why SA got rid of their overseas rule and how NZ and Oz might have to follow suit.

a few years back my father in law (south african) would watch different teams and tell me how many underage southafricans where leaving home before getting capped as they could make more money in europe. If the players where good enough they could always come back on better money and play for the National team. A few years later and SA soon had no older players really as they went off for their last paycheaque while most of the younger one's had already gone away.

NZ and Oz so far have not had many young players leave but as the wage inflation goes up in euro and with the euro slowly coming back up will the money be to much. Players like Nick Evans would most likely make the NZ team as second choice and first while Carter is away, but he has no interest and recently got pay a large amount of money with the bonus of he does not have to play as many games.

If you play in france you either play for the home team 15 or the way team 15. There would be young players from NZ and Oz that could double their money going to france and still be a bargin. Bil has previously stated that French clubs come and look at school kids trying to spot the next bargin. We must assume that they are doing the same in Oz and NZ.

Would the unions be happy to say to players we will pick you if you have played in or union teams in the last 2 years. Once out of the country for 2 years you are no longer picked. Would this however either cause all year playing akin to Haskell or would there be a mass exodus with few returning.

I would like SARU not to allow overseas players play for the springboks.

Rugby is a year round sport, so it doesn't allow for playing in SA during their season and then playing elsewhere out of our season.

Peter Grant is the prime example of a professional who manages to play Super Xv at home and then in Japan for the rest of the year.

If that is possible then yes, the guy should be elegible to play for the Springboks, but not when you are away the majority of the year.

How does one build culture and team spirit with guys coming out of a totally different rugby culture?

I should add I think NZRU getting a sponser and selling part of the S15 franchise share (or whatever you want to call it) was their last to cards for keeping players. If it doesn't work I can't see players staying esp when the NZRU broke the bank to keep Carter and McCaw, why would Smith etc not want simillar deals when they can get paid simillar amounts in Europe.

What is the lesser of many other evils? Frankly, the current policy by the NZRFU is the best in my opinion. The central contract system is the best way to not only retaining top talent but also the vital talent that will never make the AB squad but does an incalculable task of nurturing young talent and providing invaluable experience for bridging the considerable gap between club/provincial rugby and test rugby.

Open the floodgates and you won't just get the top players chasing the euro or yen. You will get the second and third tier players chasing the higher currencies and you will stop the conveyor belt of home talent. Once you are out of the system, it makes it very difficult to get back. And that's how it should be as it provides an incentive for players to stay and the pride of wearing the national jersey is not sold out. Jerome Kaino and SBW will be interesting examples of players who might try to make a comeback. Tamati Ellison is an example of a player who did and players like McCaw and Carter have been offered some flexibility in return for loyalty to the black shirt.

Changing the rules would be a huge mistake. Look at the issues Argentina have with club players. It's far worse than teams like Manu Samoa who at least have most of their players playing in New Zealand. Spread your player base around the world and you make life far too difficult for your national squad. No continuity, no combinations and differences in approach and fitness. Central contracts is the only way to go

As for Australia, they have too few domestic players to choose from already. Allow their players to go overseas and you'd be forced to look overseas for players to plug the gaps in the Super 15 teams and you'd dilute the talent you have to choose from even more.

I dont have a problem with players playing abroad so long as they can make the training sessions / squads.

If they elect to go abroad they should manage a clasue to let them make the training sessions...if they dont get it then they dont get picked by the national team. If they do then no issues...

Geordie it's not like in Europe where at least the players are playing in the same season. If the players go to the northern hemisphere season and are then expected to play test rugby in the southern hemisphere schedule, when do your players get a rest? How do they adapt to rugby played at a different pace when they're playing on different grounds and in different weather?

The central contract is the only card the NZRFU can play to keep players. Go overseas and you give up on your childhood dream of becoming an All Black. You have to keep players in your own test season otherwise player burnout becomes even more acute.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Geordie it's not like in Europe where at least the players are playing in the same season. If the players go to the northern hemisphere season and are then expected to play test rugby in the southern hemisphere schedule, when do your players get a rest? How do they adapt to rugby played at a different pace when they're playing on different grounds and in different weather?

The central contract is the only card the NZRFU can play to keep players. Go overseas and you give up on your childhood dream of becoming an All Black. You have to keep players in your own test season otherwise player burnout becomes even more acute.

Do you know if the money from the sponsership and private investors went on wages or reserves for future wages rises. If Oz players choose to leave their is nothing they can do. NZ have the shirt, but if the difference in wages get to big then the shirt might not be enough.

The IRFU don't pay as much as others but you a limited to about 30 games a year.
That is and some one can correct me 5-8 internationals, 6-9 HC and about 10+ Rabo

In Nz they are doing 16-18 games S15, 6+3+3 international so about 30 games aswell.

Kia

I appreciate its a far from simple puzzle to solve, and as you say probably easier for the NH teams to work out than the SH teams.

But unfortunately at the moment all six SH teams (and i include Samoa, Tonga and Fiji in that) are gonna struggle whilst the money is in Europe...most noteably France!

Personally if i was playing top flight i would love to do what Haskell did and go south for a Season...and im amazed more players dont try it for a season or two.

SA is better placed to play foreign based players than AUS & NZ.

Why?

Because of the timezones. SA is 1hr away from Europe. No jetlag. Most flights are night flights so you leave in evening arrive in morning. Business class and you'll get a decent sleep.

Players can therefore go to bok training sessions without any more issues than a little tiredness in the 1st day.

Can't say that about NZ or AUS. Double the flying time. Jetlag etc.

I know people who work in UK Mon-Thursday and fly back on thursday night to SA for the weekend.... every weekend near for six months of the year. Difficult but possible.

Doesn't help Fourie's cause in Japan fa0019. Doesn't help that the club and international scenes in the respective hemispheres are not compatible in terms of resting players. When are players expected to recover?

Football is a good example to use where union might end up following. Clubs hold the money and power and internationals are devalued except for major tournaments which see some star players performing not as well as what they do for their clubs. Is this the road the IRB want to take?

kiakahaaotearoa

May help NZ & AUS players though.

I'm not sure how Japan are financing their rugby though.... its not a massive sport there and stadium figures aren't huge (ave. <5K from wikipedia) meaning that the salaries would be financed by individuals. Doesn't sound long term to me.

Sugar daddies don't stay long if they aren't getting their cut after a while.

You're right about player conditioning though. Frans Steyn was a nothing player for 2 years for the boks... in that he contributed very little compared to his skills because he was playing all year round, was unfit and overweight.

fa0019 wrote:kiakahaaotearoa

May help NZ & AUS players though.

I'm not sure how Japan are financing their rugby though.... its not a massive sport there and stadium figures aren't huge (ave. <5K from wikipedia) meaning that the salaries would be financed by individuals. Doesn't sound long term to me.

Sugar daddies don't stay long if they aren't getting their cut after a while.

You're right about player conditioning though. Frans Steyn was a nothing player for 2 years for the boks... in that he contributed very little compared to his skills because he was playing all year round, was unfit and overweight.

Japan's been pro for a long time - the teams are run by the big corporates (so you see teams like Toyota Verblitz, Ricoh Black Rams and Sanyo Wild Knights), and they are willing to take cash losses for the sake of the comapny wide team building. Also, most of the teams have 2 or 3 top stars, who earn mega salaries, while the home grown guys and journeyman imports are on a lot less. The money paid vs level and amount of rugby played is pretty good though

Biltong wrote:


How does one build culture and team spirit with guys coming out of a totally different rugby culture?

Play for Saracens? Is that the answer?

I think ENG and SA are the closest to each other in terms of styles so I'm sure if a SA player moved to an ENG HC side like Leicester/Saracens etc. then I'm sure it wouldn't be too different from SA rugby.

France has its problems with fitness.... its less intense and more individual. Naturally lazy players like Frans Steyn pile on the pounds without rigorous monitoring.

The one thing players should realise is that for instance in the Cape, players are treated like gods. They are worshipped like British footballers by 6MM people and live and play rugby in perhaps some of the most glamourous stadia/pitches on earth.

When they go to Saracens (i.e. Watford/Barnet etc) it will be quite a reality check. They may earn more money but I don't think people would notice them from larry other than the club bar.

The top guys get paid enough... they can always do a couple of final years once their test career is over. The lure of the GBP & the EUR is only attractive at the moment to has-beens and never will be's.

I would actually like to see all unions and leagues to get together and scrum down and address this issue before it is actually beyond repair. I believe that there should be rules and structures in place in each jurisdiction that prevents or mitigates against player hemorrhaging from one zone to another for financial reasons. Its killing international rugby. Some proposals:

-Reduced limit on foreign players.
-Also 1 player per foreign country cap per team. No more Saffercens.
-Limited timeframe contracts available for current overseas internationals. 1 year for example.
-Project players should require home union consent.
-Intellectual property rights. By the same logic whereby a student that develops a sucessful commercial venture in university can be liable to forfeit profits and ownership on said project to their university I think that a young player that is a product of one union and affiliated club should have to pay a proportion of their wages to that club/union if they take up a lucrative contract abroad over a set minimum threshold. This will provide some compensation to the system that develops a stream of youngsters opting to move abroad and help pay for those that chose to stay at home.

None of the above suggestions may be viable or even that intellegent but the brains trust at the IRB really need to clash heads and come up with some ideas. The focus should be on spreading player wealth rather allowing it to build up in the wealthiest leagues.

fa0019 wrote:..
When they go to Saracens (i.e. Watford/Barnet etc) it will be quite a reality check. They may earn more money but I don't think people would notice them from larry other than the club bar.

The top guys get paid enough... they can always do a couple of final years once their test career is over. The lure of the GBP & the EUR is only attractive at the moment to has-beens and never will be's.

Moving from Cape Town to Watford or Hatfield (where Sarries train) would be enough of a reality check without the loss of local superstardon...

As a more serious consideration, are the wages for players really that much better in England and France when you take into account both the cost of living here relative to SA or NZ and the lower opportunities for earnings peripheral to the game (I assume Boks and All Blacks make serious money in endorsements - in Britain most of this money goes to David Beckham, then to Premiership footballers. Rugby players in the main have qute a low media profile).

fa0019 wrote:..
David Beckham, then to Premiership footballers. Rugby players in the main have qute a low media profile).

David Beckham. Thats pretty funny. Mind you Id imagine Rory McIlroy's €250m deal with Nike places him ahead of beckham these days.

The springboks generallly get national endorsements like top British sportsman would get (but perhaps rugby players may not) but I don't think its in the same league as European endorsements.

The money is quite a bit better from what I believe but bar the south of France I doubt its a glamourous lifestyle trudging through the mud on a winters morning in Bath.

When I moved to SA I took quite a big pay cut but was it worth it. My quality of life thoroughly increased and my house size tripled (for example).

I guess their plan is to save like crazy whilst they're in the UK, save on tax relief (i.e. pay no NI etc) and put it towards their pension. Its not like they're on slave wages at home though.

CJ VanDerLinde hardly ever played for Leinster but earned enough to buy a farm when he returned home. Useless blob.

This really is a no brainer as far as NZ is concerned,they are THE most successful Team in World Rugby.THAT is because of the rules about being in Country.
SH and NH play in different styles incidentally in my opinion the Boks lack of success has been down to picking NH based players.
The odd one or two will sell there souls to Japan,Top14 whatever BUT to earn big bucks.You have to have All Black on your Cv sure the odd one will go for money.BUT there will be 3 or 4 to replace him coming thru sure they may not be the Best.But in a couple of years they could be,change the rules the S16 will become another team of Top14 IF it survives at all.
Can you honestly say that NH Rugby at Test level has been improved by squads
having any thing up to 15 Overseas players.
Club before Country?Money before the game take it from me NZ will NEVER change the rules.IF they do they will be stripped of all there best players and become JUST ANOTHER Team.

the Boks lack of success has been down to picking NH based players

Lack of Success?

Firstly that is relative. Even when we didn't use overseas players we had similar win ratio's

Secondly, look at coaching, gameplan and selections.

How much do people think farms cost in SA???

You could get yourself a non working farm for say 20MM rand which is about £1.5MM GBP. Want one which is active you're probably talking 50MM+.

The cheapest farm I ever saw was for 4MM rand which was the farm my skoenpa grew up in... a sheep farm, decent size but in the north of the western cape and therefore barren with zero growth opportunities.

Unless rugby players are paid considerably more than I think in Europe/Japan then I think this whole farm myth is little more than a myth (unless its a business partnership, family takeover etc etc).

Cant say I agree with you Emack. SAs woes dont just stem from picking NH based players. Do you really think SA wouldnt have beaten Ireland in the AIs if Ruan Piennar and selected other NH based players werent picked? He was one of the standout players and scored the winning try. Francios Steyn for example has also played well for SA when drafted back in. I doubt SA would have won all their games in the AIs at all is they didnt select NH based players.

Also the Boks play quite a similar brand of rugby to a lot of NH teams. Id say they are more similar to the likes of Ireland and England than they are to Aus and NZ.

fa0019 wrote:How much do people think farms cost in SA???

You could get yourself a non working farm for say 20MM rand which is about £1.5MM GBP. Want one which is active you're probably talking 50MM+.

The cheapest farm I ever saw was for 4MM rand which was the farm my skoenpa grew up in... a sheep farm, decent size but in the north of the western cape and therefore barren with zero growth opportunities.

Unless rugby players are paid considerably more than I think in Europe/Japan then I think this whole farm myth is little more than a myth (unless its a business partnership, family takeover etc etc).

Jonny Wilkinson gets paid £700k per year at Toulon. I assume Habana, Botha and co. are on similar wages. Dan Carter was paid over £1m for his very brief spell at Perpignan.

Well you could argue that SA were signficantly hindered by the condition of Frans Steyn at the last world cup.

Probably SA's most gifted player at the time and his stats are very impressive.... when he plays SA near always wins... when he doesn't SA struggle (I recall some of us went through this at the RWC).

He was over-weight, injured and had played too much rugby without a proper break.
Had he been in an SA team he probably wouldn't have aggravated his injury and taken SA to the SF & potentially beyond.

The game at the top is all about small margins.

fa0019 wrote:Well you could argue that SA were signficantly hindered by the condition of Frans Steyn at the last world cup.

Probably SA's most gifted player at the time and his stats are very impressive.... when he plays SA near always wins... when he doesn't SA struggle (I recall some of us went through this at the RWC).

He was over-weight, injured and had played too much rugby without a proper break.
Had he been in an SA team he probably wouldn't have aggravated his injury and taken SA to the SF & potentially beyond.

The game at the top is all about small margins.

Conjecture. Anyway he has always been a unit.

Lets say Habana is on 800K for 3 years in France. Thats still taxed and without expenditure that would be say 16MM rand.

If he saved 10MM of that I'd be impressed. For one of the top sportsman in SA thats hardly enough to start out on his own. Perhaps he could buy himself a guesthouse in the winelands or start a partnership... then again Habana would be in line for BEE funding so could take up that option... if for instance he wanted to return to SA and buy a farm (more of a boere thing to be honest)

GunsGerms

I agree. There are many if's etc but at least I'm sure we can agree that Steyn didn't benefit from his time away in France (from a boks perspective).

It was a reply to the statement made that SA have failed partly due to their relaxing of their players abroad policy. I don't think they have suffered that much but a fit Steyn is the boks game changer. Probably half a dozen players in the world with the same level of influence on his side.

My comments about the Boks is indeed relative,BUT if you take 2008 for example.Percy Montgomery,Butch James,Victor Matfield,Bakkies Botha,and John Smit came back better players?
I tell you this it took most of them at least a year to get back up to speed in the SH game.
Frans Steyn came back pre RWC overweight,out of condition,and by his standards very poor.He was a waste of space compared to his normal form by the RWC he was lean and mean and looked the business.
When you compare the Boks standard before and after the Pro era there is a huge difference.
Before 1996 they had win stats better than any side,post 1996 it is marginally
just better/worse than Australia.At least versus the AllBlacks the reasons are I know often political so I won`t go there.
When you consider the ABs have won twice as many games than SA/Aus combined there is definitly something rotten in the state of denmark.

GunsGerms wrote:Cant say I agree with you Emack. SAs woes dont just stem from picking NH based players. Do you really think SA wouldnt have beaten Ireland in the AIs if Ruan Piennar and selected other NH based players werent picked? He was one of the standout players and scored the winning try. Francios Steyn for example has also played well for SA when drafted back in. I doubt SA would have won all their games in the AIs at all is they didnt select NH based players.

Also the Boks play quite a similar brand of rugby to a lot of NH teams. Id say they are more similar to the likes of Ireland and England than they are to Aus and NZ.

Pienaar was decidedly average in the RC so yes NH conditions and sides he might excel but bringing NH based players to the RC rarely works, including our own returning players, and those are the matches SA need to win most.

NZ's biggest drain isnt rugby overseas anyway. By the time they leave theyve either established that theyre not going to make the ABs, or are retiring ABs- I can think of at least 30 players off the top of my head who fit either category. I cant think of any youth at 18-20 going before or soon after they start their sxv careers. The biggest drain on our young is the NRL. Full and substantial contracts are being made to our youth, particularly in Auckland, to play in the Toyota cup- the under 20 version and feeder to the NRL.