England want to poach another Welsh player

First topic message reminder :

Well. if Gatland does not want to cap him, somebody else does, Thomas Young, the son of Welsh and British Lion Dai Young is ripping up trees for Wasps apparently, and England want in, they have already made enquiries and the ball is now in Thomas's court, who do you think he will end up pledging his allegiances to ? 


http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/england-make-audacious-bid-entice-11168337


I don't think a country as small as Wales can afford to lose out on players myself.

I admit I havn't read all of this thread, but are people actually claiming Falatau, Vunipolas and Tuilagi as 'foreign' players?

All 4 were brought to the UK as young children weren't they? All 3 grew up in the UK system, and developed as players by UK academies, in what way are these 4 not British? I assume they all have british passports etc...

Hughes is a different story alltogether.

The issue with the residency rule is that unless players are identified in the SH at a young age, they edge their bets and view the NH teams as big pay, big reward goals, and the number of players succesfully being capped at int level without having any real affiliation with that country is a motivator for others.

Anscombe, Maitland, Hardie, amongst others have travelled to the UK for one reason only, to play international rugby.

No 7&1/2 wrote:We don't have to redo this.

No we don't. As a red head I just think its all comical

Heathcote...

Fanster wrote:I admit I havn't read all of this thread, but are people actually claiming Falatau, Vunipolas and Tuilagi as 'foreign' players?

All 4 were brought to the UK as young children weren't they? All 3 grew up in the UK system, and developed as players by UK academies, in what way are these 4 not British? I assume they all have british passports etc...

Hughes is a different story alltogether.

The issue with the residency rule is that unless players are identified in the SH at a young age, they edge their bets and view the NH teams as big pay, big reward goals, and the number of players succesfully being capped at int level without having any real affiliation with that country is a motivator for others.

Anscombe, Maitland, Hardie, amongst others have travelled to the UK for one reason only, to play international rugby.

The thing with Faletau and the Vunipolas is that they've been here so long it wouldn't come at all as a surprise if they genuinely considered the UK as their home. And why shouldn't they?

Anscombe, Hardie and Maitland at least have a family link, if only a slender one. There's still room for scepticism regarding their motives as both seem to have chosen their current sides as a concession once it became reasonably clear they wouldn't break into the AB's. International rugby should never be played through concession alone. All had barely set foot in Scotland and Wales before being fast-tracked into respective national sides.

The worst kind of players are the likes of Strauss, Visser and Nel for Scotland, Strauss and Payne for Ireland and Riki Flutey (soon Nathan Hughes) for England. In Wales we've suffered the likes of Sonny Parker and, most notoriously, Shane Howarth. They all have in common that they had no link whatsoever with their national sides other than playing for a club based in that country.

No standards, no integrity, no pride. Mercenaries the lot.

Hard to argue with you, I would point out however one man who has integrity in the spade loads...

A few years ago Welsh media ere hyping up Paul Tito as Welsh international, as he was due to qualify through residency, however he soon squashed the rumours with a straight answer of 'thanks but no thanks'.

Ben Morgan too. And in a weird way Tom Francis: after qualifying through his granny he told gatland he would play for Wales and didn't go back on that.

You beat me to it 7&1/2. I greatly admired Ben Morgan's decision as while it was technically a loss for Wales it would have been a undeniable poach had he donned red. As it stands he consciously chose not to go down that road, which is a rare enough phenomenon under those specific circumstances.

Fanster, I'm not sure I pay much attention to the media anymore on such matters. In the past they've also touted Dirksen, Earle, Bernardo and Steenkamp as potential future Wales players and none have come remotely close yet.

Knowsit17 wrote:

Fanster wrote:I admit I havn't read all of this thread, but are people actually claiming Falatau, Vunipolas and Tuilagi as 'foreign' players?

All 4 were brought to the UK as young children weren't they? All 3 grew up in the UK system, and developed as players by UK academies, in what way are these 4 not British? I assume they all have british passports etc...

Hughes is a different story alltogether.

The issue with the residency rule is that unless players are identified in the SH at a young age, they edge their bets and view the NH teams as big pay, big reward goals, and the number of players succesfully being capped at int level without having any real affiliation with that country is a motivator for others.

Anscombe, Maitland, Hardie, amongst others have travelled to the UK for one reason only, to play international rugby.

The thing with Faletau and the Vunipolas is that they've been here so long it wouldn't come at all as a surprise if they genuinely considered the UK as their home. And why shouldn't they?

Anscombe, Hardie and Maitland at least have a family link, if only a slender one. There's still room for scepticism regarding their motives as both seem to have chosen their current sides as a concession once it became reasonably clear they wouldn't break into the AB's. International rugby should never be played through concession alone. All had barely set foot in Scotland and Wales before being fast-tracked into respective national sides.

The worst kind of players are the likes of Strauss, Visser and Nel for Scotland, Strauss and Payne for Ireland and Riki Flutey (soon Nathan Hughes) for England. In Wales we've suffered the likes of Sonny Parker and, most notoriously, Shane Howarth. They all have in common that they had no link whatsoever with their national sides other than playing for a club based in that country.

No standards, no integrity, no pride. Mercenaries the lot.

So what you're saying then it's ok to feel proud of the country you live in as long as you came when you were still in school but when you leave school you're a greedy mercenary who shouldn't even think about playing for their adopted country?

Wasn't Mourtiz Botha proud representing England despite moving across as an adult?

Whether you like it or not, Faletau, Tuilagi and the Vunipolas are in the same situation as Nathan Hughes apart from the fact that they have been in the UK longer than Hughes has. The only way any of them would have represented their adopted countries is by serving the required number of years

I won't begrudge any professional player that takes the opportunity to play their sport at the highest level.

Picking on Tim Visser in particular is a bit harsh, given how welcoming World Rugby is to non-top-tier nations.

True Raven wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:

Fanster wrote:I admit I havn't read all of this thread, but are people actually claiming Falatau, Vunipolas and Tuilagi as 'foreign' players?

All 4 were brought to the UK as young children weren't they? All 3 grew up in the UK system, and developed as players by UK academies, in what way are these 4 not British? I assume they all have british passports etc...

Hughes is a different story alltogether.

The issue with the residency rule is that unless players are identified in the SH at a young age, they edge their bets and view the NH teams as big pay, big reward goals, and the number of players succesfully being capped at int level without having any real affiliation with that country is a motivator for others.

Anscombe, Maitland, Hardie, amongst others have travelled to the UK for one reason only, to play international rugby.

The thing with Faletau and the Vunipolas is that they've been here so long it wouldn't come at all as a surprise if they genuinely considered the UK as their home. And why shouldn't they?

Anscombe, Hardie and Maitland at least have a family link, if only a slender one. There's still room for scepticism regarding their motives as both seem to have chosen their current sides as a concession once it became reasonably clear they wouldn't break into the AB's. International rugby should never be played through concession alone. All had barely set foot in Scotland and Wales before being fast-tracked into respective national sides.

The worst kind of players are the likes of Strauss, Visser and Nel for Scotland, Strauss and Payne for Ireland and Riki Flutey (soon Nathan Hughes) for England. In Wales we've suffered the likes of Sonny Parker and, most notoriously, Shane Howarth. They all have in common that they had no link whatsoever with their national sides other than playing for a club based in that country.

No standards, no integrity, no pride. Mercenaries the lot.

So what you're saying then it's ok to feel proud of the country you live in as long as you came when you were still in school but when you leave school you're a greedy mercenary who shouldn't even think about playing for their adopted country?

Wasn't Mourtiz Botha proud representing England despite moving across as an adult?

Whether you like it or not, Faletau, Tuilagi and the Vunipolas are in the same situation as Nathan Hughes apart from the fact that they have been in the UK longer than Hughes has.  The only way any of them would have represented their adopted countries is by serving the required number of years

I'm saying upbringing is a strong factor, yes. Picture your own childhood and reflect on how it shaped your identity and how you perceive yourself.

I don't subscribe to the view that everyone who isn't from the purest British stock doesn't have the right to be considered British (or any constituent sub-identity i.e. English, Scottish etc)

Stupide title trying to cause trouble. WUM.

True Raven

Did Botha move to England on the promise of English representation though? I don't think he did, didn't he pick up a pro contrac while working as a labourer?

Similarly, Visser criticism is harsh, although I see the argument he could hardly go and play top rugby with Netherlands could he?

Anyone claiming Falatau, Vunipolas and Tuilagi are in the same boat as Hughes, Maitland, Anscombe, or Hardie, who all travelled only to play international rugby (or go to a world cup) after failing in their own nations is in a world of their own.

People in SA don't begrudge Botha because he was a nothing player in SA before he left. He wasn't poached. He was literally cut from Boland who play 2nd division currie cup.

My point about Botha was that Knowsit said that players who play for their adopted countries who weren't educated in that country had no pride

Any thoughts on what the first case of poaching might be?

New Zealand's poaching of John Gallagher in the mid-80s is the earliest one that stands out for me but there may well be other earlier candidates.

True Raven wrote:My point about Botha was that Knowsit said that players who play for their adopted countries who weren't educated in that country had no pride

However I would say one thing about Botha. For an Afrikaner to play for England is a little bit like selling out. You're pretty much playing for the enemy... and this goes beyond the sports field.

True Raven wrote:My point about Botha was that Knowsit said that players who play for their adopted countries who weren't educated in that country had no pride

Not sure thats what he said at all

Rugby Fan wrote:Any thoughts on what the first case of poaching might be?

New Zealand's poaching of John Gallagher in the mid-80s is the earliest one that stands out for me but there may well be other earlier candidates.

amateur era you played for the country you lived in literally.

Willie Ofahengaue who won the world cup with AUS played for AUS because whilst residing in NZ as a child and being born in Tonga when travelling to AUS with NZ schools team he was refused entry back to NZ so he stayed.

Fanster wrote:

True Raven wrote:My point about Botha was that Knowsit said that players who play for their adopted countries who weren't educated in that country had no pride

Not sure thats what he said at all

They all have in common that they had no link whatsoever with their national sides other than playing for a club based in that country.

No standards, no integrity, no pride. Mercenaries the lot.

Was the quote

True Raven wrote:

Fanster wrote:

True Raven wrote:My point about Botha was that Knowsit said that players who play for their adopted countries who weren't educated in that country had no pride

Not sure thats what he said at all

They all have in common that they had no link whatsoever with their national sides other than playing for a club based in that country.

No standards, no integrity, no pride. Mercenaries the lot.

Was the quote

He was talking within the context of Anscombe, Maitland, and Hardie, of which specifically failed to gain international caps in NZ, and instead of fighting it out decided to get on the international stage at countries they qualify for, yet had no affiliation with whatsoever. These 3 joined teams to play international rugby, what the nation they joined were I don't think they minded, Anscombe would've joined Wales, IReland, England.

fa0019 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Any thoughts on what the first case of poaching might be?

New Zealand's poaching of John Gallagher in the mid-80s is the earliest one that stands out for me but there may well be other earlier candidates.

amateur era you played for the country you lived in literally.

Willie Ofahengaue who won the world cup with AUS played for AUS because whilst residing in NZ as a child and being born in Tonga when travelling to AUS with NZ schools team he was refused entry back to NZ so he stayed.

In Gallagher's case, he left school and then took up an invitation to play in NZ with the intention of taking up an offer from the Met police when he got back. His visa ran out, but his club's chairman, Don Bond, was head of NZ immigration so Gallagher made a quick trip home, and returned with full resident rights and a job offer from the NZ police instead.

That's just the way things were done back then, so no-one should get up in arms about it. However, if offering playing and financial incentives to someone is poaching, then that certainly counts.

What link does Faletau have with Wales/England then that Hughes doesn't apart from that Faletau has lived here longer? Neither was born here, neither has parents who are from this country and both play (or will this year) international rugby for their adopted countries as they have passed the residency qualification. I know Faletau is proud to play for Wales and im glad he plays for Wales but to me he's in the same boat as those who decided to play for their adopted countries.

And Anscombe's mum is welsh and is from Cardiff so he's perfectly entitled to play for Wales if he chooses.

You could also argue that the many Zimbabwean born players playing for other countries have actually shown considerable integrity in not turning out for that country.

Hughes is different to a kid coming over. Qualifies the same.

lostinwales wrote:You could also argue that the many Zimbabwean born players playing for other countries have actually shown considerable integrity in not turning out for that country.

Aside from the fact he left Fiji as a kid specifically to take an academy spot in NZ, considered NZ an international option, and played age grade rugby there, before then considering Fiji as an option.

He actively didn't go to the RWC as he was hoping to keep his options open for a bigger nation (England) to give him a better payday.

It's obvious England means little to him, it could be Ireland, Wales, France, or Scotland, the bigger payday and trophies are in the 6N, thats where he wants to play.

In comparison Falatau Tuuilagi and the Vunipolas all played UK age grade, were national representitives, and have proved they wanted to play for England and Wales from the outset.

So you must hate ross Moriarty, as he played age grade for one country and full honours for another and clearly didn't prove who he wanted to play for from the outset.

Take tuilagi, he had the option of playing for Samoa with his brothers and the country of his parents yet chose to play for England. Could it not possibly be that it might have helped his career as he was playing club rugby in England? No issue, however, of him playing for England as he's perfectly entitled to as he qualified due to residency.

Fanster wrote:

True Raven wrote:

Fanster wrote:

True Raven wrote:My point about Botha was that Knowsit said that players who play for their adopted countries who weren't educated in that country had no pride

Not sure thats what he said at all

They all have in common that they had no link whatsoever with their national sides other than playing for a club based in that country.

No standards, no integrity, no pride. Mercenaries the lot.

Was the quote

He was talking within the context of Anscombe, Maitland, and Hardie, of which specifically failed to gain international caps in NZ, and instead of fighting it out decided to get on the international stage at countries they qualify for, yet had no affiliation with whatsoever. These 3 joined teams to play international rugby, what the nation they joined were I don't think they minded, Anscombe would've joined Wales, IReland, England.

He has a Welsh mother. Wad excelling with the Chiefs and would have become an AB imo. Just wanted to play for the greatest fans in the rugby world.

rainbow-warrior wrote:

Fanster wrote:

True Raven wrote:

Fanster wrote:

True Raven wrote:My point about Botha was that Knowsit said that players who play for their adopted countries who weren't educated in that country had no pride

Not sure thats what he said at all

They all have in common that they had no link whatsoever with their national sides other than playing for a club based in that country.

No standards, no integrity, no pride. Mercenaries the lot.

Was the quote

He was talking within the context of Anscombe, Maitland, and Hardie, of which specifically failed to gain international caps in NZ, and instead of fighting it out decided to get on the international stage at countries they qualify for, yet had no affiliation with whatsoever. These 3 joined teams to play international rugby, what the nation they joined were I don't think they minded, Anscombe would've joined Wales, IReland, England.

He has a Welsh mother. Wad excelling with the Chiefs and would have become an AB imo. Just wanted to play for the greatest fans in the rugby world.

And his skin tones were more suited to red.

Ben Te'o is another English poach on the radar.

Trouble with people coming over to another country and playing for it is its very hard to see how committed they are to the country until you see what they do after their playing career.  Take Sean Lineen.  Remained in Scotland after he finished playing, a great servant of Scottish rugby. Take John Leslie - went back home as soon as he finished playing.


Denton really appears to consider himself part scots - scots mother who taught him his scots ancestry.  Now playing for and english club.

Nel - waiting for 3 years at his age was a big chunk of time.  appears to really have made scotland his home

John Hardie - who knows with him.  Will he stay after his playing career is over?

Visser.  wanted to play top level rugby.  tried to qualify for England but didn't get picked.  Came to scotland and sat out his 3 years.  Remains dutch to the core.  Now playing for an english club.

So many shades of nuance, so hard to see the commitment to the country until after their playing career is over

Personally I would make qualification a bit harder with the proviso that you can go back to a tier 2 country after playing for a tier 1.  I'd have it at 3 years residency if the residency period starts before 14, 4 years if 14 - 18, 5 years if you move after 18.  I am not sure having one granny is enough either.  Again toughen it up.  One scots parent - fine - play for Scotland.  One scots grandparent - needs a short residence qualification as well say a year.

The Vunipolas do I mean Tuilagis? are a really interesting case - am I not right in saying that there are 3 countries that are represented by different Vunipolas from the same family?

Also there will always be peoplke who could qualify for multiple countries. Someone born in SA of parentage from both scots and english origin who moved to wales as a kid. Who should he play for?

Maybe there should be a need for those who qualify on residence grounds to take citizenship of their adopted country? But then there is no citizenship of Scotland ( at the moment). Should they have to take some sort of oath of allegience? But then the true mercenary would be able to do so without breaking sweat.

Maybe they should have to do a solo rendition of "Flower of scotland" in front of a full stadium before their first cap? That would show committment but I fear for the damage to my ears

There are plenty of fans who have changed their national allegiance. Granted, some have made odd choices and couldn't be considered mercenary.

Aye - me!  Born in the west county of English parents and Accent.  Scotland is my team and in my heart.  Its horrible to end up a Scotland and Edinburgh supporter when you could have been Bath and England and might have won something

You cannot change what is in your heart tho

Good on you TJ. One of my beefs with the poaching of professionally developed rugby players is that the UK kicks out University educated kiwi, Australian or South African professionals by the thousands each year. But if you play rugby to a half decent standard and you're willing to give up your soul, you get the stamp. Imagine an uneducated Pacific Islander that can't play rugby for peanuts applying for an extended visa to stay in the UK? They'd be shown the door quick smart. And my point is, I doubt there is a resident community of Pacific Islanders in England (for example) that aren't associated with rugby. Yet their team is disproportionately represented by Pacific Islanders relative to the number actually living in the bloody country. Its professionalism, OK, but have some self respect. It's hilarious.

So - would you want to exclude Visser who made no bones about being a "mercenary" although money was not his motivation - playing tier one rugby was? But accept someone who is willing to spout guff about " being a scot at heart"?

TJ wrote:Trouble with people coming over to another country and playing for it is its very hard to see how committed they are to the country until you see what they do after their playing career.  Take Sean Lineen.  Remained in Scotland after he finished playing, a great servant of Scottish rugby. Take John Leslie - went back home as soon as he finished playing.


Denton really appears to consider himself part scots - scots mother who taught him his scots ancestry.  Now playing for and english club.

Nel - waiting for 3 years at his age was a big chunk of time.  appears to really have made scotland his home

John Hardie - who knows with him.  Will he stay after his playing career is over?

Visser.  wanted to play top level rugby.  tried to qualify for England but didn't get picked.  Came to scotland and sat out his 3 years.  Remains dutch to the core.  Now playing for an english club.

So many shades of nuance, so hard to see the commitment to the country until after their playing career is over

Personally I would make qualification a bit harder with the proviso that you can go back to a tier 2 country after playing for a tier 1.  I'd have it at 3 years residency if the residency period starts before 14, 4 years if 14 - 18, 5 years if you move after 18.  I am not sure having one granny is enough either.  Again toughen it up.  One scots parent - fine - play for Scotland.  One scots grandparent - needs a short residence qualification as well say a year.

The Vunipolas do I mean Tuilagis? are a really interesting case - am I not right in saying that there are 3 countries that are represented by different Vunipolas from the same family?

Think this post is just about spot on. That's a unique residency criteria but looks pretty sensible all the same.

I myself cannot stand the one-granny rule.

TJ wrote:So - would you want to exclude Visser who made no bones about being a "mercenary" although money was not his motivation - playing tier one rugby was?  But accept someone who is willing to spout guff about " being a scot at heart"?

He could have done wonders for Dutch rugby but he didn't have the appetite for it. Can't blame him though. Not sure what guff you're talking about, can you elaborate?

ebop wrote:And my point is, I doubt there is a resident community of Pacific Islanders in England (for example) that aren't associated with rugby.

We have had this discussion before, and you chose to ignore me or disregard me that time, just maybe you will listen if I try again?

The vast majority of the 5,000 or so fijians living in the UK have no link with professional rugby. That includes my god-parents.

Ebop

Visser did not pretend to be a scot, pretend to have adopted scotland, drape himself in the flag or any of that nonsense.  He makes no bones about being Dutch but wanting to play for a tier one country.  He tried to qualify for England first. Its honest and I commend him for that.  He has said he is proud to play for Scotland

Some players hide behind a false patriotism making statements to the effect "I always wanted to play for Scotland"  Visser has never made those sorts of statements. Wasn't it Shingler who did that ( say he always wanted to play for scotland) but was infact tied to Wales so never played for Scotland.  Obvious bobbins from him, he only wanted to play for Scotland as he thought he would have a better chance of a good career than with Wales.  Its dishonest and distasteful

I prefer an honest man even if a mercenary than a dishonest one who claims a patriotism that is never in his heart

Vissers motivation was always to play for a tier one team, to test himself against the best - It was not about the money

Does that explain my point better?

The thing that puts me off slightly about Visser is that while I accept the lack of appeal playing for Holland, to see a player essentially set out to auction himself to the highest bidder (not literally money-wise) doesn't exactly fill me with admiration.

And if Holland keep losing players like Visser to better sides, when are they ever going to reach a higher stage? It's worth noting that Visser's father and brother Sep have both represented Holland. While you could effectively counter that all Tuilagi's brothers played for Samoa, Visser was certainly not familiar with and developed by the Scottish system as Tuilagi was by the English system.

TJ beat me to mentioning Shingler. The prime example of a moral sell-out. Initially made some noise about representing Wales but, literally the second the SRU came calling, changed position entirely and was all about how much he loved Scotland and always dreamed of representing them. His whims were exposed and he has since not looked good enough to play for either side.

Visser is at least honest in his motivation.

LondonTiger wrote:

ebop wrote:And my point is, I doubt there is a resident community of Pacific Islanders in England (for example) that aren't associated with rugby.

We have had this discussion before, and you chose to ignore me or disregard me that time, just maybe you will listen if I try again?

The vast majority of the 5,000 or so fijians living in the UK have no link with professional rugby. That includes my god-parents.

I didn't ignore you. You're referring to the Fijians in the British army aren't you? Think about that for a second. That's even worse than poaching their rugby players.

That 5,000 is a sizeable proportion of the actual Fijian population considering how far away it is, not sure what the issue with them being in the British army is either, the Pacific Islanders are incredibly proud of their links to the UK.

I think to Vissers credit, had the Dutch sent a team to the RWC in 2011 when he was playing for Newcastle? he probably would've gone, and committed.

Hughes on the other hand wouldve been selected for Fiji 2015 if he had any inclination of representing his home nation, he decided staying in England and qualifying through residency was a better option.

I see absolutely no difference from Shinglars position, to Anscombe, Maitland or Hardie, all failures at their home nations who gave up for an easier route to international rugby.

How many sons of of the 5,000 Fijians in the British army have made the English team?

Thanks TJ, I got the point. You can't deny the drive of the guy so full credit to him.

Shinglers is worse for his " I always wanted to play for scotland shtick"

The issue with 5,000 (or whatever it is) Fijians in the British army is that they are Fijian. Getting the savages to fight your battles, shesh, nothing wrong with that. Knowing what Fijians are like having 'actually' spent a lot of time there, I'm sure they are proud and honoured to serve the queen. But strip away all the colonial history, England and the Pacific Islands are chalk and cheese.

It's actually only 2,000, so what you're saying is that someone like Rokoduguni should not be allowed to fight in the British Army because of his culture, a somewhat xenophobic view.