SARU must lay down the law.

Signal .......weak, in the .......bush, struggling.........to get through........ 3G is...........poor.

Anyway....... Heyneke Meyer is hurting SA rugby wiith his continuous visible attempts to recall Bakkies Botha, Fourie du Preez and Jaque Fourie earlier in the year.

Juandre Kruger will leave SA shores to go play in France after a lucrative offer the Bulls couldn't match. Bryan Habana is reportedly leaving as well, JP Pietersen has been approached as well, with Meyer selecting Gurthro Steenkamp, Schalk Brits and a number of others during the Autumn internationals he has basically opened the door for other current Boks and also potential Boks to accept overseas contracts as they don't have the fear of not being selected to represent South Africa.

The reality is when you consider the amounts of money they can make in one year, and what that money can provide them when brought back to SA there is no contest.

You can take 300 000 pounds sterling and buy a mansion in a golf estate back in SA, if you can save 500 000 pounds sterling in Europe you can build yourself an office block of 12000 square feet and collect R120 000 a month in rent which provides you an upperclass standard of living for the rest of your days, alternatively you can build a block of flats that will pretty much provide you the same type of lifestyle.

The fact is SARU must now step in and lay down their marker. If you want money, then get the hell out of here and don't come back hoping to represent your country. South Africa doesn't need you, and we don't want you.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with serving your nation (which is what we need to build our country) and then run after as much money as you want.

I use Greame Smith our Protea captain as an example, he became captain of South Africa a decade ago, he served his nation, married an Irish celebrity and has now signed a contract to captain Surrey for the next three years.

John Smit has done pretty much the same thing, after playing 100 plus tests for the Springboks is now doing his swan song at Saracens.

I don't begrudge these guys the opportunity to make money, not at all.

But for goodness sake, is there no such thing as loyalty anymore?

Have we become a nation not prepared to work our backsides off to earn our spots to represent our countries?

I think back to an article I read on FAF du Plessis, when he was in his first year playing cricket in England, he was offered a contract to play County Cricket, the condition was he must sign his intention to play for England. He refused as representing South Africa was more important to him. It took another 5 years before he got his shot. That's what you expect from True South Africans. Earn your spot and be patriotic.

Sportsmen like Kevin Pietersen, CJ Stander, Brad Barrit etc. are amongst a plethora of South African sportsmen who decided they will take the money option (most of these players have the same excuse, they won't or didn't get an opportunity to play for their country).

FIne, if you want to leave, leave, but don't use pathetic excuses, you are after the easy money.

With you 100%

Biltong,

I beleive the situation with Faf was caused by the ECB rules regarding funding for counties playing "kolpaks". Counties were reluctant to sign "foriegns" on long contracts who might get capped and leave them unable to play them without losing central funding which is what keeps county cricket going.
If the RFU came up with similar rules regarding EPS payments (eg we keep the current limits on foreign players but change the defintion to those eligable to play for england if you want to get EPS money)we'd maybe see less saffers and pislanders come here. The ones who would come would be the very young looking to develope a career from scratch getting access to the well funded age group system and going on to play for Scotland.

But the real problem for SA rugby now lies in Franjepan, not England, where they seem to have infinite resources to spend on players who acheive very little. Rumours that the French clubs have been setting conditions on contracts to have players retire from internationals is bad for the world game....going off topic again its also a big argument for the global season and maybe one or two less tests every year.

Quite agree that really theres not much any nation can do about this, whether its SA, Wales, or Umbongoland other than make their national jersey a matter of pride and their home Union worth playing in.

Maybe SA need to ensure that they have greater opportunities for players domesticaly in terms of pay and development. Are they best served continuing to fund NZ and Australia in the S16, would a joinging the Castle Cup with the Franglos be an option? (I doubt it)

I do think most of us would want to see players staying at home and playing for their home clubs and Unions, and also shorter more coherent replies to topics. Im not sure how realistic ambitions either are though.

Agree with you to an extent Biltong but I would probably take the easy money in the same situation, it's the best kind of money.
A sporting career can end in a split second and for someone whose sole ambition has been the glory of what is essentially an inconsequential pastime the transition to a "normal" life and a "normal" career can be impossible, not helped by the (unproven) fact that they tend to be a bit thick and unadaptable due to the tunnel-eyed focus necessary to follow and excel in said pastime.

You may remember a centre pairing for Transvaal in the early 90s of Hennie Wigget & Heinrich Fuls, as goods as Fuls was Wiggett was one of the most talented players I've seen. Fuls went on to play for the Boks but Wiggett injured his leg in (I think) his first season & I never heard of him again.

Agree 100% about them shutting up if they do follow the cash trail, get sickened by the victim "I'm a refugee" mentality.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
I do think most of us would want to see players staying at home and playing for their home clubs and Unions, and also shorter more coherent replies to topics. Im not sure how realistic ambitions either are though.

I found the length of the reply acceptable as was the coherency but the use of apostrophes was mediocre. After correcting me on my Panesar opinions I think it's only fair that you sort out this particular aspect of your posting.

Galted wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
I do think most of us would want to see players staying at home and playing for their home clubs and Unions, and also shorter more coherent replies to topics. Im not sure how realistic ambitions either are though.

I found the length of the reply acceptable as was the coherency but the use of apostrophes was mediocre. After correcting me on my Panesar opinions I think it's only fair that you sort out this particular aspect of your posting.

N'ted

Strong words Bilt.

Where do you draw the line though? It's been stated that a few English and Welsh players have gone to France for a few years and come back to serve their national sides as stronger players. They made their multiple 0's in the pay pack, and came back stronger players. Obviously, this isn't always the case and the journey to and from SA is a good long haul, as opposed to jump on the train through the Channel Tunnel.

Pride in the National jersey seems to be an issue. As a fan i've always seen it as the clubs (/regions) duty to feed into and serve the national team, but it's been mooted in other threads that the club game is taking over the national game in terms of importance (a rather nasty parallel with wendyball), which i think would be a massive shame. This isn't just limited to SA and could be endemic throughout world rugby. Maybe test Rugby needs a shake up? Maybe central contracting is an option for capped players?

On a side note, i thought Meyer's capping of Brits through the AI's was actually a very savvy move as he's either played with, or against, all of the home nations national players and could provide great insights. I honestly didn't think of that cap as Meyer opening the door to 'ok, you can have your cake and eat it', but i can see how it could be taken that way.

You could look at the capping of Brits as a carrot for him to come home. Now he knows hes needed/wanted by the national side he must be looking at his calander and thinking "crikey Im goign to be a busy chap if I play all these tests", as will his employers.
Indeed being a full cap international makes him far less attractive the the French Vultures, since he will miss a thid of the season for Quad nations and AIs, plus he might not get a proper rest during the summer.
Several Argentinains have struggled to get good contracts in Europe since they joined the Nations.

So who knows, it may tempt him home.

It seems apparent the issue with South African player drain to France is similar - but more extreme - than with players in the Home Nations. Clearly, the opportunity to make significantly more money than at home is powerful incentive. If I recall a number floated somewhere, there are over 100 South Africans playing in France. The number of Home Nations boys is less, but the root cause is the same: more money at the French clubs than anywhere else (at the moment). As mentioned above, the opportunity to make significantly more money and potentially be financially comfortable for a long time is powerful incentive. And is hard to be critical of. Though to be fair, Rugby players would be leading a less comfortable retirement as players can in American sport or football.

The owners of the French clubs obviously have a Global view of the sport, and many recruit in that manner. I can't blame them for that. However, I think we can generally agree this is bad for the French national team as there are fewer French players at the top club level. Additionally, it causes the player drain from other countries to which Biltong refers, which damages Rugby in other countries.

It is undeniably good there is money to be spent in Rugby - our sport is marketable. Perhaps a global agreement about the number of national residents v. the number of non-national residents for clubs is possible (EU and other right-to-work agreements would need a critical evaluation there).

Without that, I suppose the status quo will continue.

I agree with Biltong's pov that only players plying their trade at home should qualify for their national teams. The only other solution I can see is to raise the cash payments for players representing their countries. And that requires a different financial agreement between the national unions where the impact on all nations is included. And potentially it would need to be driven down to the compensation each player receives in order to somewhat mitigate the larger club salaries offshore. Unfortunately, in Rugby, we are not noted for our smooth negotiation skills..........

Alastair, I think the line must be drawn harshly.

There should be no doubt as to the route a player takes. If you choose to leave, that is it. There should be no turning back. It is all about the commitment. If a player thinks or suspects he isn't good enough to become a BOK (which in all honesty is what it is about) then he chooses the alternative and easier route to make money. It is really as simple as that.

The fact is you don't need a hell of a lot of money to start a business in SA, and truth be told if the players is wise they will have good secure futures irrespective of not having earned overseas moneys.

But they don't, I read the other day Francois Hougaard bought a Ferrari, what the hell do you want to do with a Ferrari at age 24?

Seabiscuit.

Yes, I think it is time SARU sits down and does a feasability study on Rugby without the Super XV and find a solution to being able to have more than 5 of our 14 Provinces being financially strong enough to sustain proper salaries for our players.

Biltong wrote:
But they don't, I read the other day Francois Hougaard bought a Ferrari, what the hell do you want to do with a Ferrari at age 24?

Meet Danny Ciprianis ex girlfriends (the ones who have alywas been women)?

A Ferrari at 24... Probably cruise around Sea Point hoping to meet cheerleaders?!

Seriously though, SA seem to be the most effected by the 'brawn drain' and picking European players is only going to enhance the problem. The fact that they don;t count as 'foreign' in european squads is a major plus.

Realistically its about money,so the SARU basically need to work out a way to change the finances to keep those players who are just on the cusp of international honours. This whole signing for 3 years with the possibility of an international cap is pretty unsavoury in my view but that can only be stopped with a change in IRB policy.

As an aside, do these players moving abroad for the money not reflect changes in SA generally? There are literally 100's of thousands in the UK (including my house!) as well as in OZ and NZ who have come over for the money plus a change in culture etc. Is this that much different from a fringe super XV player who feels he isnt going to make it?

There is one major reason why it occurs with SA but not with AUS & NZ.

SA do not centrally contract their players.

Yes 30 odd players are funded by SARU... but like the EPS in England... its done on a year by year basis so players can move on at the end of each season.

Take 2 cases in recent years. Joe van Niekerk & Frans Steyn.

Joe van Niekerk was coming into his prime in 2007-8. He didn't make much of an impression on Jake White but De Villiers wanted him as his first choice No.8 .
De Villiers started with van Niekerk in 2008 but then was saddened to hear that he decided to move to Europe and turn his back on the boks.

De Villiers had no control, no offer other than telling him he was his first choice player but thats his word, form, injury and other players performance can all change.

Frans Steyn also moved without SARU being involved. RM made an offer, the Sharks obviously couldn't match it so he moved. His agent was very happy he moved given he was on a bumper contract and again SARU had nothing they could offer Steyn... as the issue lied with the Sharks and not them.

In the end SARU has to make a decision... do they want their best players playing in SA and for SA... if so they have to pay their players better and stop lining their own pockets.

Kruger is not a huge loss... Bekker is better. However with Kruger gone the strength in depth begins to look a little threadbare.

In 2011 you had

Muller
Hargreaves
Botha
Matfield
Bekker
van Der Merve

in 2012 they now have

Bekker
Etzebeth
van Der Merve

any others??? Stephen Sykes!!!!

bit of a drop in class.

You could add Anton Bresler and Paul Willemse the U20 JWC lock.

Bilt, couldn't the SARU go down the same route as NZRU? You don't play in SA, you don't wear the Bok Jersey. Or would you exclude them permanently from national team selection if they leave through 'prime' years (not sure what other way to put it)?

If the line must be drawn as hard as you feel in necesary, you best be damn sure you draw it in the right place!

If a 24 year old has enough disposible income to throw away on a pretty red sports car, he can't be earning that badly in SA! It vertainly seems enough to invest in property, shares, or something to secure a living.

I'd be pretty surprised if Hougaard bought a Ferrari too.. perhaps it was a mates or he's been given one by a showroom to act as their spokesman.

They're not on that good money.

For instance, Habana lives in the same suburb as my in laws, Plattekloof. Its a nice suburb but its not for the ferrari brigade... perhaps the odd Z4.

Unless he's hiding all his money under his bed I think the most you can say these guys are is comfortable (in comparison to European players).

I beleive they must follow New Zealand's example and not select them.

The point for me is Jaque Fourie, he has clearly been the best 13 in SA for some time, he took a big contract to go make real easy money in Japan, his contract runs till 2014.

When he comes back, I bet Meyer will look at him, he even tried to convince Fourie to play for the Boks this year, as much as it hurts me to say this as Jaque Fourie is a big hero of mine, stuff him, you left, make your money but you ain't playng for the BOks anymore.

It boils down to being able to firstly rely on players to be loyal to the jersey, secondly it is about our rugby culture vs another nation's culture, and then it is about continuity of style, team and gameplan.

Ultimately club rugby is killing International rugby.

It seems it isn't a Ferrari, but an Audi R8, and he didn't buy it, it is a sponsor from Audi SA.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/R22m-dream-car-for-Hougaard-20120611

Shows you, I need to pay more attention.

Not meaning to turn this into a discussion about my nation, but i was very happy to hear when Bomber took the reins that there was an informal 'Don't play in England, don't expect to wear the White/Rose (Regal purple /w gold trim )', and reinforced self belief & national honour. Ultimatley, making it the highest peak of professionalism to wear the jersey.

This attitude is the same in NZ, and one of the traits i've always admired from afar about AB rugby. They seem to consistently bring through players that see the Black jersey as the pinnicle of their career, and rightly so!

Club rugby does seem to be asking a lot of things from players, and we've all heard horror stories of the things they've asked. Wouldn't that be an issue for the IRB to weigh in on?

A rule is only worth anything if its enforced.

Although losing Pienaar & Louw may hurt the boks for a while. It may force Meyer to go back to Hougaard (big mistake).

I like van Zyl of the cheetahs. Lots of potential there.

AlastairW wrote:Not meaning to turn this into a discussion about my nation, but i was very happy to hear when Bomber took the reins that there was an informal 'Don't play in England, don't expect to wear the White/Rose (Regal purple /w gold trim )', and reinforced self belief & national honour. Ultimatley, making it the highest peak of professionalism to wear the jersey.

This attitude is the same in NZ, and one of the traits i've always admired from afar about AB rugby. They seem to consistently bring through players that see the Black jersey as the pinnicle of their career, and rightly so!

Club rugby does seem to be asking a lot of things from players, and we've all heard horror stories of the things they've asked. Wouldn't that be an issue for the IRB to weigh in on?

I really don't understand this obsession with players staying and playing in their country. I can understand re the amount of time they have available to train with their national team, or if say they are part of an EPS that includes strict controls on their conditioning or something similar. But if they're allowed to be released, why not let them play in another league?

From an English perspective, I can't think of a single player that hasn't improved by playing in France. Learning a different style of play, playing against top players (sorry, but the general standard IS better than the Prem imo) every week, I think that's a good thing and prevents a national team becoming too insular. I know keeping players at home works for the All Blacks, but I think most structures would work for them given the players they produce.

Also, if the choice for a player is a) provide for my family for the rest of their lives or b) show patriotic pride, i know which I'd be more happy with. I know it's not a simple reductive choice in this regard, but I don't think the reasons for people taking the money are entirely about greed (for some obviously it is).

Anyway, basically, i entirely disagree. But fair enough, I can accept that there is an argument about only picking players who show complete commitment.

From an English PoV Hood I can see what you mean. Taking Haskell for example, I think he's come back from his time in S15 a much better player! Kept his intensity, maybe added to it, and not a so much of penalty machine. Whether or not as a person he's still a bit of a tool is yet to be determined though

This doesn't effect England as badly as SA though, which I think was Bilt's point. They're seeing RU players, cricketers and other potentially nation representing sports persons leave for the monies over the honour of [playing for The Boks. All NH countries are arguably guilty of throwing petrol on the fire regarding this, but there was no gun held to their head, they made the choice to go for the monies.

Maybe there needs a shift in zeitgeist that places country > club? As club is certainly beginning to eclipse the 'serving your nation' attitude as such, especially when we see PI & other players have caveats in their contracts that state that they can't or won't play for the nation.

Your situation started in 2008 [I think] when Matfield,Botha,Butch James among others were picked.Few if any improved there game in the NH indeed it
Victor Matfield a fair time to regain his best form.
Picking outside the home country means extra travelling.limited training times etc,not to mention player release problems with clubs.
Bok Rugby was feared as one of or THE Best since 1996 you are so far
behind Nz its untrue.Australia have also overtaken you,I know player quotas play a part BUT picking players overseas based has hurt you badly.
Frankly it cost you games even championships home based players might have won you.
When I say behind I mean on games won/lost NOT that there is a huge difference between the sides at FULL STRENGTH whatever that is.
Nz and Oz only pick home based players and mostly from super franchises which were strictly controlled before the Melbourne Rebels bit.
In my opinion that has been a big Factor in recent years,NZ continue to build from the base upwards the Itm quality is there to see[Currie Cup also]
Of all the SH sides SA would survive in the NH best because there game is similar.
IF SA has the balls to say RIGHT come home and fight for a Bok place OR take the money your choice.As NZ/OZ have obviously that was to start a mass exedous of players.
Super Rugby at least the best Franchises 11 at best are the equal of any world wide.A Bok side based on the Bulls/Stormers/Sharks is formidable indeed.
The problem of to much Rugby [where ever played] has mean`t sub strength Bok /OZ sides this year and the ABs have also had major casualties too.

Hood83 wrote:I really don't understand this obsession with players staying and playing in their country. I can understand re the amount of time they have available to train with their national team, or if say they are part of an EPS that includes strict controls on their conditioning or something similar. But if they're allowed to be released, why not let them play in another league?

From an English perspective, I can't think of a single player that hasn't improved by playing in France. Learning a different style of play, playing against top players (sorry, but the general standard IS better than the Prem imo) every week, I think that's a good thing and prevents a national team becoming too insular. I know keeping players at home works for the All Blacks, but I think most structures would work for them given the players they produce.

Also, if the choice for a player is a) provide for my family for the rest of their lives or b) show patriotic pride, i know which I'd be more happy with. I know it's not a simple reductive choice in this regard, but I don't think the reasons for people taking the money are entirely about greed (for some obviously it is).

Anyway, basically, i entirely disagree. But fair enough, I can accept that there is an argument about only picking players who show complete commitment.

Hood, it isn't as simple as that.

I have said many times before that I have no qualms about players going overseas to earn an income out of professional sport if their own country doesn't provide an opportunity to do so.

What I have a problem with is the timing of these efforts.

Many times before we have discussed on these forums the pro's and cons about having EXPERIENCED overseas players sharing their knowledge and tutoring younger guns for the benefit of rugby. But these days the element of players going overseas isn't the experienced players only, there is a general trend for younger and younger players to move abroad. Now when you read between the lines (you have to) these players are made promises of international representation (It doesn't matter what we read in the newspapers)

South Africa has a weak currency, it also provides more challenges than most other "westernised nations" due to its political climate, economy etc. Hence professionals will always find "better" opportunities in other countries.

The outflux of sproting talent out of South Africa is becoming alarming, if our Sporting bodies aren't realising this, then there is even greater concern about this.

Jurie Roux CEO of SARU said just the other day it isn't possible for SARU to hold onto all their talent.

Sure as hell, if we don't try to, there is no chance.

SARU has to reconsider the viability and financial implication of any alternative option out there to retain and secudre the maximum potential income for the future of our sport.

I am sure many don't see anything wrong with SA losing sportsmen left and right as they are benefitting from it.

The only one losing out here is SA sport.

It weakens our domestic rugby due to these players leaving enmasse, (Kobus Wiese said on Boots and All the other night there were more than 400 South Africans playing professional rugby outside our borders, and that was in July), the question is how many of those players are top quality players, if you assume 100, then that means 100 players that could strengthen our domestic rugby.

Imagine how strong our 5 Super XV Frnachises would be if we could get those 100 players back.

In the meantime our players are strengthening other Competitions.

Biltong wrote:In the meantime our players are strengthening other Competitions.

Dont worry Jade Dernbach and Botha are doing their best to ruin our Cricket and Rugby teams

Yep, double agent Botha did a superb job sealing SA's win at Twickenham.