What the hell?

Jean de Villiers earlier in the week announced that he believes SARU must ban selections of Overseas players. I fully agree with him on that. Many South African supporters believe it will be the wrong move as it will weaken the Springboks, yes I agree in the short term it will, but long term we have no choice, players are leaving us in droves, it is like a bloody exodus at the moment as players can earn more money overseas and due to the weak Rand it is becoming increasingly easier to lure them at young ages.

The Western Force has copped onto this and will already have four South Africans in their squad next year for Super Rugby.

Now news 24 has come out to report another two players are in the sights of the Force.

News 24 wrote:Super Rugby – News24 Australian Super Rugby outfit, the Force, are eager to lure more Western Province players to Perth for next season. They recently signed WP centre Marcel Brache and prop Chris Heiberg as part of their renewed focus on developing alternate avenues for selecting players. According to Die Burger’s website, the Australians are now also after promising youngsters, fullback/flyhalf Dillyn Leyds and prop Francois van Wyk. Kevin Foote, a former Ikeys coach who will be assistant coach at the Force next year, confirmed that they have offered the WP duo contracts. Leyds – a former Baby Bok – is currently part of the WP Under-21 side, while Van Wyk was part of WP’s Vodacom Cup squad earlier this year. Foote said the offers are only for one year. “It’s a very good opportunity for them. They could always return,” said Foote. The Force also have South Africans, Sias Ebersohn (flyhalf) and Wilhelm Steenkamp (lock), on their books.

This is becoming pretty pathetic if you ask me.

I have been told on this site a number of times that these south African senior players add value not only in playing quality, but also in sharing their experience and knowledge with these clubs.

We all know about the attempts to lure players young enough to qualify on residence to represent their adopted countries if they are good enough.

We have already seen Jake White openly declaring the University of Canberra has a program to lure young South Africans to university for the purpose of representing the Brumbies and Australia.

Now the Western Force has joined the party.

What have we now simply become the production line for everyone and his dog to build squads?

Are there no development tools and structures in place to develop their own talent?

Or are they simply too lazy to develop talent for themselves.

I know this is a rant, but FFS, when is enough, enough, when is there going to be a saturation point in all this.

Well said that man, the bullet has rightfully been bitten.

Incredibly, I believe, one of the unintended consequences of the RFU's EPS programme is that it pretty much deters players going overseas, which has meant that our considerable array of talent is available for training and selection. You still have to have a coach that knows what he's doing but that’s another story.

For RSA it has to be a no-brainer - you only select home based players. The jersey is and has to be much more than just financially valuable.

Did DeVilliers not play for the Boks while playing overseas?

I think he did, but that doesn't address the issue now, it is becoming worse by the week.

GunsGerms wrote:Did DeVilliers not play for the Boks while playing overseas?

The plot thickens.... 

Nothing wrong with a rant now and then B.

We can all see that there is something very wrong with so many young South African players leaving the country, but I think banning them from representing their country is attacking the symptom and not the cause. Free movement of people is, in principle, a good thing, and if there are imbalances in the direction of travel, then rather than punish the travellers themselves it's best to fix why it's happening. Besides, if Jake White is attempting to attract Wallaby converts at a young age, a SARU ban may be counterproductive.

Perhaps tax incentives could be used a la Ireland? But you are nowhere near saturation point, and never will be, when you consider how many "rich" countries need young and experienced players alike.

furra linee, there is no way to address the cause mate.

The simple fact of life is that players can earn a lot more overseas.

I don't think a ban is counter productive. It simply provides a player with an option, you wanna go for the big bucks, then you don't get to play for your country.

Tax incentives won't work here, for that you need government to play ball, and that simply isn't going to happen.

I think SARU must rather employ central contracting and identify the players out of school, and sign a contract with these players that they play for SA until at least the age of 30 and then can retire and make some money overseas.

For me that is the most logical step.

The problem is it isn't only hurting at the top, it depletes our strengths at the bottom as well.

SARU must find a way to contract 150 established players and another 150 youngsters. Show them commitment and hopefully it works both ways. They can hold back bonuses and part salaries until the expiry of the contract.

That is how we were contracted at our employer when we had national service that was compulsory.

Your income of the two years in the army was held back, and when you came back, you had to work a certain number of years before they would pay it out.

Good rant Biltong, the issue is how do you stop it?

How about greatly expanding the number of "A" team games SA play and draft in all the promising youngsters and cap them, thereby making them SA committed whereever they go in world to play at club level? The domestic game gets it's SA players and SARU keep the international dibs.

Any players who refuse to take the cap are withdrawn from any coaching, funding and other support by SARU affiliated teams.

Of course there is a school of thought that says it's better to have one volunteer than ten pressed men, so regardless of results would you rather see a side made up of native born, home based players or a side increasingly composed of "guns for hire" chasing money and international caps with the country that pays the most and getting in under residency rules but with no real connection to the country.
You are lucky in that SA has probably enough home grown and home based talent to make this happen.

IL, the problem is not just at Bok level, having 200 players plying their trade overseas takes away quality in our own domestic teams.

It has to be a contract of sort where they don't leave until age 29-30

The Bulls alone lost 8 players this year to overseas.

Guess the SARU have to take it upon themselves then.

Think with older players, ie mid 20s, it's more clear cut. They have been developed by the system, and if they are now looking to cash in for family reasons or whatever they should accept that things back home will move on without them. The choice the SARU has is whether to keep them within the system to an extent, or just let them get on with it. I think central contracts is a really good idea, as it gives the union the ability to prioritise certain players.

The problem with letting players approaching 30 go is that their experience is lost, which is pretty vital in bringing on teens IMO.

With kids its more difficult as they develop at different speeds and might have family ties abroad. Not sure how easy it is to spot talent at school level, but if there is a young player abroad who still wants to play for the Boks, I think the door should at least be kept ajar. I know that youre not suggesting isolating any players though

Ultimately mate it's still an indictment of the strength of the South African school system that so many players are in demand.

I agree with JDV on this. Perhaps you could have a rule that when a player reaches 28 years of age or 35 caps (or whatever limits you think appropriate), the player may then play abroad and be selected (to enable your star players to earn big money towards the end of their careers), but you can't continue to allow a situation where your top young talent is leaving the country en masse.

The message should be clear - leave and you quit interntational rugby (unless you can qualify to play for someone else).

fES,
The thing with top young talent is that they will qualify for another country under residency in 3 years, which makes Jake Whites little scheme seem a bit nasty and calculated. So, if a player is already thinking of leaving, they aren't daft, they'll know that playing abroad will reduce their chances of home international honours, but increase the chances of other international honours. I'm not trying to play down the situation, its crazy that 8 Bulls players can up and leave, or, say, that people automatically eye up any saffer with foreign connections. But much better to work with the players and structure something around them, notwithstanding contracts (which should be central). That way there's a chance they will come back.  

Well my views on the 3 year residency rules have been aired on here many times - it's too short.

But.....if a young player wants to leave his homeland and play for someone else, ultimately you can't stop that, however long you make the residency requirement (unless you scrap it altogether, which causes issues for legitimate residency players who have grown up in a particular country).

What you can do though is say to those young players that they can leave, but they can't come back. You also say to those players just breaking through into the Bok side that they have to serve their time in South African rugby before they can move. That way you don't see star players just upping and leaving as soon as they become valuable. Or rather they can leave, you can't stop them, but their international ambitions go up in smoke.

Does anyone begrudge Ruan Pienaar a place in the team though? If he wants to play and he's the best man for the job... the limiting factor seems how many times he can watch the same inflight movies. My point isn't about players who want to play for anyone else, or about banning people from international rugby, that isn't JdVs point either. If people move abroad then they will accept that international honours are at risk, to that extent I agree with JdV.
Just that sometimes people just want to move, and that choosing between money and success is a crap choice to force anyone to make.

Furra linee, have you ever wondered why only rugby and cricket players from SA are being made offers from overseas?

Why not our hockey players?

Is it because there is no money put into hockey development in SA?

Interestingly RTE the Irish national broacaster says DeVilliers said that SA needs overseas players.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/rugby-championship/2013/0816/468578-south-africa/

What about your soccer players, Biltong? Any number of them have gone abroad, ditto almost every other nation, of course. The difference is that the South African footballers who come to European shores tend to improve their own games substantially, while the rugby playing exiles from SA quite often return home having improved their overseas team by their own example and tuition.

In either case, I really don't see the problem. A global game is going to have to get used to this and I don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing. Making international selection a closed shop will ultimately prove to be counter-productive. It may be the ultimate honour to play for the Boks, the Blacks, the Welsh, the Irish or anyone else, but it doesn't pay the mortgage. Clubs do that and not picking a player who has aimed to secure the future of his family strikes me as a particularly egregious example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Cappie, it isn't a bad thing if you haven't lost hundreds of players in a sporting code

I think perhaps it is time that clubs begin to pay a transfer fee to the Union they get the players from.

$50 000 would be a good starting point.

If SA is producing all this talent they might as well get paid for it.

From what Cobus Wiese said a few weeks ago there are more than 200 south africans playing rugby overseas.

$10 000 000 would help developing more.

If a South African is qualified and selected by an international team a further $100 000 can be added.

We might as well sell our prime stock that way.

Fair enough, Biltong. I don't see why a Union shouldn't profit from their talent - this is an open market, after all. With that in mind, there needs to be a cast-iron guarantee that players be made available to their national sides for certain blocks of time, which shouldn't, in the case of the Southern Hemisphere sides, have a hugely deleterious effect on their contracts, plus allow them to play slightly fewer competitive matches in a season. It's worth considering, because in the end, we're going to see full mobility between the clubs around the world that can pay top dollar for a good squad.

1. Nominate your under 20s as you second team so caps count and you secure your young talent early.

2. Create an elite player squad system for first and under 20 teams with players named in such given a bonus from the SARU whilst playing in SA encouraging tye best talent to stay.

3. Refuse to select any player who signs a contract with a foreign club from the date of the announcement so those that have drifted away aren't ostracized overnight and are encouraged to return once their contract ends.

The idea of a union getting compensation for players is not workable, European clubs who develop the talent will not be pleased if the unions grab the glory and the cash.

Our under 20's Junior Bok team is our nominated second team.

It doesn't matter whether the Unions in SA get it or the SARU.

The money will filter down for development anyway.

We have the same situation. I think we have a bigger problem in that we lose more players (we also lose a substantial number to rugby league, and now potentially to the AFL and on a very limited extent to American college football) and we have a smaller player base. We are losing them from the age of 13 to schools on overseas scholarships (the 13 year old brother of one of my children's teammates is apparently being chased by 3 English public schools).

I struggling to think of a solution. My fear is the game will be undermined if we can't retain the talent. It's now a profession and parents and kids see it as such.

As far players in their 20's goes I'm not sure what the solution is. I'm not sure the select SA super 14 players only will work in itself. I suspect there's a bit going on. I made an income from sport in my 20's (not a lot but enough to travel and live off). My experience was that by the time you were in your mid 20's you had a good idea of your potential (esp if you are going to be top dog), the initial spark was wearing off, you've been places and done things, you might be in a relationship, you've had a minor injury, those older than you were retiring or undergoing surgery and you started to think what am I going to do next. If Rugby is like that France is a good option. You get a good salary, play most of your rugby from home and have a guaranteed payments for a couple(?) of years after retirement.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Selecting from players in the local competition will keep the team and competition stronger, but I think something else is probably needed.

Bill your sentiments are ones that everyone who is not a supporter of the wealthiest rugby nations is, or should be, worried about.

The WRU, for example, have stated that they will not try to compete with overseas clubs buying our players because it will send WRU broke.

There is an amazing lack of consciousness in Rugby Union, a lack of imperative consideration for the future.

Professionalism has helped protect Welsh players from league, improve skills, given huge opportunities to players who wouldn't have been able to afford to play in the ammatuer era.

Solutions like an "EPS" only work in a country that can afford to match or nearly match the largest wages on offer.

If we want a true international game to be upheld the IRB need to completely prevent the player draining of the financially weaker nations to the financially healthy. They must stiffen residency and they must punish financially the nations who break the regulations implemented.

Clubs should definitely heavily compensate the unions of nations they are buying players from. It is a ridiculous system at current, where it seems cheaper to buy in than teach your own... We can't afford to compete in regional/club rugby. We invest heavily in academies that produce good players that get bought buy English and French clubs, there is nothing we can do about it, we can not afford to prevent it.

Sadly under the current situation i believe it is only a matter of time before welsh players refuse caps to keep their financial options open in the future...!

Clubs will want the compensation payments for the players from their academies that go overseas. The unions pocketing tye cash will not go down well. You might find it's hard to enforce in aw where freedom of movement is enshrined in the EU and in the Kolpak agreement.

Black, the youngest Whitelock brother went to school in Loughborough in Leicestershire (same town most of the English Athletics Athletes train from). He still represented NZ under 20s (against a fellow Loughborough pupil in the JWC Final that year) and returned home to the Crusaders. Education overseas is only a bad thing if they young man chooses to represent that overseas nation.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Clubs will want the compensation payments for the players from their academies that go overseas. The unions pocketing tye cash will not go down well. You might find it's hard to enforce in aw where freedom of movement is enshrined in the EU and in the Kolpak agreement.

Black, the youngest Whitelock brother went to school in Loughborough in Leicestershire (same town most of the English Athletics Athletes train from). He still represented NZ under 20s (against a fellow Loughborough pupil in the JWC Final that year) and returned home to the Crusaders. Education overseas is only a bad thing if they young man chooses to represent that overseas nation.

Manu Tuilagi did the opposite...

What do you reckon the difference in earnings is between choosing to become an All Black or an England Player, or a Samoan or an England Player...? Quite considerable in favour of the later. Samoans hardly earn a penny at international rugby england players earn about £8000 per game win or lose. ABs is probably only slightly under what England players get.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Clubs will want the compensation payments for the players from their academies that go overseas. The unions pocketing tye cash will not go down well. You might find it's hard to enforce in aw where freedom of movement is enshrined in the EU and in the Kolpak agreement.

Black, the youngest Whitelock brother went to school in Loughborough in Leicestershire (same town most of the English Athletics Athletes train from). He still represented NZ under 20s (against a fellow Loughborough pupil in the JWC Final that year) and returned home to the Crusaders. Education overseas is only a bad thing if they young man chooses to represent that overseas nation.

Wasn't Luke at Loughborough for a year as a foreign exchange student. That's quite different to being brought over for 5 years at the age of 13. That's what happening here. Mostly league at the moment e.g. Rangi Chase, Benji Marshall and a host of others of varying ages. The other thing is trials/workshops run by NFL and now AFL clubs. You get 250 local prospects and offer the top few contracts at the age of 15 or 16 (e.g. Melbourne Storm in Wellington).

maestegmafia wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:Clubs will want the compensation payments for the players from their academies that go overseas. The unions pocketing tye cash will not go down well. You might find it's hard to enforce in aw where freedom of movement is enshrined in the EU and in the Kolpak agreement.

Black, the youngest Whitelock brother went to school in Loughborough in Leicestershire (same town most of the English Athletics Athletes train from). He still represented NZ under 20s (against a fellow Loughborough pupil in the JWC Final that year) and returned home to the Crusaders. Education overseas is only a bad thing if they young man chooses to represent that overseas nation.

Manu Tuilagi did the opposite...

What do you reckon the difference in earnings is between choosing to become an All Black or an England Player, or a Samoan or an England Player...? Quite considerable in favour of the later. Samoans hardly earn a penny at international rugby england players earn about £8000 per game win or lose. ABs is probably only slightly under what England players get.

while I am not one of those who is against the 3 year rule. I like manu as a player. i Also think he is right to represent England as he has spent half his life there and bimost of his family have made their living there for some time.

However...... I find it a little chuckleish that the guy's first name is. "the samoan rugby union team"

I agree, despite that dodgy passport ordeal when he was being sent back to Samoa for being an illegal immigrant, he has played all his rugby in Leicester and England and represents both.

That said the financial decision to play for a team like England rather than a team like Samoa is the point of discussion.

Just because De Villiers is being hypocritical in his comments doesn't detract from the accuracy of them. I agree with him, it's a tad hypocritical of me to say so with Barritt etc here but it's pretty shameful to actively try and rob a country of their players

Some seem very divided on the future of rugby...! They don't mind that the large rugby economy nations are making life tougher for those with much less..!

South Africa IS a large rugby economy. This article is about a small rugby economy (Australia) that it gets from being involved in a large rugby economy (South Africa) to buy in players. The fact Australia doesn't have much of a system lower system means more of the funds can be focused on the top level. South Africa needs to support a huge rugby system and the resources or spread thinner.

HT,

When you compare a), the amount Australia are paying players and b), the value of the SA Rand vs AUS$ you see will understand the article more.

But Australia have that money because of TV and sponsorship deals that are largely generated by the South African involvement. Which is why it repeatedly comes up that the SARU are thinking of leaving. So the Australians are paying the South Africans more with South African money. As I said before the fact the Australia system is very top heavy means the resources they get from SANZAR can be focused on the top level. Whereas SARU have the spread the same money further.

And if you say "compare" you can't just say one thing. You have give another to compare it against.

maestegmafia wrote:Some seem very divided on the future of rugby...! They don't mind that the large rugby economy nations are making life tougher for those with much less..!

I agree rich NH European teams should give some $ to us PI nations.

nganboy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Some seem very divided on the future of rugby...! They don't mind that the large rugby economy nations are making life tougher for those with much less..!

I agree rich NH European teams should give some $ to us PI nations.

Not just PI nations, European ones too...!

Nganboy, Why? Without the Eng/Fre clubs where would the players not from tier 1 countries be able to play full time in a top tier competition(I know possibly Japan but would question if it was top level)

HammerofThunor wrote:But Australia have that money because of TV and sponsorship deals that are largely generated by the South African involvement. Which is why it repeatedly comes up that the SARU are thinking of leaving. So the Australians are paying the South Africans more with South African money. As I said before the fact the Australia system is very top heavy means the resources they get from SANZAR can be focused on the top level. Whereas SARU have the spread the same money further.

And if you say "compare" you can't just say one thing. You have give another to compare it against.

I think the easiest way of explaining it is comparing it with the six nations or Heineken cup. I'm sure the English and French generate more of the TV revenue. So why not pay the Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Italians less. The answer is the competition is owned jointly and only actually functions if everyone is involved.

broadlandboy wrote:Nganboy, Why? Without the Eng/Fre clubs where would the players not from tier 1 countries be able to play full time in a top tier competition(I know possibly Japan but would question if it was top level)

That's great. But it's only going to really be sustainable and drive rugby forward if they are released to play for their home nations. Football is better at this than us. We could do much better than them.

blackcanelion wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:But Australia have that money because of TV and sponsorship deals that are largely generated by the South African involvement. Which is why it repeatedly comes up that the SARU are thinking of leaving. So the Australians are paying the South Africans more with South African money. As I said before the fact the Australia system is very top heavy means the resources they get from SANZAR can be focused on the top level. Whereas SARU have the spread the same money further.

And if you say "compare" you can't just say one thing. You have give another to compare it against.

I think the easiest way of explaining it is comparing it with the six nations or Heineken cup. I'm sure the English and French generate more of the TV revenue. So why not pay the Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Italians less. The answer is the competition is owned jointly and only actually functions if everyone is involved.

That may be true, but when you then consider Australia has a top down structure, the money SA and N have to spend on development, they don't have to, so they can pay their players more, steal some of ours and retain most of them.

I think clubs should pay a set fee of around £15000-25000 to the academy/club for a player they take under about the age of say 26ish. I dont think this is a prohibitive amount for the club but does reward the academy and gives them the money they spent on the player.
Any nation that wants to cap an overseas player through residency (unless they had been there since about 12yrs old) should have to pay that nation £300,000.
Also possibly a club should have to pay a 'fine' to a nation if they dont want to release a player for an International game.
Obviously my numbers are plucked out of the air but they are my estimates.

blackcanelion, thats the whole reason for the debate over the future of the Heineken Cup. The English and French want a higher percentage of both competitors and money. There is no agreed deal as of yet for the competition past this coming season. It wouldn't be beyond them to go ahead without us. Never, ever underestimate the selfishness and greed of the English and French clubs.

Biltong what do you think the SARU need to do to address this? Petition the IRB to extend the number of years it takes to qualify on residency? Stop selecting foreign based players?

Personally, I would be delighted if the SARU did petition the IRB to change its rules. Given your position as one of the leading rugby nations in the world and your massive depth in terms of player base I don't really care about how this affects South Africa or New Zealand. Like NZ, South Africa is big enough and powerful enough to stay in the Top 2 of World Rugby despite all of this both short term and long term. Every year, they produce a surplus of players with the ability to play test rugby. I'm not worried about them.

What I do care about is how this affects smaller nations. Fijians are bought by French clubs for the exact same reasons. Brought over at a young age on 3-year Academy contracts to qualify for France. Now this has a much more profound affect on those nations. They have little lobbying power in the IRB but if NZ and South Africa get annoyed about it, they have a much more powerful voice...

It could be very good for rugby if the Southern Hemisphere nations raise the issue of residency with the IRB. Very good indeed.

notch, SA and NZ may be leading rugby nations, but every other country beneifts from this in one or another way, they will oppose such petitions. I mean why would it benefit them to have residency extended?

But the problem does not only lie in Test rugby and representing new nations, it has a lot to do with domestic rugby as well.

I can right now put together two very strong Super XV teams together just from the players overseas.

Now if those players were inserted in our current Super XV teams imagine how strong they will be then?

The reality is you are never going to stop it, especially in countries that are not interested to develop players when it is easier and cheaper to select players that went through a NZ or SA system. They have made their names already, so you only really need to work them into your gameplan that you want to employ.

Also, the experience that other clubs gain from our players, is lost to our system.

Once again you can do nothing about it.

Take OZ, they spend little to no money on development in comparison to SA and NZ. So they can spend that money on buying our players, just look at the team sheets of their Super XV teams, littered with players from PI's, NZ and now SA for the Brumbies (Jake White's program) and Western Force (Six players next year)

Why would OZ worry about development when they can just buy players?

There are only two workable ideas I can see.

1. Pay the Union of the country a transfer fee (After all it costs us money to develop players for other nations)

2. Don't select overseas players to represent your country.

Notch wrote:What I do care about is how this affects smaller nations. Fijians are bought by French clubs for the exact same reasons. Brought over at a young age on 3-year Academy contracts to qualify for France. Now this has a much more profound affect on those nations. They have little lobbying power in the IRB but if NZ and South Africa get annoyed about it, they have a much more powerful voice...

That is complete and utter cowpat. The clubs in France are competely divorced from FFR. They bring young Fijians over because they want to develop the for their own club. The last thing they'd want is them getting called up for international rugby.

Just because Ireland has an official system to bring in players to gain Irish qualification doesn't mean everyone is doing the same.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Notch wrote:What I do care about is how this affects smaller nations. Fijians are bought by French clubs for the exact same reasons. Brought over at a young age on 3-year Academy contracts to qualify for France. Now this has a much more profound affect on those nations. They have little lobbying power in the IRB but if NZ and South Africa get annoyed about it, they have a much more powerful voice...

That is complete and utter cowpat. The clubs in France are competely divorced from FFR. They bring young Fijians over because they want to develop the for their own club. The last thing they'd want is them getting called up for international rugby.

Just because Ireland has an official system to bring in players to gain Irish qualification doesn't mean everyone is doing the same.

Except that they have to have a certain number of French qualified players in their squad and they use the residency rules to get around this rather than rely on Academy products. It has nothing to do with trying to get players into the national team and everything to do with getting around already rather disputed quotas on foreign players. Indeed the FFR have mandated that French qualified players must have spent three years in "three seasons in an FFR-approved training centre if they are currently under 21". So if you sign a kid at 18 from anywhere in the world and he graduates to the first team at the end of his three-year Academy contract they count him as French and homegrown and not a foreign player regardless of whether or not he will go on to play international rugby for France or not, allowing more room for marquee signings. Hence why French clubs are currently filling their Academies with kids from overseas.

To get around the new rules French clubs are doing exactly this and it damages international in two ways a) these players potentially getting selected by France and b) Clubs putting pressure on players not to represent their home nation so they don't lose their 'home-grown' status.

Maybe you should check your facts before you jump off your high horse next time... fool.

Same in all European countries.

Notch wrote:Except that they have to have a certain number of French qualified players in their squad and they use the residency rules to get around this rather than rely on Academy products. It has nothing to do with trying to get players into the national team and everything to do with getting around already rather disputed quotas on foreign players. Indeed the FFR have mandated that French qualified players must have spent three years in "three seasons in an FFR-approved training centre if they are currently under 21". So if you sign a kid at 18 from anywhere in the world and he graduates to the first team at the end of his three-year Academy contract they count him as French and homegrown and not a foreign player regardless of whether or not he will go on to play international rugby for France or not, allowing more room for marquee signings. Hence why French clubs are currently filling their Academies with kids from overseas.

To get around the new rules French clubs are doing exactly this and it damages international in two ways a) these players potentially getting selected by France and b) Clubs putting pressure on players not to represent their home nation so they don't lose their 'home-grown' status.

Maybe you should check your facts before you jump off your high horse next time... fool.

I don't think that is right. They need to have French academy players (JIFF or whatever it's called). Qualification for France or being capped by another country doesn't come into it. The Armitages count as JIFF beause they spent around 3-5 years in France between 12-18 (something like that). The fact they had their professional contracts in England, that they played in England for 7 or 8 years (or whatever it was) and the fact both were capped for England doesn't come into. They count.

The French system is there to ensure that French acadmey products play in the French league (or a certain quota of the French league players are from French acadmeies. There is nothing stopping (or hinting at stopping) these acadmey products from playering for their country of origin (if they're from somewhere else). In fact the system is a good way for players from the Island from getting a professional training in rugby from a relatively young age and STILL going on to play whatever nation they choose.

So we have:

a) these players potentially getting selected by France

And why the hell shouldn't they have that option? They moved to a country before the age of 18, lived, probably educated, worked in that country for however long. We have a seperate issue relating to length of residency but the most common 'reasonable' suggestion for that would be 5 years. That means they're getting capped at 23 instead of 21. Does that suddenly make it ok?

Clubs putting pressure on players not to represent their home nation so they don't lose their 'home-grown' status

Yeah, I'm almost certain this is wrong. Perhaps thinking about your project player program again

NB, I can't be bother fact checking. Just go by gut and memory.

Biltong wrote:Jean de Villiers earlier in the week announced that he believes SARU must ban selections of Overseas players.

Surely since Bosman sporting bodies cannot "officially" ban anyone. Anything as official as that would be discrimination as indeed would any other type of contract restricing where a player plays because of his race.

South Africa are in the happy position of producing more players than they need. Some of the players leaving would only be fill-in squad players at home but can earn more and develop faster overseas. So what, if they end up playing for another country? SARU has first pick, and should be able to target the players they want to keep.

The argument that players aren't giving back what's been invested in them by their Union is somewhat spurious. If there are hoardes being produced than there will be plenty surplus to requirements so how can they ever repay the investment? Attracting 18 year old players to a foreign nation requires investment too - how many of these potential stars actually make it?

SARU should have an unwritten rule to only select homebased players, and ensure there is enough of them by targetting young players with sponsorship loans for their development. If the player chooses to leave the country then the loan would be immediately payable.

Aukster we have more professional pllayers overseas than we have in South africa, I have no issue with a player playing overseas, after all, it is your choice who you decide to work for.

However the point is, how many players do you think you need to invest development, time and money into, to create the 200 plus professionals who ply their trade overseas?

2000?
20000?
200000?

It all costs money.

So if you say clubs overseas are investing money into our llayers, I wholly disagree with you. When clubs sign oplayers from SA it is because they rate them, they have already proven they can play rugby at a high level.

Sure the player needs to learn their game plan and systems, but that is not development, you have already ordered the pre cooked meal, all you have to do a apply directions on the box and put in the microwave for 3-5 minutes.

As far as whatever you want to call it, a ban, a decision by SARU, or whatever, they should not hold local players back because of reputations.

We are selling ourselves short by keeping on selecting overseas players.

As for the cost of our development of players, if the IRB were to institute a development or transfer fee then at least we get to cover some of our cost.

As for picking the first choice players young. We did pick CJ Stander, he had a contract that paid him to play pro rugby, but it wasn't good enough for him.

You cannot convince me it is all Ok.

We are developing player that costs money.
Part of the reason we can't pay our players more is because of the investment into young players.
Other countries come along and offer contracts to our players that we cannot match.

So either we stop developing talent, and spend our money only on those who are great, which means have more money to pay them.

Do you see the vicious circle?

It is easy for OZ to pay our players more, they earn the same revenue as us roughly 80 million Aus Dollars a year, but none of it goes to a thrid or fourth tier, where we still have Vodacom Cup, Currie Cup, Varsity Cup and our Club Championships to finance.

You'll never get transfer fees for out of contract players. It simply won't happen. One option is to give young South African players long contracts. Have review stages inbuilt to allow their wages to be increased, have some insurance type stuff to show they'll be looked after in seriously injured/don't make it as a professional, pay for education etc.  Give them a fair wage with fair increases as time goes on and I'm sure they'd sign up. Also if education, backup career stuff is included then it would be good for them. And if some wants to buy them out of their contract it's up to you.

And by long contracts I'm talking >5years.

EDIT: and that of course has it's own problem, what if someone better comes long and there's no money for a new contract? Things like that.