IRB on Residency Laws; "There's little we can do about it from an IRB perspective."

Seems to me like there is quite a large amount they can do about it... ultimately they can do whatever they like about it. They just don't give a shoite.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_9299770,00.html

I am actually seriously disapointed with this report.

Its almost like they know whats going and are encouraging it.

Poor attitude being shown by the IRB

I'm furious at the IRB truth be told.

"These aren't issues that we can really look at, there are huge market forces in play in both Hemispheres, and players have got to be able to ply their trade where they want to ply their trade," said Gosper.

Why cant they look at it? Increasing the residency rule wont affect players going to play in other countries...it just means they cant suddenly play for any country they want just about.
Ie A fijian can go and play in europe to earn money...but is still available for Fiji.

"We obviously don't want to see a concentration of players in one or two markets, we like the fact there's a good even competition throughout the world.

I suggest you have a look at the French leagues Mr Gosper...becoming more and more concentrated!

"But there's little we can do about it from an IRB perspective

I thought you were the governing body? I thought you decided what happened??

"I think the lure of international rugby still has a very strong hold on the top players.

Yes international rugby is huge but the way players just change nationality after 3 years is going to make it a mockery.

He's basically an empty suit. What a farce.

Seems like a massive missed opportunity, with no coherent explanation given for doing nothing - v odd

Sheer incompetence. They're the law of the professional game and what they're basically saying is they haven't got the stones to bin the three-year rule despite the fact that the current system has proven to be flawed in so many ways. Or they see something commercially attractive about it. Or they're being pressured by clubs/countries that base their success on exploiting it. Whatever the answer, it's sickening.

I think I would like to see a full transcript of the interview before I start insulting the guy. It reads as though he was questioned about stopping players moving at all, not country of representation. As is "increase residency to stop our players going abroad"

Who has the power at the IRB?

Surely these issues are voted on?

Are the unions that benefit from it voting to change it?

I don't want to stop players moving, I want to stop players moving specifically to get into test sides they've no link to and to end the farce of French Academies bringing in foreign players at 18 so they can say they've produced a French-qualified player at 21.

The IRB would rather stick their fingers in their ears and do nothing   

But that doesn't seem to be what Gosper is talking about.

Notch, the JIFF stuff has noting to do with French qualification. The Armitages count as JIFF players but aren't eligible for France. It's about having French trained players playing in France (the vast majority of which will be French). If these guys are going into a pro academy but still play for their country of origin, isn't that good for that country?

It is very good but until the loophole of the residency laws being too lenient is closed there's nothing to stop France from selecting many players who qualify this way. The problem is not the JIFF players is the fact most of them who were born outside France will qualify on residency. There's a significant overlap.

The Top14 clubs aren't exactly encouraging players to go and play for their home countries either. They aren't meant to but there are valid suspicions that a lot of clubs engage in behind the scenes arm twisting.

The other side of the debate is that for Fijian players, they don't want to play for the team because the Union is so corrupt and poorly organised. As evidenced by their recent loss of IRB funding. But the Samoans show what can be achieved with a similar talent pool.

I'm with Hammer on this one. I don't think Gosper is answering the question as framed by Planet Rugby.

He's at a press conference to promote the World Cup, so he's not making a formal policy announcement.

It looks to me like he's been asked generally about the movement of players between rugby countries, not specifically about the three year residency rule. His answers sound more like he's saying the IRB can't, and doesn't want to, force players to stay home to play their rugby. That's what he is referring to when he talks about concentration of talent, not the co-opting of overseas players onto international teams.

In fact, Gosper doesn't mention the eligibility rules at all.

If someone had asked Gosper directly if the IRB has any plans to review eligibility rules and he said no, then we might have more to chew on.

Wow, I didn't actually read that properly before. Just read the quotes without the rest of the bumph.

Let's take it as the question being "Will the IRB do anything to stop European clubs taking players out of the SH teams?"

Gosper wrote:"These aren't issues that we can really look at, there are huge market forces in play in both Hemispheres, and players have got to be able to ply their trade where they want to ply their trade," said Gosper.

"We obviously don't want to see a concentration of players in one or two markets, we like the fact there's a good even competition throughout the world.

"So we like that balance.

"But there's little we can do about it from an IRB perspective.

"I think the lure of international rugby still has a very strong hold on the top players.

"The view is the capture ages are pretty high, so players at that stage should know what the implications of their choices are."

"Some of these players playing outside of their country is adding to the competitiveness of those nations.

"Fijians, Tongans, Samoans and so on are gaining the skills and traits to play at the top level from the clubs they're playing at as well."

The only bit about international play is the suggestion that it's still a strong motivator to keep players at home (as they do in New Zealand).

Notch, now that the LNR have a deal with the FFR to release players for longer who do you think they'd prefer them to play for? France, where they lose them for 8 game weekends a year plus the extra days...or the PI who not only can't afford to get training squads together for long they also don't play during the 6 nations (3 games at most).

Here's the Telegraph's take on it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10810847/IRB-will-not-change-residency-rules-as-row-over-Pacific-Island-stars-playing-for-European-countries-intensifies.html

I can't help feeling that there's little chance of it ever changing in the short term. There's to much vested interest in the status quo from unions making the decisions.

Lets say the key decision makers are essentially the 6 nations/super rugby teams. So how do they stand to win or lose.

Italy. Traditionally rely on a fair amount of imported players. Many of these often have Italian heritage and may qualify under other rules. Gains players from SH.

Scotland. See Italy above. Scottish clubs have a number of foreign born players. As a general it doesn't lose players overseas on residency. Gains players from SH and Holland.

Wales. See above. As a general it doesn't lose many players overseas on residency. As a general it doesn't lose players overseas on residency. It has lost a few players at youth level on residency grounds (e.g. Vunipola brothers). Gains players from SH.

Ireland. See above. Ireland focuses on developing Irish qualified players. So players that can qualify on residential grounds in the future are also targeted. As a general it doesn't lose players overseas on residency. Gains players from NZ and South Africa.

England. See above. An economic powerhouse. 12 private clubs contracting players from anywhere. Structures in place to develop "English talent". Kickbacks from the union for national reps. As a general it doesn't lose players overseas on residency. Gained players from NZ, SA and the Islands.

France. The financial powerhouse. Teams dominated by overseas born players. Academies with increasing ties to overseas youth. As a general it doesn't lose players overseas on residency. Gained players from NZ, South Africa and Fiji.

Argentina. The poor brother. A largely amateur game. Players generally move overseas to work and play. may lose the odd player based on residency. Doesn't gain any players.

Australia. A powerful union. The game is minor but growing through super rugby. Loses a few players through residency. Actively recruiting on the basis of future qualification. Gaining players from NZ, the Islands and Southern Africa.

South Africa. A powerhouse of rugby. Gains a few players from  neighboring states through it's private school system. Looses players to Europe (and a few to Australia) on the basis of residency.

NZ. Similar to South Africa. Gains players from the Islands via private school system. Loses a lot of players everywhere.

So on balance it seems like most countries gain something from the current system. In terms of national representation, I would argue are potentially Argentina, South Africa and New Zealand are disadvantaged. Given the unions will act in their own interest, the status quo is almost certain.

blackcanelion wrote:Here's the Telegraph's take on it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10810847/IRB-will-not-change-residency-rules-as-row-over-Pacific-Island-stars-playing-for-European-countries-intensifies.html

I can't help feeling that there's little chance of it ever changing in the short term. There's to much vested interest in the status quo from unions making the decisions.

The Telegraph doesn't have any more direct quotations from Gosper than the Planet Rugby report, so I don't think journalists asked him what they suggest they asked him.

However, you are probably right in your judgement. For the IRB to change eligibility rules, a union has to propose it. Until that time, no-one else has to actively oppose changing the rules, so we don't really have a sense of who has a vested interest in using three year eligibility as an enticement.

I'm with you. But I do think we can make an educated guess on who benefits and who doesn't. It's generally a oneway flow up the economic river. As far as I'm aware there aren't any players qualifying on residency terms in the Islands. Similarly not a lot of Europeans, or Australians, qualifying on residency grounds in NZ or SA. The problem, I have, is that the system actively encourages players to give up the nationality they were born with or grew up with, essentially for financial gain.

I suspect that if a super rugby/European rugby expands and the likes of Russia, the US, Spain, Hong Kong suddenly move up the rankings  things would change very quickly. Especially, if it's on the back of residentially qualified players and it meant that the likes of Wales or Scotland no longer automatically qualified for the world cup.

Similarly, if the French clubs paid enough for juniors from around Europe to move to France at 17. Especially, if these players chose then to play for France instead of Ireland or England. This is what happens in some other sports. I think the French clubs can pay a junior player up to 50,000 Euro/year and it's under the salary cap. This is potentially the next big change in rugby moving forawrd. That's NZ$80,000, which is more than the NZ$25,000 league players sometimes get, or the essentially minor retainer players get in NZ at the same age.

HammerofThunor wrote:Wow, I didn't actually read that properly before. Just read the quotes without the rest of the bumph.

Let's take it as the question being "Will the IRB do anything to stop European clubs taking players out of the SH teams?"

Gosper wrote:"These aren't issues that we can really look at, there are huge market forces in play in both Hemispheres, and players have got to be able to ply their trade where they want to ply their trade," said Gosper.

"We obviously don't want to see a concentration of players in one or two markets, we like the fact there's a good even competition throughout the world.

"So we like that balance.

"But there's little we can do about it from an IRB perspective.

"I think the lure of international rugby still has a very strong hold on the top players.

"The view is the capture ages are pretty high, so players at that stage should know what the implications of their choices are."

"Some of these players playing outside of their country is adding to the competitiveness of those nations.

"Fijians, Tongans, Samoans and so on are gaining the skills and traits to play at the top level from the clubs they're playing at as well."

The only bit about international play is the suggestion that it's still a strong motivator to keep players at home (as they do in New Zealand).

What he's not mentioning is how the lure of international rugby works counter-productively in a great many instances: it induces the mercenary approach which in recent years has seen players opportunistically put themselves in the shop window whenever the sniff of it arises. They offer themselves to the first meaningful country that sees fit to offer them a cap, regardless of whether they are from that country in any proper sense of the term. In such cases international rugby really becomes no different to club, save that you can't play for anyone else once you've been capped.

They have the power to easily stretch the residency rule to 5 years and therefore take a step towards at least reducing such cases, these claims that there are other forces in the mix simply do not hold in relation to this specifically.

And when Gosper does address it, he basically endorses the current state of affairs. As it is now you can (and do) get promising young players in 2nd/3rd tier countries who, before they've even left their shores, are planning to bid for caps for countries they've never necessarily been to or have any remote connection with. The only reason is that it's the best country that'll have them. Again, this slims the supposed dividing line further between club and international, that you can just arbitrarily select the country you want to play to represent.

This is not what international rugby is about and it's something the IRB neglect completely in their statement. It has a lot of conceptual differences to club rugby and what the IRB are permitting is essentially ignoring these differences and effectively undermining the concept of international rugby.

I agree with Hammer and Rugby Fan that the quotes in the articles do not seem a response to a direct question about changing eligibility rules. Seem to me he was answering a question about movement of players to NH clubs. Without knowing the questions asked, it is impossible to really understand the comments.

Looking at it closer still, and if the questions were indeed about movement of players to NH clubs/regions/provinces, then it would make sense about market forces. In fact, he would appear to be discussing the earnings potential of the players. But that is only speculative.

Knowsit, actually in the original piece Gosper DIDN'T address international rugby. But (for rugby fan) he does in the piece quoted by blackcanelion (right at the end), saying it's up to Hughes who he represents out of those he qualifies for.

@Blackcanelion, England may not lose many players to residency rules but they lose a lot to grand parent rules and things like that. As an England fan the only guy who's 'annoyed' me being able to play for England is Waldron and his 'found' grandparent. Flutey didn't bother, Hape didn't bother me (other than I thought there were better players), Vainikolo didn't bother me (other than it was too soon for him).

It truly don't understand how people can rant and rave about players being developed by a system, representing that system, but can't fathom a problem with someone like Heathcote representing a country where his only link was his father was stationed there for three years of his life, which happened to include his birth. George North has similar ties to Hong Kong only he moved just after his birth rather than before.

And residency probably 'should' be 5 years.

HammerofThunor wrote:Notch, now that the LNR have a deal with the FFR to release players for longer who do you think they'd prefer them to play for? France, where they lose them for 8 game weekends a year plus the extra days...or the PI who not only can't afford to get training squads together for long they also don't play during the 6 nations (3 games at most).

I don't think the clubs have the power to stop the FFR, but they do have the ability to thwart the smaller unions.

If Wasps loose-forward Hughes opts for and represents England over time, Gosper said that should also remain an individual decision.

"That's his choice, at the end of the day it's totally his choice," he said.

"He can make that choice as he wishes and that's something we can't affect.

"If he wants to make a choice to play for Fiji as his nominated country then he can do that.

"But if he complies to the residency rule in another country, he can also make that choice too.

Yes you can effect it...!!!!! You can increase the residency rules. This means that top fijians wont have the option to play for England, or Wales or Ireland or whoever...they must play for Fiji.

But they can still have the capacity to earn a good wage away from Fiji.

"That's how it currently stands and it's not under discussion currently to be changed.

"At the same time some of these players playing outside of their country is adding to the competitiveness of those nations.

"Fijians, Tongans, Samoans and so on are gaining the skills and traits to play at the top level from the clubs they're playing at as well."

Erm? Its adding to the fijian, Tongan and Samoan competitveness? Not if players like Hughes decide NOT to play for Fiji you idiot.

This makes me fuming!!!

Notch wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Notch, now that the LNR have a deal with the FFR to release players for longer who do you think they'd prefer them to play for? France, where they lose them for 8 game weekends a year plus the extra days...or the PI who not only can't afford to get training squads together for long they also don't play during the 6 nations (3 games at most).

I don't think the clubs have the power to stop the FFR, but they do have the ability to thwart the smaller unions.

Exactly. So if they get their players capped by the PI teams they're not eligible for the FFR. But they still count as JIFF players. What's best for the clubs are players developed in French academies that are capped by teams that don't play many games. What's not best is training these PI players only to lose to France for many more game weekends.

I can see how that would work in theory but in practice I don't think we'll see very many JIFF guys returning to the countries of origin to play test rugby.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Erm? Its adding to the fijian, Tongan and Samoan competitveness? Not if players like Hughes decide NOT to play for Fiji you idiot.

This makes me fuming!!!

I think you're conflating two separate topic there. How many PI players are based in the PI (not counting NZ)? Probably close to zero. They benefit massively from the development of their players in other professional structures.

Im not getting confused at all.....Im making the point that if this trend continues...it will increase the number of players lost to the PI's.

Players like Nathan Hughes is a 21yo fijian of high calibre. In three years he could be eligible to play for England.

With such a short time spell he may be very tempted to wait and see that residecy through. It creates the options and the chance that Fiji may lose a talented player.

If that residency was increased to say 6 years...the chances are he wouldnt wait that long and would play for his home country Fiji...or Samoa. At least then his ability isnt lost to the islands.

This way he can continue his earning capacity, develop his skills and the islands benefit. They wont benefit if he chooses England.

The more young players that leave the PI's for Europe the more this scenario will increase!

HammerofThunor wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Erm? Its adding to the fijian, Tongan and Samoan competitveness? Not if players like Hughes decide NOT to play for Fiji you idiot.

This makes me fuming!!!

I think you're conflating two separate topic there. How many PI players are based in the PI (not counting NZ)? Probably close to zero. They benefit massively from the development of their players in other professional structures.

I think there's a difference between players who have a genuine long term connection with a nation and someone who qualifies solely because they move to a country to play rugby. I think that's the issue with Hughes. He's moved to take up a professional contract. It doesn't sit right with me.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Im not getting confused at all.....Im making the point that if this trend continues...it will increase the number of players lost to the PI's.

Players like Nathan Hughes is a 21yo fijian of high calibre. In three years he could be eligible to play for England.

With such a short time spell he may be very tempted to wait and see that residecy through. It creates the options and the chance that Fiji may lose a talented player.

If that residency was increased to say 6 years...the chances are he wouldnt wait that long and would play for his home country Fiji...or Samoa. At least then his ability isnt lost to the island.
This way he can continue his earning capacity, develop his skills and the islands benefit. They wont benefit if he chooses England.

The more young players that leave the PI's for Europe the more this scenario will increase!

Agreed. I think Hughes was qualified for NZ as well on residency prior to moving. I wouldn't have felt comfortable with that either, given he came on a rugby scholarship.

blackcanelion wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Erm? Its adding to the fijian, Tongan and Samoan competitveness? Not if players like Hughes decide NOT to play for Fiji you idiot.

This makes me fuming!!!

I think you're conflating two separate topic there. How many PI players are based in the PI (not counting NZ)? Probably close to zero. They benefit massively from the development of their players in other professional structures.

I think there's a difference between players who have a genuine long term connection with a nation and someone who qualifies solely because they move to a country to play rugby. I think that's the issue with Hughes. He's moved to take up a professional contract. It doesn't sit right with me.

I have no issues with the professional contract lion. Its allowing him to earn a good wage that he wouldnt in Fiji or Samoa, its inncreasing his skills etc ...all great and benefitial to Fiji. My problem is that in threes years he could wear the Red Rose instead of wearing the Palm tree as he should be. An increased residency rule would stop this.

Indeed he should be representing Fiji in their upcoming World CUp qualifier against the cook island.s

Isn't most migration of people down to economics?

Geordie, you don't think countries without a professional set up benefit by having their players play in another countries professional set up? Because that is what Gosper is saying here "playing outside of their country is adding to the competitiveness of those nations." Which you called him an idiot over.

The bit you want to attack him over is that he said it's up to the player. If they choose to represent a country they moved to it's the players choice.

PS 5 years for residency for me.

Hammer your not getting my point.

If the rule was increased to 5/6/7 years then the player wouldnt have a choice of which country to play for then there is no issue.

Ive said above i AGREE that moving to Europe etc is good for the Islanders(or indeed Africans/ Asians / Tier2 / Tier 3 nations)...its creates an earning capacity they wouldnt have in Fiji or Samoa or Tonga. It will enhance their skills etc...but what i am argueing that with a minimum of 3 years residency more Islanders will elect to play for the new country not their original one.

Thus in that regard players moving WOULDNT benefit the Islands.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Erm? Its adding to the fijian, Tongan and Samoan competitveness? Not if players like Hughes decide NOT to play for Fiji you idiot.

This makes me fuming!!!

I think you're conflating two separate topic there. How many PI players are based in the PI (not counting NZ)? Probably close to zero. They benefit massively from the development of their players in other professional structures.

I think there's a difference between players who have a genuine long term connection with a nation and someone who qualifies solely because they move to a country to play rugby. I think that's the issue with Hughes. He's moved to take up a professional contract. It doesn't sit right with me.

I have no issues with the professional contract lion. Its allowing him to earn a good wage that he wouldnt in Fiji or Samoa, its inncreasing his skills etc ...all great and benefitial to Fiji. My problem is that in threes years he could wear the Red Rose instead of wearing the Palm tree as he should be. An increased residency rule would stop this.

Indeed he should be representing Fiji in their upcoming World CUp qualifier against the cook island.s

I think I was agreeing with you. Might be my written skills are a bit dodge.

 

HammerofThunor wrote:

Notch wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Notch, now that the LNR have a deal with the FFR to release players for longer who do you think they'd prefer them to play for? France, where they lose them for 8 game weekends a year plus the extra days...or the PI who not only can't afford to get training squads together for long they also don't play during the 6 nations (3 games at most).

I don't think the clubs have the power to stop the FFR, but they do have the ability to thwart the smaller unions.

Exactly. So if they get their players capped by the PI teams they're not eligible for the FFR. But they still count as JIFF players. What's best for the clubs are players developed in French academies that are capped by teams that don't play many games. What's not best is training these PI players only to lose to France for many more game weekends.

Isn't there a limit in the number of NIQ players/EU in a match day squad. I seem to remember that Contempomi and Wilkinson rarely played together for Toulon because of this.

If SH players in the French Club academies want to earn their living in France, they would be more inclined to declare for France and definately not play for their home nation.

Thing is, will 3 year qualified players die (metaphorically) for their new country? Could be a fools gold situation and the joke may be on the unions jumping over themselves trying to ring fence foreign players. All the while, teams like the PIs lose as they lose the potential services of a player that may have actually played with pride and passion for something (other than money) that they believed in (heritage). Five years plus minimum qualification for me as long as unions don't start offering primary school scholarships.

I think blackcanelion gave a pretty reasonable summary of the stance most unions have on the issue.

As far as I can tell, the occasional Steve Hansen jibe aside, there are only really two constituencies with long-running grievances: us fans and the local players who miss out on selection.

Like Hammer, I've had mixed feelings about some of England's recruits over the years. However, I haven't stopped watching the team, so the RFU isn't going to argue for change while we are only grumbling.

Some players have spoken out against the sudden emergence of a newly qualified player. Luke Narraway tweeted "Good luck to Thomas the tank and his English nan. #notbittermuch." after Waldrom won selection to Johnson's 45 man World Cup training squad. He later said it was just banter but it would be a surprise if he hadn't been a bit aggrieved.

Unfortunately, there's no real way for home grown players to complain without it seeming like sour grapes. Or, as Jack Wilshere discovered when he stepped into an eligibility discussion, you can come off sounding like a UKIP candidate talking about Bongo Bongo land.

It might be different if the Rugby Players Association piped up but they represent all Aviva players, so it's not clear why they would pick that fight.

Technically the IRB could change the rules and increase residency times, but I think it may be pointless. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a player is resident in a foreign country for the length of time which permits them to gain citizenship/passport, but that is less that the IRB minimum, then surley the player could just become a national of that country. Wouldn't it then be illegal to restrict that players oppportunities to represent his new 'home'?

Don't know but Botica has a UK passport because he lived for 8 years in England as a child but he's not qualified for England because he was a couple of years old when he moved. Of course, if he was born here he could have spent just a month here and still be qualified.

ebop wrote:Thing is, will 3 year qualified players die (metaphorically) for their new country? Could be a fools gold situation and the joke may be on the unions jumping over themselves trying to ring fence foreign players. All the while, teams like the PIs lose as they lose the potential services of a player that may have actually played with pride and passion for something (other than money) that they believed in (heritage). Five years plus minimum qualification for me as long as unions don't start offering primary school scholarships.

Would players with a single grand parent born somewhere die (metaphorically) for that country? Would all players born, bred, with all family from a country die (metaphorically) for that country?

If there was some way of determine that it would be a reasonable thing to base it on. I want players representing England who are developed here (not necessary all their life, but some development) and could give a Poopie. I don't want players that give a Poopie but weren't developed here. I don't want players that were developed here and don't give a Poopie.

It's an interesting moral question. The current system is biased towards the haves. It's not a free market. If you accept the argument that players should be able to make an unencumbered choice then shouldn't they be able to change nationalities at any point they choose. I.e. Mako Vunipola could say well I feel English today, 2 weeks later in the 6 nations he could say I am Welsh to the core. In June he could say I'm a Kiwi I really feel I'm an All Black. Then in November he could say I'm Tongan. The fact is he might be all those things, he has the heritage. He could probably have a passport for NZ (birth), Tonga (parentage) and the UK.

There's an artificial control that the IRB puts in place for qualification. They can can change the rules if they want.

Gents, I think the 'die for their country' analogy applied to Rugby is a bit too much. But I think I get your point: Would/could a player really give his last ounce of energy if he played for his adopted/temporary country? Could he dig down deep to the same recesses as a player born here? To me that is down to the character of player. So many of these guys are incredibly self-motivated, and have had to be to get to the highest level. But for others the national call-up is everything.

I would increase the residency requirements by at least 1 year (total of 4 to qualify). Maybe two.

What I see happening in international rugby is an analogy of what happened in the club game.

It used to be about local lads putting their skills against local or distant rivals.

Then slowly that evolved such that players had little relationship or connection to their club region and were little more than paid mercenaries. The identity of the club became a brand.

The same will happen with international teams. The brand name "All Blacks", "wallabies","springboks","dragons","red rose","lions","pumas" and so forth will begin to take precedence over the national identities and eventually be dropped out.

It is inevitable and the future. It's about the globalisation of our civilization and not a rugby issue.

There are several reasons why the IRB will never allow "Residency" to become an agenda item again. the three year clause will remain for many years yet.

Scramble wrote:What I see happening in international rugby is an analogy of what happened in the club game.

It used to be about local lads putting their skills against local or distant rivals.

Then slowly that evolved such that players had little relationship or connection to their club region and were little more than paid mercenaries. The identity of the club became a brand.

The same will happen with international teams. The brand name "All Blacks", "wallabies","springboks","dragons","red rose","lions","pumas" and so forth will begin to take precedence over the national identities and eventually be dropped out.

It is inevitable and the future. It's about the globalisation of our civilization and not a rugby issue.

Go back a few years and there were several players who played internationals for two countries, like that argentinian/australian prop and a fair few Samoa/all blacks (which I don't mind). Things were worse than they are now.

lostinwales wrote:

Scramble wrote:What I see happening in international rugby is an analogy of what happened in the club game.

It used to be about local lads putting their skills against local or distant rivals.

Then slowly that evolved such that players had little relationship or connection to their club region and were little more than paid mercenaries. The identity of the club became a brand.

The same will happen with international teams. The brand name "All Blacks", "wallabies","springboks","dragons","red rose","lions","pumas" and so forth will begin to take precedence over the national identities and eventually be dropped out.

It is inevitable and the future. It's about the globalisation of our civilization and not a rugby issue.

Go back a few years and there were several players who played internationals for two countries, like that argentinian/australian prop and a fair few Samoa/all blacks (which I don't mind). Things were worse than they are now.

 Gee and I was always of the opinion that the old system worked just fine, and its the current one thats a farce.

If they did put a ban in place could it be contested via European residency rights and laws? Wasn't that the case with football even though very few play for teams via residency.

Not sure why they would want to keep the 3 year stance bar that. AUS, NZ & SA don't really gain from it, and they often get what they want eventually. Can't see them being strongarmed by the home nations who may want to keep these rules for competitive reasons.

I think people get on their high horse though about the past.... a lot of chaps played for other countries in the amateur era.... in essence you played for your country of residence not your country of birth/that you were raisedin,  in many instances.

Its just very easy to have a rosy view of the past and, for instance, forget/ignore things like grannygate. You cant get away with that one anymore. The rules are a lot clearer now, even if people like to try and stretch them a little, and that alters how things are perceived.

lostinwales wrote:Its just very easy to have a rosy view of the past and, for instance, forget/ignore things like grannygate. You cant get away with that one anymore. The rules are a lot clearer now, even if people like to try and stretch them a little, and that alters how things are perceived.

 
 
 Grannygate had absolutely nothing to do with Residency.

I don't see a problem with it to be honest.

The 3 year rule is OK and is a lot better than what we had before.