Pirates of the South Seas

First topic message reminder :

http://www.nzrugbyworld.co.nz/features/161/plunder-in-the-pacific

I am sure most of you will be aware of this article.

It is a damning indictment of pro rugby and for those that haven't read it I think it is worth your while to do so.

It seems the NZ trend for 'protecting' or ring fencing  Pacific Island players, especially Samoans, is becoming a ruse de guerre for all the big Unions. That more PI born players played in this years lions than Scots born is a worrying trend indicative of mercenaries not rugby players.

What we are seeing in France is a micro version of what NZ has been doing for years, offering the big bucks to the most talented players which may be contributing to the erosion of regional rugby in Wales. However in France this has only been a club level entity whereas New Zealand has a history of enabling players to gain eligibility for the national team. Much  as I admire NZ achievements, their results must be taken in context of who is playing for them and the plain fact is that NZ has by geography alone, directly gained form the talents of players born in another country.

Lam, Bunce and Bachop for example, all proud Samoans who played for that country but also played for the All Blacks. It has rightly been the subject of derision amongst some of the rugby world that the All Blacks do this, but it now seems we are all engaged in this unpalatable method of disproportionately padding out our teams with the most naturally gifted players in the world.

And what we are doing is much more than teaching them to tackle properly, because we stand to gain much more while they stand to lose it all. It is stripping the PI of it's rugby heritage. With England especially now latching on to NZ have been doing for years the gap will close sooner than you'd think.

Frankly I think it is pretty shameful but I accept it is inevitable in the same way Welsh Union players fled to league for the money, so the PI players seek their fame and fortune by following the demand for big quick men.

But when i read a Union is setting a target to 'protect' that vested interest it peaks my interest and sticks in my craw. If that means protecting them from playing in other Unions and their own then it must be stopped. What we should be doing is investing in PI rugby and, as I have read about this week, getting their grassroots game to a competitive standard so that these nations with a wealth of natural talent can compete where they belong with the best nations in the world.

Debatty is Belgian..am i right?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Debatty is Belgian..am i right?

Yep.

Didnt realise that. Good player isnt he. Beast of a man. Anyway its not like Belgium have a decent rugby team so they might as well play for France.

Well the thing is most of the European sides now are getting regular competitive rugby at their respective levels with the Euro Nations cup and its leagues. If they play well and progress then they get promoted.

But thats getting sidetracked.

I do maintain though as more of these players move about the world plying their trade...settle in a certain country and either have kids their or take young children with them...more players of foreign heritage will play for other nations...

We'll see more of players like Manu Tuilagi, Toby Faletau's coming through.

This has happend in NZ for years...with a trend now that those born in NZ are now going to play for the team of their heritage...so its gone the other way.

France have a massive african contingent...and as i said above ...its happening in football already...it may happen in rugby...that these players might start representing their heritage countries...and we might see the Ivory Coast at another World Cup?

Chjw131 wrote:

To look at it from the player's perspectives though, with such a short career span should be be depriving those highly talented players from furthering their own skills and ambition by limiting them so strictly to countries of birth?

Chjw, the issue here is not limiting players careers though, nobody is suggesting the player should not follow opportunity.

The issue is about poaching, for all intent and purposes poaching is about "buying talent" to represent an alternative nation, and by that I mean the lure of young identified stars to other shores.

The definition that should be cleared though, is what qualifies as poaching?

The point being that what seems to be a single debate about poaching/eligibility is really about two main concepts:

1. Whether tier 2 and 3 rugby nations should be supported in terms of their infrastructure and organisation of rugby union both domestically and internationally.

2. How this impacts the players in their current careers.

I don't see any inconsistency with supporting other nations in advancing their tangible rugby set-ups and still enabling players from other nations to advance their careers in the here and now. My personal view is that i'd rather those players playing for England had more than a qualification through residency, but that's a personal preference.

Biltong wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

To look at it from the player's perspectives though, with such a short career span should be be depriving those highly talented players from furthering their own skills and ambition by limiting them so strictly to countries of birth?

Chjw, the issue here is not limiting players careers though, nobody is suggesting the player should not follow opportunity.

The issue is about poaching, for all intent and purposes poaching is about "buying talent" to represent an alternative nation, and by that I mean the lure of young identified stars to other shores.

The definition that should be cleared though, is what qualifies as poaching?

Agreed, how precisely do we, or can we, define 'poaching'.

I actually, in principle believe the converse to be true. 'Luring' young talent abroad can be seen in a variety of ways and it is explicitly tied up with my original point.

PURELY from the player's perspective, given the opportunity of advancing my rugby talent through top facilities, coaching and education versus staying put and not being able to utilise any or all of those benefits I know what i'd choose.

Moving to a broader picture, morally speaking there should be investment by tier one nations in those areas where it is desperately needed. The only caveat I would add to that would be whether it is practically positive to do so. ie: would investment and organisation of a PI domestic league, for example even be achievable.

Do we have any examples where we can say yes...that was a case of poaching?

Another thing that needs to stop is this bollix which is the "project player", in no way what so ever should a player be taken on the thought that he might be good so that in three years time he then become eligible for that country, for me this is worst than any sort of poaching and I think the IRB need to look at this as other unions are deliberately looking at other countries players with a view to turning their heads.

Chjw131 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

To look at it from the player's perspectives though, with such a short career span should be be depriving those highly talented players from furthering their own skills and ambition by limiting them so strictly to countries of birth?

Chjw, the issue here is not limiting players careers though, nobody is suggesting the player should not follow opportunity.

The issue is about poaching, for all intent and purposes poaching is about "buying talent" to represent an alternative nation, and by that I mean the lure of young identified stars to other shores.

The definition that should be cleared though, is what qualifies as poaching?

Agreed, how precisely do we, or can we, define 'poaching'.

I actually, in principle believe the converse to be true. 'Luring' young talent abroad can be seen in a variety of ways and it is explicitly tied up with my original point.

PURELY from the player's perspective, given the opportunity of advancing my rugby talent through top facilities, coaching and education versus staying put and not being able to utilise any or all of those benefits I know what i'd choose.

Moving to a broader picture, morally speaking there should be investment by tier one nations in those areas where it is desperately needed. The only caveat I would add to that would be whether it is practically positive to do so. ie: would investment and organisation of a PI domestic league, for example even be achievable.

I don't think defining poaching is all that tough to be honest.

The difference for me is in the intent of the contract offered to a player (I am talking in specific young players ) a player that is contacted and offered a contract with the promise of qualifying via residence and will then be able to represent the "adopted" nation at international level is outright poaching.

The truth though is that unless the player (like some South African players have declared in the past few years) openly acknowledges or admits to the fact that he sees himself representing the new nation, it is virtually impossible to prove it was a poaching attempt.

There is also certain indicators that can hint towards poaching, although no proof will be readily available, and that is young players who have barely made a name yet.

Think about this, toulon, Cardiff, Ulster or whoever is looking for a player at flyhalf to strengthen their team, who are they goihg to look st logically? A seasoned pro who has a track record. Not a 21 year old that still has to develop.

Anyway, tat's my take on poaching.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Do we have any examples where we can say yes...that was a case of poaching?

Lordowlais just mentioned it, Project players.

It doesn't matter what you call them, or whether you give it a name, when a natinal rugby union says to a club you can sign so many players that might qualify for international colours, it is poaching.

Agreed that is definately poaching...

LordDowlais wrote:Another thing that needs to stop is this bollix which is the "project player", in no way what so ever should a player be taken on the thought that he might be good so that in three years time he then become eligible for that country, for me this is worst than any sort of poaching and I think the IRB need to look at this as other unions are deliberately looking at other countries players with a view to turning their heads.

Well wasnt the notion of project player a effort by the IRB to curb the previous practice of naturalising players as soon as they entered the country so they could play for that country.

Willie Ofahengaue for example:

Ofahengaue was born in NZ and played for New Zealand Schoolboys in 1988 and participated in a tour to Australia. However, on the return trip, he was refused re-entry to New Zealand with his Tongan passport so he moved to Australia and played for them. There was no three year residency rule back then you could just chop and change at will if they would have you.

Biltong wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

To look at it from the player's perspectives though, with such a short career span should be be depriving those highly talented players from furthering their own skills and ambition by limiting them so strictly to countries of birth?

Chjw, the issue here is not limiting players careers though, nobody is suggesting the player should not follow opportunity.

The issue is about poaching, for all intent and purposes poaching is about "buying talent" to represent an alternative nation, and by that I mean the lure of young identified stars to other shores.

The definition that should be cleared though, is what qualifies as poaching?

Agreed, how precisely do we, or can we, define 'poaching'.

I actually, in principle believe the converse to be true. 'Luring' young talent abroad can be seen in a variety of ways and it is explicitly tied up with my original point.

PURELY from the player's perspective, given the opportunity of advancing my rugby talent through top facilities, coaching and education versus staying put and not being able to utilise any or all of those benefits I know what i'd choose.

Moving to a broader picture, morally speaking there should be investment by tier one nations in those areas where it is desperately needed. The only caveat I would add to that would be whether it is practically positive to do so. ie: would investment and organisation of a PI domestic league, for example even be achievable.

I don't think defining poaching is all that tough to be honest.

The difference for me is in the intent of the contract offered to a player (I am talking in specific young players ) a player that is contacted and offered a contract with the promise of qualifying via residence and will then be able to represent the "adopted" nation at international level is outright poaching.

The truth though is that unless the player (like some South African players have declared in the past few years) openly acknowledges or admits to the fact that he sees himself representing the new nation, it is virtually impossible to prove it was a poaching attempt.

There is also certain indicators that can hint towards poaching, although no proof will be readily available, and that is young players who have barely made a name yet.

Think about this, toulon, Cardiff, Ulster or whoever is looking for a player at flyhalf to strengthen their team, who are they goihg to look st logically? A seasoned pro who has a track record. Not a 21 year old that still has to develop.

Anyway, tat's my take on poaching.

I completely empathise with your point Biltong but your argument hangs on this premise: that a birth country has, in some sense, ownership rights over their people. In this context players.

What it fails to recognise is that in today's ever globalised society, people have more and more freedom of choice about where they choose to pledge their allegiances. If a young player wishes to stay put or even go on to represent their country they can do, regardless of whether they were contracted to a club from a young age. It's a matter of conscience for the individual.

Chjw131 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

To look at it from the player's perspectives though, with such a short career span should be be depriving those highly talented players from furthering their own skills and ambition by limiting them so strictly to countries of birth?

Chjw, the issue here is not limiting players careers though, nobody is suggesting the player should not follow opportunity.

The issue is about poaching, for all intent and purposes poaching is about "buying talent" to represent an alternative nation, and by that I mean the lure of young identified stars to other shores.

The definition that should be cleared though, is what qualifies as poaching?

Agreed, how precisely do we, or can we, define 'poaching'.

I actually, in principle believe the converse to be true. 'Luring' young talent abroad can be seen in a variety of ways and it is explicitly tied up with my original point.

PURELY from the player's perspective, given the opportunity of advancing my rugby talent through top facilities, coaching and education versus staying put and not being able to utilise any or all of those benefits I know what i'd choose.

Moving to a broader picture, morally speaking there should be investment by tier one nations in those areas where it is desperately needed. The only caveat I would add to that would be whether it is practically positive to do so. ie: would investment and organisation of a PI domestic league, for example even be achievable.

I don't think defining poaching is all that tough to be honest.

The difference for me is in the intent of the contract offered to a player (I am talking in specific young players ) a player that is contacted and offered a contract with the promise of qualifying via residence and will then be able to represent the "adopted" nation at international level is outright poaching.

The truth though is that unless the player (like some South African players have declared in the past few years) openly acknowledges or admits to the fact that he sees himself representing the new nation, it is virtually impossible to prove it was a poaching attempt.

There is also certain indicators that can hint towards poaching, although no proof will be readily available, and that is young players who have barely made a name yet.

Think about this, toulon, Cardiff, Ulster or whoever is looking for a player at flyhalf to strengthen their team, who are they goihg to look st logically? A seasoned pro who has a track record. Not a 21 year old that still has to develop.

Anyway, tat's my take on poaching.

I completely empathise with your point Biltong but your argument hangs on this premise: that a birth country has, in some sense, ownership rights over their people. In this context players.

What it fails to recognise is that in today's ever globalised society, people have more and more freedom of choice about where they choose to pledge their allegiances. If a young player wishes to stay put or even go on to represent their country they can do, regardless of whether they were contracted to a club from a young age. It's a matter of conscience for the individual.

No, you are misunderstanding my reasoning. No country has the right of ownership on their citizens, we live in a free society. However, having said that. Poaching is poaching, whether you want to dress it up in cotton or not.

Poaching is when you take something that has been developed, grown and nurtured by someone else.

For the want of a better description, a Rhino is lovingly protected, fed and cared for in a wild life reserve, all this at great cost.

Then someone comes and kills it for it's horn. The cost and effort can not be recovered without putting the same effort and cost into another rhino.

"South Seas" is a pejorative team when referring to those of Polynesian origin.

Anything that follows that needs to be sifted through the filter of this starting point.

Anyone who uses it is either

A) ignorant
B) deliberately setting out to be offensive

For this reason, in either case the article is to be disregarded.

Chjw131 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

To look at it from the player's perspectives though, with such a short career span should be be depriving those highly talented players from furthering their own skills and ambition by limiting them so strictly to countries of birth?

Chjw, the issue here is not limiting players careers though, nobody is suggesting the player should not follow opportunity.

The issue is about poaching, for all intent and purposes poaching is about "buying talent" to represent an alternative nation, and by that I mean the lure of young identified stars to other shores.

The definition that should be cleared though, is what qualifies as poaching?

Agreed, how precisely do we, or can we, define 'poaching'.

I actually, in principle believe the converse to be true. 'Luring' young talent abroad can be seen in a variety of ways and it is explicitly tied up with my original point.

PURELY from the player's perspective, given the opportunity of advancing my rugby talent through top facilities, coaching and education versus staying put and not being able to utilise any or all of those benefits I know what i'd choose.

Moving to a broader picture, morally speaking there should be investment by tier one nations in those areas where it is desperately needed. The only caveat I would add to that would be whether it is practically positive to do so. ie: would investment and organisation of a PI domestic league, for example even be achievable.

I don't think defining poaching is all that tough to be honest.

The difference for me is in the intent of the contract offered to a player (I am talking in specific young players ) a player that is contacted and offered a contract with the promise of qualifying via residence and will then be able to represent the "adopted" nation at international level is outright poaching.

The truth though is that unless the player (like some South African players have declared in the past few years) openly acknowledges or admits to the fact that he sees himself representing the new nation, it is virtually impossible to prove it was a poaching attempt.

There is also certain indicators that can hint towards poaching, although no proof will be readily available, and that is young players who have barely made a name yet.

Think about this, toulon, Cardiff, Ulster or whoever is looking for a player at flyhalf to strengthen their team, who are they goihg to look st logically? A seasoned pro who has a track record. Not a 21 year old that still has to develop.

Anyway, tat's my take on poaching.

I completely empathise with your point Biltong but your argument hangs on this premise: that a birth country has, in some sense, ownership rights over their people. In this context players.

What it fails to recognise is that in today's ever globalised society, people have more and more freedom of choice about where they choose to pledge their allegiances. If a young player wishes to stay put or even go on to represent their country they can do, regardless of whether they were contracted to a club from a young age. It's a matter of conscience for the individual.

Yes, you are correct, it is up to the individual, but when that individual has his head turned with a promise from another union to become a "project player" with the lure of big bucks then for me that is not down to the choice of the individual but an outside party trying to turn his head, South Africa has a wealth of very promising young forwards, how can we be in a position when a country who is struggling in that department sends scouts to that country to find some "project players" to fill the void and say it is o.k, that is not o.k, it is wrong, and the IRB need to look at the whole player project debacle, I would not mind so much if the player came over to another country and was not capped and gained residency, not when another countries union actually go looking for them.

In SA a kid can for example get a bursary through lets say an engineering firm to go study. In turn for his bursary the kid signs a contract to "give back" to the company who paid for the cost of his education in a number of years service.

Unfortunately we cannot have 8 year olds sign contracts that will bind them to SA rugby until the age of 25, 30 or whatever. The principle applies though.

GloriousEmpire wrote:"South Seas" is a pejorative team when referring to those of Polynesian origin.

Anything that follows that needs to be sifted through the filter of this starting point.

Anyone who uses it is either

A) ignorant
B) deliberately setting out to be offensive

For this reason, in either case the article is to be disregarded.

Sorry GE, but there I am going to disagree with you.

Offence taken is a very grey area, somtimes people are looking for reasons to take offence even when not intended. If I use south seas I have no intention to offend nor am I ignorant. It depicts a geographical region, nothing more.

Having said that, I prefer to use the term Pacific Islanders, that s specific to Samoa, Tonga and Fiji, surely there can be no offence in that, can there?

New Zleandwrs and Australians regularly use the term Africans when they talk about South African sports, should we take offence in that as Africa is seen as the dark continent with all the poorest nations and political strife?

Biltong wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

To look at it from the player's perspectives though, with such a short career span should be be depriving those highly talented players from furthering their own skills and ambition by limiting them so strictly to countries of birth?

Chjw, the issue here is not limiting players careers though, nobody is suggesting the player should not follow opportunity.

The issue is about poaching, for all intent and purposes poaching is about "buying talent" to represent an alternative nation, and by that I mean the lure of young identified stars to other shores.

The definition that should be cleared though, is what qualifies as poaching?

Agreed, how precisely do we, or can we, define 'poaching'.

I actually, in principle believe the converse to be true. 'Luring' young talent abroad can be seen in a variety of ways and it is explicitly tied up with my original point.

PURELY from the player's perspective, given the opportunity of advancing my rugby talent through top facilities, coaching and education versus staying put and not being able to utilise any or all of those benefits I know what i'd choose.

Moving to a broader picture, morally speaking there should be investment by tier one nations in those areas where it is desperately needed. The only caveat I would add to that would be whether it is practically positive to do so. ie: would investment and organisation of a PI domestic league, for example even be achievable.

I don't think defining poaching is all that tough to be honest.

The difference for me is in the intent of the contract offered to a player (I am talking in specific young players ) a player that is contacted and offered a contract with the promise of qualifying via residence and will then be able to represent the "adopted" nation at international level is outright poaching.

The truth though is that unless the player (like some South African players have declared in the past few years) openly acknowledges or admits to the fact that he sees himself representing the new nation, it is virtually impossible to prove it was a poaching attempt.

There is also certain indicators that can hint towards poaching, although no proof will be readily available, and that is young players who have barely made a name yet.

Think about this, toulon, Cardiff, Ulster or whoever is looking for a player at flyhalf to strengthen their team, who are they goihg to look st logically? A seasoned pro who has a track record. Not a 21 year old that still has to develop.

Anyway, tat's my take on poaching.

I completely empathise with your point Biltong but your argument hangs on this premise: that a birth country has, in some sense, ownership rights over their people. In this context players.

What it fails to recognise is that in today's ever globalised society, people have more and more freedom of choice about where they choose to pledge their allegiances. If a young player wishes to stay put or even go on to represent their country they can do, regardless of whether they were contracted to a club from a young age. It's a matter of conscience for the individual.

No, you are misunderstanding my reasoning. No country has the right of ownership on their citizens, we live in a free society. However, having said that. Poaching is poaching, whether you want to dress it up in cotton or not.

Poaching is when you take something that has been developed, grown and nurtured by someone else.

For the want of a better description, a Rhino is lovingly protected, fed and cared for in a wild life reserve, all this at great cost.

Then someone comes and kills it for it's horn. The cost and effort can not be recovered without putting the same effort and cost into another rhino.

Simply re-stating the point doesn't affect its veracity. You can't acknowledge free choice and individual empowerment and then in the same sentence over-ride it.

The Rhino example is not synonymous. It explicitly does not take account of the Rhino's free choice. Further, you were actually referring to 'project' players thus players who were not fully developed at the time of such 'poaching'.

Ultimately the choice lies with the player. Specific examples are always littered with pitfalls but ultimately offering a young player a contract with a view to bringing them on is simply not poaching. If the players wishes to stay or go on to represent their 'home country' internationally they can.

It would be akin to the Rhino being offered the prospect of more grass and larger plains elsewhere with the option that a) he could return at any point with his horn suitably enhanced or b) that he continue to reside on the larger plains for various perks! The choice ultimately being his.

As I said, for a want of a better example. The point I am trying to make is the investment of money and time put into the individual.

Biltong wrote:In SA a kid can for example get a bursary through lets say an engineering firm to go study. In turn for his bursary the kid signs a contract to "give back" to the company who paid for the cost of his education in a number of years service.

Unfortunately we cannot have 8 year olds sign contracts that will bind them to SA rugby until the age of 25, 30 or whatever. The principle applies though.

There's no principle there whatsoever. Whilst I can understand that some South Africans feel outraged that some of their fellow countrymen/talent goes elsewhere it is a by-product of a) a very good system and b) an over-supply of talent.

Do you really feel it's right and justifiable to say to a player such as Brad Barritt for example that he can't advance his career because of where he was born. Once again it completely dis-regards the necessity of individual self determination.

Biltong wrote:As I said, for a want of a better example. The point I am trying to make is the investment of money and time put into the individual.

Which proves my point. For you it's actually about ownership of people/players.

Chjw131 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

To look at it from the player's perspectives though, with such a short career span should be be depriving those highly talented players from furthering their own skills and ambition by limiting them so strictly to countries of birth?

Chjw, the issue here is not limiting players careers though, nobody is suggesting the player should not follow opportunity.

The issue is about poaching, for all intent and purposes poaching is about "buying talent" to represent an alternative nation, and by that I mean the lure of young identified stars to other shores.

The definition that should be cleared though, is what qualifies as poaching?

Agreed, how precisely do we, or can we, define 'poaching'.

I actually, in principle believe the converse to be true. 'Luring' young talent abroad can be seen in a variety of ways and it is explicitly tied up with my original point.

PURELY from the player's perspective, given the opportunity of advancing my rugby talent through top facilities, coaching and education versus staying put and not being able to utilise any or all of those benefits I know what i'd choose.

Moving to a broader picture, morally speaking there should be investment by tier one nations in those areas where it is desperately needed. The only caveat I would add to that would be whether it is practically positive to do so. ie: would investment and organisation of a PI domestic league, for example even be achievable.

I don't think defining poaching is all that tough to be honest.

The difference for me is in the intent of the contract offered to a player (I am talking in specific young players ) a player that is contacted and offered a contract with the promise of qualifying via residence and will then be able to represent the "adopted" nation at international level is outright poaching.

The truth though is that unless the player (like some South African players have declared in the past few years) openly acknowledges or admits to the fact that he sees himself representing the new nation, it is virtually impossible to prove it was a poaching attempt.

There is also certain indicators that can hint towards poaching, although no proof will be readily available, and that is young players who have barely made a name yet.

Think about this, toulon, Cardiff, Ulster or whoever is looking for a player at flyhalf to strengthen their team, who are they goihg to look st logically? A seasoned pro who has a track record. Not a 21 year old that still has to develop.

Anyway, tat's my take on poaching.

I completely empathise with your point Biltong but your argument hangs on this premise: that a birth country has, in some sense, ownership rights over their people. In this context players.

What it fails to recognise is that in today's ever globalised society, people have more and more freedom of choice about where they choose to pledge their allegiances. If a young player wishes to stay put or even go on to represent their country they can do, regardless of whether they were contracted to a club from a young age. It's a matter of conscience for the individual.

No, you are misunderstanding my reasoning. No country has the right of ownership on their citizens, we live in a free society. However, having said that. Poaching is poaching, whether you want to dress it up in cotton or not.

Poaching is when you take something that has been developed, grown and nurtured by someone else.

For the want of a better description, a Rhino is lovingly protected, fed and cared for in a wild life reserve, all this at great cost.

Then someone comes and kills it for it's horn. The cost and effort can not be recovered without putting the same effort and cost into another rhino.

Simply re-stating the point doesn't affect its veracity. You can't acknowledge free choice and individual empowerment and then in the same sentence over-ride it.

The Rhino example is not synonymous. It explicitly does not take account of the Rhino's free choice. Further, you were actually referring to 'project' players thus players who were not fully developed at the time of such 'poaching'.

Ultimately the choice lies with the player. Specific examples are always littered with pitfalls but ultimately offering a young player a contract with a view to bringing them on is simply not poaching. If the players wishes to stay or go on to represent their 'home country' internationally they can.

It would be akin to the Rhino being offered the prospect of more grass and larger plains elsewhere with the option that a) he could return at any point with his horn suitably enhanced or b) that he continue to reside on the larger plains for various perks! The choice ultimately being his.

Chjw131, we are not disagreeing with you about the choice of the idividual, what we are saying is, that when that idividual has his head turned by the lure of riches from elsewhere. Yes, it is still the individuals choice, but would he have made that choice if he was not approached in the first place ?

I understand that LordDowlais the point being that regardless of whether you feel players have had 'their heads turned' it should be about the players not about the 'home' union. If the player chooses to follow the offer of a club/regional contract elsewhere enabling them to advance their skills and/or career then great.

There's nothing at all which forces them to play for that Union/Country from a young age. Further, to deny players the opportunity of such is to fundamentally impede them. That goes against all principles of natural justice.

Biltong wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:"South Seas" is a pejorative team when referring to those of Polynesian origin.

Anything that follows that needs to be sifted through the filter of this starting point.

Anyone who uses it is either

A) ignorant
B) deliberately setting out to be offensive

For this reason, in either case the article is to be disregarded.

Sorry GE, but there I am going to disagree with you.

Offence taken is a very grey area, somtimes people are looking for reasons to take offence even when not intended. If I use south seas I have no intention to offend nor am I ignorant. It depicts a geographical region, nothing more.

Having said that, I prefer to use the term Pacific Islanders, that s specific to Samoa, Tonga and Fiji, surely there can be no offence in that, can there?

New Zleandwrs and Australians regularly use the term Africans when they talk about South African sports, should we take offence in that as Africa is seen as the dark continent with all the poorest nations and political strife?

"South sea islander" is akin to the pejorative description of a certain racial demographic under the N* term unspeakable by persons outside of that demographic.

There's no grey area.

To write an article under that banner has equally pejorative connotation, it speaks volumes of the mindset of the author. In my opinion it renders the article without merit.

Chjw131 wrote:

Biltong wrote:In SA a kid can for example get a bursary through lets say an engineering firm to go study. In turn for his bursary the kid signs a contract to "give back" to the company who paid for the cost of his education in a number of years service.

Unfortunately we cannot have 8 year olds sign contracts that will bind them to SA rugby until the age of 25, 30 or whatever. The principle applies though.

There's no principle there whatsoever. Whilst I can understand that some South Africans feel outraged that some of their fellow countrymen/talent goes elsewhere it is a by-product of a) a very good system and b) an over-supply of talent.

Do you really feel it's right and justifiable to say to a player such as Brad Barritt for example that he can't advance his career because of where he was born. Once again it completely dis-regards the necessity of individual self determination.

let me provide you with two examples, it might make my point clearer for you.

clyde Rathbone was captain of the SA junior World Cup team, Australia offered him a career before SARU could say "where the hell are you going"

Brad Barrett played professional rugby in SA for the Sharks from 2006-2008, he was not noticed by the Springbok coach during those three years, which meant he was most likely never going to get a Springbok cap, he made a decision on what he beleived was best for his career. To that point, Rathbone also made the decision on what is best for his career, it doesn't detract from the fact that he was poached.

Chjw131, I ask this question seriously and not condescendingly, do you know what a project player is ? A project player is a person who has been approached by the country of another union at a young age to go a side in their country and play there for three years and then at the end can get capped for that country. So that means that another union has approached that player, offered him more money than his native union, and at the end, because it say's so in his contract he must play for the country that approached him, yes all the choices are down to the individual, but those choices would not have been made if he was not approached in the first place, so yes, it is a form of poaching.

Ardie Savea is a project player. But he was born in NZ and will play for NZ. Your definition is wrong.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Ardie Savea is a project player. But he was born in NZ and will play for NZ. Your definition is wrong.

how do you reason that?

Did he go through NZ's school system? Yes
Did he learn his rugby in Nz? Yes

Then he is not a project player.

LordDowlais wrote:Chjw131, I ask this question seriously and not condescendingly, do you know what a project player is ? A project player is a person who has been approached by the country of another union at a young age to go a side in their country and play there for three years and then at the end can get capped for that country. So that means that another union has approached that player, offered him more money than his native union, and at the end, because it say's so in his contract he must play for the country that approached him, yes all the choices are down to the individual, but those choices would not have been made if he was not approached in the first place, so yes, it is a form of poaching.

yes your right Lord, but this whole "projects Player" thing is a two edged sword, not only are countries seeking players that can in time represent them, they are also not allowing their clubs to sign players who will never be able to play for that country, in other words the ability to play for another country becomes a pre requisite, and makes a foreign player attractive.

Craig Innes (former AB) has said how much harder it is to do player contracts with Scottish and Irish clubs if the player cannot at some stage down the line be eligible for either Scotland or Ireland.

Biltong wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Ardie Savea is a project player. But he was born in NZ and will play for NZ. Your definition is wrong.

how do you reason that?

Did he go through NZ's school system? Yes
Did he learn his rugby in Nz? Yes

Then he is not a project player.

Yes he is. He is a project player who was taken on the All Blacks nh your as an apprentice. Straight from the coaches mouths.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Ardie Savea is a project player. But he was born in NZ and will play for NZ. Your definition is wrong.

how do you reason that?

Did he go through NZ's school system? Yes
Did he learn his rugby in Nz? Yes

Then he is not a project player.

Yes he is. He is a project player who was taken on the All Blacks nh your as an apprentice. Straight from the coaches mouths.

I think you have the terms, somewhat skewed. Perhaps he is a project player for NZ, but he went through the NZ setup and will end up playing for NZ, so how can you poach your own player ? It is when other nations tempt other nations players and using the project player name to hide behind it.

Project player does not equate to poached. It's more a player who may be an international in the future who is nurtured by the national set up prior to selection.

Biltong wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

Biltong wrote:In SA a kid can for example get a bursary through lets say an engineering firm to go study. In turn for his bursary the kid signs a contract to "give back" to the company who paid for the cost of his education in a number of years service.

Unfortunately we cannot have 8 year olds sign contracts that will bind them to SA rugby until the age of 25, 30 or whatever. The principle applies though.

There's no principle there whatsoever. Whilst I can understand that some South Africans feel outraged that some of their fellow countrymen/talent goes elsewhere it is a by-product of a) a very good system and b) an over-supply of talent.

Do you really feel it's right and justifiable to say to a player such as Brad Barritt for example that he can't advance his career because of where he was born. Once again it completely dis-regards the necessity of individual self determination.

let me provide you with two examples, it might make my point clearer for you.

clyde Rathbone was captain of the SA junior World Cup team, Australia offered him a career before SARU could say "where the hell are you going"

Brad Barrett played professional rugby in SA for the Sharks from 2006-2008, he was not noticed by the Springbok coach during those three years, which meant he was most likely never going to get a Springbok cap, he made a decision on what he beleived was best for his career. To that point, Rathbone also made the decision on what is best for his career, it doesn't detract from the fact that he was poached.

It's not the clarity of your point that i'm struggling with Biltong, it's your apparent willful disregard for the player's self determination. Firstly, Barritt I believe, played for the Baby Boks did he not? Thus I would've assumed he were on the Springbok radar.

You may feel Rathbone was 'poached' but that implies an ownership over Rathbone's decisions and choices which neither you nor SA have or should have. Now you might feel aggrieved that he made that choice and you may feel aggrieved that OZ approached him in the first place but your feelings of betrayal lie with Rathbone and not OZ, that's what i'm saying. It was up to Rathbone to say 'hey you know what i'll stay where I want because I feel I owe SA etc...'

GloriousEmpire wrote:Project player does not equate to poached. It's more a player who may be an international in the future who is nurtured by the national set up prior to selection.

Ok I give in, your right, now I am just going to reply to others on this thread as your only motivation is to de rail it.

LordDowlais wrote:Chjw131, I ask this question seriously and not condescendingly, do you know what a project player is ? A project player is a person who has been approached by the country of another union at a young age to go a side in their country and play there for three years and then at the end can get capped for that country. So that means that another union has approached that player, offered him more money than his native union, and at the end, because it say's so in his contract he must play for the country that approached him, yes all the choices are down to the individual, but those choices would not have been made if he was not approached in the first place, so yes, it is a form of poaching.

I'll try and take the point in the way you hoped to make it LD. But the fundamental misunderstanding lies with you.

A project player may well be offered a contract at another Union/Club if they see potential in the individual. They may even hope that that player will play for them if they qualify after residency. That does not mean the player HAS to play for that Union/Country - there's not a contract anywhere that could be drawn up to that effect it goes completely against the IRB regulations. It ALWAYS remains the choice of the player who they play for internationally.

What you're actually saying is that players should be prohibited from taking up opportunities elsewhere. You can't empower people in one breath and compell them the next. Which is exactly what you do if you regulate against players moving countries.

Chjw131 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

Biltong wrote:In SA a kid can for example get a bursary through lets say an engineering firm to go study. In turn for his bursary the kid signs a contract to "give back" to the company who paid for the cost of his education in a number of years service.

Unfortunately we cannot have 8 year olds sign contracts that will bind them to SA rugby until the age of 25, 30 or whatever. The principle applies though.

There's no principle there whatsoever. Whilst I can understand that some South Africans feel outraged that some of their fellow countrymen/talent goes elsewhere it is a by-product of a) a very good system and b) an over-supply of talent.

Do you really feel it's right and justifiable to say to a player such as Brad Barritt for example that he can't advance his career because of where he was born. Once again it completely dis-regards the necessity of individual self determination.

let me provide you with two examples, it might make my point clearer for you.

clyde Rathbone was captain of the SA junior World Cup team, Australia offered him a career before SARU could say "where the hell are you going"

Brad Barrett played professional rugby in SA for the Sharks from 2006-2008, he was not noticed by the Springbok coach during those three years, which meant he was most likely never going to get a Springbok cap, he made a decision on what he beleived was best for his career. To that point, Rathbone also made the decision on what is best for his career, it doesn't detract from the fact that he was poached.

It's not the clarity of your point that i'm struggling with Biltong, it's your apparent willful disregard for the player's self determination. Firstly, Barritt I believe, played for the Baby Boks did he not? Thus I would've assumed he were on the Springbok radar.

You may feel Rathbone was 'poached' but that implies an ownership over Rathbone's decisions and choices which neither you nor SA have or should have. Now you might feel aggrieved that he made that choice and you may feel aggrieved that OZ approached him in the first place but your feelings of betrayal lie with Rathbone and not OZ, that's what i'm saying. It was up to Rathbone to say 'hey you know what i'll stay where I want because I feel I owe SA etc...'

I don't get how you say I am disregarding the player's determination or decision?

I am talking about the act of poaching, that only.

Chjw131 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Chjw131, I ask this question seriously and not condescendingly, do you know what a project player is ? A project player is a person who has been approached by the country of another union at a young age to go a side in their country and play there for three years and then at the end can get capped for that country. So that means that another union has approached that player, offered him more money than his native union, and at the end, because it say's so in his contract he must play for the country that approached him, yes all the choices are down to the individual, but those choices would not have been made if he was not approached in the first place, so yes, it is a form of poaching.

I'll try and take the point in the way you hoped to make it LD. But the fundamental misunderstanding lies with you.

A project player may well be offered a contract at another Union/Club if they see potential in the individual. They may even hope that that player will play for them if they qualify after residency. That does not mean the player HAS to play for that Union/Country - there's not a contract anywhere that could be drawn up to that
effect it goes completely against the IRB regulations. It ALWAYS remains the choice of the player who they play for internationally.

What you're actually saying is that players should be prohibited from taking up opportunities elsewhere. You can't empower people in one breath and compell them the next. Which is exactly what you do if you regulate against players moving countries.

No, no, no ,no, what I am saying is that the individual is free to make whatever decision he deems the best for him, but, and here is the fundamental point I am trying to make, if the individual was not approached in the first place, with the promise of a lucrative contract, would he make the decision, albeit his own decision to leave and play for another country or become qualified for another country in the first place ? Other unions dangle a nice contract bulging with money to turn their heads, that for me is a form of poaching. 

LordDowlais wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Chjw131, I ask this question seriously and not condescendingly, do you know what a project player is ? A project player is a person who has been approached by the country of another union at a young age to go a side in their country and play there for three years and then at the end can get capped for that country. So that means that another union has approached that player, offered him more money than his native union, and at the end, because it say's so in his contract he must play for the country that approached him, yes all the choices are down to the individual, but those choices would not have been made if he was not approached in the first place, so yes, it is a form of poaching.

I'll try and take the point in the way you hoped to make it LD. But the fundamental misunderstanding lies with you.

A project player may well be offered a contract at another Union/Club if they see potential in the individual. They may even hope that that player will play for them if they qualify after residency. That does not mean the player HAS to play for that Union/Country - there's not a contract anywhere that could be drawn up to that
effect it goes completely against the IRB regulations. It ALWAYS remains the choice of the player who they play for internationally.

What you're actually saying is that players should be prohibited from taking up opportunities elsewhere. You can't empower people in one breath and compell them the next. Which is exactly what you do if you regulate against players moving countries.

No, no, no ,no, what I am saying is that the individual is free to make whatever decision he deems the best for him, but, and here is the fundamental point I am trying to make, if the individual was not approached in the first place, with the promise of a lucrative contract, would he make the decision, albeit his own decision to leave and play for another country or become qualified for another country in the first place ? Other unions dangle a nice contract bulging with money to turn their heads, that for me is a form of poaching.  

Don't worry I get it! What i'm saying is that if you believe that other countries shouldn't be allowed to approach players from other Unions then you are in practice making the player's decision a fait a complis. Believing that players should have the right to self determination over-rides the point of 'poaching'.

You can't say to a player 'by the way whatever/wherever you want to play is fine' but then object to offers being made for that player's services. You're actually saying at present that you'd be happy for a player to play elsewhere as long as they left their country with no offer of work elsewhere. Which due to immigration rules per se, they wouldn't feasibly be able to do!

The manner of their leaving is irrelevant!

Biltong wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

Biltong wrote:In SA a kid can for example get a bursary through lets say an engineering firm to go study. In turn for his bursary the kid signs a contract to "give back" to the company who paid for the cost of his education in a number of years service.

Unfortunately we cannot have 8 year olds sign contracts that will bind them to SA rugby until the age of 25, 30 or whatever. The principle applies though.

There's no principle there whatsoever. Whilst I can understand that some South Africans feel outraged that some of their fellow countrymen/talent goes elsewhere it is a by-product of a) a very good system and b) an over-supply of talent.

Do you really feel it's right and justifiable to say to a player such as Brad Barritt for example that he can't advance his career because of where he was born. Once again it completely dis-regards the necessity of individual self determination.

let me provide you with two examples, it might make my point clearer for you.

clyde Rathbone was captain of the SA junior World Cup team, Australia offered him a career before SARU could say "where the hell are you going"

Brad Barrett played professional rugby in SA for the Sharks from 2006-2008, he was not noticed by the Springbok coach during those three years, which meant he was most likely never going to get a Springbok cap, he made a decision on what he beleived was best for his career. To that point, Rathbone also made the decision on what is best for his career, it doesn't detract from the fact that he was poached.

It's not the clarity of your point that i'm struggling with Biltong, it's your apparent willful disregard for the player's self determination. Firstly, Barritt I believe, played for the Baby Boks did he not? Thus I would've assumed he were on the Springbok radar.

You may feel Rathbone was 'poached' but that implies an ownership over Rathbone's decisions and choices which neither you nor SA have or should have. Now you might feel aggrieved that he made that choice and you may feel aggrieved that OZ approached him in the first place but your feelings of betrayal lie with Rathbone and not OZ, that's what i'm saying. It was up to Rathbone to say 'hey you know what i'll stay where I want because I feel I owe SA etc...'

I don't get how you say I am disregarding the player's determination or decision?

I am talking about the act of poaching, that only.

But look, for a player to be 'poached' that implies that the home union or club had some sort of lien or right of determination over them, which they don't. Thus how they leave is virtually irrelevant. What you seem to want to do is take ownership of players from day one because SA has invested in them.

That's a point but ultimately not a fair one. As, as i've already said, it means you'd be left with five or six fold more players than you'd ever have places for. How's that fair in any way? Thus, it matters not one jot if they've been offered employment elsewhere.

Its a fine line but I think its a combination of both poaching and choice but ultimately decided by supply and demand.
NZ births, raises and schools thousands of PI heritage players- as it does non PI players. When the PI players reach NPC or sxv level they usual take their chances on being an AB first and when that fails their country of heritage is waiting to pick them up. So in a way the 'poacher' is waiting in the wings, the player is weighing up his chances playing internationally and ultimately supply and demand determines the result.
The poacher gets what they want, the player gets what they want. Non PI NZers that dont have overseas heritage do not get that option, so end up in the NH club pool, another 'poacher' waiting in the wings for both PI and non PI players.

here is a typical example of what goes on all the time here...a player moves to NZ as a youngster with it is commented, aims of pursuing a rugby career.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/8667404/All-Blacks-possible-Leiua-rules-himself-out

http://www.independent.ie/sport/samoan-brothers-ofisa-treviranus-and-alapati-leiua-relishing-ireland-clash-29734797.html

Schooled in Porirua and picked up by the Hurricanes he eventually decides to join his brother, a Samoan based professional for Samoa, and leaves playing for NZ aside.

NZ accepts this scenario but theres no evidence that Leiua was targeted for our shores initially. Its a real life option for PI folk these days, whether they were born in NZ or not.

But going through the NZ system sure is the key to to providing a better chance at a national career.

No, what I am saying is, that a player who has the potential to play for the country of his origin because the money invested in him by his native country would have dreams of playing for HIS country, then a few scouts from lets say Wales go to that country and that player ticks all the boxes for a position that they are struggling with so they dangle him a carrot that the original country cannot compete with or will not compete with then decides to leave. Now, if that player was not approached the odds are that he would have never left his country to play rugby in the first place, but, because he has had his head turned he has now chosen to go, so infact his own choice was influenced by outside interests, the country of origin could potentially be losing a fine player and there is nothing they can do about it, is this not poaching ?

I once saw an opera called The Pirates of Men's Pants. Gilbert & Sullivan it was not.

LordDowlais wrote:No, what I am saying is, that a player who has the potential to play for the country of his origin because the money invested in him by his native country would have dreams of playing for HIS country, then a few scouts from lets say Wales go to that country and that player ticks all the boxes for a position that they are struggling with so they dangle him a carrot that the original country cannot compete with or will not compete with then decides to leave. Now, if that player was not approached the odds are that he would have never left his country to play rugby in the first place, but, because he has had his head turned he has now chosen to go, so infact his own choice was influenced by outside interests, the country of origin could potentially be losing a fine player and there is nothing they can do about it, is this not poaching ?

No I don't see it as an issue. The decision and faith resided in the player, if he feels he'll get a better deal playing elsewhere so be it. Your point still doesn't address the fact that that player can still play for his home country if they offer him a call up. It's that simple. If he feels that he wants to play for the country that talent spotted him after residency that's also his call. His dream of playing for his country could not have been that compelling.

If I wanted to wear the Red Rose and that was my goal set in stone it wouldn't really matter what I was offered elsewhere. What you're bemoaning is they player's choice. As i've said it's irrelevant whether he's had an offer from elsewhere. You could say there's no such thing as 'poaching' proper. That could only be the case if the player was compelled and rendered choice-less, something which ironically you're advocating in a very round about way.

It would be more proper to say this: Player X went to play for Country Y and frankly we feel peeved about that having invested in him. We'd have liked him to have shown more 'loyalty'. That would be a valid point but ultimately flawed.

Yes, but if outside interests were not there in the first place would he have made the choice ?

Tman, will Leiua's decision to play for Samoa affect his eligibility to play S15? Isn't there a quota for overseas players or does this not apply for PIs or in circumstances like this where he's a kiwi?

No, what I am saying is, that a player who has the potential to play for the country of his origin because the money invested in him by his native country would have dreams of playing for HIS country, then a few scouts from lets say Wales go to that country and that player ticks all the boxes for a position that they are struggling with so they dangle him a carrot that the original country cannot compete with or will not compete with then decides to leave. Now, if that player was not approached the odds are that he would have never left his country to play rugby in the first place, but, because he has had his head turned he has now chosen to go, so infact his own choice was influenced by outside interests, the country of origin could potentially be losing a fine player and there is nothing they can do about it, is this not poaching ?

Really depends on the club signing him and their reasons doesn't it? It may be nothing to do with the country's coaching staff. If the club need a number 9 and he happens to be foreign and a success and then qualifies through residency he's not been poached surely?

I dont think any of this would be half the issue if the country/provinces/clubs of origin was able to ask for a healthy transfer fee in the first place.