Inoke Male says England are vultures..

by maestegmafia Tue 06 Nov 2012, 10:00 am

First topic message reminder :

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."

by Dubbelyew L Overate Tue 06 Nov 2012, 9:31 pm

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

BS
You've got the wrong end of the stick. This thread is exploiting poorer nations. Not players born in one playing for another.

The Fijian coach has not accused any nations other than England, France, Australia and New Zealand of poaching young Fijian players.

The quote is "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."

So he's accused the whole of Europe.

by maestegmafia Tue 06 Nov 2012, 9:39 pm

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
beshocked wrote:Maestegmafia I don't think you can point the finger when there is yet another English born player in the Welsh squad - Aaron Jarvis

BS
You've got the wrong end of the stick. This thread is exploiting poorer nations. Not players born in one playing for another.

The Fijian coach has not accused any nations other than England, France, Australia and New Zealand of poaching young Fijian players.

The quote is "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."

So he's accused the whole of Europe.

Yes, though I can not find any Fijian youths in the welsh regional teams. Even our own tongan tyro Toby Faletau went to Finton College in Bristol, with his cousins the Vunipolus

by HammerofThunor Tue 06 Nov 2012, 9:42 pm

I say stop schools giving scholarships to anyone not from that country. Or if it is allowed we need to relax racial discrimination laws so we can make sure they're not welcome. Then maybe they'll not want to represent these countries, and instead wish to represent the proud military dictatorship they happened to be born into. We also need to do something about people gaining citizenship after 5 years. Can't be having that. They may choose to move here rather than it being an accident of birth like myself. They contribute just as much to the country as true-blooded fellas like myself but they don't REALLY belong, do they?

If you want to 'help' poor countries you can either force a player to represent the poorest country they qualify for. Or you can allow players to represent one of these countries as well as their first choice. Much like New Zealand, Australia and England were all for and got voted down.

BTW I'm all for 5 years residency or tying it to citizenship (although there is the problem that there may be significant differences between countries). But I would protest all day long against a system disallowed residency but allowed for an accident of birth or where your parents happened to be born. Where you're born means bugger all.

by hugehandoff Tue 06 Nov 2012, 9:45 pm

the point is scouts from rich countries watching their youngsters play and then enticing them abroad with filthy cash. it may be unfair but the kids and their families are free to make their own choices. If the IRB ever wanted a level playing field then they could give more cash to the P.I. countries to enable them to keep their players on some sort of central contract.

by maestegmafia Tue 06 Nov 2012, 9:45 pm

HT

You pulling out the anyone who mentions mercenary rugby players is a racist card??

You should just save your typing skills and type "you are all racists"...!

Or you could take the basis of this thread at its obvious theme which is about protecting the identity of the poorest nations who also produce a huge amount of the most talented players.

by Dubbelyew L Overate Tue 06 Nov 2012, 9:56 pm

hugehandoff wrote:the point is scouts from rich countries watching their youngsters play and then enticing them abroad with filthy cash. it may be unfair but the kids and their families are free to make their own choices. If the IRB ever wanted a level playing field then they could give more cash to the P.I. countries to enable them to keep their players on some sort of central contract.

That's Male's point, but I struggle to see any evidence in the English game and I struggle to see what incentive English clubs have to invest in untried Fijian youth to the extent of displacing them (and their families) from their homes, and financing them for a few years in the hope that they will become first team players. It just doesn't make sense.

by HammerofThunor Tue 06 Nov 2012, 10:24 pm

We're talking about kids being put on scholarships aren't we? Not rugby mercenaries. And where did I call anyone a racist? I said we should be more racist (which is making the assumption most aren't now) so that anyone that comes here at a young age doesn't want to represent us. The point about citizenship was simply that. How can someone be a citizen somewhere but not be allowed to represent them because they aren't 'English' (for example) enough?

No I'm saying that if you provide education for people from a poorer country or job opportunities for their parents then people will be growing up here. If they like it and feel part of the country they will develop ties. They then will probably choose to represent that country. That's if we're doing immigration right. If none of them wanted to represent us I would serious start to worry about how they're being treated.

If you don't want them to represent their new country then you have a few options
1) Don't make them feel welcomed or included (obviously tongue in check)
2) Don't bring them over in the first place, which means denying scholarships to kids, or not allowing their parents in the countries for employment (Armed Forces is an issue, especially for Fijians)
3) Get rid of residency qualification completely (which I think is more valid than place of birth or parents). Most important one is 'culture' which is completely un-measurable, so the next best is where you live or were brought up.

It's been done to death. Nothing new is happening. Most seem to think the residency should be increased to 5. I'd want a revision of the grandparent qualification at least (removed or changed to two from same place). The guys that came over with professionalism brought their kids with them. This is going to happen more and within the next few years a lot will have been born here. Henry Tuilagi has got his kids in the Leicester academy, I think. People move for lots of reasons.

On a side issue, the only guy I have any issue with in recent times is Waldrum. And that's down to the grandparent rule rather than residency.

Hape was here for around 6 or 7 years before playing for England (he just didn't seem good enough)

Vainikolo was the same (although he was brought in too early I think he would have been good enough if he had another season and stayed injury free)

Flutely was bang on residency but he came here for a new start after his life was going down the toilet in New Zealand. He almost ended up in prison during a tour to Argentina. He turned his life around and chose to represent the country that gave him that chance.

Botha is another I don't think is good enough but he came here and played for Bedford Athletic for 4 years for christ's sake. I think he was here for around 7 years before getting a cap.

I don't have an issue with the eligibility of any of these players (although I do for selection of some).

by yappysnap Tue 06 Nov 2012, 10:29 pm

Why is moving somewhere at a young age for future money and a good life a bad thing? It's only a sport which at the end of the day means little in the grand scheme of things. If clubs want to throw money at youngsters and those youngsters want to take that money then fair enough.

There is a life after rugby and by moving abroad and getting decent wages these players are supporting themselves, their families and in some cases distant relatives back home. Isn't playing for your country of birth a pretty low priority compared to that?

by maestegmafia Tue 06 Nov 2012, 11:02 pm

yappysnap wrote:Why is moving somewhere at a young age for future money and a good life a bad thing? It's only a sport which at the end of the day means little in the grand scheme of things. If clubs want to throw money at youngsters and those youngsters want to take that money then fair enough.

Why, because it makes a mockery of the international game having players who are resolutely from one nation being bought to play for another. Because it makes the wealthier stronger the poor weaker. Because it massively stops a world game. It is a bad image for the sport as a whole...

Why is it good for rugby to buy in youth from poor countries repressing their home nations further, decreasing the world game and making the wealthiest countries richer still?

by broadlandboy Tue 06 Nov 2012, 11:28 pm

Ireland seem the most guilty with the project players they have in their regional teams.The English clubs may be getting young players over but I believe most are here already with family & I can't recall the RFU paying for Young players to come to this country,rather players here wanting to play for England

by HammerofThunor Tue 06 Nov 2012, 11:38 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
yappysnap wrote:Why is moving somewhere at a young age for future money and a good life a bad thing? It's only a sport which at the end of the day means little in the grand scheme of things. If clubs want to throw money at youngsters and those youngsters want to take that money then fair enough.

Why, because it makes a mockery of the international game having players who are resolutely from one nation being bought to play for another. Because it makes the wealthier stronger the poor weaker. Because it massively stops a world game. It is a bad image for the sport as a whole...

Why is it good for rugby to buy in youth from poor countries repressing their home nations further, decreasing the world game and making the wealthiest countries richer still?

Who's been 'bought' by a union? Nobody in England. The last one was Andy Farrell and that was a disaster. The clubs are the ones that are bringing people into the academies. And I hear there is a massive issue with clubs v country in England so it's unlikely they're working together. Especially since the clubs are massively better off if their players never play for England.

by Guest Wed 07 Nov 2012, 1:49 am

I'd be interested to know whether the SH players that migrate to England (for example) to play professional club rugby and then stumble into the national team intend to live there for the rest of their days?

Or do they jump on the next flight home to their respective SH countries when their playing days are over?

It's the ones that return 'home' after pretending they're British that would wind me up. Those that stay on, I'd wish them all the very best.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 07 Nov 2012, 7:53 am

Has anyone actually worked out who these players are that have been poached, and by whom?

I cannot think of anyone.

I am concerned by the idea that people should not be allowed to seek a better life for themselves and their family though just because the children may be good at sport. If someone is raised in UK and has UK citizenship, why should they then be precluded from representing their country. Do we have posters who side with Brett Sharman and view Mo Farrah as not British?

by **LondonTiger** Wed 07 Nov 2012, 7:55 am

ebop wrote:I'd be interested to know whether the SH players that migrate to England (for example) to play professional club rugby and then stumble into the national team intend to live there for the rest of their days?

Or do they jump on the next flight home to their respective SH countries when their playing days are over?

It's the ones that return 'home' after pretending they're British that would wind me up. Those that stay on, I'd wish them all the very best.

Mike Catt is an example of someone who seems to have made his life in England - and of course he had English parents.

Thomas Waldrom (love him as I do) is probably the opposite. He will head back to NZ. (Mind you things are not as bad as the Republic of Ireland soccer team in the 90s - where if you had drunk a pint of guinness you qualified)

by Geordie Wed 07 Nov 2012, 8:53 am

Hape was here for around 6 or 7 years before playing for England (he just didn't seem good enough)

Vainikolo was the same (although he was brought in too early I think he would have been good enough if he had another season and stayed injury free)

But Hammer your forgetting that whilst based here playing for Bradford and Wigan etc...they gained numerous caps for NZ rugby League team!

Why on earth should they be allowed to switch codes and play Rugby Union for England for gods sake....!!!

Same as Thorn who flitted between Oz League team and the All balcks in Union....its a joke!

by OzT Wed 07 Nov 2012, 9:12 am

I can see the case for Brad Thorn. When he was playing league he wanted to play for the best country of that code, which was Oz.At that time the kiwis didn't really have a league system. When he retired from league and wanted to play union, he chose the best country for union, which is NZ. So much as I disliked him when he was playing for the ABs and winning against us, I remembered the time I cheered him when he was playing for the roos.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 07 Nov 2012, 9:33 am

You make him sound like a selfish glory hunter OzT

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Wed 07 Nov 2012, 9:49 am

In Thorn's case, he really wanted to play for Queensland in State of Origin, which is the pinnacle of RL (sadly the international game is largely an afterthought) as he'd grown up in Queensland. But you have to make yourself available for Aus RL to play for Queensland - he'd have preferred to play RL for Queensland and NZ. His other childhood dream was to be an All Black.

by OzT Wed 07 Nov 2012, 9:49 am

No not at all, a real pro was what I was trying to put across. Even playing for Oz he never tried to be aussie, he was always and still is a kiwi. But he just wanted to play his game at the top of whichever code it was, and unlike others never once tried to slag off his home country when playing for another, nor did he tried to make out he is now a <whatever country> person.

First example site someone like Rathbone, for the 2nd someone like Botha

Stick to my view though you should be able to play for who you want, just not keen on someone then disowing his own national then.

by maestegmafia Wed 07 Nov 2012, 9:54 am

League converts like Thorn, Vainakolo, Hape etc really are not what this thread was about.

by lostinwales Wed 07 Nov 2012, 9:55 am

The big problem with a lot of these debates, especially when they slip into the English vs Welsh crap, is that in general both sides have very different ideas about nationalism, and are also convinced that the opposing view is wrong

by maestegmafia Wed 07 Nov 2012, 10:03 am

It's not about nationalism either, it's about whether exploiting poorer nations for wealthy ones is bad...?

by **Biltong** Wed 07 Nov 2012, 10:07 am

maestegmafia wrote:It's not about nationalism either, it's about whether exploiting poorer nations for wealthy ones is bad...?

Is exploitation ever a good thing?

by **Biltong** Wed 07 Nov 2012, 10:13 am

In neoclassical economics, exploitation is organizational, explained using microeconomic theory. It is a kind of market failure, a deviation from the abstraction of perfect competition. The most common scenario is a monopsony or a monopoly. These exploiters have bargaining power. This kind of exploitation is supposed to be abolished by the spread of competition and markets.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 07 Nov 2012, 10:17 am

maestegmafia wrote:It's not about nationalism either, it's about whether exploiting poorer nations for wealthy ones is bad...?

Yes it is bad - but is it actually happening? I cannot speak for Aus/NZ/France (the main co-accused) but I am not aware of this sudden influx of teenagers from poor countires into the English academy scene. As far as I can see it is currently an uncorroborated accusation.

by Geordie Wed 07 Nov 2012, 10:39 am

But Maesteg it's all interlinked...so it will all come out when this topic is discussed.

PS with regards to the actual OP I don't believe it is happening....though sadly most teams have their own version of Project players...like it or not. Changing the laws would stop this to a degree...

by maestegmafia Wed 07 Nov 2012, 10:42 am

Biltong wrote:
In neoclassical economics, exploitation is organizational, explained using microeconomic theory. It is a kind of market failure, a deviation from the abstraction of perfect competition. The most common scenario is a monopsony or a monopoly. These exploiters have bargaining power. This kind of exploitation is supposed to be abolished by the spread of competition and markets.

The concept of international rugby is based on repsentation. So this business concept which explains predominantly where we went massively wrong in the 1980s, would result in a rugby world series played by NZ, SA, France and The Lions. Just like rugby league.

That sounds awful and is not what I want for the game.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Wed 07 Nov 2012, 11:33 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:But Maesteg it's all interlinked...so it will all come out when this topic is discussed.

PS with regards to the actual OP I don't believe it is happening....though sadly most teams have their own version of Project players...like it or not. Changing the laws would stop this to a degree...

Indeed. This wouldn't be the first time someone from the Islands has massively exaggerated the extent to which junior players are being tapped up - I remember back on old 606 digging out the stats on issuance of scholarships by NZ schools to disprove some claims about "hundreds of boys moving to NZ on rugby scholarships". I don't believe the English clubs can afford to recruit a bunch of Fijian schoolboys, move them to the UK and pay their upkeep (you're probably talking £10,000-20,000 per boy per year, more if an adult family member comes too) in the hope that they will break through to the top level. The numbers simply don't stack up.

However, there are plenty of Fijians in the British Army - probably nearly as many as there are Gurkhas - the Army rugby team fields a fair few. I wouldn't be surprised if sons of soldiers are popping up in academies.

And immigration in general will see some families moving.

by Geordie Wed 07 Nov 2012, 11:49 am

However, there are plenty of Fijians in the British Army - probably nearly as many as there are Gurkhas - the Army rugby team fields a fair few. I wouldn't be surprised if sons of soldiers are popping up in academies.

And immigration in general will see some families moving
.

+1

The world is a smaller place. People move for work etc. They take their young children with them...or have kids in the new place. This needs to be taken into consideration more and more...and the rules need to be overhauled to cope with this.

Two Scenarios:
Ive worked and lived in Holland, Germany and Denmark and also spent 11 years living in Liberia (West Africa)
Liberia is very close to my heart but the others not. If my girlfriend had children whilst we were in Holland and spent two years there until i moved back to the UK i would not want them recgonised as Dutch.

However if in the same scenario, the child grows up in Holland (holidaying in England to see Grandparents etc) and at the age of 16 is contemplating who to play for...he rightly can say Holland due to upbringing...or England due to parents...and heritage.
However for him to represent England i would want to see him move back to the country and play for English club teams.

by SecretFly Wed 07 Nov 2012, 12:00 pm

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:I don't believe the English clubs can afford to recruit a bunch of Fijian schoolboys, move them to the UK and pay their upkeep (you're probably talking £10,000-20,000 per boy per year, more if an adult family member comes too) in the hope that they will break through to the top level. The numbers simply don't stack up.

That's short term thinking that would suggest the numbers don't add up though, Peter. And we all know the English aren't a short-term race of people! They plan and pre-plan...and plan out the pre-planning years in advance. Just look at their Olympic history. They were faced with a dilemma, they were not winning as many golds as they felt were their due as a big nation and they set about ruthlessly changing that - and boy is that plan working.

Now, you think they wouldn't have a similar long term strategy to propel rugby union back into the limelight? I think it would be foolish to believe there wasn't a real relationship between all facets of rugby union in England to propel club AND international back into the heights they once enjoyed. I don't see many stones being left unturned in the pursuit of that, and I don't see £10,000 or £20,000 per year for a bunch of scouted hopes for the future being anything the RFU couldn't handle if they thought the gains would be worth it long term.

by maestegmafia Wed 07 Nov 2012, 12:07 pm

Not really discussing the point at hand.

On the other thread on a similar topic you wrote this below showing your support for the poorer nations, only to correct it by saying that you would rather they came to your wealthy country and then were encourage to play for your country. How will that help PI Nations rugby grow???

GeordieFalcon wrote:I agree with previous comments that these areas produce some of the most naturally gifted rugby players in the world ...but in a full on 15 game v the top nations just how competitive are they?

Whilst they might get the odd good result here and there (beating Australia, Wales etc)...quite often they are found on the receiving end of a cricket score.

Now regular competitive games against the bigger nations will undoubtedly bring them on...and this is imperative.

It needs to be looked at, but done correctly.

A combined PI greatest ever...would be a frightening proposition i imagine...as would just the individual Teams greatest ever...Samoa in particular...

by lostinwales Wed 07 Nov 2012, 12:10 pm

But that would only be something that was needed if what we could gain by importing PI kids would be significantly better than what we are producing naturally.

I could see a case for, say, Japan doing something similar in order to boost the numbers of large players they had available, but not for England

by maestegmafia Wed 07 Nov 2012, 12:18 pm

lostinwales wrote:But that would only be something that was needed if what we could gain by importing PI kids would be significantly better than what we are producing naturally.

I could see a case for, say, Japan doing something similar in order to boost the numbers of large players they had available, but not for England

Or Russia, they have the money...!

by RubyGuby Wed 07 Nov 2012, 12:21 pm

Is this a black and white issue or is it much more complex Run

by HammerofThunor Wed 07 Nov 2012, 12:39 pm

RubyGuby wrote:Is this a black and white issue or is it much more complex

I reckon there are around 50 shades of gray in between.

by RubyGuby Wed 07 Nov 2012, 12:46 pm

Yeah probably more complex thumbsup

by **LondonTiger** Wed 07 Nov 2012, 12:48 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
RubyGuby wrote:Is this a black and white issue or is it much more complex

I reckon there are around 50 shades of gray in between.

you smutty devil

by HammerofThunor Wed 07 Nov 2012, 12:51 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:
RubyGuby wrote:Is this a black and white issue or is it much more complex

I reckon there are around 50 shades of gray in between.

you smutty devil

?

by maestegmafia Wed 07 Nov 2012, 7:08 pm

Just watching Total Rugby on sky sports. They were interviewing Tim Visser, he said he was playing in Amsterdam at a sevens tournament where he was spotted by the English school Barnard Castle School who offered him a scholarship then latterly a contract at Newcastle Falcons.

His father was capped 67 times for Holland.

by ChequeredJersey Wed 07 Nov 2012, 7:17 pm

That's nothing to do with England, it's more like what Milfield do where they give sports scholarships to young talented sportspeople to achieve their own results and reputation, utterly aside from the Club or International game which is why many of them boarded but still played their sport for their original nation. That should be dissuaded for entirely separate reasons

by Geordie Wed 07 Nov 2012, 8:51 pm

maestegmafia wrote:Not really discussing the point at hand.

On the other thread on a similar topic you wrote this below showing your support for the poorer nations, only to correct it by saying that you would rather they came to your wealthy country and then were encourage to play for your country. How will that help PI Nations rugby grow???

GeordieFalcon wrote:I agree with previous comments that these areas produce some of the most naturally gifted rugby players in the world ...but in a full on 15 game v the top nations just how competitive are they?

Whilst they might get the odd good result here and there (beating Australia, Wales etc)...quite often they are found on the receiving end of a cricket score.

Now regular competitive games against the bigger nations will undoubtedly bring them on...and this is imperative.

It needs to be looked at, but done correctly.

A combined PI greatest ever...would be a frightening proposition i imagine...as would just the individual Teams greatest ever...Samoa in particular...

No mate I wasn't saying they should come and play FOR the bigger teams...I was saying them playing for.Fiji or Samoa etc need to play more games against the bigger teams....

by HammerofThunor Wed 07 Nov 2012, 9:27 pm

BTW, he says players of 17 are now deciding to play for England. Well in the current U18 there is only one name that jumps out as possibly a Pacific Islander, Javiah Pohe. He's been here since he was 11 as it seems his dad came over for a low level playing career and moved to coaching following injury. Of course he's a kiwi rather than Fijian. Oh, and his mum is Cornish and he originally moved and went to school in Cornwall.

Interesting quote

I’m proud of my heritage,” he said. “I love watching the All Blacks play, their players are role models. But I’m also massively proud to play for England.

Unfortunately he seems to be the only 'foreigner' so they haven't come through yet.

by blackcanelion Thu 08 Nov 2012, 12:24 am

I think it's an interesting debate. I think the island teams have a right to air their concerns, i.e.:
1. That players aren't released to the national team,
2. That players are lured overseas to professional contracts at an increasingly younger age and are lost.
3. that they have a more limited playing schedule than the 6 nations/rugby championship teams.

Obviously I think the former is an issue. The international game is critical to development of the game at all levels. if we don't provide for releases and enforce it we run the risk of following the likes of rugby league and the NFL and stagnating.

The issue of player loss is there. How big it is I don't know. But school and clubs will follow the lead of other professional sports and target promising players from anywhere in the world at a young age (i.e. somewhere between 15 and 18). Even if it's not a problem now it will become an issue. The issue is maintaining the integrity of international rugby. Rugby isn't like a passport or residency.

It's not a new issue. Players have been traveling from south to north to play professional rugby for over 40 years. It's more of an issue now, because the profit brings in younger players, and there is a financial incentive to bring players into the national team where they reside from club and country. There has to be some solution that recognizes and identifies players who are lured overseas on contracts and ensures that they can play for their native country.

The reality is the Island teams have had more limited playing opportunities in the past. The reality is, that without a IRB subsidy, they are unlikely to be bought into the Rugby championship. On the other side, they do now have tours at the start and end of the season and mid year tournament meaningful games, that they get their players to. Finding a solution that provides them with more meaningful games has got be beneficial for everyone.

by HammerofThunor Thu 08 Nov 2012, 7:59 am

One issue which would help (IMO) would be payouts for away games. There was an article a few years ago that said Australia got £500k for playing Wales in Wales (not sure if this is on top of expenses or not). The All Blacks got more. Canada got expenses and that was it. It went the same for the RFU and the PI the same year.

This year the Fiji game has sold out (the first time it has for a '2nd tier' nation). Not sure if this is due to a more intelligent pricing structure or simply a peaked interest. But will Fiji see any of it?

by Sponsored content