Player born outside their country of choice

First topic message reminder :

Well, the title explains it really, just for a bit of a debate, and no need to get all tetchy, after debating on here about players not born in the country they represent, I have done some re-search and come up with a list for all the 6N squads and who has players born outside their country. Now we can all debate about players who have lived in their country since they were a 1yr old and the what not, but I have included everybody so that I am not accused of bias ect. One thing that surprised me the most, is the way Scotland have taken advantage of the grandparent ruling. I was not aware of that many.

It does seem that each nation up here is as guilty as the next, but what I now want to debate is, the one's we would consider genuine, as I am not as educated in the history of other nations players, for example I was not aware that Josh van der Flier was 100% Irish until I was educated on the matter on this forum the other day. So this thread is an opportunity for us all to fight the case for the players in our nations squads, please see below for the players I have re-searched:-

England


D Hartley NZ Mother
J Clifford Aus Mother
T Harrison NZ Father
M Williams Zim Grandfather
N Hughes Fiji Residency
B Te'o NZ Mother
M Yarde St Lucia Residency

Ireland


F Bealham Aus Grandmother
U Dillane Fra Mother
CJ Stander SA Residency
J Heaslip Isreal Parents
K Marmion Eng Parents
L McGrath Can Parents

Scotland


A Allan Eng Grandfarther
S Berghan NZ Grandfarther
A Dell SA Grandmother
T Swinson Eng Grandmother
B Toolis Aus Mother
J Barclay HK Parents
J Hardie NZ Grandmother
R Harley Eng Parents
H Watson Eng Grandparents
C Du Preez SA Residency
J Strauss SA Residency
R Wilson Eng Grandfather
A Price Eng Mother
H Pyrgos Eng Mother
D Taylor Eng Parents
S Maitland NZ Grandparents
T Seymour  USA Mother
T Visser Hol Residency

Wales


T Francis Eng Grandmother
J Ball Eng Father
L Charteris Eng Parents
O Cracknell Eng Grandfather
T Faletau Tonga Residency
J King Aus Residency
J Davies Eng Parents
A Cuthbert Eng Mother
G North Eng Mother

France


U Atonio NZ Residency
N Nakaitaci Fiji Residency
V Vakatawa Fiji Residency
S Spedding SA Residency

Italy


D Chistolini SA Grandfather
O Gega Alb Residency
G Biagi Sco Parents
J Furno Aus Father
S Schalkwyk SA Residency
S Parisse Arg Parents
A Steyn SA Residency
L Mclean Aus Grandmother

So, can we/should we debate this ? I would like to, I would like to find out who people would consider genuinely qualified.

miaow wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Isnt that the same thing...

This is an interesting point though.

Are residency/immigrant players who have struck a well trodden path to arrive in their 'adopted' country perceived differently to those more unique cases?

I think that is a VERY good point actually.

England does have a link with the Caribbean (Jamaica) loads of players like John Barnes playing football etc...it seems "normal" . Likewise lots of Nigerian descendant or birth places played rugby for England...ie Steve Omjomoh , Victor Ubogu, Andy Harriman...etc etc etc yet again that seems..."normal"

But when you say a Fijian, or Pacific island in general for example...it seems very different even though it shouldn't.

Yes and no. How many people have expressed honest negativity towards the Vunipola s? It is more aimed at the pros coming to specifically target international honours. Even the 'accidental' ones get away from too much grief like Botha whereas Te'o gets more despite being qualified through his mum.

There was still some questions though 7.5
Many raised his NZ birth and Welsh schooling for example.

But your right...the biggest issue for me is the Pro's like Nathan Hughes. Riki Flutey etc...

GeordieFalcon wrote:There was still some questions though 7.5
Many raised his NZ birth and Welsh schooling for example.

But your right...the biggest issue for me is the Pro's like Nathan Hughes. Riki Flutey etc...

Yes, if anything, other than Tonga, the only non contentious country they could have chosen is Wales as they grew up there. But thems the rules.

If he's talking about the Vunipola s the moment they left Wales they didn't qualify anymore. Same as when visser left for Scotland.

It doesn't have to be overt negativity for there to be a feeling of unfamiliarity, and therefore the first step to 'foreigness', with a player like Vunipola vs a player like Yarde. It is more of a 'how the fans perceive them' point, rather than anything to do with qualification and rules, but it felt pertinent in the way that JvdF was brought up, albeit it jokingly. It felt like a perfect distinction based on public perception of nationhood, even though- according to the rules of qualification- one was identical to the other.

With the Vunipolas it's even more confusing: Mako has a Welsh accent, and both spent a lot of time in Wales, yet both chose to play for England over Tonga and Wales, Billy Vunipola being taken into the English system through Hartpury College I believe?

So it's tricky. Is Thomas Waldrom having one Grandparent the same as Tomas Francis having one Grandparent, when one is half the world away, and the other within a few hours of the border? It's a case by case basis, surely, for al involved: the fans' perception, the Unions and WR, and the player and what they decide, and as it's their livelihood, it's not a decision to be taken lightly.

It has to s case by case basis in people judging whether they feel it's right that someone represent the country or feel entirely comfortable with it. And that differs from each persons perspective. Trouble is you need black and white rules which will.never satisfy everyone.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It has to s case by case basis in people judging whether they feel it's right that someone represent the country or feel entirely comfortable with it. And that differs from each persons perspective. Trouble is you need black and white rules which will.never satisfy everyone.

Thus why the rules should be black & white.

But then the people that can't agree on the rules then say the rules are too black&white and therefore infringe on their ideas of what the rules should be...and off we all go on another magic roundabout.

Let's all say, instead, that to protect ourselves from our own bias, let's simply have a black&white rule that we all just allow to happen. The debate is endless and pointless - all that's needed is a timeframe that isn't too generous and isn't too mean and for all of us to nod approval.

...but back to the bias.......................................

Are any players targetted specifically to play in a national test team?

What exactly does a project player mean given they seem to be held up with some disdain by a lot of fans and pundits?

It's interesting that Ireland's squad for the first tow matches only has one residency player - CJ Stander.

Pot Hale wrote:Are any players targetted specifically to play in a national test team?

What exactly does a project player mean given they seem to be held up with some disdain by a lot of fans and pundits?

'Disdain' is rather a strong accusation there, Pot, and I don't share it.  I don't think the players themselves are attacked for their obvious ambitions to play at the highest levels possible in their sport - and if that means they can't see a future for themselves with their own nations and that they then do a gamble by heading off to try their 'project' luck somewhere else, then so be it.

The Human condition.

I think the casual (not so red hot) disdain is for the Unions that then seek to take advantage of those human instincts, that seek to offer inducements, that seek to use it all to force more 'projects' into the mix and therefore threaten the potential International careers of Natural born citizens.  So as you offer a lifeline of International to an arriving 'project', by definition you are diminishing the hopes of other players that have always regarded the International side as 'their team'.

SecretFly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Are any players targetted specifically to play in a national test team?

What exactly does a project player mean given they seem to be held up with some disdain by a lot of fans and pundits?

'Disdain' is rather a strong accusation there, Pot, and I don't share it.  I don't think the players themselves are attacked for their obvious ambitions to play at the highest levels possible in their sport - and if that means they can't see a future for themselves with their own nations and that they then do a gamble by heading off to try their 'project' luck somewhere else, then so be it.

The Human condition.

I think the casual (not so red hot) disdain is for the Unions that then seek to take advantage of those human instincts, that seek to offer inducements, that seek to use it all to force more 'projects' into the mix and therefore threaten the potential International careers of Natural born citizens.  So as you offer a lifeline of International to an arriving 'project', by definition you are diminishing the hopes of other players that have always regarded the International side as 'their team'.

But this is what I HATE.

I have no issues with club rugby...but international rugby is that...you play for YOUR nation. Not just a lottery oh I know ill go play in Scotland for a few years and try to play for Scotland.

I absolutely loathe this idea.

International rugby is just becoming a higher level of club rugby!

Geordiefalcon the problem for some players is there isn't the same opportunities in other nations.

Look at Nathan Hughes situation. He could play for Fiji but he'd get paid peanuts in comparison to the potential earnings in England. Fiji struggle to fund their team.

To eventually get around this issue, there needs to be more done to help some of the poorer rugby nations.


Other players it's different of course.

From a players' perspective it's their way of increasing their earning power and playing international rugby on a more frequent basis.

Tomas Francis is different because if he became successful for England he would have likely earned more than playing for Wales but perhaps he thought getting into the Welsh side was an easier way of getting caps and playing international rugby.


For a player like Tim Visser, his opportunities in rugby were limited because of Netherlands not really having a good team.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Are any players targetted specifically to play in a national test team?

What exactly does a project player mean given they seem to be held up with some disdain by a lot of fans and pundits?

'Disdain' is rather a strong accusation there, Pot, and I don't share it.  I don't think the players themselves are attacked for their obvious ambitions to play at the highest levels possible in their sport - and if that means they can't see a future for themselves with their own nations and that they then do a gamble by heading off to try their 'project' luck somewhere else, then so be it.

The Human condition.

I think the casual (not so red hot) disdain is for the Unions that then seek to take advantage of those human instincts, that seek to offer inducements, that seek to use it all to force more 'projects' into the mix and therefore threaten the potential International careers of Natural born citizens.  So as you offer a lifeline of International to an arriving 'project', by definition you are diminishing the hopes of other players that have always regarded the International side as 'their team'.

But this is what I HATE.

I have no issues with club rugby...but international rugby is that...you play for YOUR nation. Not just a lottery oh I know ill go play in Scotland for a few years and try to play for Scotland.

I absolutely loathe this idea.

International rugby is just becoming a higher level of club rugby!

Agree with Every word, Geordie.

I'm simply saying I blame the Unions for manipulating the term 'International' to make it more club more than I blame those players doing what comes naturally to many of us, going where the sun might shine brighter (in metaphorical terms of course)

And I agree with that SF!

beshocked wrote:...Look at Nathan Hughes situation. He could play for Fiji but he'd get paid peanuts in comparison to the potential earnings in England. Fiji struggle to fund their team...

It's not even just the actual level of pay. An islander who plays professional rugby needs guarantees about things like insurance, medical treatment, training conditions etc. They don't need state-of-the-art, but their club earning power is hindered if they can't get a basic acceptable standard at international level.

Doing it for the glory (playing with or against the very best in the world, name in headlines, stories for the kids, personal goals achieved) I can understand.... or let's say, I acknowledge as a drive within a player that loves the game.  I don't agree that simply because they want to play International that they should be let play it... no - but I do understand that drive and emotion.

The Nathan Hughes allusion (and reasons advanced - i.e. money and earning potential) - well now, there's a reason I despise.  If that is the reason motivating some of the players to kit out for another Nation than their own - then to hell with them.  I accept it's another legit honest reason but Me No Like it!

+1 SF

Secretfly so do you despise CJ Stander then? Surely he's done a similar thing to Nathan Hughes?

Now of course I am sure he's been adopted as a proud "Irishman" but he's the definition of a project player. Even played for SA U20s.

Has he got any Irish ancestry?

miaow wrote:

rodders wrote:Wow Wales and Scotland are like England B and C sides....which is ironic because they've morphed into the barbarians.  

Looking forward to when Ireland replace the Wolfhounds with the Irish Maori.

Me too, those kiwi fellas are the only ones who can catch the bloody ball.

beshocked wrote:Secretfly so do you despise CJ Stander then? Surely he's done a similar thing to Nathan Hughes?

Now of course I am sure he's been adopted as a proud "Irishman" but he's the definition of a project player. Even played for SA U20s.

Has he got any Irish ancestry?

Don't personalise a general point, shocked.  

I took time to make sure I was using the Nathan Hughes allusion.  It's you or others that brought him up.  I have no interest in Nathan Hughes.  Who says he's either doing it for money or for glory?  I'm sure that's his personal reason that he keeps private.  I make no accusations.  Speak to the topic, not the individual players.

I would hope that both players are doing it for the right reasons.  Truth is I can never know unless a player comes out bluntly and says "I'm only doing this for the financial security".

I'd still have my reservations about the 'project' system - I've never said otherwise in my time here.  It's not my ideal solution at all.  But all I can do is hope that my instincts about Stander is right and that he has passionately bought in to the culture not simply of being an 'Irish' International player but more importantly, you see it even deeper in his attitude to Munster.  He has always had the talent to move to more lucrative European sides, so I hope and trust my instincts that, at the very least, he's doing it for glory.

That's all we can do - hope.

LordDowlais wrote:Well, the title explains it really, just for a bit of a debate, and no need to get all tetchy, after debating on here about players not born in the country they represent, I have done some re-search and come up with a list for all the 6N squads and who has players born outside their country. Now we can all debate about players who have lived in their country since they were a 1yr old and the what not, but I have included everybody so that I am not accused of bias ect. One thing that surprised me the most, is the way Scotland have taken advantage of the grandparent ruling. I was not aware of that many.

It does seem that each nation up here is as guilty as the next, but what I now want to debate is, the one's we would consider genuine, as I am not as educated in the history of other nations players, for example I was not aware that Josh van der Flier was 100% Irish until I was educated on the matter on this forum the other day. So this thread is an opportunity for us all to fight the case for the players in our nations squads, please see below for the players I have re-searched:-

England


D Hartley NZ Mother
J Clifford Aus Mother
T Harrison NZ Father
M Williams Zim Grandfather
N Hughes Fiji Residency
B Te'o NZ Mother
M Yarde St Lucia Residency

Ireland


F Bealham Aus Grandmother
U Dillane Fra Mother
CJ Stander SA Residency
J Heaslip Isreal Parents
K Marmion Eng Parents
L McGrath Can Parents

Scotland


A Allan Eng Grandfarther
S Berghan NZ Grandfarther
A Dell SA Grandmother
T Swinson Eng Grandmother
B Toolis Aus Mother
J Barclay HK Parents
J Hardie NZ Grandmother
R Harley Eng Parents
H Watson Eng Grandparents
C Du Preez SA Residency
J Strauss SA Residency
R Wilson Eng Grandfather
A Price Eng Mother
H Pyrgos Eng Mother
D Taylor Eng Parents
S Maitland NZ Grandparents
T Seymour  USA Mother
T Visser Hol Residency

Wales


T Francis Eng Grandmother
J Ball Eng Father
L Charteris Eng Parents
O Cracknell Eng Grandfather
T Faletau Tonga Residency
J King Aus Residency
J Davies Eng Parents
A Cuthbert Eng Mother
G North Eng Mother

France


U Atonio NZ Residency
N Nakaitaci Fiji Residency
V Vakatawa Fiji Residency
S Spedding SA Residency

Italy


D Chistolini SA Grandfather
O Gega Alb Residency
G Biagi Sco Parents
J Furno Aus Father
S Schalkwyk SA Residency
S Parisse Arg Parents
A Steyn SA Residency
L Mclean Aus Grandmother

So, can we/should we debate this ? I would like to, I would like to find out who people would consider genuinely qualified.

The interesting one for me is would I replace the 7 foreign-born English players with the x (didn't count, more than 7) English-born players playing for other countries. And I think the answer would have to be no. Even bearing in mind the fact that the 7 names listed don't include 2 Vunipolas and a Tuilagi.

And, I think this is the point. Apologies to the New Zealanders on here, but when people talk about an All Black born in Samoa or Fiji playing for New Zealand like it's a bad thing, the counter-argument is always that there are more kiwis playing in the islands. Which may be true, but the quality drains upwards, and the best players are being sucked to the best countries.

Look at England above, New Zealand are the best team in the world, then you've got a tier 2 including England, Australia and a few others. Some way below, you have your "small rugby nations", which would definitely include Fiji, Zimbabwe and St Lucia.

Now, looking at the players above, Hartley, Harrison and Te'o wouldn't be able to crack the New Zealand team. Hartley (England's captain) might make the bench, while Harrison and Te'o (England squad players) wouldn't make the squad.

Clifford, who is an England squad player, would probably be at the same level in Australia. However, Fiji, Zimbabwe and St Lucia would love players the quality of Hughes, Williams and Yarde respectively.

Without talking about the merits of the individuals above, I think this neatly shows that players are adjusting to their level at International rugby. Some go up and play for a nation better than their home country, while others go down and play for a nation worse than their home country.

The affect of this will be to keep the status quo in International rugby. A good player from a poor nation will need to move abroad to be a professional rugby player, and is more likely to play for his adopted nation because of the financial incentives. A poor player from a good nation is more likely to move abroad, as he finds his pathway closed. Therefore we are much more likely to stay in the current equilibrium.

I personally think as soon as you sign a professional contract which is registered with a union, you should declare your international allegiance to a country you already qualify for. If you're old enough to sign a professional contract, you're old enough to decide where you want to play internationally.

I'd also be wary of any attempts to allowed players to "drop" a tier to continue their international careers (e.g. saying someone like Mike Williams could play for Zimbabwe if he stood down from England for a year), as dual-qualified players would then be more likely to nominate the higher-ranked country in the first place.

Secretfly we are talking about players born outside their country of choice - Stander and Hughes are two obvious players.

I am trying to be impartial surprisingly - I've mentioned Hughes for England, Tomas Francis for Wales, now Stander for Ireland.


I am not mentioning CJ Stander as an attempt to bash Ireland. I mentioned Nathan Hughes to make it clear England aren't in a position to point the finger at any other nation. Even though occasionally it's nice to joke about the amount of English born players in other nations.

I just don't see much difference between Stander and Hughes yet Stander seems to be embraced by Irishmen. Am I wrong?

Nathan Hughes I am sure buys into the Wasps culture and maybe in time might do the same for England.

It's interesting that in both cases Hughes and Stander are good rugby players. CJ Stander in particular seems to have made more progress on the international scene.

Where does one draw the line? If Hughes and Stander weren't as good as they were I am sure they wouldn't be as desirable to get into the side. Or wouldn't be welcomed as much with open arms?

Stander now seems to be a firm starter in the Ireland team and is a potential Lion. Hughes looks to be first choice no 8 for England in the 6 nations, taking the position of another player born outside their country of choice.

Easier to overlook a player's shaky qualification... the better they are surely? Certainly for some fans anyway.

Stander and Hughes, although come under the same category, are different circumstances though, aren't they ?

I mean, the IRFU identified a player, and employed him, thus this project player rule the IRFU have, Hughes came to England on his own esteem, thus came seeking the ££££'s. Is that a fair summery ?

I will be more than happy to be corrected on this though.

LordDowlais wrote:Stander and Hughes, although come under the same category, are different circumstances though, aren't they ?

I mean, the IRFU identified a player, and employed him, thus this project player rule the IRFU have, Hughes came to England on his own esteem, thus came seeking the ££££'s. Is that a fair summery ?

I will be more than happy to be corrected on this though.

Oh my god

I would see it quite the other way around. Both Stander and Hughes are professional players looking to make a living. I don't think we should begrudge either of them travelling to overseas clubs to do that,if that's where the opportunity lies.

But I do find a union systematically targeting foreign born professional players to come over and play in their country with the express aim of putting them into their international team distasteful. It's very deliberately gaming the rules.

I'm not totally comfortable at the haste with which the RFU claimed Hughes once he was eligible, but they didn't as far as I know entice him over with that intent. It's a very different thing to take on an eligible player than to poach one for the purpose of making them eligible.

Imagine if England had a project player rule. This board would never shut up about it. But for Ireland it's either perfectly acceptable or the other fans have the good grace not to stir.

Poorfour wrote:

Imagine if England had a project player rule. This board would never shut up about it. But for Ireland it's either perfectly acceptable or the other fans have the good grace not to stir.

Yes, the Union in England never discuss rugby with the PRL, no long term mutual plans of engagement. Correct.

Now on to other news. I'm familiar with your name Poorfour, but you talk like a novice to this place. For it is known that anytime the topic of foreign born International player comes up, Ireland and the IRFU have always a pretty prominent role in such discussions (i.e. plenty of posters seem to know about the old 'Project' secret, and many of them let us know exactly what they think about it.)

So maybe your sensitivity to the issue is just clouding your memory and dragging you safely into the fairground of "We maybe do it a bit but not as much as you lot over there!"

Thanks for the reasoned response Poorfour. That is my take on it as well, although I do not think Ireland are alone in this, I think Scotland do it as well, Strauss and Nel spring to mind.

BamBam.

Would it hurt you to be at least a little constructive on here instead of constantly trolling ?

Just to confirm this thread is about talking about foreign born players and why you think specific cases are ok even good rather than point fingers right?

Fly, I honestly can't remember reading any threads criticising the project player rule, but I don't tend to read the Ireland-specific threads.

And if you think the RFU has any input into which NEQ players the clubs recruit, then I would say it's you who are talking like a novice. The clubs are independently owned and get the majority of their funding from their own media deals, ticket revenue and merch. The RFU and the clubs have spent a fair part of the professional era at each others' throats. They've reached an amicable position over EQPs through the magic of the EPS and of the RFU paying the clubs money (but not that much money) for improved access to those players.

If you've got any evidence that the RFU influences overseas recruitment by the English clubs, then do share. But without evidence it's a pretty laughable idea.

Poorfour wrote:Fly, I honestly can't remember reading any threads criticising the project player rule, but I don't tend to read the Ireland-specific threads.

And if you think the RFU has any input into which NEQ players the clubs recruit, then I would say it's you who are talking like a novice. The clubs are independently owned and get the majority of their funding from their own media deals, ticket revenue and merch. The RFU and the clubs have spent a fair part of the professional era at each others' throats. They've reached an amicable position over EQPs through the magic of the EPS and of the RFU paying the clubs money (but not that much money) for improved access to those players.

If you've got any evidence that the RFU influences overseas recruitment by the English clubs, then do share. But without evidence it's a pretty laughable idea.

There are lots of laughable ideas out there, Poorfour - not all of them need a court case to prove or disprove speculation.  So - I speculate that the RFU has pretty tight discussions on and off through a year with people responsible for PRL to discuss common issues, concerns, proposals etc etc - as you'd expect from a common sport code in the one Nation, with common goals and common links.

If you want to believe they hold no discussions, in person, over the phone, online etc etc then so be it - believe that.  I don't.


On the first point - there have been plenty of threads that have discussed the foreign player conundrum and in those threads Ireland and the IRFU policy has been mentioned often enough.  If someone else wants to agree with you that those threads have never existed then let them stand up and back you.  Nothing to do with Ireland specific threads... foreign International player threads.

SecretFly wrote:...So - I speculate that the RFU has pretty tight discussions on and off through a year with people responsible for PRL to discuss common issues, concerns, proposals etc etc - as you'd expect from a common sport code in the one Nation, with common goals and common links...

Sorry, Fly, if that's your way of saying that the RFU asks Premiership clubs to go out and recruit overseas players to get them residency-qualified for England, then I'll join Pourfour in calling the idea ridiculous.

Thanks, RF.

Given that the PRL members barely manage to co-ordinate with each other,the idea that they would willingly co-ordinate with the RFU without bags of cash being involved is implausible to say the least.

Once again, Fly. The PRL is not a unitary organisation, it's an affiliation of twelve alpha males who only co-operate because they have to have other teams to play against.They don't particularly care about national interest. They don't talk about who they want to recruit because they are often competing for the same players.

I'm not asking for "beyond reasonable doubt", but if you're going to chuck an idea that so obviously flies in the face of the parties' own interests around, you should at least be able to point to something factual that supports it.

I know that the UK Government and the President of the USA have made it quite en vogue to act on the basis of just making stuff up, but this is a messageboard, godsdamnit, and standards must be maintained.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

A Allan Eng Grandfarther
S Berghan NZ Grandfarther
A Dell SA Grandmother
T Swinson Eng Grandmother
B Toolis Aus Mother
J Barclay HK Parents
J Hardie NZ Grandmother
R Harley Eng Parents
H Watson Eng Grandparents
C Du Preez SA Residency
J Strauss SA Residency
R Wilson Eng Grandfather
A Price Eng Mother
H Pyrgos Eng Mother
D Taylor Eng Parents
S Maitland NZ Grandparents
T Seymour  USA Mother
T Visser Hol Residency

Wow Scotland would struggle without the grandparents rule!

And without Newcastle Falcons as our unofficial official training academy.

A quick and obviously controversial thought.

You know what. A rugby player is not responsible for where he was born.

lostinwales wrote:A quick and obviously controversial thought.

You know what. A rugby player is not responsible for where he was born.

Prove it!  

Edit: sorry couldn't resist! We're always asked to prove everything on here.

On the other thread on RFU residency I stated that there should be a five year qualification period and scrap the granny rule.
I have changed my mind, there should be a seven year period, scrap the granny rule and require all Test coaches to be passport holders of their employers rugby nation..
Either we have Test rugby or we don't.

Project player programmes are a cynical abuse. End of.

PI's travelling half way round the world to secure professional contracts is in large part because there is a closed shop in nz/oz where you have to be prepared to state their allegiance.

Nz/Oz were quite happy for French & English clubs to employ Argentines and then reap the subsequent benefits in their SH Championship. No doubt the same will eventually happen in the PI's, just taking longer given the current economic and political base.

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon the problem for some players is there isn't the same opportunities in other nations.

Look at Nathan Hughes situation. He could play for Fiji but he'd get paid peanuts in comparison to the potential earnings in England. Fiji struggle to fund their team.

To eventually get around this issue, there needs to be more done to help some of the poorer rugby nations.


Other players it's different of course.

From a players' perspective it's their way of increasing their earning power and playing international rugby on a more frequent basis.

Tomas Francis is different because if he became successful for England he would have likely earned more than playing for Wales but perhaps he thought getting into the Welsh side was an easier way of getting caps and playing international rugby.


For a player like Tim Visser, his opportunities in rugby were limited because of Netherlands not really having a good team.

So what??? He's playing for Wasps he's earning planet of money! He should play for Fiji! Its INTERNATIONAL rugby!

GeordieFalcon wrote:

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon the problem for some players is there isn't the same opportunities in other nations.

Look at Nathan Hughes situation. He could play for Fiji but he'd get paid peanuts in comparison to the potential earnings in England. Fiji struggle to fund their team.

To eventually get around this issue, there needs to be more done to help some of the poorer rugby nations.


Other players it's different of course.

From a players' perspective it's their way of increasing their earning power and playing international rugby on a more frequent basis.

Tomas Francis is different because if he became successful for England he would have likely earned more than playing for Wales but perhaps he thought getting into the Welsh side was an easier way of getting caps and playing international rugby.


For a player like Tim Visser, his opportunities in rugby were limited because of Netherlands not really having a good team.

So what??? He's playing for Wasps he's earning planet of money! He should play for Fiji! Its INTERNATIONAL rugby!

Fiji don't play in the 6 nations every year though. His opportunities to play international rugby are limited.

By the way I see your point but I am thinking from the player's perspective.

I'd rather have a player who isn't a project player but England clearly aren't the only side who does it.

As the rules are now, he's able to play for England.

LordDowlais wrote:Stander and Hughes, although come under the same category, are different circumstances though, aren't they ?

I mean, the IRFU identified a player, and employed him, thus this project player rule the IRFU have, Hughes came to England on his own esteem, thus came seeking the ££££'s. Is that a fair summery ?

I will be more than happy to be corrected on this though.

Yes and neither should play international ....but under the rules they're fair game. But if the 3-5 year change happened...they wouldn't.

beshocked wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon the problem for some players is there isn't the same opportunities in other nations.

Look at Nathan Hughes situation. He could play for Fiji but he'd get paid peanuts in comparison to the potential earnings in England. Fiji struggle to fund their team.

To eventually get around this issue, there needs to be more done to help some of the poorer rugby nations.


Other players it's different of course.

From a players' perspective it's their way of increasing their earning power and playing international rugby on a more frequent basis.

Tomas Francis is different because if he became successful for England he would have likely earned more than playing for Wales but perhaps he thought getting into the Welsh side was an easier way of getting caps and playing international rugby.


For a player like Tim Visser, his opportunities in rugby were limited because of Netherlands not really having a good team.

So what??? He's playing for Wasps he's earning planet of money! He should play for Fiji! Its INTERNATIONAL rugby!

Fiji don't play in the 6 nations every year though. His opportunities to play international rugby are limited.

By the way I see your point but I am thinking from the player's perspective.

I'd rather have a player who isn't a project player but England clearly aren't the only side who does it.

As the rules are now, he's able to play for England.

Ah I fully accept from a players point of view....its a short career possibly shorter with injury etc...and they need to make their money.

But I just don't want to see International Rugby as an international club game game with players from all nations just randomly representing others. It needs to be restricted.

But I agree with you...this can all be helped by World Rugby sorting out the mess that is the Pacific Islands Administration etc...

Scrap the Grandparent rule.
Increase Residency to 5 years.
Citizenship required for the relevant country.

LondonTiger wrote:Scrap the Grandparent rule.
Increase Residency to 5 years.
Citizenship required for the relevant country.

LT for world leader!!

And bring the same rules for coaches.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And bring the same rules for coaches.

I wouldn't have a problem with that 7.5

LondonTiger wrote:Scrap the Grandparent rule.
Increase Residency to 5 years.
Citizenship required for the relevant country.

Whilst I agree with this premise in general, I'm not sure I would totally scrap the grandparent rule.  I would be more inclined to amend it to 2 or more grandparents from the relevant country.  Reason being, the players parents may have been born in a different country, but they will likely have been brought up to identify themselves as the same nationality as their parents.  This will likely have a trickle down effect to the player.

Not sure if I've explained that very well, so as an example (from football sorry)

Aiden McGeady was born in Scotland, as were his parents, however his paternal grandparents were Irish.  His dad was brought up Irish despite not being born there, as that's what his parents were, McGeady in turn was brought up supporting Ireland etc because that's how he was brought up via his parents.

I'm not sure if that's any clearer.  Anyway, rather than scrapping it completely I would amend it to more than one grandparent, that way it's unlikely you'll get players playing for a nation because their granny happened to be born somewhere.

I get that EWT, and yes I agree that perhaps just amending is more appropriate than scrapping.

LondonTiger wrote:I get that EWT, and yes I agree that perhaps just amending is more appropriate than scrapping.

Grand. Agree with the rest of your post though.

Picking up a couple of points from earlier:

1 - The question of whether we are more forgiving of a player qualified by residence if they are top class?
I suspect most of us can manage a degree of hypocrisy on this. My hypothetical for England fans would be if Schalk Brits hadn't had his couple of Springbok caps, would you have wanted him in an England shirt ahead of Tom Youngs once his residence period was complete? I suspect most of us would have happily turned a blind eye to his nationality in that situation...

2 - Players not being responsible for where they are born.
Clearly this is true, but there is in my mind a sort of 'scale of moral eligibility' when it comes to players born outside the country they represent. Goes something like:
A - Clearly the right country, just odd places of birth. This would be the likes of Barclay and Heaslip
B - At least one parent and residence from childhood: Clifford
C - Immigrated as children and some or all rugby development in the country. Yarde, Faletau, Vunipola brothers, Tuillagi (and to be honest, I see this as very little different to B)
D - At least one parent and residence from young adult - Hartley
E - Residence from young adulthood (e.g. University student), with no particular rugby-based reason for moving. Mauritz Botha and Hendre Fourie I think fall into this group.
F - Both parents being from the country
G - One parent being from the country*

I'd like the eligibility line to be drawn here, and even then I'm not enamoured of G, as how much affinity do you have for a country just because one of your parents was born there? Of course, the Home Nations issues confuse things even further since there is no such thing as English, Welsh of Scotish nationality.

* My niece gives a good example of this - she was born and has been raised in Switzerland to an English father and German mother. She probably spends a couple of weeks a year in England, a couple in Germany and the rest in Switzerland. Obviously her first affinity is to Switzerland, but she could represent any of the three countries in a sport.

H - Residence after moving for a professional sports contract (noting the earlier comments about the disparity of opportunity between representing e.g. Fiji and England - something World Rugby need to address)
I - Grandparents.

To be honest, I think the grandparents rule is the worst. Take a typical rugby player of 25 years old, born to parents who were about 25 years old at his birth - if neither parent was born in the country of the grandparents, it means that the player has no familial connection for at least 50 years and potentially for 70 or so years...
In fact wasn't this the case with Waldrom - his grandmother had moved to NZ as a young child, and her children and grandchildren were born and raised there. No family connection with England for near-enough 3/4 of a century, yet it was enough for him to qualify for England without a residence period.

dummy_half wrote:
1 - The question of whether we are more forgiving of a player qualified by residence if they are top class?
I suspect most of us can manage a degree of hypocrisy on this. My hypothetical for England fans would be  if Schalk Brits hadn't had his couple of Springbok caps, would you have wanted him in an England shirt ahead of Tom Youngs once his residence period was complete? I suspect most of us would have happily turned a blind eye to his nationality in that situation...

Not necessarily , Nathan Hughes is a rampaging beast...but Even the England fans have met his selection with some uncertainty. Im sure it'll be forgotten a year or two down the line when he's smashing sides for fun...

But everything else makes sense