Solomona declares allegiance to England

Sale star Denny Solomona has declared that he wants to represent England after he completed his 3 years of residency.

This doesn't sit well with me, just months after saying

“But my heart’s not here, it’s not for England. I play in Super League but my heart is for New Zealand and Samoa and that’s who I’ll be representing if they ask. I’d love to represent Samoa while my grandparents are alive, it would mean a lot to do that, but it would be good if New Zealand came calling. I would be open to any option.”

Not an England bashing thread, but it's one of the strongest examples of why the residency, and cross code representation needs looking at ASAP.

Ultimately the question will come down to whether he's a better winger than May, Yarde, Daly, Nowell, Wade or whoever else is in the reckoning. On current evidence, he has every chance.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Ultimately the question will come down to whether he's a better winger than May, Yarde, Daly, Nowell, Wade or whoever else is in the reckoning. On current evidence, he has every chance.

It will, but it really shouldn't!

Bring in the 5 year residency as quick as possible please.

Getting fed up with this whole malarkey now.

England have hired another mercenary. If this was about proving himself, he’d have come back to NZ and tried out in Super Rugby to make the All Blacks. Maybe he probably ruled that out by thinking he wasn’t going to be better than the players we already have…..he doesn’t do anything other wingers in NZ/Aus can’t do. Certainly not in the NRL either.

Good luck to him. Can’t wait for November 2018 when England face up to NZ’s haka with their own one….there’s enough of them now!

GeordieFalcon wrote:Bring in the 5 year residency as quick as possible please.

Getting fed up with this whole malarkey now.

In reference to the OP, what difference will that make?

He could be here for 4 years and 11 months and still say "my hearts not here" and then a month later declare his intentions to play for England.

I'm not convinced 3->5 makes much difference to players who came over here to earn a living week in week out and hen later declare ambitions to play test rugby. It probably will reduce the number of players that are overseas and brought test specifically to play test rugby though. Which is probably a good thing.

The last point doesn't happen for England anyway. And the wider point of players changing their minds will always occur when players have a choice. I'm trying to remember who made a point of asking the players on significant g their first pro contract who they want to represent, that then tying them to that team.

Is Solomona not qualified already?

Is the qualifying window when they are registered to play union or when they have lived in the country?

If its the latter then he could have played in the 6Ns

Qualified March 9th apparently marty

chewed_mintie wrote:England have hired another mercenary.

 

But they haven't. He was already playing here of his own accord.

chewed_mintie wrote:If this was about proving himself

But it isn't. He wants to play union and hes over here doing it because he can earn a better living here than NZ. If he's over here doing that (and that rules him out of playing test rugby for NZ) then why wouldn't he also want a stab at test rugby. It also means more money.

I think your beef is with "project" players. Players who were deemed surplus to requirements by their own union and were brought across by a different union with the specific intention of playing test rugby. I'm not convinced Solomona fits that description.

chris_501 wrote:

Not an England bashing thread

It will be

cascough wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:England have hired another mercenary.

 

But they haven't. He was already playing here of his own accord.

chewed_mintie wrote:If this was about proving himself

But it isn't. He wants to play union and hes over here doing it because he can earn a better living here than NZ. If he's over here doing that (and that rules him out of playing test rugby for NZ) then why wouldn't he also want a stab at test rugby. It also means more money.

I think your beef is with "project" players. Players who were deemed surplus to requirements by their own union and were brought across by a different union with the specific intention of playing test rugby. I'm not convinced Solomona fits that description.

Well he wasn't earning a better living in Rugby League, which is what he came to the UK for - Super League pays peanuts compared to NRL.

Within 12 months he's gone from saying it's NZ/Samoa in his heart and no allegiance to England to "SHOW ME THE MOOONNNNEEEEEYYYYY!!!!!"

Yet you do not consider him a mercenary?

Still, I look forward to that haka.....

cascough wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Bring in the 5 year residency as quick as possible please.

Getting fed up with this whole malarkey now.

In reference to the OP, what difference will that make?

He could be here for 4 years and 11 months and still say "my hearts not here" and then a month later declare his intentions to play for England.

I'm not convinced 3->5 makes much difference to players who came over here to earn a living week in week out and hen later declare ambitions to play test rugby. It probably will reduce the number of players that are overseas and brought test specifically to play test rugby though. Which is probably a good thing.

Because it will stop others just coming in from any old country. 2 additional years will make a big difference I think.

Someone like Hughes would hopefully choose Fiji or Samoa (his home nations) if he had to do 5 years. I have already conceded that Solomona will be chosen.

So you'd be happy to cap him even though he nailed his flag to Samoa? Serious question though I appreciate you're trying to wum.

cascough wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:England have hired another mercenary.

 

But they haven't. He was already playing here of his own accord.

chewed_mintie wrote:If this was about proving himself

But it isn't. He wants to play union and hes over here doing it because he can earn a better living here than NZ. If he's over here doing that (and that rules him out of playing test rugby for NZ) then why wouldn't he also want a stab at test rugby. It also means more money.

I think your beef is with "project" players. Players who were deemed surplus to requirements by their own union and were brought across by a different union with the specific intention of playing test rugby. I'm not convinced Solomona fits that description.

Indeed. There could be more gripes about a player like Burgess where Lancaster (or his minion) tried to convince the RFU to help bank roll his move to Bath with the specific intent on getting him in an England shirt. That he was English didnt make him any less of a mercenary (or unimitiagted disaster).

This is a case of a player chosing to walk out on his contract to play for Sale, and making himslef available to England as a Union player. Its not like the All Blacks are losing out here despite all the faux outrage from the trollfans, theres no way they wouldve touched him whilst hes playing in Europe. Samoa could feel ahrd done by, but this is very much a case of the player making a mercenary choice rather than the Union courting him.

Although the RFU have said that they consider him eligable theres only been pres speculation that he could get selected so far. I personaly hope Jones looks at the issues similar call ups (or worse the project players) have had in the past. Not only have most of the players failed to make the step up its also unsetteled the squad. Its also not like England are short of quality wingers, its one of the areas Jones identitifed as a strength.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you'd be happy to cap him even though he nailed his flag to Samoa? Serious question though I appreciate you're trying to wum.

Bear in mind England had Barritt, Flutey and Stevens in a side together not long ago, who had all played Union for another country. Admitedly not many people cheered them in that period but tahts more to do with the results being rubbish.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

cascough wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Bring in the 5 year residency as quick as possible please.

Getting fed up with this whole malarkey now.

In reference to the OP, what difference will that make?

He could be here for 4 years and 11 months and still say "my hearts not here" and then a month later declare his intentions to play for England.

I'm not convinced 3->5 makes much difference to players who came over here to earn a living week in week out and hen later declare ambitions to play test rugby. It probably will reduce the number of players that are overseas and brought test specifically to play test rugby though. Which is probably a good thing.

Because it will stop others just coming in from any old country. 2 additional years will make a big difference I think.

Someone like Hughes would hopefully choose Fiji or Samoa (his home nations) if he had to do 5 years. I have already conceded that Solomona will be chosen.

The original post was about Solomona initially and then went on to say "this is one of the strongest examples of why the residency should be looked at"

Changing the period to 5 years wouldn't make any difference to Solomona since he is over here playing rugby anyway. Therefore I reject that this is a strong example of why the rule needs to be changed to 5 years.

If you're talking about a wider point, then I agree the 5 years would be a positive move, but personally I can only see it reducing the number of project players, which certainly in England's case isn't very many.

As for your Hughes example, there's every chance he would still pick England anyway as it's been reported in the past that clubs will put pressure on players that they will pay them less/reduce the length of their contract if they choose to represent a nation that results in the player being away from the club without the club receiving compensation. That's not a pretty situation or one I'm a fan of, but it exists and I'm not sure increasing the residency period would do much to change that.

Sorry it was directed at chewed who wanted him to represent nz. Barritt and Stevens didn't represent full sides either.

chris_501 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Ultimately the question will come down to whether he's a better winger than May, Yarde, Daly, Nowell, Wade or whoever else is in the reckoning. On current evidence, he has every chance.

It will, but it really shouldn't!

I know, but in these days of Brexit and IndyRef2 I thought I'd throw in a little bit of reality.

cascough wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

cascough wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Bring in the 5 year residency as quick as possible please.

Getting fed up with this whole malarkey now.

In reference to the OP, what difference will that make?

He could be here for 4 years and 11 months and still say "my hearts not here" and then a month later declare his intentions to play for England.

I'm not convinced 3->5 makes much difference to players who came over here to earn a living week in week out and hen later declare ambitions to play test rugby. It probably will reduce the number of players that are overseas and brought test specifically to play test rugby though. Which is probably a good thing.

Because it will stop others just coming in from any old country. 2 additional years will make a big difference I think.

Someone like Hughes would hopefully choose Fiji or Samoa (his home nations) if he had to do 5 years. I have already conceded that Solomona will be chosen.

The original post was about Solomona initially and then went on to say "this is one of the strongest examples of why the residency should be looked at"

Changing the period to 5 years wouldn't make any difference to Solomona since he is over here playing rugby anyway. Therefore I reject that this is a strong example of why the rule needs to be changed to 5 years.

If you're talking about a wider point, then I agree the 5 years would be a positive move, but personally I can only see it reducing the number of project players, which certainly in England's case isn't very many.

As for your Hughes example, there's every chance he would still pick England anyway as it's been reported in the past that clubs will put pressure on players that they will pay them less/reduce the length of their contract if they choose to represent a nation that results in the player being away from the club without the club receiving compensation. That's not a pretty situation or one I'm a fan of, but it exists and I'm not sure increasing the residency period would do much to change that.

I was referring to the wider discussion...you even quoted what I said its a given that Solomona will be picked!

I meant it needs to be stopped now...!

And I do think Hughes would have had thoughts if it was 5 years.

cascough wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

cascough wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Bring in the 5 year residency as quick as possible please.

Getting fed up with this whole malarkey now.

In reference to the OP, what difference will that make?

He could be here for 4 years and 11 months and still say "my hearts not here" and then a month later declare his intentions to play for England.

I'm not convinced 3->5 makes much difference to players who came over here to earn a living week in week out and hen later declare ambitions to play test rugby. It probably will reduce the number of players that are overseas and brought test specifically to play test rugby though. Which is probably a good thing.

Because it will stop others just coming in from any old country. 2 additional years will make a big difference I think.

Someone like Hughes would hopefully choose Fiji or Samoa (his home nations) if he had to do 5 years. I have already conceded that Solomona will be chosen.

The original post was about Solomona initially and then went on to say "this is one of the strongest examples of why the residency should be looked at"

Changing the period to 5 years wouldn't make any difference to Solomona since he is over here playing rugby anyway. Therefore I reject that this is a strong example of why the rule needs to be changed to 5 years.

If you're talking about a wider point, then I agree the 5 years would be a positive move, but personally I can only see it reducing the number of project players, which certainly in England's case isn't very many.

As for your Hughes example, there's every chance he would still pick England anyway as it's been reported in the past that clubs will put pressure on players that they will pay them less/reduce the length of their contract if they choose to represent a nation that results in the player being away from the club without the club receiving compensation. That's not a pretty situation or one I'm a fan of, but it exists and I'm not sure increasing the residency period would do much to change that.

The RFU openly dropped the concept of project players after the last few fiascos.

Guys like Hughes and Solomona .. yes it might not have stopped them getting picke dup eventually but it doe smake them less attaractive and less lower the potential benefits of moving "just for the money"...Premiership clubs gain financialy by employing EQPs and those playing international rugby attract higher team and persoanl sponsorship. It would also give countries like Somaoan a longer window to keep offering them caps. Its the All Blacks choice to not cap players who are based here.

So yeah its not going to stop players moving for the money, nor would banning resicidency qualification altogether. Nor would it stop "no test" contract bonuses as some T14 have.
It is a step toward mitigating it and reducing the worst aspects of true project players though.

Scrapping residency altoether isnt on the table and is fraught with issues for all levels of test rugby, although France have taken a bold unilateral move to go with just passport holders.

Gooseberry wrote:

cascough wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

cascough wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Bring in the 5 year residency as quick as possible please.

Getting fed up with this whole malarkey now.

In reference to the OP, what difference will that make?

He could be here for 4 years and 11 months and still say "my hearts not here" and then a month later declare his intentions to play for England.

I'm not convinced 3->5 makes much difference to players who came over here to earn a living week in week out and hen later declare ambitions to play test rugby. It probably will reduce the number of players that are overseas and brought test specifically to play test rugby though. Which is probably a good thing.

Because it will stop others just coming in from any old country. 2 additional years will make a big difference I think.

Someone like Hughes would hopefully choose Fiji or Samoa (his home nations) if he had to do 5 years. I have already conceded that Solomona will be chosen.

The original post was about Solomona initially and then went on to say "this is one of the strongest examples of why the residency should be looked at"

Changing the period to 5 years wouldn't make any difference to Solomona since he is over here playing rugby anyway. Therefore I reject that this is a strong example of why the rule needs to be changed to 5 years.

If you're talking about a wider point, then I agree the 5 years would be a positive move, but personally I can only see it reducing the number of project players, which certainly in England's case isn't very many.

As for your Hughes example, there's every chance he would still pick England anyway as it's been reported in the past that clubs will put pressure on players that they will pay them less/reduce the length of their contract if they choose to represent a nation that results in the player being away from the club without the club receiving compensation. That's not a pretty situation or one I'm a fan of, but it exists and I'm not sure increasing the residency period would do much to change that.

The RFU openly dropped the concept of project players after the last few fiascos.

Guys like Hughes and Solomona .. yes it might not have stopped them getting picke dup eventually but it doe smake them less attaractive and less lower the potential benefits of moving "just for the money"...Premiership clubs gain financialy by employing EQPs and those playing international rugby attract higher team and persoanl sponsorship. It would also give countries like Somaoan a longer window to keep offering them caps. Its the All Blacks choice to not cap players who are based here.

So yeah its not going to stop players moving for the money, nor would banning resicidency qualification altogether. Nor would it stop "no test" contract bonuses as some T14 have.
It is a step toward mitigating it and reducing the worst aspects of true project players though.

Scrapping residency altoether isnt on the table and is fraught with issues for all levels of test rugby, although France have taken a bold unilateral move to go with just passport holders.

It isn't just T14 clubs. Premiership clubs have been accused of it too, particularly in reference to the length of contract offers tabled. As I've said, for that reason I think the only players it will reduce are the project players. Also I don't think being a Fiji international will represent much in the way of extra sponsorship/money. If it's purely money then Hughes would still be far better off to wait out 5 years.

Just to clarify, I'm totally in favour of a 5 year period, I just don't think it will make a lot of difference. RE the French idea. I quite like it. Take the discussion away from sport. If you're a citizen, you can represent that country.

cascough wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

cascough wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

cascough wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Bring in the 5 year residency as quick as possible please.

Getting fed up with this whole malarkey now.

In reference to the OP, what difference will that make?

He could be here for 4 years and 11 months and still say "my hearts not here" and then a month later declare his intentions to play for England.

I'm not convinced 3->5 makes much difference to players who came over here to earn a living week in week out and hen later declare ambitions to play test rugby. It probably will reduce the number of players that are overseas and brought test specifically to play test rugby though. Which is probably a good thing.

Because it will stop others just coming in from any old country. 2 additional years will make a big difference I think.

Someone like Hughes would hopefully choose Fiji or Samoa (his home nations) if he had to do 5 years. I have already conceded that Solomona will be chosen.

The original post was about Solomona initially and then went on to say "this is one of the strongest examples of why the residency should be looked at"

Changing the period to 5 years wouldn't make any difference to Solomona since he is over here playing rugby anyway. Therefore I reject that this is a strong example of why the rule needs to be changed to 5 years.

If you're talking about a wider point, then I agree the 5 years would be a positive move, but personally I can only see it reducing the number of project players, which certainly in England's case isn't very many.

As for your Hughes example, there's every chance he would still pick England anyway as it's been reported in the past that clubs will put pressure on players that they will pay them less/reduce the length of their contract if they choose to represent a nation that results in the player being away from the club without the club receiving compensation. That's not a pretty situation or one I'm a fan of, but it exists and I'm not sure increasing the residency period would do much to change that.

The RFU openly dropped the concept of project players after the last few fiascos.

Guys like Hughes and Solomona .. yes it might not have stopped them getting picke dup eventually but it doe smake them less attaractive and less lower the potential benefits of moving "just for the money"...Premiership clubs gain financialy by employing EQPs and those playing international rugby attract higher team and persoanl sponsorship. It would also give countries like Somaoan a longer window to keep offering them caps. Its the All Blacks choice to not cap players who are based here.

So yeah its not going to stop players moving for the money, nor would banning resicidency qualification altogether. Nor would it stop "no test" contract bonuses as some T14 have.
It is a step toward mitigating it and reducing the worst aspects of true project players though.

Scrapping residency altoether isnt on the table and is fraught with issues for all levels of test rugby, although France have taken a bold unilateral move to go with just passport holders.

It isn't just T14 clubs. Premiership clubs have been accused of it too, particularly in reference to the length of contract offers tabled. As I've said, for that reason I think the only players it will reduce are the project players. Also I don't think being a Fiji international will represent much in the way of extra sponsorship/money. If it's purely money then Hughes would still be far better off to wait out 5 years.

Just to clarify, I'm totally in favour of a 5 year period, I just don't think it will make a lot of difference. RE the French idea. I quite like it. Take the discussion away from sport. If you're a citizen, you can represent that country.

The issue there is that some countries allow citizzenship based on a period of residency. Others for colelcting tokens on cornflakes.

Haha! Fair point and nicely put.

To England! His allegiance declares Solomona,
will Jones call him on the telephona?
His services required in Argentina perhaps,
one of the new influx of England caps.
To replace some Lions tourists Jones will need,
some steady hands to guide feed.
Feed information and impart with knowlegde
Solomona to England, his loyalties pledge.
Residency rules again called into focus,
he's not really English though, just by 3 years at locus.
The controversy will rumble on,
until the daft rules are erased and gone.

In the wake of Brexit, Indyref2, Trump in the whitehouse and silly lions debates I'm posting in poetry for today to cheer myself up so apologies...

cascough wrote:
Just to clarify, I'm totally in favour of a 5 year period, I just don't think it will make a lot of difference. RE the French idea. I quite like it. Take the discussion away from sport. If you're a citizen, you can represent that country.

How is that in anyway a good idea? Different countries have different criteria for citizenship

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sorry it was directed at chewed who wanted him to represent nz. Barritt and Stevens didn't represent full sides either.

7 1/2 - I was just using NZ as an example as Solomona is a NZer, not Samoan or English.  For a NZer, testing your ability would be seeing if you can make the AB's.  Playing for another country, not to take away from another country, is usually about settling for any sort of international rugby (Payne, Waldrom, Flutey, Maitland etc, etc).  I'm sure others would view this from their side?

My actual gripe, taking into account NZ's stance over players not playing in NZ (which I fully support) is that Samoa whom Solomona qualifies for through ancestry miss out on a potential world class player.  It is well documented that before he ended his Castleford stint he was waiting for a callup from NZ first, Samoa second and most definitely not England.  What has changed?  We all know what his motivation is.....

I just feel like it should not be a choice for him and others like him.  An adult man made an adult decision to move to another country to which his only link is for financial benefit, therefore he should be restricted to a choice of country by birth or childhood residency.  I've been here 15 years, married to a Brit, kids born here.  Have been eligible for citizenship since 2012 but I haven't and won't because I'm not British at all.  Even my kids don't identify themselves as British.

How about this:

Born in or parents born in country - no qualification period
Moved before the age of 15 - no qualification period
Moved between 15 - 18 - 3 years residency (for those offered school scholarships)
Moved between 18 - 21 - 5 years residency

After that, there's only one motivation to move to a country you have no (or little) attachment to.

So you would be happy should he choose nz in the end after representing samoa.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you would be happy should he choose nz in the end after representing samoa.

In Rugby League?  A sport which allows dual nationality players to switch countries before World Cups to keep teams competitive.  It's been done countless times and will continue to do so.

It's still as if after all this time people still don't understand the significantly close links NZ has to Pacific Island countries.

To answer your question; yes.  Would he make it though?  He's not better than any of our wingers and his try-scoring tricks and feats that NH viewers are fawning over are the norm across Aus and NZ, particularly League.

For what it's worth, England don't even need him with their wing stocks.  It's a greater tragedy when you consider Rokoduguni probably won't gain many more caps for England but would have earned a hatful for Fiji.

chewed_mintie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you would be happy should he choose nz in the end after representing samoa.

t's still as if after all this time people still don't understand the significantly close links NZ has to Pacific Island countries.

That also applies to the UK too, we might be worlds apart but someone like Rokoduguni only ever wanted to play for England and I do think NZ in general try to be holier than thou on these things because they're closer to them.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you would be happy should he choose nz in the end after representing samoa.

t's still as if after all this time people still don't understand the significantly close links NZ has to Pacific Island countries.

That also applies to the UK too, we might be worlds apart but someone like Rokoduguni only ever wanted to play for England and I do think NZ in general try to be holier than thou on these things because they're closer to them.

No, I understand and appreciate Roko - he put his life on the line for Britain and quite rightly deserves the opportunity to play for England. I was using him as an example of someone who would have gained potentially 5-10 x more caps playing for Fiji.

Yet you do not consider him a mercenary?

He wants a bit of glory and a bit more money - is that not the same as all of us?

How many non-UK residents come to Britain because they can get more money and a better chance of advancement here than they can get in their home land?

At least this geezer is saying he wants to align himself with the country that he's living in and who is paying his wages, instead of taking the money, living here for years and bleating on about being from somewhere else.

Of course I might be wrong and the non-UK nationals on this board who live in the UK and like to comment on 'mercenaries' are all embassy staff for their appropriate countries...


Wouldn't pick him myself mind you

TrailApe wrote:

Yet you do not consider him a mercenary?

He wants a bit of glory and a bit more money - is that not the same as all of us?

How many non-UK residents come to Britain because they can get more money and a better chance of advancement here than they can get in their home land?

At least this geezer is saying he wants to align himself with the country that he's living in and who is paying his wages, instead of taking the money, living here for years and bleating on about being from somewhere else.

Of course I might be wrong and the non-UK nationals on this board who live in the UK like to comment on 'mercenaries' are all embassy staff for their appropriate countries...


Wouldn't pick him myself mind you

Whatever you assume of my entitlement to live here, I made that decision and I pay into your system - a system that I choose not to take from thanks as I feel it would actually be an insult to take a passport because I will never feel British.  Funny thing is, I am eligible for citizenship through my grandfather, not the length of time I have lived here.  

But if you guys are happy to hand out passports to whoever, then that's an entirely different debate...

Never thought I would be questioned for paying my own way in this country and not taking the easy route to all the benefits on offer.....

Whatever you assume of my entitlement to live here, I made that decision and I pay into your system - a system that I choose not to take from thanks as I feel it would actually be an insult to take a passport because I will never feel British

Yet you feel you have the right to judge others for making a different choice?

marty2086 wrote:

cascough wrote:
Just to clarify, I'm totally in favour of a 5 year period, I just don't think it will make a lot of difference. RE the French idea. I quite like it. Take the discussion away from sport. If you're a citizen, you can represent that country.

How is that in anyway a good idea? Different countries have different criteria for citizenship

Did you just not bother to read the 2 posts after that?

And he's quite happy for Solomona to choose his second choice as long as it's nz.

TrailApe wrote:

Whatever you assume of my entitlement to live here, I made that decision and I pay into your system - a system that I choose not to take from thanks as I feel it would actually be an insult to take a passport because I will never feel British

Yet you feel you have the right to judge others for making a different choice?

I thought we were debating - didn't realise I had judged him

My view, for clarity, is that it is a shame that he won't be turning out for Samoa. I don't think England need to pick him either. I just want to see stronger competition from as many countries as possible.

chewed_mintie wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

Yet you do not consider him a mercenary?

He wants a bit of glory and a bit more money - is that not the same as all of us?

How many non-UK residents come to Britain because they can get more money and a better chance of advancement here than they can get in their home land?

At least this geezer is saying he wants to align himself with the country that he's living in and who is paying his wages, instead of taking the money, living here for years and bleating on about being from somewhere else.

Of course I might be wrong and the non-UK nationals on this board who live in the UK like to comment on 'mercenaries' are all embassy staff for their appropriate countries...


Wouldn't pick him myself mind you

Whatever you assume of my entitlement to live here, I made that decision and I pay into your system - a system that I choose not to take from thanks as I feel it would actually be an insult to take a passport because I will never feel British.  Funny thing is, I am eligible for citizenship through my grandfather, not the length of time I have lived here.  

But if you guys are happy to hand out passports to whoever, then that's an entirely different debate...

Never thought I would be questioned for paying my own way in this country and not taking the easy route to all the benefits on offer.....

We arent happy to hand them out to "whoever". Theres a long list of eligability requirements beyond just having lived here for a bit. Its not even a garaunteed right of a UK national to get one. Citizenship in the UK is harder to get than it is for many other countries. Solomona for example would have to wait another 2 years to even apply ...and if he got selected for all the tours and visit his family a bit could well fall foul of the restrictions of being abroad to much during the period.

Whereas to get capped all you have to do is play rugby better than Christian Wade and play for a Jeff club.

So yeah maybe its a bit odd we are happy to select people to represent the Union that we wouldnt allow to become citizens (I think Manu Tuillagis assault conviction and immigration offence stop him from getting it if he wanted it) but thats hardly unique and works both ways.

cascough wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

cascough wrote:
Just to clarify, I'm totally in favour of a 5 year period, I just don't think it will make a lot of difference. RE the French idea. I quite like it. Take the discussion away from sport. If you're a citizen, you can represent that country.

How is that in anyway a good idea? Different countries have different criteria for citizenship

Did you just not bother to read the 2 posts after that?

I didn't but better that than not actually thinking

marty2086 wrote:

cascough wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

cascough wrote:
Just to clarify, I'm totally in favour of a 5 year period, I just don't think it will make a lot of difference. RE the French idea. I quite like it. Take the discussion away from sport. If you're a citizen, you can represent that country.

How is that in anyway a good idea? Different countries have different criteria for citizenship

Did you just not bother to read the 2 posts after that?

I didn't but better that than not actually thinking

Nice save.

I thought we were debating - didn't realise I had judged him

No?

England have hired another mercenary. If this was about proving himself, he’d have come back to NZ and tried out in Super Rugby to make the All Blacks

That seems to me to be a bit dismissive of the blokes aspirations, is that not a judgement?

Any opinion is a judgement.

I'm with Geordie - five years has to come in. These players are being tossed and turned by agents and coaches and Nations that are hell bent on making International nothing more than a world Club game.

When 5 years residency rule comes in the IRFU will be touring SA schools for their next project

Like the French in the Polynesian schools Trev...

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:When 5 years residency rule comes in the IRFU will be touring SA schools for their next project

Yep, the grand tour - and of course England will already have their exotic selection already in English kindergartens... coz they is poorish over in them foreign places and love coming to England for the education and experience of a new cultcha!

Let's play....

Just because he was born in NZ and played for Samoa in rugby league. and as done 3 years residency does not mean he will walk in to the England rugby team/squad/


Eddie Jones will wan't to make sure that he proves himself ( plays better )  than any other winger that England all ready have.

majesticimperialman wrote:Just because he was born in NZ and played for Samoa in rugby league. and as done 3 years residency does not mean he will walk in to the England rugby team/squad/

...

Though given past precedents it's the way to bet

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:Just because he was born in NZ and played for Samoa in rugby league. and as done 3 years residency does not mean he will walk in to the England rugby team/squad/

...

Though given past precedents it's the way to bet

Are you suggesting he'll jog in rather than walk?

Looking forward to seeing how he gets on. Good luck to the chap

i dont get it

England are just doing what they bitched and moaned at NZ for years about, whats the problem?

Pro rugby is a business. Its not about being born in the country you play for its about how much wedgeola you can stuff up your shirt while you can. NZ have been importing their stars for ages and we all knew it, now England are just doing the same thing in their bid to become No 1. They broke their rule about foreign coaches and now they're bringing in Mercs and badging them with the Red Rose, everyone's a winner especially the game and 'England' right