France to stop selecting 'foreign' players - Bernard Laporte

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38389827

France will stop selecting non-French players who have qualified under the three-year residency rule, national federation boss Bernard Laporte says.

He announced the move after meeting World Rugby president Bill Beaumont.

"I told Bill that we've taken the political decision to stop playing foreign players in the national team," Laporte said.

Foreign-born players who currently play for France will remain eligible but new players will require a French passport.

The decision means the likes of New Zealand-born prop Uini Atonio, South Africa-born full-back Scott Spedding and Fiji-born wings Noa Nakaitaci and Virimi Vakatawa will continue to be available for France.

"Obviously, it's not retroactive. Those playing can continue playing but it's a strong signal for French academies and our youngsters that we'll play a maximum number of Frenchmen," added Laporte, the former France head coach who was elected president of the French Rugby Federation on 3 December.

World Rugby rules allow a player to represent another country if he has lived there for three consecutive years and has not played for anyone else, although the global governing body is looking to extend the period to five years.

France have become renowned for picking foreign players in recent years as the financial strength of the Top 14 has brought a flood of foreigners into their top division at a time when the national team has been struggling.

In the past five years, France have come fifth four times in the Six Nations and last on the other occasion.

However, virtually all Tier One teams field players who have qualified on residency grounds.

The issue of foreign-qualified players has also been highlighted by the plight of the Pacific Islands - Fiji, Samoa and Tonga - who often lose talented players to the bigger and richer nations.

The gist is that France will continue selecting residency qualified players who have already played for France, for instance Scott Spedding, Uini Antonio, Noa Nakaitaci and Virimi Vakatawa in the current squad. From now on new caps will require a French passport to be eligible to play for France.

Interesting move and a good one for the game in France and as a whole. It's sad that individual Unions are taking action against the 3 year residency rule before World Rugby are. The decision was announced after Laporte met with Bill Beaumont though which is another positive indication that World Ruby are looking to do more about eligibility problems whilst led by Beaumont and Pichot.

Munchkin wrote:You're being disingenuous again.

(1) You said that the IRFU get to decide what a 'true Irishman' is. No they don't. They get to put into practice World Rugby's 3 year residency rule. That's it, no more, no less.

(2)  On reading the article you can't miss the fact that French Rugby (headed by Laporte) is attempting to address the issue of clubs circumventing the rules by signing young foreign talent to the academies, thus 'targeting' the very area you accuse Laporte of neglecting.

(3) Nobody has denied that Laporte wants to restrict those who qualify on residency. According to your definition of what 'being French' means, this reduces the player pool of France, however, it increases the pool of French born players.

The bit in bold is both true and false. It's true that the IRFU will be restricting the import of players who can never play for Ireland. It's false if you're saying this is the sole intention of the IRFU, and foreign players who may qualify on residency will not be restricted. Of course they will. Once the NIQ is lowered, it can't help but restrict the former and the latter.

You say Laporte is excluding players who are not blocking anyone. That's simply wrong, but I guess it's a matter of perspective. Those foreign players pinched from various other lands, and placed into the academies, are the very same that not only block indigenous French from playing at club level, but also, potentially, at national level.

(4) You can see how foreign players are blocking French kids from the academies, yet fail to understand the very same for the national side? Those French kids being blocked by foreign kids, might have been future French internationals, but for being blocked by young foreign imports who qualify on residency ..................

P.s you still haven't provided the link in support of your assertion that Laporte wants more foreign players in the clubs.

1. Please refine your response to what has been actually said, not fantasy.
2. The thread is about Laporte's decision to stop selecting foreign players, and the question was why he would disadvantage France by doing so. The reference to Laporte in the link provided was:
"Bernard Laporte, campaigning to become the next president of the FFR, has promised to hire as many as 200 coaches to improve the technical skills of France’s young players but that will take time, even if he’s elected to the role in December." So he wasn't head of the organisation then and was garnering political support - where does it say he will be stricter with the clubs?
3. World Rugby define the criteria for French qualification, and a three year residency qualification period is one of them.
Are the IRFU changing their policy on 'project players'? Link?
Laporte has made a decision not to select residency qualified players. These are players who are the best in their position in France or they wouldn't be selected. If they are not playing for France then they will be playing more for their clubs so their understudies will have even less oppportunity to develop at club level.
A residency qualified player isn't blocking those below him any more than a former international is. It is Laportes decision that reduces the pool size not World Rugby's.
4. The whole point of the academies is that imported kids are becoming French qualified (whatever the period), in other words they become 'French' so one French kid blocks another - or rather the most talented one wins.

BTW where did Laporte say he wants more foreign players in the clubs?

The Great Aukster wrote:

Munchkin wrote:You're being disingenuous again.

(1) You said that the IRFU get to decide what a 'true Irishman' is. No they don't. They get to put into practice World Rugby's 3 year residency rule. That's it, no more, no less.

(2)  On reading the article you can't miss the fact that French Rugby (headed by Laporte) is attempting to address the issue of clubs circumventing the rules by signing young foreign talent to the academies, thus 'targeting' the very area you accuse Laporte of neglecting.

(3) Nobody has denied that Laporte wants to restrict those who qualify on residency. According to your definition of what 'being French' means, this reduces the player pool of France, however, it increases the pool of French born players.

The bit in bold is both true and false. It's true that the IRFU will be restricting the import of players who can never play for Ireland. It's false if you're saying this is the sole intention of the IRFU, and foreign players who may qualify on residency will not be restricted. Of course they will. Once the NIQ is lowered, it can't help but restrict the former and the latter.

You say Laporte is excluding players who are not blocking anyone. That's simply wrong, but I guess it's a matter of perspective. Those foreign players pinched from various other lands, and placed into the academies, are the very same that not only block indigenous French from playing at club level, but also, potentially, at national level.

(4) You can see how foreign players are blocking French kids from the academies, yet fail to understand the very same for the national side? Those French kids being blocked by foreign kids, might have been future French internationals, but for being blocked by young foreign imports who qualify on residency ..................

P.s you still haven't provided the link in support of your assertion that Laporte wants more foreign players in the clubs.

1. Please refine your response to what has been actually said, not fantasy.
2. The thread is about Laporte's decision to stop selecting foreign players, and the question was why he would disadvantage France by doing so. The reference to Laporte in the link provided was:
"Bernard Laporte, campaigning to become the next president of the FFR, has promised to hire as many as 200 coaches to improve the technical skills of France’s young players but that will take time, even if he’s elected to the role in December." So he wasn't head of the organisation then and was garnering political support - where does it say he will be stricter with the clubs?
3. World Rugby define the criteria for French qualification, and a three year residency qualification period is one of them.
Are the IRFU changing their policy on 'project players'? Link?
Laporte has made a decision not to select residency qualified players. These are players who are the best in their position in France or they wouldn't be selected. If they are not playing for France then they will be playing more for their clubs so their understudies will have even less oppportunity to develop at club level.
A residency qualified player isn't blocking those below him any more than a former international is. It is Laportes decision that reduces the pool size not World Rugby's.
4. The whole point of the academies is that imported kids are becoming French qualified (whatever the period), in other words they become 'French' so one French kid blocks another - or rather the most talented one wins.

BTW where did Laporte say he wants more foreign players in the clubs?

What fantasy would that be? Your fantastical claim:

"Laporte is doing something totally different to the IRFU - he is unilaterally reducing the selection pool by classifying players who have qualified through living in France as foreigners, whereas the IRFU are embracing players like Payne and Stander as true Irishmen."

If not the above, please enlighten.

(2) I never said he will be stricter with the clubs. What I did say is he is at the head of an organisation that has stated they are seeking to close a loophole that some clubs are exploiting. Is that what you imagined the fantasy to be? Comprehension?

(3) Yes, World Rugby does. It was me that explained that to you after you made the claim that the IRFU are embracing the likes of Payne as 'true Irishmen'. The point being, you made the 'true Irishmen' bit up. That's fantasy. All the IRFU have done is make the most of the 3 year residency rule. It says nothing of their thoughts on what they deem to be 'true Irishmen'.

I shouldn't need to provide you with a link. You do know that Ludik didn't come to Ulster as a project player, yet had his extension granted on the basis he is eligible to play for Ireland this year?

The bit in bold. Laporte has already stated that those players already playing for France will not be affected.

(4) So, in a previous post you acknowledge that imports brought into academies block the way for indigenous players, and now you say it's French blocking French. The French don't agree with you. That's why steps are being taken to close the loophole. It's exploitation of another countries talent, but maybe that really doesn't bother you? Grab someone else's product and slap the French label on it. Hey Presto! A 'true Frenchman'!.

So you think that excluding those Foreign player that become eligible to play for France, blocks the path of French understudies, but don't think these same imports would be blocking French born players at the national level? Also, that these same players may have jumped the queue into the academies, blocking French born players pathway into clubs (something you have already agreed with). What you are missing in your theory is that the FFR already want to further reduce the number of Foreign signings, by clubs exploiting the loophole (as explained in the link I previously supplied)

Residency qualified players are blocking the way for French born players. That's something you don't seem to grasp.



P.P.s You still haven't provided the link to support your assertion that Laporte wants more foreign signings in clubs...

1. The IRFU select players who are truly qualified for Ireland under the World Rugby regulations. They wouldn't be allowed to play "false Irishmen" (or whatever category you lump Stander and Payne into). France are bound by the same regulations, yet Laporte is now doing something totally different by banning residency qualified players, and the unanswered question from the first page is why?
2. Laporte was not in charge of the organisation at the time and has yet to reveal his intentions regarding the clubs.
3. In the eyes of World Rugby/IRFU, Stander and Payne are just as much Irishmen as Saint Patrick (who BTW qualifies on residency). Thanks for acknowledging that the IRFU have not changed their policy.
4. Clubs import foreign players both capped and uncapped. The uncapped ones become French qualified, so how can the French block the French?
AFAIK Laporte hasn't said he wants more foreign signings in clubs, and I certainly haven't said he did, so how can I provide a link?

I agree comprehension seems to be an issue. The 'loopholes link' demonstrated how the clubs are looking to sign foreign players and get them to gain qualification on residency. Laporte's decision to exclude residency qualified players at Test level won't suddenly remove them from French clubs.
Let's say France has 14 clubs, each of which has three qualified players for the Hooker shirt - a player pool of 42 players. So if say seven of the 42 happen to have qualified on residency, Laporte's decision now reduces the selection pool to 35 rather than 42. The seven players who are no longer in the running to be selected for France will still be at their clubs, so Bernard's decision decreases his national player pool.

Hope that's not too disindigenous!

The Great Aukster wrote:1. The IRFU select players who are truly qualified for Ireland under the World Rugby regulations. They wouldn't be allowed to play "false Irishmen" (or whatever category you lump Stander and Payne into). France are bound by the same regulations, yet Laporte is now doing something totally different by banning residency qualified players, and the unanswered question from the first page is why?
2. Laporte was not in charge of the organisation at the time and has yet to reveal his intentions regarding the clubs.
3. In the eyes of World Rugby/IRFU, Stander and Payne are just as much Irishmen as Saint Patrick (who BTW qualifies on residency). Thanks for acknowledging that the IRFU have not changed their policy.
4. Clubs import foreign players both capped and uncapped. The uncapped ones become French qualified, so how can the French block the French?
AFAIK Laporte hasn't said he wants more foreign signings in clubs, and I certainly haven't said he did, so how can I provide a link?

I agree comprehension seems to be an issue. The 'loopholes link' demonstrated how the clubs are looking to sign foreign players and get them to gain qualification on residency. Laporte's decision to exclude residency qualified players at Test level won't suddenly remove them from French clubs.
Let's say France has 14 clubs, each of which has three qualified players for the Hooker shirt - a player pool of 42 players. So if say seven of the 42 happen to have qualified on residency, Laporte's decision now reduces the selection pool to 35 rather than 42. The seven players who are no longer in the running to be selected for France will still be at their clubs, so Bernard's decision decreases his national player pool.

Hope that's not too disindigenous!

(1) It was you who lumped Stander, et al. into the 'true Irishmen' category, not me.

Look, I understand your perspective. It's just that I don't agree with it. I don't agree with one Country poaching another's talent simply to fill in the gaps. I don't think it's right that a player can easily adopt a different nationality because they are unlikely to be picked to represent the nation of their birth.

(2) It doesn't matter if Laporte wasn't heading the organisation at the time. What matters is the stated intention of French rugby to close that loophole and, until we hear differently, it's right to assume that French rugby are still pursuing that aim.

You say Laporte, ' has yet to reveal his intentions regarding the clubs', which must mean that your earlier claim of Laporte wanting more foreign nationals into the clubs is false?

(3) I never did say the IRFU have changed their policy.

No, in the eyes of World Rugby, Stander/Payne qualify to play for Ireland on residency. There's nothing there to suggest how 'Irish' World Rugby believes them to be. These guys will have a dual nationality, so is Stander 100% South African and 100% Irish? Maybe 50%/50%? Stander was born in South Africa, so maybe 25%/75%?. What if Stander suddenly couldn't play rugby any longer, and returned home to South Africa? How Irish?

(4) The bit in bold. This is what you said:

"Why did Laporte reduce his country's talent pool and encourage French clubs to recruit more foreign players to reduce France's selection pool further?" *


Yes, when clubs poach young players from other nations, they may qualify on residency. First of all; importing foreign nationals into their academies does block French born players from that pathway. Surely you can only agree with this?
Second; yes, those foreign nationals may become qualified on residency but, in doing so, they will be blocking French born players/home-grown talent from progressing to national level. Again, surely you agree with this?
Lastly, it's a question of whether it's right to fill the national side with foreign opportunists, to the disadvantage of those who genuinely consider themselves French. Players who have been born in France, or have spent much of their lives in France.

I have explained your last paragraph umpteen times and you still don't get it. Comprehension indeed. You still don't get that not everyone sees these foreign nationals as French. Let's face it, they are not until they at least qualify on residency. So until then they are blocking French players from the academies. Now, even if/when they do qualify, not everyone believes they should be able to block French players who have been born in France, or spent much of their lives in France. The clubs are being opportunists, the players are opportunists. It's not about being French for either. It's about exploiting a loophole that allows a club to poach another nations young talent, to further strengthen their own squads, rather than invest in French youth.

* I know what your response will be.

Grouse are bred to be shot, and there will no doubt be some that are poached. If they aren't being shot, they won't be bred, and those that are left will still be poached irrespective of the dwindling numbers.

The Great Aukster wrote:Grouse are bred to be shot, and there will no doubt be some that are poached. If they aren't being shot, they won't be bred, and those that are left will still be poached irrespective of the dwindling numbers.

Your analogy is fatally flawed, but nice try.

We seem to be the only two arguing about this now. Let's just agree I win and leave it at that

Au contraire, this thread isn't simply a childish points scoring exercise, but rather an important rugby issue worth debating - so why stop? I realise you will never see (or at least not admit to seeing) the damage that Laporte's decision could cause. However continuing to discuss the pros and cons of Laporte's decision might at least allow someone interested to make a more balanced decision.

The Great Aukster wrote:Au contraire, this thread isn't simply a childish points scoring exercise, but rather an important rugby issue worth debating - so why stop? I realise you will never see (or at least not admit to seeing) the damage that Laporte's decision could cause. However continuing to discuss the pros and cons of Laporte's decision might at least allow someone interested to make a more balanced decision.

 I see the benefits that Laporte's decision could cause.

The Great Aukster wrote:Au contraire, this thread isn't simply a childish points scoring exercise, but rather an important rugby issue worth debating - so why stop? I realise you will never see (or at least not admit to seeing) the damage that Laporte's decision could cause. However continuing to discuss the pros and cons of Laporte's decision might at least allow someone interested to make a more balanced decision.

oh, you're getting stroppy because the huge holes in your argument have been exposed. Still, it's funny

Stay inside your fantasy land, numbnut. There's not much point debating with someone who twists and turns to avoid confronting the facts, or at least admit that there is a very valid counter-opinion.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Au contraire, this thread isn't simply a childish points scoring exercise, but rather an important rugby issue worth debating - so why stop? I realise you will never see (or at least not admit to seeing) the damage that Laporte's decision could cause. However continuing to discuss the pros and cons of Laporte's decision might at least allow someone interested to make a more balanced decision.

 I see the benefits that Laporte's decision could cause.

Care to elaborate?

Munchkin wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Au contraire, this thread isn't simply a childish points scoring exercise, but rather an important rugby issue worth debating - so why stop? I realise you will never see (or at least not admit to seeing) the damage that Laporte's decision could cause. However continuing to discuss the pros and cons of Laporte's decision might at least allow someone interested to make a more balanced decision.

oh, you're getting stroppy because the huge holes in your argument have been exposed. Still, it's funny  

Stay inside your fantasy land, numbnut. There's not much point debating with someone who twists and turns to avoid confronting the facts, or at least admit that there is a very valid counter-opinion.

Resorting to name-calling now? Such a level of maturity will add commensurate credibility to that side of the debate for the neutral observer - so thanks for that. Glad you find it funny, (makes everything worthwhile).

So to keep the fun rolling, back to facts and logic?
Laporte's decision to exclude a section of French qualified players reduces the Test player pool.
Teams normally are looking to have more depth rather than less, so why would Laporte reduce his teams competitiveness?

The Great Aukster wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Au contraire, this thread isn't simply a childish points scoring exercise, but rather an important rugby issue worth debating - so why stop? I realise you will never see (or at least not admit to seeing) the damage that Laporte's decision could cause. However continuing to discuss the pros and cons of Laporte's decision might at least allow someone interested to make a more balanced decision.

 I see the benefits that Laporte's decision could cause.

Care to elaborate?

 I already have, about three pages back, ironically it was about the time that you questioned me as to whether I had even read the Article.

Looks to me like some on here can't see that French clubs will like Laporte's unilateral decision.

French clubs will continue to recruit PI's from the SH if they believe them to be good enough. The FFR & LNR have been poor at reaching a strategic agreement on development paths to Test level.

The big three Unions down south don't employ significant numbers of PI's in S18 unless they are good enough to play for their own national side. The players the french recruit will now be less likely be taken away from them during the T14 season, by being selected by France which also keeps their wage demands down too, as players are not achieving Tier 1 Test status.

Laporte's is making a statement but pretty sure he knows that French clubs won't suddenly only employ French players ( under his moral definition) just to please him and the FFR.
Some on here weirdly seem to think the French Test team will somehow benefit from Laporte's statement.

Recwatcher16 wrote:Looks to me like some on here can't see that French clubs will like Laporte's unilateral decision.

French clubs will continue to recruit PI's from the SH if they believe them to be good enough. The FFR & LNR have been poor at reaching a strategic agreement on development paths to Test level.

The big three Unions down south don't employ significant numbers of PI's in S18 unless they are good enough to play for their own national side. The players the french recruit will now be less likely be taken away from them during the T14 season, by being selected by France which also keeps their wage demands down too, as players are not achieving Tier 1 Test status.

Laporte's is making a statement but pretty sure he knows that French clubs won't suddenly only employ French players ( under his moral definition)  just to please him and the FFR.
Some on here weirdly seem to think the French Test team will somehow benefit from Laporte's statement.

The only weird thing is that you post that after it's already been discussed, with links provided. I can only assume you haven't fully followed the discussion or read the links.

Try that, and come back....

The Great Aukster wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Au contraire, this thread isn't simply a childish points scoring exercise, but rather an important rugby issue worth debating - so why stop? I realise you will never see (or at least not admit to seeing) the damage that Laporte's decision could cause. However continuing to discuss the pros and cons of Laporte's decision might at least allow someone interested to make a more balanced decision.

oh, you're getting stroppy because the huge holes in your argument have been exposed. Still, it's funny  

Stay inside your fantasy land, numbnut. There's not much point debating with someone who twists and turns to avoid confronting the facts, or at least admit that there is a very valid counter-opinion.

Resorting to name-calling now? Such a level of maturity will add commensurate credibility to that side of the debate for the neutral observer - so thanks for that. Glad you find it funny, (makes everything worthwhile).

So to keep the fun rolling, back to facts and logic?
Laporte's decision to exclude a section of French qualified players reduces the Test player pool.
Teams normally are looking to have more depth rather than less, so why would Laporte reduce his teams competitiveness?

I'm just firing back in return. If you can't deal with it, don't dish it out.

Your assertion has already been countered, but you ignore those counters and repeat your mantra.

Your question has already been answered, but you ignore those answers and repeat, repeat, repeat.

Head in the sand stuff.

And yes, I do find it funny.

Munchkin wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:Looks to me like some on here can't see that French clubs will like Laporte's unilateral decision.

French clubs will continue to recruit PI's from the SH if they believe them to be good enough. The FFR & LNR have been poor at reaching a strategic agreement on development paths to Test level.

The big three Unions down south don't employ significant numbers of PI's in S18 unless they are good enough to play for their own national side. The players the french recruit will now be less likely be taken away from them during the T14 season, by being selected by France which also keeps their wage demands down too, as players are not achieving Tier 1 Test status.

Laporte's is making a statement but pretty sure he knows that French clubs won't suddenly only employ French players ( under his moral definition)  just to please him and the FFR.
Some on here weirdly seem to think the French Test team will somehow benefit from Laporte's statement.

The only weird thing is that you post that after it's already been discussed, with links provided. I can only assume you haven't fully followed the discussion or read the links.

Try that, and come back....

Yes quite right, I have no intention of reading pages of circular arguments.
Simply stated the current status quo - you can agree or disagree.

Recwatcher16 wrote:Looks to me like some on here can't see that French clubs will like Laporte's unilateral decision.

French clubs will continue to recruit PI's from the SH if they believe them to be good enough. The FFR & LNR have been poor at reaching a strategic agreement on development paths to Test level.

The big three Unions down south don't employ significant numbers of PI's in S18 unless they are good enough to play for their own national side. The players the french recruit will now be less likely be taken away from them during the T14 season, by being selected by France which also keeps their wage demands down too, as players are not achieving Tier 1 Test status.

Laporte's is making a statement but pretty sure he knows that French clubs won't suddenly only employ French players ( under his moral definition)  just to please him and the FFR.
Some on here weirdly seem to think the French Test team will somehow benefit from Laporte's statement.

 Well they dont employ them, then wait 3 years then make them Springboks, Wallabies or All blacks, also a number do represent their country of heritage.

Recwatcher16 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:Looks to me like some on here can't see that French clubs will like Laporte's unilateral decision.

French clubs will continue to recruit PI's from the SH if they believe them to be good enough. The FFR & LNR have been poor at reaching a strategic agreement on development paths to Test level.

The big three Unions down south don't employ significant numbers of PI's in S18 unless they are good enough to play for their own national side. The players the french recruit will now be less likely be taken away from them during the T14 season, by being selected by France which also keeps their wage demands down too, as players are not achieving Tier 1 Test status.

Laporte's is making a statement but pretty sure he knows that French clubs won't suddenly only employ French players ( under his moral definition)  just to please him and the FFR.
Some on here weirdly seem to think the French Test team will somehow benefit from Laporte's statement.

The only weird thing is that you post that after it's already been discussed, with links provided. I can only assume you haven't fully followed the discussion or read the links.

Try that, and come back....

Yes quite right, I have no intention of reading pages of circular arguments.
Simply stated the current status quo - you can agree or disagree.

How do you know they are circular if you haven't read them?

Anyway, they are circular, and because one side refused to acknowledge (not necessarily agree with) the other side of the argument. Simply repeating the same answers/questions isn't debate in any meaningful sense.

I can understand the other side of the debate, and have said as much, but I am totally convinced that, if these measures go ahead, it will not only be good for France, but for rugby the world over.

Why would it benefit rugby the world over?

aucklandlaurie wrote:...Well they dont employ them, then wait 3 years then make them Springboks, Wallabies or All blacks, also a number do represent their country of heritage.

There have been PI players who have been selected for Test rugby after qualifying on residency grounds. Henry Speight, Sefanaia Naivalu and Lopeti Timani all qualified for Australia in much the same fashion as Nathan Hughes did for England.

How would this affect New Zealand/Wallabies?

Are there any key players for these teams that would not be able to play (if they hadn't already been capped) under the French system?

Rugby Fan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:...Well they dont employ them, then wait 3 years then make them Springboks, Wallabies or All blacks, also a number do represent their country of heritage.

There have been PI players who have been selected for Test rugby after qualifying on residency grounds. Henry Speight, Sefanaia Naivalu and Lopeti Timani all qualified for Australia in much the same fashion as Nathan Hughes did for England.

 true Rf, but I cant think of any Boks or ABs.

Sorry, new to this debate.
So Laporte is asking for players to apply for French citizenship before representing the national side - rather than just selecting on the residency rule. Is that correct? or is there more to it than that?

T14 teams can still select the foreign nationals that they want to play for their squads - its just national selection that is being altered?

auklandlaurie - wasn't there discussion about Tendai Matawera's eligibility for a little while?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:...Well they dont employ them, then wait 3 years then make them Springboks, Wallabies or All blacks, also a number do represent their country of heritage.

There have been PI players who have been selected for Test rugby after qualifying on residency grounds. Henry Speight, Sefanaia Naivalu and Lopeti Timani all qualified for Australia in much the same fashion as Nathan Hughes did for England.

 true Rf, but I cant think of any Boks or ABs.

Really? About half the AB squad is residency qualified and the Boks have The Beast too of the top of my head

Nematode wrote:How would this affect New Zealand/Wallabies?

Are there any key players for these teams that would not be able to play (if they hadn't already been capped) under the French system?

  Q1: It affects New Zealand more from the aspect that it raises/maintains the quality of the sport Internationally, there are no benefits to be gained by being the best team in the World while at the same time the sport is going downhill with no credible International competition, and one of the ways this happens is by International sides not developing their own International players. More countries need to take up the responsibility of the wellbeing of the International game, the sport in general, and its good to see France step up.

Q2: New Zealand develops its own players from within its own organisational structure, and in turn they become available for selection for the All Blacks, No All Black selectors would be looking for possible players from France.

propdavid_london wrote:auklandlaurie - wasn't there discussion about Tendai Matawera's eligibility for a little while?

 There may have been I just cant remember it, Where is Biltong when you need him?

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:...Well they dont employ them, then wait 3 years then make them Springboks, Wallabies or All blacks, also a number do represent their country of heritage.

There have been PI players who have been selected for Test rugby after qualifying on residency grounds. Henry Speight, Sefanaia Naivalu and Lopeti Timani all qualified for Australia in much the same fashion as Nathan Hughes did for England.

 true Rf, but I cant think of any Boks or ABs.

Really? About half the AB squad is residency qualified and the Boks have The Beast too of the top of my head

 How do you work that one out?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:...Well they dont employ them, then wait 3 years then make them Springboks, Wallabies or All blacks, also a number do represent their country of heritage.

There have been PI players who have been selected for Test rugby after qualifying on residency grounds. Henry Speight, Sefanaia Naivalu and Lopeti Timani all qualified for Australia in much the same fashion as Nathan Hughes did for England.

 true Rf, but I cant think of any Boks or ABs.

Really? About half the AB squad is residency qualified and the Boks have The Beast too of the top of my head

 How do you work that one out?

Because they weren't born in NZ and qualify by being residents

Most if not all of the NZ team are New Zelanders. However, there is no doubt that NZ rugby does benefit from immigration from various different countries and there is quite a genetically/culturally diverse player pool in New Zealand as a result.

There was talk of matt symonds playing for new Zealand before moving to England.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Most if not all of the NZ team are New Zelanders. However, there is no doubt that NZ rugby does benefit from immigration from various different countries and there is quite a genetically/culturally diverse player pool in New Zealand as a result.

Nope not all, Kaino, Naholo and Fekitoa are some that aren't Kiwis

marty2086 wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Most if not all of the NZ team are New Zelanders. However, there is no doubt that NZ rugby does benefit from immigration from various different countries and there is quite a genetically/culturally diverse player pool in New Zealand as a result.

Nope not all, Kaino, Naholo and Fekitoa are some that aren't Kiwis

Yeah but they have lived all their lives in NZ. Thats like saying Heaslip or Murphy arent Irish.

marty2086 wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Most if not all of the NZ team are New Zelanders. However, there is no doubt that NZ rugby does benefit from immigration from various different countries and there is quite a genetically/culturally diverse player pool in New Zealand as a result.

Nope not all, Kaino, Naholo and Fekitoa are some that aren't Kiwis

 Are you for real?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Most if not all of the NZ team are New Zelanders. However, there is no doubt that NZ rugby does benefit from immigration from various different countries and there is quite a genetically/culturally diverse player pool in New Zealand as a result.

Nope not all, Kaino, Naholo and Fekitoa are some that aren't Kiwis

Yeah but they have lived all their lives in NZ. Thats like saying Heaslip or Murphy arent Irish.

No its not its quite different, Healip and Murphy are Irish for starters because they were simply born outside Ireland to Irish parents

The examples I gave were all born in their home countries, Kaino granted was pretty young when he moved the others were teenagers

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Most if not all of the NZ team are New Zelanders. However, there is no doubt that NZ rugby does benefit from immigration from various different countries and there is quite a genetically/culturally diverse player pool in New Zealand as a result.

Nope not all, Kaino, Naholo and Fekitoa are some that aren't Kiwis

 Are you for real?

Are you?

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:


 Are you for real?

Are you?

This could get interesting

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why would it benefit rugby the world over?

Because France are the world powerhouse for club rugby, which all other nations gravitate towards. It's were the big money is. Weaker unions can't compete with the money, while even stronger unions, such as Ireland, struggle. With French clubs exploiting a loophole they poach young players from weaker nations (players that can become French qualified), so robbing those weaker nations of promising test level players. We want to encourage weaker nations to grow, which will be good for rugby union the world over, not strip them of their resources.

Seems there are those happy to buy success regardless the cost to weaker nations, or weakening identity of national sides. I'm not one of them.

But why would laporte s decision affect that? Aren't you more likely to get the same or imports with clubs safe in the knowledge that the players won't play for France? Is the actual benefit you're pointing out that Ireland,Wales England etc will get more imports? I fail to see why the ruling on an international team impacts on club thinking.

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Most if not all of the NZ team are New Zelanders. However, there is no doubt that NZ rugby does benefit from immigration from various different countries and there is quite a genetically/culturally diverse player pool in New Zealand as a result.

Nope not all, Kaino, Naholo and Fekitoa are some that aren't Kiwis

 Are you for real?

Are you?

 Marty can you not see the difference between say Kaino, Naholo and Fekitoa being developed by the New Zealand system and some one like Payne who was imported to play rugby for Ireland but is also a product of the same establishment?

No 7&1/2 wrote:But why would laporte s decision affect that? Aren't you more likely to get the same or imports with clubs safe in the knowledge that the players won't play for France? Is the actual benefit you're pointing out that Ireland,Wales England etc will get more imports? I fail to see why the ruling on an international team impacts on club thinking.

Because it appears FFR want a two-pronged approach. Not only what Laporte is suggesting, but ongoing moves to force clubs to further reduce the number of imports they sign. Something that is already meeting with success, but some French clubs exploit a loophole by poaching other nations young players with the aim of them qualifying on residency. A move made to simply bypass the rules. That's the loophole French rugby have indicated they want closed.

No, I'm against Ireland filling the side with imports.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:Looks to me like some on here can't see that French clubs will like Laporte's unilateral decision.

French clubs will continue to recruit PI's from the SH if they believe them to be good enough. The FFR & LNR have been poor at reaching a strategic agreement on development paths to Test level.

The big three Unions down south don't employ significant numbers of PI's in S18 unless they are good enough to play for their own national side. The players the french recruit will now be less likely be taken away from them during the T14 season, by being selected by France which also keeps their wage demands down too, as players are not achieving Tier 1 Test status.

Laporte's is making a statement but pretty sure he knows that French clubs won't suddenly only employ French players ( under his moral definition)  just to please him and the FFR.
Some on here weirdly seem to think the French Test team will somehow benefit from Laporte's statement.

 Well they dont employ them, then wait 3 years then make them Springboks, Wallabies or All blacks, also a number do represent their country of heritage.

The French and English Unions don't employ any players - clubs choose who to employ on merit and cost. If Test selectors subsequently choose non indigenous players under the rules, this is not the clubs fault.

Remind me how many Test Argentines have been employed by NZ S12,15 or 18 sides but the NZRU now consider the Argentine test side as suitable to play against and generates more coin to fund their centralised elite structure.

Pretty sure the residency period will be increased and I would only use parents for qualification too.

There is an article in the NZ Herald where Fekitoa refers to Tonga as his homeland, in case you are interested.

Force the club's not to sign foreign players eh? That'll go down great! Can't see the club's liking being dictated to or how the law may see restriction of trade.

Recwatcher16 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:Looks to me like some on here can't see that French clubs will like Laporte's unilateral decision.

French clubs will continue to recruit PI's from the SH if they believe them to be good enough. The FFR & LNR have been poor at reaching a strategic agreement on development paths to Test level.

The big three Unions down south don't employ significant numbers of PI's in S18 unless they are good enough to play for their own national side. The players the french recruit will now be less likely be taken away from them during the T14 season, by being selected by France which also keeps their wage demands down too, as players are not achieving Tier 1 Test status.

Laporte's is making a statement but pretty sure he knows that French clubs won't suddenly only employ French players ( under his moral definition)  just to please him and the FFR.
Some on here weirdly seem to think the French Test team will somehow benefit from Laporte's statement.

 Well they dont employ them, then wait 3 years then make them Springboks, Wallabies or All blacks, also a number do represent their country of heritage.

The French and English Unions don't employ any players - clubs choose who to employ on merit and cost. If Test selectors subsequently choose non indigenous players under the rules, this is not the clubs fault.

Remind me how many Test Argentines have been employed by  NZ S12,15 or 18  sides but the NZRU now consider the Argentine test side as suitable to play against and generates more coin to fund their centralised elite structure.

Pretty sure the residency period will be increased and I would only use parents for qualification too.

There is an article in the NZ Herald where Fekitoa refers to Tonga as his homeland, in case you are interested.

 I agree, I presume the residency period will in time be extended well past 3 years.

 Pacific islanders will for generations refer to their island of heritage being their homeland, Fekitoa came to new Zealand for secondary school.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Force the club's not to sign foreign players eh? That'll go down great! Can't see the club's liking being dictated to or how the law may see restriction of trade.

The clubs must have agreed to restricting imports on previous negotiations, so that wasn't forced. To get around this, some clubs have been exploiting a loophole in the agreement which allows them to ship over young players, with the aim of those young players becoming French qualified. That's the loophole French rugby want to close. You're right, those clubs don't like it, and fight the closing of this loophole. That's my reading of it.

The 'restriction of trade' thing is often thrown out by those who don't care if the weaker nations are exploited. It's just a soundbite until some Union is taken to court and loses. I don't see it happening anytime soon.

And its his sort of case that laporte proposes to end for France. Basically ups residency to 5 years.

7 1/2 - You are correct.
And the battleground for the biggest conflict is in France where the Clubs hold most of the power and influence compared to the Union.
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

So munchkin not forced but they look to get around it...

Like I said the youngsters will have to wait 5 years not 6. I'm just intrigued at the reasoning behind it all.

Oh and restriction of trade is a eeal thong you know.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So munchkin not forced but they look to get around it...

Like I said the youngsters will have to wait 5 years not 6. I'm just intrigued at the reasoning behind it all.

Absolutely not forced. I don't know the detail, but would think it was agreed by majority, leaving the minority with the hump.