Foreign legion encamps at No.8

First topic message reminder :

Interesting article here from the rugby paper, and it shows just how much of a joke the residency rule is, interestingly though, with the biggest player pool in the world England seem to be the worst for exploiting this nonsense rule:-

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/features/columnists/peter-jackson/24662/peter-jackson-column-foreign-legion-encamps-at-no-8/

Something needs to be seriously looked at as this is getting beyond the joke. England have capped 16 different players from South Africa and New Zealand in the past ten years, Ireland have capped 8 players from the same two countries, Scotland 7 players and France 6, Wales have been the least reliant on capping players from New Zealand and South Africa with only 4 capped players from the two countries.

This is all without considering time serving players currently serving their time in the Pro12 and Avivia, this is all what is wrong with rugby at the moment, and it really puts things into perspective.

For what ever reason, Australian, Fijian, Somoan, and Tongan born players are not on that list, so I bet that the amount of players "poached" will go up ten fold if they were.

The amount of young players being tempted by the riches of the NH is getting ridiculous now, this needs to stop. Something needs to be done about it. If the clubs want to use these players, then fine, but the pathway to the international team needs to be different.

LordDowlais wrote:

Welly wrote:England last 4 years foreign born capped players
M.Vunipola (Born NZ) Bristol Academy
D.Hartley (Born NZ) Worcester Academy
A.Corbisiero (Born USA) London Irish Academy
B.Vunipola (Born Aus) Wasps Academy
M.Botha *
T.Johnson (Born Germany)
M.Kvesic (Born Germany) Worcester Academy (Thanks for the reminder LT)
T.Waldrom *
L.Dickson (Born Germany) Falcons Academy
B.Barritt *
M. Tuilagi (Born Samoa) Leicester Tigers Acadmey
S.Rokoduguni*
M. Yarde (Born Saint Lucia) London Irish Academy

Might missed some but out of 12 foreign born players to get capped for England rugby in the last 4 years only 4 where not a product from a PRL Academy (Or Tom Johnson).

How many of those players did not come to Britain for personal rugby reasons. I know the Vanipola's moved to Wales with their father as he was playing rugby in Wales, but the rest I know nothing, except perhaps Tuilagi might have moved here for the same reasons as the Vanipola's.

Kvesic, Dickson and Johnson were born abroad as they have a parent who was serving in the Armed Forces, and were born in Army hospitals

Vunipolas as you say, were moved over with their father. Tuilagi's whole family were over here as part of their long association with Leicester.

Yarde moved here when he was 9, and went to secondary school with some friends of mine on a scholarship, as he was also in the QPR football academy

Corbisiero (according to Wikipedia) has an English mother, and moved here when he was 5.

Hartley has already been explained, has an English parent.

Its only Roko, Barritt, Waldrom and Botha that are real time serving/imports imo. And of those, if Roko is good enough to serve in our armed forces, he's good enough to play rugby for us, and Waldrom has an English grandparent.

So to some up, TWO players are here on residency

Shall we go through the Welsh side now?

LordDowlais wrote:

Welly wrote:England last 4 years foreign born capped players
M.Vunipola (Born NZ) Bristol Academy
D.Hartley (Born NZ) Worcester Academy English mother, came to England at 16 to visit family. Played some junior rugby and was spotted by Worcester coaches
A.Corbisiero (Born USA) London Irish Academy English parent. Moved back to England aged 5
B.Vunipola (Born Aus) Wasps Academy
M.Botha * 7 years residency served. Moved to england for work, initially playing amateur rugby
T.Johnson (Born Germany) Parents english, father in forces and moved back to England when posting was over
M.Kvesic (Born Germany) Worcester Academy (Thanks for the reminder LT) See Johnson
T.Waldrom * English born Granny
L.Dickson (Born Germany) Falcons Academy See Johnson
B.Barritt * english mother - came to England as a pro player
M. Tuilagi (Born Samoa) Leicester Tigers Acadmey Came to England at 12, to stay with brother and get a better education
S.Rokoduguni* Soldier in British army. He claims he never played rugby until he joined the army
M. Yarde (Born Saint Lucia) London Irish Academy Parents emigrated - mother before father - for work

Might missed some but out of 12 foreign born players to get capped for England rugby in the last 4 years only 4 where not a product from a PRL Academy (Or Tom Johnson).

How many of those players did not come to Britain for personal rugby reasons. I know the Vanipola's VUNIPOLA moved to Wales with their father as he was playing rugby in Wales, but the rest I know nothing, except perhaps Tuilagi might have moved here for the same reasons as the Vanipola's.

Annotated in original

Waldrom for me the flimsiest qualifier as via a single granny. He is about as English as tomas Francis is Welsh

Only Barritt and Waldrom moved to England to take advantage of the residency rule Waldrom didn't realise he was eligible to play though through his English grandmother. Botha moved to play rugby but if I remember he once said he never expected to be playing for England.

Hartley, Kvesic and Corbisiero have English parents and moved to England as kids/teenagers, Yarde and the Vunipolas moved to the UK as kids.

Dickson and Johnson were military brats

Rokoduguni moved to the UK to join the army as a teenager

BamBam wrote:Kvesic, Dickson and Johnson were born abroad as they have a parent who was serving in the Armed Forces, and were born in Army hospitals

Vunipolas as you say, were moved over with their father. Tuilagi's whole family were over here as part of their long association with Leicester.

Yarde moved here when he was 9, and went to secondary school with some friends of mine on a scholarship, as he was also in the QPR football academy

Corbisiero (according to Wikipedia) has an English mother, and moved here when he was 5.

Hartley has already been explained, has an English parent.

All those are fair enough, as I have said earlier, where you are born should not really be indicative to what your nationality is, living in a country since you were 5 or 9 yeras old should be enough.

BamBam wrote: And of those, if Roko is good enough to serve in our armed forces, he's good enough to play rugby for us

I am sorry but this is bollox. I am very proud of our armed forces, and I swell with pride when I see what they are fighting against. I have the upmost respect for anyone who has the bravery to do what they do.

But that should not give them more credence to represent a different nation just because of that.

I agree that it needs to be looked at and that the current set-up is unfair to smaller nations and it is too easy for unions to 'poach' players, either by contracting them directly or by exploiting the recruitment power of the club sides under their jurisdiction.

The issue is when you start off the discussion by saying one side is the worst offender, even if you have some stats that support it, you will always put people on the defensive and then it will degenerate into whataboutery. For England they have the second-richest league in the world, and they attract players from all over the world, so they have many opportunities to approach those who qualify.

But we can have a discussion which isn't about pointing fingers if we establish that to the best of my knowledge no Union to date has demonstrated that they are willing to ignore or neglect the possibilities of residency qualification, and then we can shift the debate onto the rights and wrongs of the rule itself and not who is using it.

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote: And of those, if Roko is good enough to serve in our armed forces, he's good enough to play rugby for us

I am sorry but this is bollox. I am very proud of our armed forces, and I swell with pride when I see what they are fighting against. I have the upmost respect for anyone who has the bravery to do what they do.

But that should not give them more credence to represent a different nation just because of that.

So he can die under the flag just not throw a ball around under it?

He was also living and serving in the UK for nearly a decade before playing for England, unless you want to deduct his time in warzones from that?

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote: And of those, if Roko is good enough to serve in our armed forces, he's good enough to play rugby for us

I am sorry but this is bollox. I am very proud of our armed forces, and I swell with pride when I see what they are fighting against. I have the upmost respect for anyone who has the bravery to do what they do.

But that should not give them more credence to represent a different nation just because of that.

Think we'll have to agree to disagree on this, as I think a man or woman who is willing to lay his/her life down for a country is more than qualified to play a game wearing that countries colours, and to suggest otherwise is a bit insulting

This is very alarming:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/fiji/11854929/Rugby-uncovered-Despicable-abuse-of-young-Pacific-talent-is-huge-stain-on-game.html

BamBam wrote:Think we'll have to agree to disagree on this, as I think a man or woman who is willing to lay his life down for a country is more than qualified to play a game wearing that countries colours, and to suggest otherwise is a bit insulting

He deserves all the plaudits he is entitled to. I hold the people in our armed forces in the highest esteem, so please do not belittle me with your "insulting" comment. He is wearing the British coluors when he is in the armed forces, not English, so how does he qualify for England over any other British nation ? It's because he is living in England, and that is how he qualifies, so please get down off your high horse.

From Roko's wikipedia

His great-great-grandfather, great-grandfather and father all served in the military.

I may be wrong here, but I think that all members of the British armed forces have the right to settle in the UK. By that measure, he could have been born here if his family had taken up that right, would he have been ok to play for England then?

And as for picking another home nation, are you just upset that he didn't choose Wales?

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I really think you should delete the article if you're not prepared to use actual stats that are relevant.

Or you could simply chose to not read it. Who do you think you are ? You are not in charge of this forum, neither are you a MOD, so who are you to decide what people can and cant put on here.

You're using misleading stats which are if anything detracting from your point.

BamBam wrote:And as for picking another home nation, are you just upset that he didn't choose Wales?

No I am not upset, that could not be further from the truth. The issue I have is you taking the moral high ground and using the armed forces to serve your purpose. Yes he is a very brave man, yes he deserves a lot more than what he gets, but he is not English. If he is serving in the British armed forces, it does not mean he is British, however much I would like him to be. He should be the pride of Fiji for doing what he is doing. But no matter how you paint it, he aint English.

Neither was he lured here for money through rugby to be poached by England though. Which goes back to what your overall point is here. Confused points.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Neither was he lured here for money through rugby to be poached by England though. Which goes back to what your overall point is here. Confused points.

Yes I know. I just do not like people taking the moral high ground and using sensitive circumstances to aid their point. He should be playing for Fiji anyway not England. Or is using the British armed forces another loophole ?

So you don't believe in adult immigration? If someone moves to a country as an adult (for argument sake let's call it 18+) then they should never be considered from that country? Effectively second class citizens?

HammerofThunor wrote:So you don't believe in adult immigration? If someone moves to a country as an adult (for argument sake let's call it 18+) then they should never be considered from that country? Effectively second class citizens?

No, if that is further from what I think than what you would like it to be, but here we are.....

So what we are saying is that from that list of 'English' talent the only ones who came here to play rugby for money (or as a result of that action) are the Vunipola's (who followed dad to Wales, but were then educated in England) and Tuilagi who followed his family. All of those were developed within the English system.

Of the rest the only two who were developed outside the English system were Barritt and Waldrom. Barritt was already a UK passport holder and apparently all of his grandparents are English. Which leaves Waldrom and his English granny.

Of course this will most likely change next year with Nathan Hughes...

It's called the rules LD, not a loophole. But this case shouldn't bother you as he wasn't a young player 'poached' for money through rugby. Or are you changing your stance and argument again.

It's the sour taste of the incidents like Riki Flutey we need to be mindful of. FFS he even went on a Lions tour, what a joke. He then buggers off to France for even more money. Come on, this is a travesty in the rugby world.

On top of that we then have the shameful actions with what some of the French clubs are doing out in the Island countries of the Pacific, and the way younger players are being brought up here and "groomed" to play for their adoptive country, it's a joke.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's called the rules LD, not a loophole. But this case shouldn't bother you as he wasn't a young player 'poached' for money through rugby. Or are you changing your stance and argument again.

I am not changing my stance at all. Christ, give it a rest. Semesa Rokoduguni should be playing for Fiji, not England. He is Fijian, not English, he is only playing for England because he has lived here for over three years, it's a joke.

Flutey wasn't a youngster poached either though was he? 2nd point fair enough if you're looking at it that France (the team) are doing the poaching, but in esence it's the clubs looking for talented youngsters an giving them a career with the associated money. The 2nd point has got a lot of legs in discussion, still would be better if you corrected your original post.

Rokoduguni isn't a young player poached by a rugby team so this doesn't sit with what you were saying earlier.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Rokoduguni isn't a young player poached by a rugby team so this doesn't sit with what you were saying earlier.

It sits with everything I am saying, I am against poaching, and I am against time serving players, what part of this do you not understand ? Or are you just deliberately trying to cause friction on here ? There are names for people like that you know.

He wasn't poached though was he. He joined the army, the England national team had nothing to do with that. Your original post seems to suggest that there are 16 cases of England poaching NZ and SA talent through residency. That's not correct is it?

Oh and I am not going to go through all of the players but of the England players listed in the article the ones who have qualified through residency are

Mark Van Gisbergen
Mouritz Botha
Lesley Vainikolo
Shontane Hape
Ricky Flutey
Henry Paul
Hendre Fouris

'Granny' route
Michael Paterson (who had also qualified for Wales on residency)
Thomas Waldrom

I don't know about Abenandon but suspect its a parent, seeing as he was first picked for England at age 20. All of the others listed had at least one English parent.

Of the residency players listed above I'd argue that Flutey was probably the only one who was actually good, and the rest only ever got a handful of caps.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Rokoduguni isn't a young player poached by a rugby team so this doesn't sit with what you were saying earlier.

It sits with everything I am saying, I am against poaching, and I am against time serving players, what part of this do you not understand ? Or are you just deliberately trying to cause friction on here ? There are names for people like that you know.

There is a form of trolling where someone takes a contrary view and keeps on pushing it no matter what else is written. If done well it can lead to minor site melt downs

LordDowlais wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So you don't believe in adult immigration? If someone moves to a country as an adult (for argument sake let's call it 18+) then they should never be considered from that country? Effectively second class citizens?

No, if that is further from what I think than what you would like it to be, but here we are.....

Sorry, I don't actually understand what your response is supposed to mean.  I'm guessing it's a "are you calling me a racist? I'm not a racist" response.  Which is fine but not what I was getting at.

You seem to be saying the residency rule is terrible and needs to be got rid off, etc.  I'm trying to fine your limits, the edges of what is acceptable.  So I started at the outer edge and was going to work my way in.

One limit is completely getting rid of it. You seem to be not happy with that [edit: although if you're against time served players I think you are. Bit confused] so the issue is finding the edge.  Would you be happy for a British citizen not being able to represent 'their' country?

No 7&1/2 wrote:He wasn't poached though was he. He joined the army, the England national team had nothing to do with that. Your original post seems to suggest that there are 16 cases of England poaching NZ and SA talent through residency. That's not correct is it?

No it does not suggest that.

It suggests that England have had more people playing for them who were not born in England than any other country to the same affect. That took me by surprise, that was what that article was about. Now, to say I am against every reason why they all represent England or Wales or Scotland ect is wrong and is more to do with your vindictive twisting, just to cause friction on here. You see, I could not care less about who is doing what, I care about the ability to exploit it. That is my issue, and the issues that go along with it.

But the thing is, you are trying to put another slant on it and trying to make me out to be some sort of bigot, which could not be further from the truth. I do not care if England had a first 15 of time serving players, because they would not be doing anything wrong. What does concern me though, is how easy it is to do it, and what implications become of it. Other countries are weakened and all because they cannot afford to keep the God given talent their country can produce.

HammerofThunor wrote:One limit is completely getting rid of it. You seem to be not happy with that [edit: although if you're against time served players I think you are. Bit confused] so the issue is finding the edge.  Would you be happy for a British citizen not being able to represent 'their' country?

No I am not confused. What I am saying is, that if a person has grown up in a country for most of his life, Corbisiero , then you could consider him to be a part of that country. If a player is poached from a country as a teenager with promises of money and the what not, then things need to be done, also the three year residency is a joke as well.

That is what I think.

So you don't believe in adult immigration where that person can be classed as a full member of that country?

And the ability to exploit that is an interesting point but then makes the 16 foreign born, or NZ and SA because you haven't checked on other nations, irrelevant. All I've repeatedly said is if your issue is 'time serving' players the 16 doesn't relate to this, hence is a misleading stat. You then went onto say it was really about young players being brought here to earn money and qualify for the national teams. Again those players listed don't all, if any, come under this.

For my benefit can you name the young players who have been poached for England in the last 10 years in your eyes please?

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:He wasn't poached though was he. He joined the army, the England national team had nothing to do with that. Your original post seems to suggest that there are 16 cases of England poaching NZ and SA talent through residency. That's not correct is it?

No it does not suggest that.

It suggests that England have had more people playing for them who were not born in England than any other country to the same affect. That took me by surprise, that was what that article was about. Now, to say I am against every reason why they all represent England or Wales or Scotland ect is wrong and is more to do with your vindictive twisting, just to cause friction on here. You see, I could not care less about who is doing what, I care about the ability to exploit it. That is my issue, and the issues that go along with it.

But the thing is, you are trying to put another slant on it and trying to make me out to be some sort of bigot, which could not be further from the truth. I do not care if England had a first 15 of time serving players, because they would not be doing anything wrong. What does concern me though, is how easy it is to do it, and what implications become of it. Other countries are weakened and all because they cannot afford to keep the God given talent their country can produce.

The article suggests nothing of the sort. It talks about no.8's playing in the NH then lists New Zealand and SA born players representing NH teams. As has been mentioned more than a few times the vast majority of the 'foreign born' players have a right by parentage to play for England (just like the majority of 'foreign born' Welsh players, or 'foreign born' scots for that matter) . Therefore most of the premise of your argument is wrong

On top of that England and France have a lot more professional teams than the Celtic nations. Guess what that means. More foreign born players...

Given how the regs work it helps English teams (and I believe French teams) to be able to have these players as eligible to play for England even if the chances are that they never want to or will.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And the ability to exploit that is an interesting point but then makes the 16 foreign born, or NZ and SA because you haven't checked on other nations, irrelevant. All I've repeatedly said is if your issue is 'time serving' players the 16 doesn't relate to this, hence is a misleading stat. You then went onto say it was really about young players being brought here to earn money and qualify for the national teams. Again those players listed don't all, if any, come under this.

And I said that they did where ?

It is you who are misleading this, not me. I have not said any of those players were time serving, or grand parent, or parent qualified. It is you who has insinuated that. All I said was I was surprised and found it interesting that England had the highest, and you came on here all argy bargy about it.

'Interesting article here from the rugby paper, and it shows just how much of a joke the residency rule is, interestingly though, with the biggest player pool in the world England seem to be the worst for exploiting this nonsense rule:-

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/features/columnists/peter-jackson/24662/peter-jackson-column-foreign-legion-encamps-at-no-8/

Something needs to be seriously looked at as this is getting beyond the joke. England have capped 16 different players from South Africa and New Zealand in the past ten years, Ireland have capped 8 players from the same two countries, Scotland 7 players and France 6, Wales have been the least reliant on capping players from New Zealand and South Africa with only 4 capped players from the two countries.'

You talk of residency then quote this. Very misleading.

Referencing and commenting on an article referring to a players place of birth and then using it to springboard into a discussion on residency qualification is a bit misleading. Especially since you don't specify that the vast majority of those players didn't qualify on residency.

You also said this 'Why am I trying to put it on England ?

If anything the proof is in the pudding. The facts are there. England are the worst offenders. Although we are ALL guilty of it, and the whole issue stinks of shoite. It needs changing.'

What needs changing exactly? The parent rule?

No 7&1/2 wrote:You also said this 'Why am I trying to put it on England ?

If anything the proof is in the pudding. The facts are there. England are the worst offenders. Although we are ALL guilty of it, and the whole issue stinks of shoite. It needs changing.'

What needs changing exactly? The parent rule?

Yes, I was talking about players representing a country where they were not born. I did not say that they should or shouldn't be doing this. I also said we are ALL guilty of it. Not just England.

HammerofThunor wrote:Referencing and commenting on an article referring to a players place of birth and then using it to springboard into a discussion on residency qualification is a bit misleading.  Especially since you don't specify that the vast majority of those players didn't qualify on residency.

Why is it misleading, if a player is not born in a specific country, why can't the question be asked as to why he is representing said country ? I have not dismissed any of your answers to this question, in fact I have agreed on most of the answers I have been given as reason why.


I did not know how many did/didn't qualify on residency, what as that got to do with the rubbish rules that are too easy to exploit anyway ?

"...stinks of shoite. It needs changing"

"I did not say that they should or shouldn't be doing this."

LordDowlais wrote:... England have capped 16 different players from South Africa and New Zealand in the past ten years, Ireland have capped 8 players from the same two countries, Scotland 7 players and France 6, Wales have been the least reliant on capping players from New Zealand and South Africa with only 4 capped players from the two countries...

This statement stretches the stats in a way which suits someones standard agenda. What it really tells us is that English (and Scottish) people like to try life in different countries

Revised list for England based on my earlier list is
Mark Van Gisbergen
Mouritz Botha
Lesley Vainikolo
Shontane Hape
Ricky Flutey
Henry Paul
Thomas Waldrom (who had a granny anyway)
Hendre Fourie

Paterson only played vs the Barbarians as far as I can see so I would assume that isn't a full cap

So that is actually 7 or 8 depending on your view of Waldrom

And 3 of those were in this country playing league, so they didn't intend to play international union when they came here..

Cant check everyone. Scotland have Nel and Strauss through residency and Hart through a granny. Not sure about the rest of the kilted kiwis

LordDowlais wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Referencing and commenting on an article referring to a players place of birth and then using it to springboard into a discussion on residency qualification is a bit misleading.  Especially since you don't specify that the vast majority of those players didn't qualify on residency.

I did not know how many did/didn't qualify on residency, what as that got to do with the rubbish rules that are too easy to exploit anyway ?

Because you're making out like it's a massive problem but you actually have no information on who is actually residency qualified.

's, I was talking about players representing a country where they were not born. I did not say that they should or shouldn't be doing this. I also said we are ALL guilty of it. Not just England.'

But when I pointed out that Wales has a long list of these, that suddenly wasn't what you meant; you meant young players being poached as 'time serving players'.

It come back to the fact you are not being clear what you have a problem with. the 16 players listed for England is misleading as you yourself don't have an issue with the majority.

HammerofThunor wrote:"...stinks of shoite. It needs changing"

"I did not say that they should or shouldn't be doing this."

It does need changing. But nobody is doing anything wrong either, that is what those two comments are about. That shows how much of a joke the situation is.

HammerofThunor wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Referencing and commenting on an article referring to a players place of birth and then using it to springboard into a discussion on residency qualification is a bit misleading.  Especially since you don't specify that the vast majority of those players didn't qualify on residency.

I did not know how many did/didn't qualify on residency, what as that got to do with the rubbish rules that are too easy to exploit anyway ?

Because you're making out like it's a massive problem but you actually have no information on who is actually residency qualified.

This would suggest that it is indeed a massive problem:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/fiji/11854929/Rugby-uncovered-Despicable-abuse-of-young-Pacific-talent-is-huge-stain-on-game.html

So we go back to young players being poached; doesn't really apply to the 16 players originally quoted for England.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And the ability to exploit that is an interesting point but then makes the 16 foreign born, or NZ and SA because you haven't checked on other nations, irrelevant. All I've repeatedly said is if your issue is 'time serving' players the 16 doesn't relate to this, hence is a misleading stat. You then went onto say it was really about young players being brought here to earn money and qualify for the national teams. Again those players listed don't all, if any, come under this.

And I said that they did where ?

It is you who are misleading this, not me. I have not said any of those players were time serving, or grand parent, or parent qualified. It is you who has insinuated that. All I said was I was surprised and found it interesting that England had the highest, and you came on here all argy bargy about it.

Why are you going on about England? I thought the Welsh squad had the highest number of players born outside the country.

The current Welsh squad has eight players born in England ; Luke Charteris, Alex Cuthbert, Jake Ball, Tomas Francis, Aaron Jarvis, Dan Lydiate, Ross Moriarty and George North. It also has three others born outside Wales Gareth Anscombe (NZ), Taulupe Faletau (Tonga) and James King (Aus).

I have no problem with Wales but it seems ridiculous to target England when they have much less of a record of this than most other countries and certainly far less than Wales.

Surely this thread should be in the International section?


Qualification on residency if allowed at all should be radically changed - my solution is the Majority rule. This is simply summed up as: once a player has lived the majority of his life in a country then he should be allowed to play for it.

This would stop the targeting of promising teenagers but would still allow for the families who move with young families who then turn out to be good rugby players.

The increased targeting of younger players needs to be addressed.

Exiledinborders wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And the ability to exploit that is an interesting point but then makes the 16 foreign born, or NZ and SA because you haven't checked on other nations, irrelevant. All I've repeatedly said is if your issue is 'time serving' players the 16 doesn't relate to this, hence is a misleading stat. You then went onto say it was really about young players being brought here to earn money and qualify for the national teams. Again those players listed don't all, if any, come under this.

And I said that they did where ?

It is you who are misleading this, not me. I have not said any of those players were time serving, or grand parent, or parent qualified. It is you who has insinuated that. All I said was I was surprised and found it interesting that England had the highest, and you came on here all argy bargy about it.

Why are you going on about England? I thought the Welsh squad had the highest number of players born outside the country.

The current Welsh squad has eight players born in England ; Luke Charteris, Alex Cuthbert, Jake Ball, Tomas Francis, Aaron Jarvis, Dan Lydiate, Ross Moriarty and George North. It also has three others born outside Wales Gareth Anscombe (NZ), Taulupe Faletau (Tonga) and James King (Aus).

I have no problem with Wales but it seems ridiculous to target England when they have much less of a record of this than most other countries and certainly far less than Wales.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrghhhh........

I HAVE NOT TARGETED ANYONE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All I said was that England were the highest offenders on that article. I was surprised that it was them, FFS. People are so precious on here.

Aukster, majority rule would still disqualify someone who comes at 12/13 and gets called up at 20/21

Whatever system that is in place will be imperfect but the current system is probably the worst solution.

And we simply pointed out that Wales have more.