Should Wales stop selecting players who leave?

by wales606 Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:24 pm

Gatland's law has become a bit of a joke. He stated that he would always favour home based players over their abroad based competitors - but realistically this has done nothing to stop Wales' best players from leaving (the only ones who would be wanted anyway)

With the list of player leaving increasing and more importantly, the demand for Welsh players hyper-inflating regional wage bills and damaging the game in Wales at both regional and international levels.

So, should Gatland now say that any player who moves abroad after next season will not be considered to play for Wales. The players we want playing for Wales are the ones who are dedicated and desperate to play for Wales, and shouldn't we be using that to try to keep them playing for Welsh regions.

Something needs to change, and although this means we may still lose a few star players making them unavailable abroad, this will be off set by improving standards at regional levels, allowing young players to learn from the best (Martyn and Sam, Adam and Mitchell etc) and it will mean that the players who stay true to their ambitions to play for Wales will be available for all training sessions and all international matches.

by Shifty Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:40 pm

All the players who have left Wales have lost their places.

Hook is way down the pecking order, Bryne lost his place, James and Mitchell are not in the team anymore. Dwayne peel sunk without trace after leaving Wales.

off the top of my head I can't think of any player who has not lost his place long term in recent years who left wales.

by wales606 Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:45 pm

Shifty wrote:All the players who have left Wales have lost their places.

Hook is way down the pecking order, Bryne lost his place, James and Mitchell are not in the team anymore. Dwayne peel sunk without trace after leaving Wales.

off the top of my head I can't think of any player who has not lost his place long term in recent years who left wales.

But would they have left if they knew they we not going to be selected.

Lee Byrne was in bad form when he left but is now overlooked because of his age (not being able to make the next WC)

Paul James was first choice LH in the Autumn
Mitchell is second choice THP but was injured in the Autumn
Gethin Jenkins, James Hook and Luke Charteris are still in the squad with Gethin and Luke competing for starting places regularly.
Mike Phillips is still first choice despite being awful for Bayonne.

The only player Gatland's law has affected have been players who were not in favour with the management anyway - Nicky Robinson, Gareth Delve etc, player who hadn't performed on the international stage yet.

by majesticimperialman Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:00 pm

Shifty

Hook, Gethin Jemkins, Mike Phillips, still get picked for selection though. Even if they are not in the starting 15.

by maestegmafia Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:09 pm

I think making a rule that says players abroad will not get selected for Wales will just mean that we have less players to chose from.

We cant compete with France, but we can work with them. Players playing at a top team in France can expose them to good rugby, different playing styles, that can benefit Wales.

The WRU, the Regions and the players need to work this out intelligently not quickly. We have to think about the future not make a quick short term solution.

It is highly unlikely that a Welsh region is going to win the HEC in the next few years. But with the right decisions made now, we might be able to guaranty that Welsh teams win it regularly in five years time.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:13 pm

Should players selected for Wales stop leaving?

by Guest Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:37 pm

They should select the players who are playing well.

As a professional player you're going to spend at least 70-80% of your rugby career at your club, so you better make sure you enjoy playing for your club.

by samuraidragon Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:52 pm

The game in France is high quality and entertaining, played on firm pitches down south in front of substantial crowds with generally good coaching. There's every chance our exiles will improve there, as Wellies and Thomas did. It works for Samoa and Argentina and it could work for us.

If anything, it's time to recognize reality and scrap Gatland's "law" (which is essentially a restraint of trade that would probably be illegal in any other professions).

by Dontheman Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:55 am

maestegmafia wrote:I think making a rule that says players abroad will not get selected for Wales will just mean that we have less players to chose from.

We cant compete with France, but we can work with them. Players playing at a top team in France can expose them to good rugby, different playing styles, that can benefit Wales.

The WRU, the Regions and the players need to work this out intelligently not quickly. We have to think about the future not make a quick short term solution.

It is highly unlikely that a Welsh region is going to win the HEC in the next few years. But with the right decisions made now, we might be able to guaranty that Welsh teams win it regularly in five years time.

+1

by **Biltong** Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:10 am

International rugby is losing out against club rugby. The problem is an international coach requires at least 3 players per position to have quality depth, the problem is many countries cannot afford to pay their top 45 players enough to keep them home, and then even when you have 45 players contracted, the next level of promising youngsters will be targeted which then causes the problem of the next generation talent is stolen away.

So you just can't win, no matter what you try.

My biggest concern is that test rugby will become a farce because countries will always be challenged on the injury front and building new talent.

So it seems if a country cannot keep their players due to finances they might have little choice to select from outside their domestic competitions.

This is where the IRB can help by putting together a test window that runs consecutively in stead of the one mnth break every 3-4 mnths.

If the IRB were to put together a window of 16 weeks that would privide a global test window, then international coaches will be able to bring together a group of players, have "trials" of some sort to establish his test group for the season, then have a few weeks for preparation and then into three months of test rugby.

Continuity, management for players, gelling of the squad etc will mean that countries can go into test windows with confidence that they have the best possible squad available.

That is what I would advocate if I were sitting on the board of the IRB.

That leaves every country or group of Unions a continuous window of 8 months to plan their competitions and preparations.

In the SH as an example,

If SANZAR are sharp they will use those 7 months (one month off season) well to plan preparation, have the local Currie Cup/ITM cup inclusive to the Super XV, whereby the conference becomes a dual purpose competition.

During the test window, SA as an example can still have their Vodacom Cup for the rest of the players.

Forgot to say, the whole reason I would do this is an international coach can then call upon any player that qualifies for his country to those trials, and club concerns, windows, anything else fall by the wayside.

by bedfordwelsh Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:30 am

Gatland NEVER said he wouldn't pick players playing outside Wales he always said it would make it more difficult for them to get selected due to the fact they miss training sessions and camps

by wales606 Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:33 am

bedfordwelsh wrote:Gatland NEVER said he wouldn't pick players playing outside Wales he always said it would make it more difficult for them to get selected due to the fact they miss training sessions and camps

He said that he would favour selecting a home based player over a foreign based player if all things are equal

I am suggesting that he say that he WILL NOT pick abroad based players.

by Morgannwg Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:31 am

He can stop picking players in France. Shame, as we'd lose out Lydiate and Charteris. England isn't too bad, plus our top LH is at Bath.

by wales606 Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:35 am

Morgannwg wrote:He can stop picking players in France. Shame, as we'd lose out Lydiate and Charteris. England isn't too bad, plus our top LH is at Bath.

Hence why I suggested that the rule would come in after next season so that we could select players already abroad who left before the rule was put in place.

by SecretFly Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:51 am

Stop selecting players who leave? Start paying players not to leave?

by Guest Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:06 am

samuraidragon wrote:The game in France is high quality and entertaining, played on firm pitches down south in front of substantial crowds with generally good coaching. There's every chance our exiles will improve there, as Wellies and Thomas did. It works for Samoa and Argentina and it could work for us.

If anything, it's time to recognize reality and scrap Gatland's "law" (which is essentially a restraint of trade that would probably be illegal in any other professions).

Firstly, there is no Gatland law so it can't be a restraint of trade. And secondly, you can't make selection or not selection illegal. "It is illegal not to pick James Hook for you team. We sentence you to death for not picking him"! It would get laughed out of court!

by neilthom7 Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:36 am

Works for Ireland we never said we wouldn't pick players who leave Ireland but it has generally gone that way just ask Geordain Murphy, the players know this and it leads to them wanting to stay. other factors too may also help Irish players such as central contracts and tax breaks in the south but I think this is one of the big reasons as even with these we wouldn't be paying the kind of money French teams could offer.

by wales606 Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:46 am

neilthom7 wrote:Works for Ireland we never said we wouldn't pick players who leave Ireland but it has generally gone that way just ask Geordain Murphy, the players know this and it leads to them wanting to stay. other factors too may also help Irish players such as central contracts and tax breaks in the south but I think this is one of the big reasons as even with these we wouldn't be paying the kind of money French teams could offer.

Yeah, considering the talent of the Irish teams they have almost no problems of player drain to France. The tax breaks and some level of extra income helps, but you won't see Sexton playing in France next season, but you could see Biggar.

by Guest Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:53 am

You won't see Sexton in France because he is crap.

by wales606 Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:04 am

viewtothegym wrote:You won't see Sexton in France because he is crap.

Sure

by neilthom7 Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:17 am

viewtothegym wrote:You won't see Sexton in France because he is crap.

And yet we see hook in France Whistle

by samuraidragon Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:21 am

Griff wrote:
samuraidragon wrote:The game in France is high quality and entertaining, played on firm pitches down south in front of substantial crowds with generally good coaching. There's every chance our exiles will improve there, as Wellies and Thomas did. It works for Samoa and Argentina and it could work for us.

If anything, it's time to recognize reality and scrap Gatland's "law" (which is essentially a restraint of trade that would probably be illegal in any other professions).

Firstly, there is no Gatland law so it can't be a restraint of trade. And secondly, you can't make selection or not selection illegal. "It is illegal not to pick James Hook for you team. We sentence you to death for not picking him"! It would get laughed out of court!

Sure - that's probably why he didn't make it a hard-and-fast law. What might be illegal is explicitly threatening sanctions against people trying to take advantage of the single market, thereby infringing the principle behind the Bosnan ruling -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosman_ruling

"The Bosman ruling also prohibited domestic football leagues in EU member states, and also UEFA, from imposing quotas on foreign players to the extent that they discriminated against nationals of EU states. At that time, many leagues placed quotas restricting the number of non-nationals allowed on member teams. Also, UEFA had a rule that prohibited teams in its competitions, namely the Champions League, Cup Winners' Cup and UEFA Cup, from naming more than three "foreign" players in their matchday squads. After the ruling, quotas could still be imposed, but could only be used to restrict the number of non-EU players on each team"

It would also have been totally hypocritical for a Kiwi plying his trade for the highest bidder on the global market to deny that opportunity to players.

by blackcanelion Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:46 am

Many kiwis can get around the ruling. A lot have duel nationality (e.g. Samoan, South African, British, Irish, etc). Additionally, once they have qualified for residency the count as a local from a EU legal perspective. The point being the quota's are difficult to enforce.

by neilthom7 Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:54 am

That's only football mate, the ruling has never been applied to another sport and was rejected by a court investigating a basketball ruling and that would be about clubs and EU citizens mate so it's not even remotely similar to what you are referring to. Ireland only allows a certain number of non Irish Qualified players in each province. It's absolutely not illegal and I don't know where you would get that idea.

by neilthom7 Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:05 am

besides as pointed out before they wouldn't go to the bother of making it a rule anyways they would just do it, the same as in Ireland

by nganboy Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:11 am

Works (mostly) for NZ

by samuraidragon Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:50 pm

neilthom7 wrote:That's only football mate, the ruling has never been applied to another sport and was rejected by a court investigating a basketball ruling and that would be about clubs and EU citizens mate so it's not even remotely similar to what you are referring to. Ireland only allows a certain number of non Irish Qualified players in each province. It's absolutely not illegal and I don't know where you would get that idea.

Seems to me that the Irish policy of having a quota of non-qualified players is exactly the same as the situation in football pre-Bosman.

The basketball situation cited is completely different - more like players being cup-tied, not discrimination on grounds of nationality, which is what we are talking about here.

How have they got away with it? I can think of two reasons -

A) it s not explicit

B) someone has to make the challenge in court, and nobody has done that yet for fear of the consequences. Neither the Irish clubs or the individidual players have the motivation - though the effect is to suppress the wages of Irish players below real market value.

Still questionable, I would say.

by bedfordwelsh Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:37 pm

wales606 wrote:
bedfordwelsh wrote:Gatland NEVER said he wouldn't pick players playing outside Wales he always said it would make it more difficult for them to get selected due to the fact they miss training sessions and camps

He said that he would favour selecting a home based player over a foreign based player if all things are equal

I am suggesting that he say that he WILL NOT pick abroad based players.

606,

Agree if he said that but people keep going about Gatlands Law but like I said, Gatland NEVER said he wouldn't pick over seas players

by neilthom7 Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:11 pm

samuraidragon wrote:
neilthom7 wrote:That's only football mate, the ruling has never been applied to another sport and was rejected by a court investigating a basketball ruling and that would be about clubs and EU citizens mate so it's not even remotely similar to what you are referring to. Ireland only allows a certain number of non Irish Qualified players in each province. It's absolutely not illegal and I don't know where you would get that idea.

Seems to me that the Irish policy of having a quota of non-qualified players is exactly the same as the situation in football pre-Bosman.

The basketball situation cited is completely different - more like players being cup-tied, not discrimination on grounds of nationality, which is what we are talking about here.

How have they got away with it? I can think of two reasons -

A) it s not explicit

B) someone has to make the challenge in court, and nobody has done that yet for fear of the consequences. Neither the Irish clubs or the individidual players have the motivation - though the effect is to suppress the wages of Irish players below real market value.

Still questionable, I would say.

Who would challenge in Court? Wouldn't be an Ireland player because it doesn't effect them what might stop them moving abroad is the not playing International rugby if they move abroad and that's not a rule just a known thing. The foreigners wouldn't challenge because they would need to be wronged and they aren't because Irish teams aren't trying to sign them and wouldn't even if there was no rule because the IRFU owns the provinces in Ireland so they can just tell the directors to not sign foreigners and again not make it a rule. Stop trying to bring Court into sport I hate it when that Poopie happens for no real reason.

by InjuredYetAgain Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:26 pm

I remember Matt Williams tried to bring in a "you must play in Scotland" rule during his ill-fated term in charge. It flopped badly.
All that you might end up doing is asking players to adopt a football approach of club-v-country. If Toulon are waving serious dough in the face of Gethin Jenkins this will far outweigh whatever the WRU may pay for playing plus any win bonus. This may force players to end up thinking that they have to decide about their family's future i.e. take the French club's ££/€€ or play for Wales i.e. take the prestige but be poorer finanically.
If this role is enforced by Gatland/WRU, it could even relegate Wales down to Scotland' level at international level (actually, now that I put it like that, I am all for this rule!!)

by Guest Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:28 pm

At international level I don't see how they could challenge it in court. "I'm suing because you didn't pick me"?! The national coach would just say that they thought the other player (the one they did pick) was better and that's why they got picked. This is why employment law and sport are sometimes at odds. People try to talk about selection in terms of employment law, legality around contracts, etc. But, you will never, ever have a law that forces a coach to pick James Hook, for example, because obviously squad selection is based on the subjective decision making of a coach. How could anyone challenge the decision of not being picked?

by SecretFly Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:34 pm

A German walks into Leinster Rugby offices and demands a job as flyhalf? Leinster say "No. You're okay there - we already have that position sorted. And besides, the deal is that we come calling for you".

Bosman states that the German has a right to say he isn't being fairly treated as an EU citizen and can go to a European court to insist that Leinster hire him??

Teams still decide who they sign....based on criteria of who the owners and the head coaches like and want. If an EU court wants to impose itself on coaching decisions then I think they'd have a monumental fight on their hands from legal eagles of many football and other sports throughout Europe.

So like many EU laws, the Bosman one seems to be a aesthetic one set in place to suggest human rights are being protected. But a coach will still argue that he is choosing players on a merit basis, value for money basis and will demand the right to carry out the functions of his job without interference from an overly-officious 'oblong bananas' European judiciary

by neilthom7 Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:05 am

SecretFly wrote:A German walks into Leinster Rugby offices and demands a job as flyhalf? Leinster say "No. You're okay there - we already have that position sorted. And besides, the deal is that we come calling for you".

Bosman states that the German has a right to say he isn't being fairly treated as an EU citizen and can go to a European court to insist that Leinster hire him??

Teams still decide who they sign....based on criteria of who the owners and the head coaches like and want. If an EU court wants to impose itself on coaching decisions then I think they'd have a monumental fight on their hands from legal eagles of many football and other sports throughout Europe.

So like many EU laws, the Bosman one seems to be a aesthetic one set in place to suggest human rights are being protected. But a coach will still argue that he is choosing players on a merit basis, value for money basis and will demand the right to carry out the functions of his job without interference from an overly-officious 'oblong bananas' European judiciary

That started out like a good joke then it got serious how dare you secret, how dare you talk sense on these forums. How can we debate sense thank goodness for the people who talk none of it Whistle

by Effervescing Elephant Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:18 am

SecretFly wrote:A German walks into Leinster Rugby offices and demands a job as flyhalf? Leinster say "No. You're okay there - we already have that position sorted. And besides, the deal is that we come calling for you".

Bosman states that the German has a right to say he isn't being fairly treated as an EU citizen and can go to a European court to insist that Leinster hire him??

Teams still decide who they sign....based on criteria of who the owners and the head coaches like and want. If an EU court wants to impose itself on coaching decisions then I think they'd have a monumental fight on their hands from legal eagles of many football and other sports throughout Europe.

So like many EU laws, the Bosman one seems to be a aesthetic one set in place to suggest human rights are being protected. But a coach will still argue that he is choosing players on a merit basis, value for money basis and will demand the right to carry out the functions of his job without interference from an overly-officious 'oblong bananas' European judiciary

Who is this German and has he got an English Granny?

by samuraidragon Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:12 am

Griff wrote:At international level I don't see how they could challenge it in court. "I'm suing because you didn't pick me"?! The national coach would just say that they thought the other player (the one they did pick) was better and that's why they got picked. This is why employment law and sport are sometimes at odds. People try to talk about selection in terms of employment law, legality around contracts, etc. But, you will never, ever have a law that forces a coach to pick James Hook, for example, because obviously squad selection is based on the subjective decision making of a coach. How could anyone challenge the decision of not being picked?

Two separate, but related issues here. First is legality of NQ quotas at club level. Could well be illegal, but no rugby Bosman has tried to make the case yet. Could it happen? Yes. But it would require one club having a bad relationship with its union to make the case.

Second is status of expat players if "Gatland's"law" became real - which it is not at present in Wales, though an equivalent may be surreptitiously enforced in Ireland. Again no challenge yet - but that does not mean no challenge is possible.

As has been noted, coaches would probably say that they are picking on merit, which is subjective, so leave us alone. However this is exactly the same defence that all employers accused of discrimination use. These days there is rarely any hard evidence of discrimination - eg an email saying "only white males to be offered jobs." Most of the time cases are decided on the balance of probabilities, after looking at the pattern of recruitment etc.

So how would this work in practice? Assume that Wales refuses to pick any expats. Assume the financial crisis goes on a few more years, and players' wages are slashed. Assume that 3 of Wales' very best players go overseas for the higher wages. Not a James Hook, who has his fans and critics, but players who everyone agrees are the best in their position - the equivalent of, say, Halfpenny, North and JD2. Assume that home players who everyone agrees are inferior get picked in their place. Then, in my view, you have a case.

The effect of an Ireland / Gatland type rule is to suppress players' wages below the true market level. The regions get to keep Roberts, Phillips, Lydiate etc. even if they offer significant lower wages. If such a rule had been in force last year, Gethin would have had to swallow the 30% wage cut the Blues offered him or never play for Wales again. So who is likely to complain / make trouble? The very best Welsh players who know that they could earn substantially more. Why haven't the Irish palyers made a fuss? I'm guessing because the stronger economic base of the game in Ireland (bigger crowds) allows them to earn more, one way or another. Alternatively there are no very young world-class players with the confidence to try their luck. Alternatively , they are just so damn patriotic that they simply don't care about the money.

by neilthom7 Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:59 am

Ah pal I don't want to bust your dream here but it is not suppressing players wages because it is their choice they do not have too stay in Wales etc, the bosman ruling was made because the guy involved could not transfer from the club thus enforcing him to take a lower wage this was the main part of the bosman ruling and has nothing to do with the part of the ruling you are using so please stop pretending it does it is to do with the part of the ruling that allows players to leave on free transfers rather than pothers having to pay for them. Also I wouldn't say the IRFU is being underhanded with it's not picking players who play abroad. Finally a court cannot decide on the balance of probabilities I have studied Human Resource Management for 4 years, got a 1st class degree in it, joined CIPD and am currently studying a separate Employment Law course while working in HR. It must be proven that the people concerned have suffered less favourable treatment as a result. It must be proven. It would also in this case have to be proven that Gatland or any other coach for that matter had not picked a player because they were not in Wales and not because he didn't think they were good enough and by the way what anyone else thinks, would not matter even if the whole of Wales said a player was better because that only proves that they think he is better not that the coach does. Sport is quite separate from normal employment law as well so please stop trying to bring stupid non relevant law into things. Sorry to ruin your fantasy pal

by samuraidragon Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:15 am

Er - all civil cases are proven on the balance of probabilities (not beyond all reasonable doubt). If you're a lawyer, you must know that.

Bosman abolished quotas for football players in Europe and created a free market. Why is rugby different from football, in your view?

Also when you say "it has to be proven" - are you arguing that the act of proving is difficult (which it is) or that there is no legal issue at all (which is completely different)?

Lastly, if the purpose is to discourage players from going abroad (and it's hard to see what other purpose there could be), then the effect is obviously to suppress wages. That's basic economics, pal.

by neilthom7 Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:39 am

Firstly I wish to apologise I have been a little harsh on you there, tough day at work so I apologise for that, I don't mean to cause offence.
My point is that even with balance of probabilities the burden of proof still stands therefore you would still have to have evidence the evidence may not need to be as full as in that of a criminal trial but you will still need evidence. Also in a discrimination case you have to specify what act they are breaking so what act would they be breaking?
I am not saying rugby is different to football what I am saying that sport should not be going down all this legal path eventually it will just become stupid over the top. I mean every tackle is technically assault in rugby so whats stopping people doing that? once you get law involved like this there is no telling where it could take us. Finally there are ways around it like not making it a written down rule or controlling provinces like Ireland do so they wont challenge even if they want too. I mean Ireland and New Zealand etc have done this for years how many cases has there been? The point being that people in rugby do not want to see loads of these cases so why would we continue to suggest this. I know any player who tried to force their way in using laws like this would not be well received of that I am sure.

by Guest Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:56 am

Samurai, there will never, ever be a situation where a high court judge (or whoever oversees the trial) forces Gatland to go back on his team selection and include Jamie Roberts, for example, now that he's playing in France. We're talking about international rugby here, which is not about contracts but is about selection and representing your country. How could the above scenario ever happen???

Talk me through the legal situation if/when Roberts goes to France but is not picked. What part of employment law deals with non-contractual, subjective, sporting selection issues? Why can't I move to France and bring about a law suit if Gatland doesn't pick me? Why? Because he'll say that team selection is down to him and that he thinks another player is better. He can do the same for a Roberts, Hook, Byrne, et al., and he does.

On another note (and perhaps being a bit silly here) couldn't a Wales based player, e.g. Lloyd Williams not bring about a law suit? He's Welsh based but not getting selected! That must count for more than being foreign based!

by neilthom7 Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:06 am

The real question probably should be is it doing Wales as a whole bad or good these players leaving, on one hand maybe they get better experiance in France on the other you have less control over when they can be let go for training camps etc. On one hand you can develop more players from the gametime freed up from the big boys leaving on the other it effects regions competitiveness and this can have negative effect on money, future developments and off course players who are there may take a losing mentality into international and suffer from it. It's a balance the WRU need to find the right balance. I think the one thing Ireland has as an advantage is generally it's players don't want to play outside Ireland if they can get success in it I mean a lot of players in Ulster wouldn't consider leaving and the Ultimate goal for those who do leave is to be able to return and get in the team except for when success is sure not to follow. I mean look at Connacht not successful per say nut still manage to keep all their players from leaving Ireland, although many in the past have gone to other provinces.

by Guest Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:17 am

Neil, I'd say on the whole it's a bad thing. We're struggling for club crowds so keeping the best players here would be the greatest advantage. Access to the extras that Gatland wants them for is also a bonus. I understand the argument that it allows development of new youngsters to fill the gap, but in my opinion it's good to learn from the best players in the first place, and the international players are away with Wales so much that there's plenty of chance for youngsters to get game time. The youngsters should be blooded in certain games like against weaker Pro 12 teams or LV games but now that the top players are leaving we're blooding the youngsters in all games including top Heineken Cup games and sometimes they're just not ready, which can have a negative effect on confidence, etc.

So, for me the ideal would be the top players staying here, youngsters fighting to oust them from the team and being given the chance when the internationals are away, and the fans turning up to see the stars. Funding it is the hard thing. Getting players to feel connected to a made up region is difficult too (I'm thinking of Irish players being so passionate about the province, but we just can't replicate that with imaginary regions, so there's less emotional ties keeping them here).

by samuraidragon Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:32 am

neilthom7 wrote:Firstly I wish to apologise I have been a little harsh on you there, tough day at work so I apologise for that, I don't mean to cause offence.
My point is that even with balance of probabilities the burden of proof still stands therefore you would still have to have evidence the evidence may not need to be as full as in that of a criminal trial but you will still need evidence. Also in a discrimination case you have to specify what act they are breaking so what act would they be breaking?
I am not saying rugby is different to football what I am saying that sport should not be going down all this legal path eventually it will just become stupid over the top. I mean every tackle is technically assault in rugby so whats stopping people doing that? once you get law involved like this there is no telling where it could take us. Finally there are ways around it like not making it a written down rule or controlling provinces like Ireland do so they wont challenge even if they want too. I mean Ireland and New Zealand etc have done this for years how many cases has there been? The point being that people in rugby do not want to see loads of these cases so why would we continue to suggest this. I know any player who tried to force their way in using laws like this would not be well received of that I am sure.

Apologies accepted. I take your point. Rugby has been an amateur game for most of its existence, but times are changing, not always for the better. We've just had the lawyers deciding whether Steven Shingler can play for Scotland or not. We have million quid rugby players like Jamie Roberts and a guy like Henson who has had his head turned by celebrity. Who knows where we're going?

by samuraidragon Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:40 am

Griff wrote:Samurai, there will never, ever be a situation where a high court judge (or whoever oversees the trial) forces Gatland to go back on his team selection and include Jamie Roberts, for example, now that he's playing in France. We're talking about international rugby here, which is not about contracts but is about selection and representing your country. How could the above scenario ever happen???

Talk me through the legal situation if/when Roberts goes to France but is not picked. What part of employment law deals with non-contractual, subjective, sporting selection issues? Why can't I move to France and bring about a law suit if Gatland doesn't pick me? Why? Because he'll say that team selection is down to him and that he thinks another player is better. He can do the same for a Roberts, Hook, Byrne, et al., and he does.

On another note (and perhaps being a bit silly here) couldn't a Wales based player, e.g. Lloyd Williams not bring about a law suit? He's Welsh based but not getting selected! That must count for more than being foreign based!

It'd be hard to prove, no question. Maybe there would be some direct evidence - players being told they were putting their international careers at risk, etc. In football, it was often the players' union that forced changes that were to the advantage of players and to the disadvantage of clubs.

by neilthom7 Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:44 am

Very good points Griff, the passions or want to play only for your province has to be built up it is certainly not an overnight thing. I mean playing for your province in Ireland is seen as a big dream not quite as big but not far off the level of playing for Ireland. This is because it has been built that way over years and much of this can be affected through age group rugby for example I ask this in Wales who do you play for at young age group say u-16 level. Over here you play for your clubs youth and school and the best get to play for Ulster at under age level in interpro matches v Leinster etc and this continues to maybe you are given an academy contract and then a full contract. So you are made to think the whole time playing for Ulster is the Ultimate goal, it's one of the things that drove me on to try and be better at school level.
I think attendances wise a good idea is to try more community things too camps for kids attended by players, emphasizing the club as in the heart of the community and even using players from towns to help promote it in them towns like come watch your hometown hero it sounds cheesy etc but it really does work. I'm not sure what price tickets are either or if there are public transport links maybe these could be explored like here there are park and ride facilities all over Belfast to the stadium. These are run by translink in partnership with Ulster. I am by no means saying Ulster is perfect but we have a good support and it is growing too so maybe there are a few lessons we can teach our Celtic cousins because for us it means a stronger league and that means more money and supporters and creditability etc so its in our best interests as well. The league is also a big unit and maybe we need to realise that and help out teams that may need it.

by neilthom7 Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:50 am

samuraidragon wrote:
neilthom7 wrote:Firstly I wish to apologise I have been a little harsh on you there, tough day at work so I apologise for that, I don't mean to cause offence.
My point is that even with balance of probabilities the burden of proof still stands therefore you would still have to have evidence the evidence may not need to be as full as in that of a criminal trial but you will still need evidence. Also in a discrimination case you have to specify what act they are breaking so what act would they be breaking?
I am not saying rugby is different to football what I am saying that sport should not be going down all this legal path eventually it will just become stupid over the top. I mean every tackle is technically assault in rugby so whats stopping people doing that? once you get law involved like this there is no telling where it could take us. Finally there are ways around it like not making it a written down rule or controlling provinces like Ireland do so they wont challenge even if they want too. I mean Ireland and New Zealand etc have done this for years how many cases has there been? The point being that people in rugby do not want to see loads of these cases so why would we continue to suggest this. I know any player who tried to force their way in using laws like this would not be well received of that I am sure.

Apologies accepted. I take your point. Rugby has been an amateur game for most of its existence, but times are changing, not always for the better. We've just had the lawyers deciding whether Steven Shingler can play for Scotland or not. We have million quid rugby players like Jamie Roberts and a guy like Henson who has had his head turned by celebrity. Who knows where we're going?

This we can agree on. I am starting to have a bad feeling that there are more and more people involved in rugby now not for the passion or pride or winning titles but instead purely for money. (see english football and rugby club owners) and that I fear is only going to negatively effect one set of people. You and me, THE FANS so therefore mate we are a brother hood and you didnt think I'd say that lol Hug

by samuraidragon Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:03 am

neilthom7 wrote:
samuraidragon wrote:
neilthom7 wrote:Firstly I wish to apologise I have been a little harsh on you there, tough day at work so I apologise for that, I don't mean to cause offence.
My point is that even with balance of probabilities the burden of proof still stands therefore you would still have to have evidence the evidence may not need to be as full as in that of a criminal trial but you will still need evidence. Also in a discrimination case you have to specify what act they are breaking so what act would they be breaking?
I am not saying rugby is different to football what I am saying that sport should not be going down all this legal path eventually it will just become stupid over the top. I mean every tackle is technically assault in rugby so whats stopping people doing that? once you get law involved like this there is no telling where it could take us. Finally there are ways around it like not making it a written down rule or controlling provinces like Ireland do so they wont challenge even if they want too. I mean Ireland and New Zealand etc have done this for years how many cases has there been? The point being that people in rugby do not want to see loads of these cases so why would we continue to suggest this. I know any player who tried to force their way in using laws like this would not be well received of that I am sure.

Apologies accepted. I take your point. Rugby has been an amateur game for most of its existence, but times are changing, not always for the better. We've just had the lawyers deciding whether Steven Shingler can play for Scotland or not. We have million quid rugby players like Jamie Roberts and a guy like Henson who has had his head turned by celebrity. Who knows where we're going?

This we can agree on. I am starting to have a bad feeling that there are more and more people involved in rugby now not for the passion or pride or winning titles but instead purely for money. (see english football and rugby club owners) and that I fear is only going to negatively effect one set of people. You and me, THE FANS so therefore mate we are a brother hood and you didnt think I'd say that lol

Agreed.

by bedfordwelsh Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:06 pm

Despite the fact that rugby had to go proffessional thats whenthings chnaged because the owners then became money men and it all became a business not a passion.

by Glas a du Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:03 pm

To answer the original post - no. For the following reasons:
1 the regions can't afford to keep them
2 it gives developing players a chance of game time
3 they will be better players internationally and better potential future coaches for the experience

by bedfordwelsh Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:19 pm

Glas,

I agree but I do think that if they are not playing (Jenkins) then they shouldn't just be selected for who they are, but then again thats the same for Welsh based players.

by Glas a du Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:46 pm

You're right. They are more likely to get an objectively correct selection if they don't tie themselves up in little rules.

by Sponsored content