Project Payne is a mistake

First topic message reminder :

The IRFU has allowed a number of players to be deemed to be Project Players - the potential to play for Ireland through 3-year residency rule - and, more critically, being good enough to play.

The first is easy enough to achieve - bend the rule on foreign NIE players by saying Project Players don't count as part of the quota.

The second less so. Richardt Strauss is probably the most high-profile Project Players to have gained a couple of Irish caps in recent years. After that, the cupboard looks somewhat bare, not because there isn't a pool of players there, but the talent they represent. Bluntly, most, if not all, simply aren't good enough.

Rodney Ah You, Brett Wilkinson, Robbie Diack, Quinn Roux, CJ Stander, Tyler Beyendaal, Bundee Aki are/were just some of the names rolled out as possibilities to don the Ireland jersey. And, of course, the apparent dead cert, to wear the 13 shirt in the Autumn Internationals, one Jared Payne.

In fact, it's Payne's imminent arrival into the test arena, that prompted me to put pen to paper, or fingertips to keyboard. Because you just have to ask, is Joe Schmidt really serious about including the New Zealander in his preparations for the World Cup next year?

In my view, Payne is flawed, a flake. He may well wow the crowds at Ravenhill, from his position at full-back, but the thought that he might be deemed to be the best successor to O'Driscoll, and wear an Ireland jersey, has me shaking my head - I just don't get it. He seemed to be largely anonymous in his recent roles there for Ulster, and, if truth be told, hasn't been making waves at 15 either - for the right reasons anyway. He may be a really good club player, but his temperament for test rugby, is in my view, not good enough. At critical moments in matches, he has made reckless decisions, fatally hesitated, opts for contact rather than space, and his defensive abilities, are somewhat suspect.

Too often, a player arrives on these shores, and because they've got the birth country initials - SA, Aus, or most importantly, NZ - after their name, the running assumption is that they MUST be good. Frankly, they're not. And some of the recent "Project' acquisitions" have been shown up within a short time as being 'journeyman' at best, and downright awful at other times.

I've no idea as to whether the likes of Bundee Aki or Tyler Bleyenhaal will turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread when they arrive to play in Ireland in the new season. The notion that somehow they'll be so much better than their Irish counterparts/equivalents has my eyebrows rising more often than normal. And, even if they are, does Ireland really, really, have to rely on them, rather than put the money, time and investment into developing home-grown players?

It may sound barmy, but I hope sincerely, that the only green jersey that Jared Payne ever might put on would be at best, a Connacht one. Ireland deserve better prospects, not wing and a prayer projects.

Well said Rodders. You only have to look across the sea to Scotland to see how badly it can go wrong if not run properly. Ireland have made a pretty decent fist of it.

Darn tootin' Rodders!................... so far.

Let's hope the new PRL Dawn don't change that too much and drive us back downhill.

Notch wrote:My preferred solution is that teams can name players who have qualified on residency; but only a maximum of two players in any match day 23.

I like that idea.

Also we are not , yet, in a position where we need Residency based players.
If Strauss had not played we would have hardly noticed
Diack is only on tour because POM and SOB are injured and probably will not be near the squad in the autumn
(Having said that I do not have an issue with him - been here 5 years and I am led to believe he may well stay after he retires - as it will something like 10/11 years living in Ulster)

If Payne were not to play I do not believe the team would be significantly weakened - Henshaw/Cave/Kearney cover those positions.
Weaker without him yes but not decisively.
We have the players coming through to maintain a position close to the top than the bottom of 6N rugby as we have done consistantly since the 6N started.

Dont get me wrong if they are eligable pick them but I would be lying if I didn't say that my support would wane if the team had 5 residency players and 5 grandparent qualified players in the team.

Every non-Irishman playing takes my enthusiasm down a notch
An Irishman being someone for who this is home (unmeasurable I know) - which is why Andy Ward was fine and why Diack might be.

Regardless of the wider debate is Payne really a significantly better option at 13 than Henshaw or even Cave? There is no evidence to suggest that so far and we haven't even seen how he copes at test level. 
I think he should compete with Kearney for the 15 jersey but in my mind he has to be significantly superior to other options whilst also showing the same commitment and passion as (most of) our home players. And even if Payne or another project fulfils this criteria, they have to earn their chance from the ground up, I do not want to see Payne waltz straight into our test side.

*Also where has the idea come from that we cannot afford to turn down these overseas players, as rodders said the IRFU is doing a lot of good for the game here and other than the coach it is IRELAND who are NH Kings!  

Biltong wrote:
New Zealand, with a population smaller than Ireland, and likely a similar economy has very much the same development structures as SA.

So my question is this, do Unions use excuses to not develop their own talent and think they fool anyone with it, or do they simply not care whether we believe them or not?

Rugby is New Zealand's first choice team sport. Rugby is Ireland's 4th choice (after Soccer, GAA - hurling & football).

To put in context how the sports stand in Ireland - in Ireland's proposed world cup bid, 3 of the stadia are owned by rugby, the other 8/9 are owned by the GAA. In the rankings size wise, 1. GAA, 2 Rugby & Soccer 3. GAA down to about 9/10 where Thomond Park & Ravenhill get a mention.

I've no doubt that Ireland would be as good as NZ if rugby was our first sport.

Is the capacity of the redeveloped Pairc Ui Chaoimh 50K or 60K

Sin é wrote:I've no doubt that Ireland would be as good as NZ if rugby was our first sport.

I can see us being as talented, but we would still have to get over that ole Irish inferiority complex, give it a lash mentality! Part of the reason the All Blacks are so good is the mental side of their game.

I think we have made great strides on this in the professional era.

Its a 45K seater (costing 70m to redevelop).

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:I've no doubt that Ireland would be as good as NZ if rugby was our first sport.

I can see us being as talented, but we would still have to get over that ole Irish inferiority complex, give it a lash mentality! Part of the reason the All Blacks are so good is the mental side of their game.

I think we have made great strides on this in the professional era.

There are certain counties that do not have that mentality (the most successful GAA counties like Kerry, Cork, Kilkenny, Tipperary - recent years Tyrone, Armagh and Clare).

Sin é wrote:

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:I've no doubt that Ireland would be as good as NZ if rugby was our first sport.

I can see us being as talented, but we would still have to get over that ole Irish inferiority complex, give it a lash mentality! Part of the reason the All Blacks are so good is the mental side of their game.

I think we have made great strides on this in the professional era.

There are certain counties that do not have that mentality (the most successful GAA counties like Kerry, Cork, Kilkenny, Tipperary - recent years Tyrone, Armagh and Clare).

yeah but certainly don't look to my county (Mayo) for an All-Blacks killer instinct...

It's a good thread, and I think we nearly all agree to some extent. But I may be a bit extremist- we should have no project players and I would take a bottom 3 finish every year of full on irish men then the asterix against our name that would appear in my head should the likes of Payne represent us and we won a trophy. I have no issue from the players themselves point of view, they should have the best career's they can manage. But it doesn't mean I have to accept them as Irish... And the only small way we can try and remedy this is to support grass roots rugby with all our might.

It seems that many posters consider Slytherin purebloods to be the only ones fit to play for Ireland - really?

Ireland is becoming more and more multicultural and pluralist every day, yet people who go there to live and work shouldn't be allowed to represent that society, rather it should be genetically determined. How long before the IRFU introduce DNA tests and start a Eugenics programme!

Suggesting that a player with over a certain percentage 'Irishness' in his blood but who has never lived in Ireland will be more committed than someone who has spent the peak years of his life there is bordering on the racist and lacking any objective evidence.

I am totally against the idea of 'project players' because that is an artificial boost that an agent will exploit to get more money. Players are either qualified or not and as such their worth is now - not what it might become with a change of status. If Payne is in the selection pool, then he should be judged on exactly the same criteria as Paddy O'Erin - no differently.

Ireland is growing the sport of Rugby because it is now a professional option where guys can earn £100k at age 21. That will encourage more 'home grown' players to be produced, but shouldn't preclude those qualified on residency either. It just means the player pool will hopefully have grown enough for Ireland to become a net exporter to other countries, meaning they keep the best and reduce the need for foreign imports.

The Great Aukster wrote:It seems that many posters consider Slytherin purebloods to be the only ones fit to play for Ireland - really?

Ireland is becoming more and more multicultural and pluralist every day, yet people who go there to live and work shouldn't be allowed to represent that society, rather it should be genetically determined. How long before the IRFU introduce DNA tests and start a Eugenics programme!

Suggesting that a player with over a certain percentage 'Irishness' in his blood but who has never lived in Ireland will be more committed than someone who has spent the peak years of his life there is bordering on the racist and lacking any objective evidence.

I am totally against the idea of 'project players' because that is an artificial boost that an agent will exploit to get more money. Players are either qualified or not and as such their worth is now - not what it might become with a change of status. If Payne is in the selection pool, then he should be judged on exactly the same criteria as Paddy O'Erin - no differently.

Ireland is growing the sport of Rugby because it is now a professional option where guys can earn £100k at age 21. That will encourage more 'home grown' players to be produced, but shouldn't preclude those qualified on residency either. It just means the player pool will hopefully have grown enough for Ireland to become a net exporter to other countries, meaning they keep the best and reduce the need for foreign imports.

+100 Aukster. +1,00

Please dont put words into other mouths.

As one who has expressed disquiet at Project playing I have made it quite clear the true test is where is home - an unmeasurable yardstick.

Andy Ward came her in the early 90's with no rugby pedigree and has stayed every since - no problem
Robbie Diack has been here 5 years already, came to play for Ulster with no thought of Ireland, will probably play for another 5/6 years and may well stay him post retirement -no problem.
Jared Payne - if he plays for a few years and then goes back to NZ - yer I have a problem with that.

It is not about genetic purity it is about where is your loyalty.
That can change from one nation to another for a variety of reasons and should be accomodate but what should not be accomodated is people going round the world seeking a country to play for .

We had a backrower at Ulster (forget the name) who spent 3 years in Ireland didn't makeit, 3 years in Scotland didn't make it and eventually got his cap in Canada - thats pathetic

I accept making rules to account for this is neigh impossible but if 7 players turn out for Ireland via the route Payne has taken - I wont be going to watch and I will not be that interested in the result

The Great Aukster wrote:It seems that many posters consider Slytherin purebloods to be the only ones fit to play for Ireland - really?

Ireland is becoming more and more multicultural and pluralist every day, yet people who go there to live and work shouldn't be allowed to represent that society, rather it should be genetically determined. How long before the IRFU introduce DNA tests and start a Eugenics programme!

Suggesting that a player with over a certain percentage 'Irishness' in his blood but who has never lived in Ireland will be more committed than someone who has spent the peak years of his life there is bordering on the racist and lacking any objective evidence.

I am totally against the idea of 'project players' because that is an artificial boost that an agent will exploit to get more money. Players are either qualified or not and as such their worth is now - not what it might become with a change of status. If Payne is in the selection pool, then he should be judged on exactly the same criteria as Paddy O'Erin - no differently.

Ireland is growing the sport of Rugby because it is now a professional option where guys can earn £100k at age 21. That will encourage more 'home grown' players to be produced, but shouldn't preclude those qualified on residency either. It just means the player pool will hopefully have grown enough for Ireland to become a net exporter to other countries, meaning they keep the best and reduce the need for foreign imports.

I bolded the bit most of us to some extent probably agree with - and something that is probably the central strand of the pros and cons arguments against any rush to automatically annoint 'project' slick foreign players over their more earthy, wellie wearing, pig smelling 'genuine' Irish colleagues.
That's a discussion and it's a legitimate one, whether you're for more slick Project players getting their 'chance' or whether you'd like inbred yokels from Cavan getting a preference vote if they look like they might make the grade with some civilisation training on how to use a fork and spoon.

However, I also italised the bit that I don't think was remotely required, Aukster, based on any published points made by any contributers to this topic.

The word 'racist' especially is, it seems, the number one album in populist bombast these last six, seven or ten years.  The word Racist reminds me of that bloody Bryan Adams song 'Everything I do, I do it for you'.  To those too young to remember, that blasted song stayed at number One in the charts for what seemed like a thousand years...month after month, Top of the Pops after Top of the Pops, bloody Bryan whailing away on his Robin Hood dirge.  
The term 'Racist' too - lingers too long and pops up far too frequently - and illegitimately often kills very legitimate discussions by force of the taboo nature of the accusation.

The Great Aukster wrote:It seems that many posters consider Slytherin purebloods to be the only ones fit to play for Ireland - really?

Ireland is becoming more and more multicultural and pluralist every day, yet people who go there to live and work shouldn't be allowed to represent that society, rather it should be genetically determined. How long before the IRFU introduce DNA tests and start a Eugenics programme!

Suggesting that a player with over a certain percentage 'Irishness' in his blood but who has never lived in Ireland will be more committed than someone who has spent the peak years of his life there is bordering on the racist and lacking any objective evidence.

I am totally against the idea of 'project players' because that is an artificial boost that an agent will exploit to get more money. Players are either qualified or not and as such their worth is now - not what it might become with a change of status. If Payne is in the selection pool, then he should be judged on exactly the same criteria as Paddy O'Erin - no differently.

Ireland is growing the sport of Rugby because it is now a professional option where guys can earn £100k at age 21. That will encourage more 'home grown' players to be produced, but shouldn't preclude those qualified on residency either. It just means the player pool will hopefully have grown enough for Ireland to become a net exporter to other countries, meaning they keep the best and reduce the need for foreign imports.

Take a bow Aukster, once again the voice of reason in this crazy mixed up world we live in...

 If you say so

Personally I think Great Aukster has posted an over the top 'straw man' which devalues an important debate.

SecretFly wrote:

The word 'racist' especially is, it seems, the number one album in populist bombast these last six, seven or ten years.  The word Racist reminds me of that bloody Bryan Adams song 'Everything I do, I do it for you'.  To those too young to remember, that blasted song stayed at number One in the charts for what seemed like a thousand years...month after month, Top of the Pops after Top of the Pops, bloody Bryan whailing away on his Robin Hood dirge.  
The term 'Racist' too - lingers too long and pops up far too frequently - and illegitimately often kills very legitimate discussions by force of the taboo nature of the accusation.

+1. The racist card really annoys me being thrown in here.

The next thing we will have to listen to is that it is sexist that women are not eligible to play in competitions that men play in or that it is discriminatory that over 20s can't play in U20s competition.

Where does it end? Next rule to go will be that if you have played for one nation, you can play for another - i.e., someone like Doug Howlett with his 60+ caps for NZ will move to Ireland and be automatically eligible to play for Ireland.

Actually I don't understand why Irish fans can be concerned about Payne but not complain about Schmidt and all the other NZ coaches over there. To me the coaching is far more important than one overseas player. We've accepted some players from overseas in NZ but I hope I never see a non Kiwi coach.

No doubt his comments are unnecessarily over the top Geoff. For the record, I have no problem with players qualifying via residency. What I do have a problem with is the laughably short time frame it takes to qualify which doesn't require a player to really have committed to not only making his career in his adoptive country, but also his home.

I agree with rodders we have to use the rules like every other union does, but I really wish the rules were made more stringent to neutralise the mercenary factor. As to Payne, we'll only know whether it was right or wrong when he retires. If he stays here to make a life for himself after rugby it was absolutely right to let him represent our country. If he heads straight back to New Zealand we'll know it probably wasn't.

The IRBs refusal to look at residency laws is ridiculous. The laws were made at a time when player movement was less common and desperately need reviewed to prevent countries that are economically stronger profiting in the international arena.

SecretFly wrote:The word 'racist' especially is, it seems, the number one album in populist bombast these last six, seven or ten years.  The word Racist reminds me of that bloody Bryan Adams song 'Everything I do, I do it for you'.  To those too young to remember, that blasted song stayed at number One in the charts for what seemed like a thousand years...month after month, Top of the Pops after Top of the Pops, bloody Bryan whailing away on his Robin Hood dirge.

There are people too young to remember that?   Every now and then something happens that makes you remember you're getting older   

On the racism thing, when it comes down to people saying only players born somewhere should play there...no racist as such but not 'right' (IMO). Where you have people say that certain NZ players should play for a PI team, even though they were born and raised in NZ, well that does become racist (and it has been said if rarely, generally it's just down to ignorance).

I don't like the idea of unions just deciding that qualified players aren't English enough (as an example) for them so they're not being picked. I wouldn't have a problem with a blanket, additional qualification (must be playing in England, must be UK citizen, etc).

I don't want to go totally off tangent here (but let's face it, I often tend to! ) but Sin's post just reminded me of something I found interesting when I had some time on my hands a few days ago and watched an old movie - quite a famous one btw.

Anyway, the story goes that certain shows have been quietly banned from TV schedules because of presumed 'racist' words, images or implied persuasions included.

And so I think Noddy had a bad PR stint a while back when PC people realised he had a friend with a name which can't be mentioned.
And again, an old sit-com called It ain't half Hot Mum doesn't seem to get the same re-run mileage as Dad's Army due to sensitivities regarding S hook belts and painted up men pretending to be what they Ain't.
Till Death Do Us Part might be another one, whereby the critics don't realise the irony and assume Alf was a designated 'hero'.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, some shows get dropped or banned because the PC crowd spot an error in Thought and as they are Thought Police, the show has to go.  
And, yet, in this quite famous B&W movie, that is quite gung ho in its up-front patriotism and rememberence of a great exploit in WW2, the word that starts with 'N' was liberally used throughout.  I hadn't actually ever noticed it before (because in the old days you didn't)  but given the climate that exists today, I noticed it straight away.

So I'm wondering....will I complain to the channel, kick up a fuss and have one more cultural movie consigned to the bin marked "Offensive Material for Burning. Forget it ever existed"???

Nah. Ain't it lucky I'm a movie buff.  I won't even mention the film here lest someone with a trigger finger does the dirty work for me

nganboy wrote:Actually I don't understand why Irish fans can be concerned about Payne but not complain about Schmidt and all the other NZ coaches over there. To me the coaching is far more important than one overseas player.  We've accepted some players from overseas in NZ but I hope I never see a non Kiwi coach.

Reconnecting with the High Moral Ground, ngan. Good catch!

Notch wrote:No doubt his comments are unnecessarily over the top Geoff. For the record, I have no problem with players qualifying via residency. What I do have a problem with is the laughably short time frame it takes to qualify which doesn't require a player to really have committed to not only making his career in his adoptive country, but also his home.

I agree with rodders we have to use the rules like every other union does, but I really wish the rules were made more stringent to neutralise the mercenary factor. As to Payne, we'll only know whether it was right or wrong when he retires. If he stays here to make a life for himself after rugby it was absolutely right to let him represent our country. If he heads straight back to New Zealand we'll know it probably wasn't.

The IRBs refusal to look at residency laws is ridiculous. The laws were made at a time when player movement was less common and desperately need reviewed to prevent countries that are economically stronger profiting in the international arena.

Agree with that

3 years to qualify is short in real time but if you consider how short a professional sports career is it isn't ridiculously short.

I'm not saying don't increases it but for me 4 years would be enough.

Lets be honest, real mercenaries will find ways around any rules - it's not hard to find an Irish granny.

And Aukster makes an interesting point re: ex pats and Irish players who make it through ancestry. Are they more Irish than people who live here and make a life here?

I mentioned Easterbuy earlier - a guy who has never lived in the country. Is he culturally more Irish than say Joe Schmidt, Richard Strauss or Robbie Diack?

Personally I'm not so sure. I definitely don't think it's a black and white issue.

rodders wrote:
Personally I'm not so sure. I definitely don't think it's a black and white issue.

Careful!!!

I think qualification should be 7 years.

WHen a player leaves his country of birth for lets face it, money, he is in no way stopped from earning money.

When he has to take 7 years before he qualifies it will firstly remove the "enticement" of being a project player, his sole purpose will be to benefit the club he is going to represent, if he has remained there for 7 years and have totally naturalised by then, I doubt anyone will question his commitment nor the fact whether he was poached.

You can't poach a player for seven years down the line, can you?

rodders wrote:

And Aukster makes an interesting point re: ex pats and Irish players who make it through ancestry. Are they more Irish than people who live here and make a life here?

Genes would suggest so, yes.  

There is science and then there is reason.  But Darwin created the world in seven days with Science.  We can't drop science now simply because it does DNA which runs contrary to Payne getting the hallowed 13 shirt.
I think the 13 shirt should actually be put out to tender - the IRFU could make a bucket of extra cash having a TV special with Simon Cowell and phone in voting.  13 steps to O'Driscoll's Shirt.  Singing, dancing, joke telling and ruck hitting.

Hammer

Of course through much of the amateur era, you weren't English enough if you were born north of the Watford gap or further west than about Reading, or did not attend a public School    .

It's an interesting debate, and I guess Ireland is in a slightly different position from most in that the Provinces are an extension of the IRFU and so bringing in 'project' players does feel a little more cynical than is the case for most of the England players who qualified by residency.

I agree with the general sentiment - international sport should be about being represented by the best your country has, but this can be something of a nebulous concept. Are the Vunipola brothers or Faletau not English/Welsh enough because they were born overseas to foreign parents? I think everyone here would accept that their homes are in Britain as that is where they have lived since being fairly young children.
Manu Tuilagi is a slightly less clear cut case, having moved at about 12 or 13, although clearly most of his development as a pro rugby player has been in England. Again, I think most of us can accept his eligibility to play for England (although would also have no quibbles had he chosen Samoa).

Payne, Strauss, Flutey, Hape? For me, 3 years is not enough to show a commitment to the country, especially if they came over specifically to play professional rugby. I think something between 5 and 7 years would be a sensible qualification period (with each year below the age of 18 counting double).

SecretFly wrote:

rodders wrote:
Personally I'm not so sure. I definitely don't think it's a black and white issue.

Careful!!!

Freudian slip, I swear.   

Irish DNA fly?

Sure our DNA is as mongrel as you get here in Ireland. In fact we aren't even Irish as it turns out, neither was St Patrick and Irish wolfhounds come from other shores too. We've been importing for years

Oh and was it Dambusters you were watching???

If we were to change the residency regulations then the likes of Payne wouldn't get a chance at international rugby until he was 32. Too late Jared, you should have come over earlier in your life and farewell.
I just don't have a problem with a drop of mercenary here and there. If they are willing to reside here for the allotted term that shows enough commitment for me. Of course everyone's standards will differ hugely and I still have a part of me that says '100% Irish Only'.

Quit ruining things by naming names!!!!!!!!!!!!! If that film gets banned I'm blaming you, Pete!

rodders wrote:3 years to qualify is short in real time but if you consider how short a professional sports career is it isn't ridiculously short.

I'm not saying don't increases it but for me 4 years would be enough.

Lets be honest, real mercenaries will find ways around any rules - it's not hard to find an Irish granny.

And Aukster makes an interesting point re: ex pats and Irish players who make it through ancestry. Are they more Irish than people who live here and make a life here?

I mentioned Easterbuy earlier - a guy who has never lived in the country. Is he culturally more Irish than say Joe Schmidt, Richard Strauss or Robbie Diack?

Personally I'm not so sure. I definitely don't think it's a black and white issue.

I'd say all the Irish coming from the UK are culturally very Irish and probably spend a lot of time in Ireland anyway. The Easterbys certainly are more Irish than Joe Schmidt as they spent a lot of their childhood here visiting their Irish grandmother. Simon certainly had opportunities to play for England and he turned them down. Guy is now living & working here. I think you will find a lot of these ex-pats tend to be more Irish than the Irish themselves.

Sin é wrote: I think you will find a lot of these ex-pats tend to be more Irish than the Irish themselves.

Are you racist against me Sin simply because I'm from here and so not as Irish as the people who aren't ???

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote: I think you will find a lot of these ex-pats tend to be more Irish than the Irish themselves.

Are you racist against me Sin simply because I'm from here and so not as Irish as the people who aren't ???

If I'm racist against you, we'd be buddies together in the war against racism as I'd be racist against myself   

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:I've no doubt that Ireland would be as good as NZ if rugby was our first sport.

I can see us being as talented, but we would still have to get over that ole Irish inferiority complex, give it a lash mentality! Part of the reason the All Blacks are so good is the mental side of their game.

I think we have made great strides on this in the professional era.

It is not NZ's first winter sport in terms of participation (football is) and saying Ireland would be just as good as NZ if Ireland had rugby as its first sport is about as valid a statement as Paz Vega would have shagged me when I was single if she had known I existed.

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote: I think you will find a lot of these ex-pats tend to be more Irish than the Irish themselves.

Are you racist against me Sin simply because I'm from here and so not as Irish as the people who aren't ???

If I'm racist against you, we'd be buddies together in the war against racism as I'd be racist against myself   

Anti Me it is then for both of us.... which I'm all for in political and cultural terms. Europe needs more of us - Ming can't beat Flash Merkell on his own.

How did this get turned into a racism discussion...must be something to do with the recent elections....

Anyhow..why not follow the general rule in a country like Ireland (Rep of) that it takes five years to get citizenship . I believe its generally the same all over the EU at least. Seems like a good benchmark (and deterrent for sports tourism).

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:I've no doubt that Ireland would be as good as NZ if rugby was our first sport.

I can see us being as talented, but we would still have to get over that ole Irish inferiority complex, give it a lash mentality! Part of the reason the All Blacks are so good is the mental side of their game.

I think we have made great strides on this in the professional era.

It is not NZ's first winter sport in terms of participation (football is) and saying Ireland would be just as good as NZ if Ireland had rugby as its first sport is about as valid a statement as Paz Vega would have shagged me when I was single if she had known I existed.

Come on now, Kia. The Aussie Rules superstars stopped playing our amateur GAA buckeroos because they feared the headlines. These GAA wild men are still largely an untapped resource. Tap them, net them, hog tie them, tranquillise them and then train them up as rugby players - the future is written. It's green.

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote: I think you will find a lot of these ex-pats tend to be more Irish than the Irish themselves.

Are you racist against me Sin simply because I'm from here and so not as Irish as the people who aren't ???

If I'm racist against you, we'd be buddies together in the war against racism as I'd be racist against myself   

Anti Me it is then for both of us.... which I'm all for in political and cultural terms. Europe needs more of us - Ming can't beat Flash Merkell on his own.

You should join UKIP Fly....seems like a natural home for you, loads of BS and nonsense.....

Sinn Fein already have, ME

I've come round to the points based qualification method as being the fairest.
Soemthing like 60 points - birth, 40 points per parent, 15 points per grandparent, 30 point per consecutive year under 16, 25 points per consecutive year 16 to 21, 20 points per consecutive year 22+

Need 100 points to qualify
Means that someone over 21 who arrives in a country need 5 years to qualify.
As it should be.

To take some examples
Diack, Payne - 5 years
Boss, Court - 4 years
Easterby would have had to move to Ireland to qualify - if at 21 would have taken 3 years.

SecretFly wrote:Sinn Fein already have, ME

  

God forbid am a dyed in the wool supporter for the european project....SF/UKIP all the same small minded and reactionary.

geoff998rugby wrote:I've come round to the points based qualification method as being the fairest.
Soemthing like 60 points - birth, 40 points per parent, 15 points per grandparent, 30 point per consecutive year under 16, 25 points per consecutive year 16 to 21, 20 points per consecutive year 22+

Need 100 points to qualify
Means that someone over 21 who arrives in a country need 5 years to qualify.
As it should be.

To take some examples
Diack, Payne - 5 years
Boss, Court - 4 years
Easterby would have had to move to Ireland to qualify - if at 21 would have taken 3 years.

Too complicated.

Someone else above mentioned you get 2 years credit for every 1 year before arriving at the age of 18.

In total you need 7 years.

SO if you arrived at the age of 16, it would mean you get 4 years credit and need another 3, which means at age 21 you qualify, that is a large majority (5 years) of his rugby development days spent in his adopted country ( If you consider most development takes place from lest say the start of your teen years.

Someone who arrives at the age of 18, would qualify in 7 years at age 25, which means the largest part of his development took place in his adopted country. 5 in his country of birth and 7 in his adopted country.

Makes sense and is simple.

geoff998rugby wrote:I've come round to the points based qualification method as being the fairest.
Soemthing like 60 points - birth, 40 points per parent, 15 points per grandparent, 30 point per consecutive year under 16, 25 points per consecutive year 16 to 21, 20 points per consecutive year 22+

Need 100 points to qualify
Means that someone over 21 who arrives in a country need 5 years to qualify.
As it should be.

To take some examples
Diack, Payne - 5 years
Boss, Court - 4 years
Easterby would have had to move to Ireland to qualify - if at 21 would have taken 3 years.

Presuming the residency is immediately before playing then it seems fair enough (although more complicated than anything that would ever get put through). It would be interesting to go back and look at some of the PI players and see whether they would qualify. Lots of NZ born players in those teams and would they still have them?

Also there should be a -100 points for 'finding' a granny when you move to a country. So...for example...would get 15 points for a granny but that's knocked down to -85 points because his wife happened to find out while spring cleaning the family tree. He would need 9 years to qualify. Seem right to me.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:I've no doubt that Ireland would be as good as NZ if rugby was our first sport.

I can see us being as talented, but we would still have to get over that ole Irish inferiority complex, give it a lash mentality! Part of the reason the All Blacks are so good is the mental side of their game.

I think we have made great strides on this in the professional era.

It is not NZ's first winter sport in terms of participation (football is) and saying Ireland would be just as good as NZ if Ireland had rugby as its first sport is about as valid a statement as Paz Vega would have shagged me when I was single if she had known I existed.

Intercounty gaa is as professional as you will get. It isn't related to being regarded as a participation sport. The only difference from rugby or soccer is that the players don't get paid.

Results of AFL v GAA series - Ireland have won 9 series (generally 2/3 games per series) to Pro Australian AFL player's 8 wins. Ireland have won a couple down in Australia as well, so its not true that the Irish 'bottle it' - its just the rugby team have bottled it against NZ and France a few times.

Let's not play dumb here even though ME will say I never have to act that part

But let's not play dumb.  There seems to be a vocal disparity growing between the 'Project' players coming in as already mature senior players and those who come in as innocent kids.

Fine, kids coming in as kids are fine.  Parents moving to new countries for work, children growing up in a nation that becomes their own.  Fine.

But let's not assume that's how it always works.  We all know that it's much more professionally orchestrated than that at times and increasingly it will become moreso.  Incentives given to parents, scholarships given to promising externals with the nice genes (yes that word again) and cultural connection to the game.  'Come for the culture stay for the sponsor's desire to get you up and running as a player.'

We all know that nurturing the potential oil field of children coming with their parents "for a better life, see" has as much scope for cynical industrialisation as the adult 'Project player' oil field has.  They are two ways to skin a cat (one blatant, the other coming in under the radar more) but the cat gets skinned regardless.

Sin é wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:I've no doubt that Ireland would be as good as NZ if rugby was our first sport.

I can see us being as talented, but we would still have to get over that ole Irish inferiority complex, give it a lash mentality! Part of the reason the All Blacks are so good is the mental side of their game.

I think we have made great strides on this in the professional era.

It is not NZ's first winter sport in terms of participation (football is) and saying Ireland would be just as good as NZ if Ireland had rugby as its first sport is about as valid a statement as Paz Vega would have shagged me when I was single if she had known I existed.

Intercounty gaa is as professional as you will get. It isn't related to being regarded as a participation sport. The only difference from rugby or soccer is that the players don't get paid.

Results of AFL v GAA series - Ireland have won 9 series (generally 2/3 games per series) to Pro Australian AFL player's 8 wins. Ireland have won a couple down in Australia as well, so its not true that the Irish 'bottle it' - its just the rugby team have bottled it against NZ and France a few times.

You offer this up as proof that Ireland would be world beaters in rugby with these additions? I think thou dost assume too much.

SecretFly wrote:Quit ruining things by naming names!!!!!!!!!!!!!  If that film gets banned I'm blaming you, Pete!

Damn it, sorry......damn there I go again......and again, damn....aaaaaagh

If you were to find an Irish granny would she have had to have been an Irish resident for more than 7 years or would she be able to claim Irishness due to she herself having an Irish granny?