective. There are so many out there who dream of being in your place, so I truly appreciate this honour.”

Botha’s sincerity is borne of an acute sense of perspective.

In 2004, his career was in peril, and he wrote to a plethora of lower-division English clubs imploring them for a break. Only Bedford Athletic, the tiny neighbours of Championship-level Bedford Blues, responded to his plea.

“I had spoken a few people in South Africa and they essentially told me that I didn’t have a chance, because I was too light,” he recalls.

“It was clear that I had to make a change to be successful. So I thought I would try my luck in England and start again. Thankfully, Bedford wanted me. They even paid for my flight.”

No living wage could be earned, though, from a club then labouring in National League Three North.

Botha’s only recourse was to work as a local carpet-washer on the 6am-3pm shift; a vocation so punishing that it could compromise his rugby training.

“It was not very nice,” he acknowledges. “The job was cleaning industrial carpets, and when they came out of the dryer I then had to fold them all. They were pretty heavy, to say the least.

“It was tough at times. The week after I came to England, the clocks went back and I had to go into an office when it was pitch-dark, and then leaving when it was almost dark again.

"It’s a difficult as a youngster, coming halfway across the world and experiencing that.

"We had a lot of long road trips, too, for Bedford Athletic — to Kendal and Tynedale, in a small minibus. But I had a desire to be successful. Ultimately, it was definitely worth it.”

Life scarcely grew any easier when Botha switched professions, taking up a stint stripping asbestos from houses in the Bedford area.

“I had to do it at the time,” he shrugs. “There weren’t many options. I met my wife back then. I wanted to be a successful boyfriend — and husband, eventually. I needed to provide.”

Was his self-belief tested at any stage?

“Definitely. There were times when I worried that it would never come.”

The turning point came in 2009, when an agent posted on his Facebook page that Saracens had a vacancy in their second row.

The story holds that after his interview Morné du Plessis, the former Springbok coach, was asked by head coach Brendan Venter what he thought, and replied that he could see how fiercely Botha wanted it. “They saw that I had a great desire — I’ve been told that’s what made their minds up.”

As Botha was driving away from Vicarage Road, chief executive Edward Griffiths called him to say that they would offer him a contract, and when he pulled up beside the gates he erupted into a celebration best described as exuberant.

“I had the steering wheel and I was shaking it, I was rocking the car,” he remembers. “It was pure emotion.”

There was to be no haggling over the finer points of his deal, either. “I didn’t really care what money they were offering me, it was just brilliant to be given the chance.”

For all Botha’s recent triumphs, not least his three garlanded seasons with Saracens, his omission from England’s World Cup squad last autumn wounded him.

After an impressive spell for the Saxons, culminating in his full international debut, he believed he had done enough to go to New Zealand.

“It definitely affected me,” he admits. “When you set your heart on something and it doesn’t happen, sometimes it breaks you a little bit. It requires a moment of realisation. I didn’t realise until after the first game of the season that I had lost motivation. One bad performance was all it took to convince me I had to pull myself together.”

This he most emphatically has. Plus, in his former Saxons mentor Stuart Lancaster, he has a coach who values his abrasive qualities.

“It’s great to play for a coach who sees what you do for England. He’ll put his arm around you and tell you so. Playing for this side is an absolute dream.”

You can tell it is no platitude, given the journey he has travelled, when Botha concludes: “I feel so privileged. This is something I will cherish forever.”

That's all very nice but he's still South African evidenced by his abrasive qualities - if you want to buy the blarney then go for it -

Ruby...hes far more qualified than Cockbain, Luscumbe etc was...people in glass houses etc...

Geordie, you are assuming that I condone the Cockbain, Howarth and Sinkinson scenarios. I would have the Wales results expunged if it was up to me - This is exactly the sort of thing I cannot abide - I remain firm in my position here no matter what country is involved. It just makes a mockery and remains the thin end of the wedge. Do you guys really get pleasure out of watching Kevin Pietersen play for England?? Maybe its me but the very reason we have such great heated debate on here is because we have different nationalties arguing and debating. If we just continue to dilute this then I really don't see the point - Wales winning with 5 or 6 foreign players would do nothing for me. Additionally, what message are we giving to those lads born in that country who dream and work hard to play for Wales or England only to see someone like Flutey roll up and waltz into the party. Wayyyaye Man

+1 for Ruby

Aaron Jarvis looks likely to start for Wales against Argentina - He is a Englishman through and through and only qualifies via a Welsh GRANDMOTHER. So for all those one eyed welshman out there what do you make of that?

That's a completely separate issue mate

Maestegmafia I don't think you can point the finger when there is yet another English born player in the Welsh squad - Aaron Jarvis

This goes with North,Lydiate,Cuthbert,A.Shingler,J.Davies and Charteris. Warburton is half English but born in Wales.

Wales tried to get Morgan too but he chose England.

Every single side is guilty of picking players that aren't strictly their own nationality.

Italy with Gower and Burton for example.

Scotland with Visser and Maitland.

South Africa with the beast etc.

Ireland are bringing in the likes of Strauss etc.

wrfc1980 wrote:Aaron Jarvis looks likely to start for Wales against Argentina - He is a Englishman through and through and only qualifies via a Welsh GRANDMOTHER. So for all those one eyed welshman out there what do you make of that?

Not a lot - not quite sure what you're getting at We are saying residency is a shambolic system - He's got a welsh grand mother and has chosen the Grand Slam champions instead of England - Grandparenting rule is a bit dodgy in my mind, maybe we should jack that one in.

Don't be making fun of our tighthead ETC! He's a bloody good player and his grandmother actually WAS Irish, so there!

I love it...Ruby...

So when it benefits Wales its perfectly fine, but when England or any other nation do it...its absolutely shambolic..etc etc...good stuff.....

Geordie, you need to open the other eye, you're missing the point - The argument is about residency rules watering down the game - I don't give a monkeys what they do with the grandparenting rule, maybe just stick with the parents. The lad unfortunately has a welsh grandmother, I'm happy to debate that one if you want but you're putting 2 and 2 together and getting 9

It is interesting how some players end up playing for other Test sides. The Tuilagi brothers many of whom were born in NZ clearly wanted to play for Samoa but due to both the slimmed down nature of Union franchises which then necessitates only those who wish to play for NZ getting professional contracts, meant that their only option was France, England or Japan.
So having been offered a club professional contract, which their own Unions have not had any involvement with, will surely create a loyalty towards that club. The the younger brothers or sons get steered inevitably in the same direction.

The clubs aren't perfect but the underlying reasons never get publicised or understood. This obviously suits those Unions that have centralised in order to keep control of their identified elite players, meanwhile their domestic leagues still produce an excess supply of players looking for professional contracts in the relatively newly created top tier.

I think residency rule should be 7 years, but, here's my personal thought on it, if a parent is from that country then the residency will be 3 years.

I'm thinking of my own situation here. My 2 boys, both born here, one wants to play for England, the other for the Wallabies. They're in their early 20's now, and if the older boy does go back home, my home, and is good enough to play then I wouldn't like him to wait for 5 to 7 years.

Or have I got it wrong and the rule is if a parent is from that country then no residency is required?

Am assuming a hypothetical theory that they are both good enough to play internationals of course, which they are not at the mo.

Parents or parent? No residency rule applies I think. In other words; don't worry about it if you ever find you're lucky enough to worry about it!

Would be my dream to see them both line up against each other. They don't at the mo as at different unis in different leagues.

For Oz will be parent as their mum's English, and they were both born here.

The worst thing is the players wanting to play for a different country. Its fair enough the likes of Strauss wanting to play for Ireland beause he'd find it more difficult to get into the SA team. I just could never play for a country that wasn't Ireland no matter how much I was being offered.

Cotupina187 wrote: I just could never play for a country that wasn't Ireland no matter how much I was being offered.

I agree with you Cotupina197, I did find it a bit disturbing reading Botha's bit at the top, where he seems to gush over England. Nothing wrong with England at all, but then to change tack as an adult and start calling it 'my country' or 'our country'.

I have always said I have no problems with people playing for another country, usually for experience or financial gain, but I don;t think the player should ever lose sight of his own birth country. Pride in doing a professional job, play your best for your adopted country, but it does disturb me when they start calling it their country. Well disturb maybe too strong a word, I just find it weird how anyone could change nationality fully, and erase all memories of their own country from their lives.

RubyGuby wrote:Geordie, you need to open the other eye, you're missing the point - The argument is about residency rules watering down the game - I don't give a monkeys what they do with the grandparenting rule, maybe just stick with the parents. The lad unfortunately has a welsh grandmother, I'm happy to debate that one if you want but you're putting 2 and 2 together and getting 9

Mate i have both eyes open.

Ive said on the 100's of other threads exactly like this one.

1) Country of Birth
2) Parents country of Birth
3) Grandparents Rule SCRAPPED
4) No cross code allegience changing..ie Henry Paul, Vainikolo, Brad Thorn etc etc...
5) 7+ Residency Rule
6) If you have elected to represent an U21 for a country...you play seniors for that country...

Make sure there is a clear guideline for what age a child is and when they would need to go through the residency line.

These rules would clear a lot of the issues up.

Every country does it...but it needs to stop....!