Tom heathcote

First topic message reminder :

Just been called into Scotland squad, born in Inverness but played age grade for England

Never seen him play, but read he's a 10 which has been a problem for us for ages

Plays for bath and only 20.

What's he like ? Anyone ?

Imperialbigdave wrote:
You can hand Tom Palmer back then.

If it stops him being picked for us then you're welcome to him !

Why do people go on about this.... its like student unions still banging on about grants not fees. There is no turning back.

Unfortunately this is the world we now live in and we just have to accept it. All the above would probably be illegal in law anyhow, the IRB just accepts the standard regulations and would been sued by players who legally are allowed to represent.... want bankrupt unions?

Near all countries would be impacted negatively by it you'd probably see the end of top level competition with only France, England, Argentina, South Africa and NZ being major forces.

Rugby in itself would go downhill in terms of a competition.

Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, Italy, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji would all take significant setbacks... these countries have been able to compete at their various

The only reason I don't include England in the above list is that its arguable that their foreign imports bar Mike Catt have not had a positive impact on the side.

We get one of these posts every month or so... why can't people just accept that it won't change... and to be honest, get off their high horse.

We're getting to a stage where some of the suggestions are close to Nazi themed ideology.... Birth is not enough... lineage has to be taken into account. We should tread very carefully on this.

TJ wrote:
I think the regulations are too lax now in general. It should be what is in your heart what colour of jersey you play in.

I agree with that. I know the Olympic system has it's faults and gets abused as well, but, I much prefer the idea that to represent a country you need to have succesfully applied to become a citizen of that country (which is, I think, how they do it). If you aren't willing to adopt the nationality you shouldn't be eligible to represent the nation.

If you don't know what nationality you are by the time you're 15 then you have a serious identity crisis. Simples

He moved to Engurlund when he was 6

If I moved to Engurlund when I was 6 and had to live there till I was 20, I'd still refer to myself as being Scottish.

At the end of the day the lad has chosen to play international rugby. He is a professional rugby player and he feels (I assume) this is the best thing for his career. Like Many players mentioned above, like Catt, this has happened many a time. England, Wales, Ireland, France, Italy, Oz, New Zealand............ All have or have had players who were not born and bread in that country. Due to the modern world we live in, travel is easy. Folk have parents from different countries.

Heathcote is playing for Scotland now.

Build a soddin bridge and get over it

Quite right. Reading through this thread, all it tells us is that the range of possible scenarios are far too complicated to realistically legislate for.

My ideal benchmark would be, regardless of all else, does the player genuinely feel passionate about representing the country in question, and not just playing international rugby in general? Unfortunately there are so many different reasons people can feel like that, birth, residence, the influence of parents/grandparents, and probably lots of others we haven't even considered. It's impossible for anyone else to say whether the player has those genuine feelings unless we start introducing lie detector tests and even they aren't really accurate!

So we'll just have to take their word for it. The rules we have at the moment are probably the best we're going to get, even if some hypothetical players might just see it as career progression, and probably a few who feel a genuine connection miss out.

HammerofThunor wrote:

tecphobe wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:He got some caps just after moving to Saints, and was doing very well (sparked the home win over Munster). Played pants for England, the England management were blamed for that and the fact he's been a bit pants since then. Disappeared to France and then reappeared at Irish. I haven't seen him off the bench for any of their games I've seen (very few) so no idea how he's settled back in or what position they see him in.

and Geraghty represented Ireland at U16 level didn't he?

As far as im aware he did yes. I think he would of been better playing for ireland and going to one of the provinces. Tend to manage there players slightly better

It what way do they manage their players better?

Well Ireland players were centrally contracted a lot sooner than the English setup. Geraghty in 2007 would of been main back up competition to O'Gara. Not to mention his ability to play 12 would of been a bonus particularly with Ireland still having to pick darcy due to lack of suitable alternatives. Ireland players play a set amount of games a year like through-breds race horses wereas in 2007 England players were flogged like a claimer at Wolverhampton

tecphobe wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

tecphobe wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:He got some caps just after moving to Saints, and was doing very well (sparked the home win over Munster). Played pants for England, the England management were blamed for that and the fact he's been a bit pants since then. Disappeared to France and then reappeared at Irish. I haven't seen him off the bench for any of their games I've seen (very few) so no idea how he's settled back in or what position they see him in.

and Geraghty represented Ireland at U16 level didn't he?

As far as im aware he did yes. I think he would of been better playing for ireland and going to one of the provinces. Tend to manage there players slightly better

It what way do they manage their players better?

Well ireland players were centrally contracted a lot sooner than the English setup. Geraghty in 2007 would of been main back up support to O'Gara not to mention his ability to play 12 would of been a bonus particularly with ireland still having to pick dary due to lack of suitable alternatives. Ireland players play a set amount of games a year like through-breds wereas in 2007 England players were flogged like a claimer at Wolverhampton

Geraghty wouldn't get near an Irish squad. He's behind Hunphreys at London Irish.

tigertattie wrote:He moved to Engurlund when he was 6

If I moved to Engurlund when I was 6 and had to live there till I was 20, I'd still refer to myself as being Scottish.

His English family moved back south when he was 3 (father was a pilot posted to RAF Kinloss). He is effectively English through and through, but has decided to use an accident of birth to play for Scotland. That is certainly his choice and his links are more relevant than quite a few who have played for Home Nation teams this Autumn.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

tecphobe wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

tecphobe wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:He got some caps just after moving to Saints, and was doing very well (sparked the home win over Munster). Played pants for England, the England management were blamed for that and the fact he's been a bit pants since then. Disappeared to France and then reappeared at Irish. I haven't seen him off the bench for any of their games I've seen (very few) so no idea how he's settled back in or what position they see him in.

and Geraghty represented Ireland at U16 level didn't he?

As far as im aware he did yes. I think he would of been better playing for ireland and going to one of the provinces. Tend to manage there players slightly better

It what way do they manage their players better?

Well ireland players were centrally contracted a lot sooner than the English setup. Geraghty in 2007 would of been main back up support to O'Gara not to mention his ability to play 12 would of been a bonus particularly with ireland still having to pick dary due to lack of suitable alternatives. Ireland players play a set amount of games a year like through-breds wereas in 2007 England players were flogged like a claimer at Wolverhampton

Geraghty wouldn't get near an Irish squad. He's behind Hunphreys at London Irish.

He may not get near an Irish squad at the moment in 2007 he would of done plus he has the ability to play 12.

tecphobe wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

tecphobe wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:He got some caps just after moving to Saints, and was doing very well (sparked the home win over Munster). Played pants for England, the England management were blamed for that and the fact he's been a bit pants since then. Disappeared to France and then reappeared at Irish. I haven't seen him off the bench for any of their games I've seen (very few) so no idea how he's settled back in or what position they see him in.

and Geraghty represented Ireland at U16 level didn't he?

As far as im aware he did yes. I think he would of been better playing for ireland and going to one of the provinces. Tend to manage there players slightly better

It what way do they manage their players better?

Well Ireland players were centrally contracted a lot sooner than the English setup. Geraghty in 2007 would of been main back up competition to O'Gara. Not to mention his ability to play 12 would of been a bonus particularly with Ireland still having to pick darcy due to lack of suitable alternatives. Ireland players play a set amount of games a year like through-breds race horses wereas in 2007 England players were flogged like a claimer at Wolverhampton

EPS players are limited in number of games. None centrally contacted Irish players are not restricted in the number of games (I don't think). Geraghty was starting for Irish in 2007.

So basically if he had actually continued to develop in England he would have a) been a starter than back up for O'Gara b) been restricted in number of games due to EPS agreement.

So, considering this, how do Ireland manage their players better?

I was disappointed to hear Heathcote's decision but wish him the best of luck.

An observation would be that if that player was in NZ he would no longer have a top tier professional contract and would have to move on. A consquence being so many PI players in French and English clubs as no-one else would take them and now second generation or younger siblings turning out for NH test sides. Presumably Heathcote will move on voluntarily ?
Another point is that surely if you represent a national Union side at whatever age group then that should be it in terms of representing your country. I don't buy this being too young to make a decision.

LondonTiger wrote:

tigertattie wrote:He moved to Engurlund when he was 6

If I moved to Engurlund when I was 6 and had to live there till I was 20, I'd still refer to myself as being Scottish.

His English family moved back south when he was 3 (father was a pilot posted to RAF Kinloss). He is effectively English through and through, but has decided to use an accident of birth to play for Scotland. That is certainly his choice and his links are more relevant than quite a few who have played for Home Nation teams this Autumn.

I'm sorry I was under the impression that his father was posted in scotland and this was where he met Tom's Scottish mother.

Sounds to me like someone born in scotland to an english father and a scottish mother is perfectly entitled to consider themselves scottish

He is entitled to even if he has always deemed himself to be English before now. My understanding was his Mother was half English/Half Welsh.

tigertattie wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

tigertattie wrote:He moved to Engurlund when he was 6

If I moved to Engurlund when I was 6 and had to live there till I was 20, I'd still refer to myself as being Scottish.

His English family moved back south when he was 3 (father was a pilot posted to RAF Kinloss). He is effectively English through and through, but has decided to use an accident of birth to play for Scotland. That is certainly his choice and his links are more relevant than quite a few who have played for Home Nation teams this Autumn.

I'm sorry I was under the impression that his father was posted in scotland and this was where he met Tom's Scottish mother.

Sounds to me like someone born in scotland to an english father and a scottish mother is perfectly entitled to consider themselves scottish

Is his mum Scottish? First I had heard that. A quote from the man himself sums it up.

I always knew I was Scottish qualified

Clearly he considers himself Scottish.

This discussion just seems to be going round in circles. At the end of the day he is born in Scotland therefore is qualified to play for Scotland, this is more of a qualification than some currently filling a few international teams. Has there been this much furore about previous players in the same position? No!!

No it isn't. He's just as qualified as every player playing international rugby. You either are or you aren't.

I think that a points system would be a good idea, if they set it as a minimum of 100 points to play for a country:

Birth in the country=100
Parent=50
Grand Parent=25
Year's residence=20

Yeah that's convenient for you, 100 points for birth in the country. How about another 100 for claiming you've always wanted to play for Scotland despite not living or ever playing there?

HammerofThunor wrote:

tecphobe wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

tecphobe wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:He got some caps just after moving to Saints, and was doing very well (sparked the home win over Munster). Played pants for England, the England management were blamed for that and the fact he's been a bit pants since then. Disappeared to France and then reappeared at Irish. I haven't seen him off the bench for any of their games I've seen (very few) so no idea how he's settled back in or what position they see him in.

and Geraghty represented Ireland at U16 level didn't he?

As far as im aware he did yes. I think he would of been better playing for ireland and going to one of the provinces. Tend to manage there players slightly better

It what way do they manage their players better?

Well Ireland players were centrally contracted a lot sooner than the English setup. Geraghty in 2007 would of been main back up competition to O'Gara. Not to mention his ability to play 12 would of been a bonus particularly with Ireland still having to pick darcy due to lack of suitable alternatives. Ireland players play a set amount of games a year like through-breds race horses wereas in 2007 England players were flogged like a claimer at Wolverhampton

EPS players are limited in number of games. None centrally contacted Irish players are not restricted in the number of games (I don't think). Geraghty was starting for Irish in 2007.

So basically if he had actually continued to develop in England he would have a) been a starter than back up for O'Gara b) been restricted in number of games due to EPS agreement.
So, considering this, how do Ireland manage their players better?

England didnt have the EPS in 2007. If Geraghty had of opted for ireland he would of had a central contract and a provincial contract. England discarded him as soon as his form dipped Ireland due to a smaller playing base tend to stick with players. Its just an opinion we will never know.

Andy Reed (Cornish Lock) - Didnt he get picked for Scotland after being spotted in the stands watching a game wearing a scottish scarf?

In fairness if true than he would have been more eligible than Shane Howarth was for Wales or Ricky Flutey was for England.

tecphobe wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

tecphobe wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

tecphobe wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:He got some caps just after moving to Saints, and was doing very well (sparked the home win over Munster). Played pants for England, the England management were blamed for that and the fact he's been a bit pants since then. Disappeared to France and then reappeared at Irish. I haven't seen him off the bench for any of their games I've seen (very few) so no idea how he's settled back in or what position they see him in.

and Geraghty represented Ireland at U16 level didn't he?

As far as im aware he did yes. I think he would of been better playing for ireland and going to one of the provinces. Tend to manage there players slightly better

It what way do they manage their players better?

Well Ireland players were centrally contracted a lot sooner than the English setup. Geraghty in 2007 would of been main back up competition to O'Gara. Not to mention his ability to play 12 would of been a bonus particularly with Ireland still having to pick darcy due to lack of suitable alternatives. Ireland players play a set amount of games a year like through-breds race horses wereas in 2007 England players were flogged like a claimer at Wolverhampton

EPS players are limited in number of games. None centrally contacted Irish players are not restricted in the number of games (I don't think). Geraghty was starting for Irish in 2007.

So basically if he had actually continued to develop in England he would have a) been a starter than back up for O'Gara b) been restricted in number of games due to EPS agreement.
So, considering this, how do Ireland manage their players better?

England didnt have the EPS in 2007. If Geraghty had of opted for ireland he would of had a central contract and a provincial contract. England discarded him as soon as his form dipped Ireland due to a smaller playing base tend to stick with players. Its just an opinion we will never know.

Geraghty was 21 when the EPS was introduced. His club downfall followed on from his move to Saints and his lack of favour over Myler. England would hardly pick a player not getting game time at their club so they hardly dropped him following a small bad patch.

Would he have walked into a central contract? I thought it was only the top 30-odd players that got central contracts? Also, if Ireland would have stuck by him due to small player pool, surely that's not due to better player management but due to lack of choice.

As you say we'll never know.

Out of curiosity, there seem to have been quite a few players out injured for Ireland for a while. Is this just a bad patch? I know a couple of years ago there was a lot of praise for the lack of Irish injuries. I would be interesting to see the injury rates in the relative countries (it would have to be over along time to compensate for bad patches).

fa0019 wrote:In fairness if true than he would have been more eligible than Shane Howarth was for Wales or Ricky Flutey was for England.

Flutey qualified by residency and was fully qualified for England. Howarth 'thought' his English grandparent was Welsh. So right with the first one and wrong with the second.

And it was Dave Hilton who played for Scotland when he was ineligible. Once he realised his granddad was born in Bristol (like the rest of his family) he then moved to Glasgow to get residency qualified. Once he capped again (and his eligibility fixed) he moved back home to England to finish his career.

From a completely urbane and genuine question posed in the OP, there appears to have sprouted an immensely irrelevant pile of bollix.

I took the time out to answer the original question, so would be interested and also grateful if anyone would be kind enough to answer this:

How much will Bath get from the SRFU for developing a player for them?

In pounds sterling please, ta.

Stuart Lancaster Scotland u21s ,Andy Robinson England, does any of this actually matter?

MacKnocked-on wrote:Stuart Lancaster Scotland u21s ,Andy Robinson England, does any of this actually matter?

Nope, not to most normal people.

Do you know if Bath will get anything from the SRFU for Heathcote?

We got nothing for Andy Robinson, but, to be completely transparent, I consider that one to be a fair deal.

HammerofThunor wrote:

tecphobe wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

tecphobe wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

tecphobe wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:He got some caps just after moving to Saints, and was doing very well (sparked the home win over Munster). Played pants for England, the England management were blamed for that and the fact he's been a bit pants since then. Disappeared to France and then reappeared at Irish. I haven't seen him off the bench for any of their games I've seen (very few) so no idea how he's settled back in or what position they see him in.

and Geraghty represented Ireland at U16 level didn't he?

As far as im aware he did yes. I think he would of been better playing for ireland and going to one of the provinces. Tend to manage there players slightly better

It what way do they manage their players better?

Well Ireland players were centrally contracted a lot sooner than the English setup. Geraghty in 2007 would of been main back up competition to O'Gara. Not to mention his ability to play 12 would of been a bonus particularly with Ireland still having to pick darcy due to lack of suitable alternatives. Ireland players play a set amount of games a year like through-breds race horses wereas in 2007 England players were flogged like a claimer at Wolverhampton

EPS players are limited in number of games. None centrally contacted Irish players are not restricted in the number of games (I don't think). Geraghty was starting for Irish in 2007.

So basically if he had actually continued to develop in England he would have a) been a starter than back up for O'Gara b) been restricted in number of games due to EPS agreement.
So, considering this, how do Ireland manage their players better?

England didnt have the EPS in 2007. If Geraghty had of opted for ireland he would of had a central contract and a provincial contract. England discarded him as soon as his form dipped Ireland due to a smaller playing base tend to stick with players. Its just an opinion we will never know.

Geraghty was 21 when the EPS was introduced. His club downfall followed on from his move to Saints and his lack of favour over Myler. England would hardly pick a player not getting game time at their club so they hardly dropped him following a small bad patch.

Would he have walked into a central contract? I thought it was only the top 30-odd players that got central contracts? Also, if Ireland would have stuck by him due to small player pool, surely that's not due to better player management but due to lack of choice.

As you say we'll never know.

Out of curiosity, there seem to have been quite a few players out injured for Ireland for a while. Is this just a bad patch? I know a couple of years ago there was a lot of praise for the lack of Irish injuries. I would be interesting to see the injury rates in the relative countries (it would have to be over along time to compensate for bad patches).

Ireland have a couple of categories injury wise those with miles on the clock. O'Connell Driscoll rory best. Kearney and Sean O'Brien are due to surgery on niggly injuries which could cause problem long term if not treated.

I'll give the SRFU £10k to keep Robinson and I'll also drop any claim for compensation for Heathcote as long as AR gets a 10 year deal.

I'll also give all the dullards on this thread who are OT arguing the toss about who's got more right to play for whom than who, when and how often and why they should have lived somewhere else, £10 each to shut the feck up and go play with traffic.

Yup, I'm all about giving at this time of year. Ho, ho, ho!

The rules are what they are and Heathcote's eligible for Scotland under them so it's his choice! Good news for Scotland really as they still need a good all round fly-half (Laidlaw gets used as a doormat in defence).

On the laws whilst I don't particularly like some of the players you see playing for other countries in sport these days I think it's simply a fact of the modern age. Travel is very easy now so people travel more. Parents will meet in countries half the world apart and have children, kids will move with families at a young age or throughout their childhood, etc and with this more players will inevitably be available for multiple international sides.

£20 then?

Come on!

[quote="PJHolybloke"]From a completely urbane and genuine question posed in the OP, there appears to have sprouted an immensely irrelevant pile of bollix.

I took the time out to answer the original question, so would be interested and also grateful if anyone would be kind enough to answer this:

How much will Bath get from the SRFU for developing a player for them?

In pounds sterling please, ta. [/quote

Nothing. And nor should they as they they developed him for themselves. Any RFU payments will obviously stop.

In exactly the same way Bath don't give Leicester any money for developing Bath players

You cheeky clay-monkey!!

Why I oughta...

The reality is that Bath have shown an amazing level of benevolence when it comes down to Tiggers and the way they've thrown their long-serving, loyal and dedicated players on the scrapheap just because they've found something a bit more shiney!!

Bruce Craig is a philanthropist and has clearly set out his stall in terms of turning Bath into a shelter and pension fund haven for the waifs and strays of the wider rugby family.

I can't believe you've got the nerve to be honest Thunor.

Poor Tom.

Well done on your 1st and probably only International Cap.

You should have fought for the England No10 shirt, and I tell him such the next time I see him in Bath.

HERSH wrote:Poor Tom.

Well done on your 1st and probably only International Cap.

You should have fought for the England No10 shirt, and I tell him such the next time I see him in Bath.

I hope he tells you to faff off. He’d be quite within his rights to do so. Heathcote will get more caps for Scotland, the competition between him and Duncan Weir could be a fierce one. It was sad to see him chucked into such a desperate performance from his new team mates.

I wonder if he is a bit worried though, I mean the man who sold him the idea of playing for Scotland has now left his post, that must be a slight concern.

It was a shame that was his debut, the poor bloke has played 2 LV cup games and a few A league games and then is thrust on to try and turn around that car crash of a game. I'm sure his future caps will be more successful!

Poor bloke got called upon to do the miraculous in unreasonable circumstances - he'll get another crack, he's got what it takes

I hope so, but it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't.

Aye, I'd be spewing if I were Heathcote. He'll probably end up with a few caps. It'd be a shame to see him get Nacewa'd.

nah i doubt he'll get Nacewa'd - his competition is an injured Weir, an inept Jackson and a scrum half playing at fly-half... I'd give him the shirt for the six nations and just go with it!

I don't think he did much wrong when he came on. He missed a kick and fumbled a pass that Lawson threw to his feet, hardly reason to dump him. He'll get plenty more caps. Once Laidlaw moves back to 9, which is inevitable, it'll be him and Weir in the 10 shirt.

That's cheating, you can't have two people in the same shirt. And surely they'd get in each others way?

Even in his 10mins or so on the pitch I thought his link play looked a step up from Jackson (currently too much headless chicken running and wild passes before drawing the opposite man), Heathcote looks to play closer to the gainline which we need. Yes he made a couple of mistakes, who doesn't?,but I'm sure he'll turn out to be a good international player.

Effervescing Elephant wrote:That's cheating, you can't have two people in the same shirt. And surely they'd get in each others way?

Hush now - most people missed our cunning plan

Riskysports wrote:

Effervescing Elephant wrote:That's cheating, you can't have two people in the same shirt. And surely they'd get in each others way?

Hush now - most people missed our cunning plan

'Project Andy Goode' has been running successfully for a while now...

Tramptastic wrote:nah i doubt he'll get Nacewa'd - his competition is an injured Weir, an inept Jackson and a scrum half playing at fly-half... I'd give him the shirt for the six nations and just go with it!

It's probably for the best that Robinson has gone or we'd probably looking at recalling Godman and Ross for the start of the Six Nations.

"Obviously it was a tough decision, moving away from what you know and what you've grown up with, but the opportunity to play international rugby was too much to turn down".

He's an Englishman who, purely because of where his mother was when he was born, qualified to play for Scotland. International rugby should be about where you grow up, or where you've chosen to live your life.

Got a link to the rest of the quote / interview? that looks rather mercenary does it not.

Hmm, after a quick Google search, I can't see where that quote came from. Context is everything, as always.