England want to tackle poaching of their academy products

Well this is interesting, England want world rugby to do something about the Celtic nations "poaching" their young talent. It's not as if England have not had it both ways though, with players like Ben Morgan and Sam Underhill being two that were forged in Wales before crossing back over the Severn:-

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/england-want-to-tackle-poaching-of-their-academy-products-cbvrbvj5h

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/england-ask-world-rugby-help-13796209

When I was reading this I had a lot of sympathy for England in this respect, but when I did a little digging I found some quite interesting articles, yes the RFU want to stop other countries taking players that they develop, but England are not as squeaky clean as they like to think they are:-

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/89379984/england-revealed-as-the-home-of-the-poacher

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/may/10/rugby-residency-rules-changed-pacific-island-exodus

After reading this, I have had a thought, that the fallout could be that a rugby player would have to declare their international intentions at a very young age.

Looking at one of those articles, Scotland would be at an instant disadvantage, I do not think this would be fair on any player, to have to nail his patriotism to the mast before you are at an age to make a responsible decision, yet that is a path we might have to go down if the RFU get their way.

It's down to academy players so both morgan and underhill came through the English system.

Seeing as it's such an inflammatory word in rugby circles I'd say it's always best to say what you mean by poaching as well. The nz herald article points the finger but we're england guilty of poaching or have those players moved for their careers to clubs wth no involvement from the rfu at all?

Sam Underhill "forged in Wales".........he was part of the Gloucester academy and captain of the England U18 side, he just played a few years in Wales.

Morgan was never part of any Welsh national outfit either, he just happened to play for a Welsh side, he's English.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Sam Underhill "forged in Wales".........he was part of the Gloucester academy and captain of the England U18 side, he just played a few years in Wales.

Morgan was never part of any Welsh national outfit either, he just happened to play for a Welsh side, he's English.

Ben Morgan was a teenager playing for my local side before he ended up at Scarlets.

Came through at Dursley. http://www.gloucesterrugby.co.uk/rugby/matchcentre/squads_gloucester_first_xv.php?player=95100&includeref=dynamic
And never once qualified to play for wales.

But it's a good topic of conversation. Check facts be clear in language and what you mean and people won't keep correcting you.

Scarlets received sizeable compensation from Gloucester, as did Ospreys for Underhill from Bath.

That is what the RFU are trying to achieve - rather than forcing players to choose a nationality at a young age as surmised in the OP.

The SRU chose to end a deal with London Scottish, and instead have appointed 3 employees to scout the academy system in England for qualified players. For them it is sensible to save money and let a different Union pay the development costs for a player - but is asking for fair recompense really disadvantaging them?

So both Underhill & Morgan were "forged" in England before moving to Wales....to then return to England.

I think you need some better examples LD.

Mat Protheroe:-

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/why-chose-play-england-welsh-13553859

I have just come across this as well, Scotland are really taking the p!ss:-

http://hautahi.com/rugbywanderers

Protheroe is a decent example, though taken at a much earlier age than Scotland are looking at doing (16?). The way his development has stalled he will probably be released at the end of this season anyway.

Yes better example of him being dropped from the Welsh under age side and moving to the English academy system. Hence my plea of what poach actual means. LT seems to have got to the crux very quickly. It's just compensation for development. Makes sense.

The compensation for the development seems to be £5000 per year they were developed.

LordDowlais wrote:Mat Protheroe:-

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/why-chose-play-england-welsh-13553859

Protheroe works in this example, well done LD!

You're more than welcome to take him back if you like.

Sort of funny that a thread about England being concerned about other nations poaching talent they are developing turns out to be about England poaching Welsh talent.

lostinwales wrote:Sort of funny that a thread about England being concerned about other nations poaching talent they are developing turns out to be about England poaching Welsh talent.

When did this happen ?

LordDowlais wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Sort of funny that a thread about England being concerned about other nations poaching talent they are developing turns out to be about England poaching Welsh talent.

When did this happen ?

Post 1, sentence 2.

How's it any different to what the RFU did with Sam Burgess? Developed by Bradford and the RFL then poached by the RFU

I can understand why this theme has widened to various examples of individual players. Surely however the brazen employment by Unions of ex players to systematically go through English clubs to find players who are eligible is opportunistic at best and cynical by most reasoned analysis.

As there has been a concentration of elite players into a small number of sides by these Unions, one can see the attraction for young players as your chances of international recognition go up significantly.

Ultimately it is down to the individual and should remain so and the RFU are in a dead end street on this one.

As an aside Burgess enquired about opportunities in Union - not the other way round.

Recwatcher16 wrote:I can understand why this theme has widened to various examples of individual players. Surely however the brazen employment by Unions of ex players to systematically go through English clubs to find players who are eligible is opportunistic at best and cynical by most reasoned analysis.

As there has been a concentration of elite players into a small number of sides by these Unions, one can see the attraction for young players as your chances of international recognition go up significantly.

Ultimately it is down to the individual and should remain so and the RFU are in a dead end street on this one.

As an aside Burgess enquired about opportunities in Union - not the other way round.

They are. But it is something that will naturally come up from time to time and any comment about it will lead to easy headlines in rags such as that referenced by the OP.

My mention of Burgess wasn't specifically about being scouted but because the RFU helped facilitate the signing of a player who they hadn't developed. Were there not overtures made by the RFU prior to his move to Australia as well?

There are employees within all unions who do it, SRU just seem to be more overt about it. Clubs do it too and usually through agents and it all feeds back

Rfu weren't involved in Burgess coming over from league but that is a more tangled Web. Look at solomona who can retire then join union. Not sure what happened in that but league were chasing comp.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Rfu weren't involved in Burgess coming over from league but that is a more tangled Web. Look at solomona who can retire then join union. Not sure what happened in that but league were chasing comp.

The RFU were offering him to clubs and were willing to pay the release on his contract, so other than that yes they weren't involved

Link please as I was under the impression they didn't pay anything and it was all bath.

Pretty sure Bath paid the release in the end but the RFU in trying to get Burgess in were willing to foot the bill, there are quotes out there from Bruce Craig regarding it

Bath owner Bruce Craig claimed last week that the RFU had driven the move to bring Burgess to the 15-a-side game ahead of the 2015 World Cup and had offered to pay the transfer fee before offering him to a number of clubs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10642946/Sam-Burgess-joins-Bath-from-South-Sydney-Rabbitohs-in-500000-deal.html

Of course it It was all Bath, which is why he played his club games at 6 even though England wanted him developed as a centre. However, don't let that get in the way of your English man being poached by England narrative.

RFU could have nothing to do with Burgess, imagine the uproar from the other AP clubs.

I've no idea how that RL chump has made it onto this thread.

Ta marty. Hadn't seen Craigs comments. Overall though in this case whether with help from the rfu or not the compensation or transfer fee was paid so the development part of it was kind of met though not to the club who actually developed him!

Think all bets are off when players are changing. Sports tbf.

As it happens I don't really have a problem with 'poaching' (especially if it is a parent rather than grandparent).  If a player doesn't want to represent England then I don't want him to play for us.  If he 'feels' more Scottish, Welsh or Irish etc then that is his personal choice and there is nothing to be said about it.  I feel Scotland in particular would struggle to compete if they were not allowed to pick SQP who were born abroad too.

At the same time I can understand why the clubs/ academies would be frustrated because they spend a lot of time and money developing players and lose the benefits when one of the other nations come calling.  There are times in the past when I have seen people criticise EQP numbers at clubs like Saracens when they have players like Chris Wyles and Duncan Taylor and think 'that's a bit cheeky'.

I think people like Protheroe and Moriarty are different though, the English age grade pathways are superior to the Welsh ones and they wanted to take advantage of that.  I don't believe either were ever serious about representing England and were simply taking up spaces that could have gone players who wanted to represent England.

Cumbrian wrote:Of course it It was all Bath, which is why he played his club games at 6 even though England wanted him developed as a centre. However, don't let that get in the way of your English man being poached by England narrative.

Not my narrative, its the one presented by Bath themselves so not sure why your knickers are in a twist over it.

The Times article refers to Ross Moriarty who is a Welshman who happened to be born in England and came through the English age grade system, the complaint being he switched to Wales and hadn't come through their system. Burgess didn't come through the RFUs system and they were proactive in bringing him into the senior setup, so the comparison is an adequate one.

You can't complain about other unions poaching players you have developed when you are happy to do it to others even though it's another sport.

Also Burgess started out at centre for Bath but they decided he was better suited to 6, just because the RFU facilitated it doesn't mean they called the shots

But surely the point of the cross coders is that money is paid as was the case with burgess. And again it really comes down to what poaching is defined as.

There's no mystery about the Burgess situation. He put out feelers to England, and Lancaster was enthusiastic. The RFU was willing to help him get what he wanted - finance was never a constraint on Lancaster with a home World Cup looming. However, it quickly became apparent that the Premiership clubs were opposed to anyone receiving a subsidy for a player. The RFU was never going to risk its relationship with the clubs, because the EPS deal needed to be renegotiated. Instead, it boiled down to whether any individual club would stump up. Bath did.

A similar thing happened with Corbisiero. He approached Lancaster with the idea of signing some kind of central contract, so he could limit the number of games he would play each season. Again, Lancaster was enthusiastic, but the RFU couldn't accomodate him without ripping up the club and country deal.

In short, the RFU don't approach players. They can, of course, approach coaches, and have shown themselves willing to terminate contracts early, as well as buy out exising contracts to recruit.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But surely the point of the cross coders is that money is paid as was the case with burgess.

That was because he was in contract and it's why Denny Solomonas case is going to court because parties involved there tried to get around it. Burgess probably wouldn't have left without the money being paid because of the personal circumstances so came down to how badly Bath and the RFU wanted him

Not the same though is it? In Burgess you've got an English born and raised player playing for England. In other so called poaching cases you can have players who have never even been to the countries that they are representing. That is also one example, in Scotland's case they have a whole system in place in England to find people who have ever even eaten shortbread!

As I said though, I don't really have a problem with it. I simply have sympathy with the clubs position.

Where did I say I had a problem with Moriarty representing Wales? I responding to the criticism that England poached 'Moriarty', where in fact I believe England helped Wales by helping to develop him for them.

Have you read the rfu s complaint and request marty? It's kind of the point ie money being paid for developing. Across 2 sports this kind of agreement could never happen but compensation is paid. In general. The solomona case is someone taking the mick.

marty2086 wrote:so came down to how badly Bath and the RFU wanted him

As I wrote above, Lancaster wanted him, but the RFU couldn't provide finance, so the only question that ever mattered was whether a club wanted him badly enough to pay.

Cumbrian wrote:Not the same though is it?  In Burgess you've got an English born and raised player playing for England.  In other so called poaching cases you can have players who have never even been to the countries that they are representing.  That is also one example, in Scotland's case they have a whole system in place in England to find people who have ever even eaten shortbread!  

Except it is the same, he wasn't developed by the RFU, like Moriarty wasn't developed by the WRU. Just because Bradford and RFL happen to be in England doesn't mean it's because of the location

Kieran Marmion was developed by the IRFU in England through the Exiles program, as where Finlay Bealham and Dan Tuohy and Rhys Ruddock in Wales was the same but the unions there can't claim they developed them

Just looking back to that protheroe case. Under the current rules wales would have to pay england as development is 17 to 23 years of age and he moved at 16. Meaning that the poaching here would be wales on England. To me even though he was dropped from the wales setup it's a bit harsh on their early years development that England could pick him without any financial acknowledgement the other way. I think there's room for wr to review the rules in general.

There would.be no way for an agreement for the rfu to pay Bradford because he played for England though marty as 1 they are different sports and 2 by playing for England he doesn't prevent himself for playing for England.

marty2086 wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:Not the same though is it?  In Burgess you've got an English born and raised player playing for England.  In other so called poaching cases you can have players who have never even been to the countries that they are representing.  That is also one example, in Scotland's case they have a whole system in place in England to find people who have ever even eaten shortbread!  

Except it is the same, he wasn't developed by the RFU, like Moriarty wasn't developed by the WRU. Just because Bradford and RFL happen to be in England doesn't mean it's because of the location

Kieran Marmion was developed by the IRFU in England through the Exiles program, as where Finlay Bealham and Dan Tuohy and Rhys Ruddock in Wales was the same but the unions there can't claim they developed them

I fundamentally disagree with you, but we're not going to agree and we are going to keep butting heads over it. There are more constructive debates to be had.

Burgess had already being "poached" to play in the ARL so it's not the same at all. Burgess is not a good example as firstly he's English and secondly he's from another sport. How did the English RL develop him to play union??? His development if you can it that, was done at Bath if anything.

There's a big difference between the different scenarios where someone ends up playing for a country that isn't their country of birth. For instance:

1) Someone who was born while their parents were overseas for work reasons, but whose parents came from the country they ended up playing for (e.g. Matt Kvesic, born in Germany when his father was posted there with the Armed Forces. And also, IIRC, Sam Warburton and George North)

2) Someone with mixed ancestry who was born in one country but grew up in another and ended up playing for the second (e.g. Alex Corbisiero, born in the US and has both US and UK ancestry but grew up in the UK)

3) Someone whose parents emigrated to a country when they were a child (e.g. the Vunipolas, Taulupe Faletau, Manu Tuilagi)

4) Someone who played their first professional rugby in one country but opted to play international rugby for a country they were already qualified for (e.g. Ben Morgan, Sam Underhill)

5) Someone who came to a country as a teenager and grew up at least partly in the rugby system there (e.g. Dylan Hartley)

6) Someone who came to a country as an adult for other reasons and qualified to play for a country via residency or similar (e.g. Semesa Rokoduguni - qualified through military service, Mike Catt - qualified through parent)

7) Someone who came to a country as an adult to play rugby and qualified through residency (e.g. Nathan Hughes)

8) Someone who was specifically targeted by a union to come and play rugby and qualified through residency (e.g. take your pick of project players)

9) Someone who played league for one country but swaps codes and plays union for another.

10) Someone who grew up in one country's development system and then opted or were targeted by a union to play for a different country (e.g. Moriarty)

Most people on these boards who aren't trolling are comfortable with 1-5. There's sometimes debate about 6, though in Rokoduguni's case it tends towards "if he's prepared to fight for a country, he should be allowed to play for it", and I've never seen anyone argue that Mike Catt shouldn't have played for England (except on grounds of ability).

7, 8, 9 and 10 are the really debatable ones. There's not that much difference between 7 & 8 - one is an individual working the residency rules, the other is a union doing it. 9 is slightly different, and you can argue the case either way; Maurie Fa'asavalu played League for GB because no-one would give him a professional union contract until Quins did, but was always a proud Samoan. But other players seem more like they are trying it on.

10 is what the RFU is trying to stop, and I have some sympathy for them. Moriarty was clearly never interested in playing for England, from what he's said since, but made the most of the English age grade system. I don't think that's particularly fair, but it's hard to stop, so some form of compensation system seems reasonable.

And to go all the way back to the top, the Stuff article is almost hilariously unbalanced given the players they didn't name - but probably would have included Kvesic, Corbisiero and possibly Jack Clifford, none of whom can be classified as "poached" by any sensible definition - and it goes back to 2004, which is still the early days of full professionalism. 2012 would be a more sensible cut-off, as it marks the point at which the 2003 generation were shuffled into retirement and the bulk of most countries' squads were coming through their youth develoment systems.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Have you read the rfu s complaint and request marty? It's kind of the point ie money being paid for developing. Across 2 sports this kind of agreement could never happen but compensation is paid. In general.  The solomona case is someone taking the mick.

The money was paid to the Rabbitohs though for his contract not for developing him which was done at Bradford, it would be the same within union.

Maybe Solomona would be a better comparison then since the RFU were happy to call him up without money being paid

My point though is that the RFU are happy when it benefits them but not so happy when it goes against them, just like the NZRU when it comes to poaching players and pretty much every union who do the same.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Burgess had already being "poached" to play in the ARL so it's not the same at all. Burgess is not a good example as firstly he's English and secondly he's from another sport. How did the English RL develop him to play union??? His development if you can it that, was done at Bath if anything.

Moriarty was already Welsh, it didn't stop him being used as an example and just because someone already poached him doesn't change the circumstances. He was no longer playing RL for England when he moved to union so had an impact on one of the organisations who had developed him

"10 is what the RFU is trying to stop, and I have some sympathy for them. Moriarty was clearly never interested in playing for England, from what he's said since, but made the most of the English age grade system. I don't think that's particularly fair, but it's hard to stop, so some form of compensation system seems reasonable.'

Simple solution......make the U20 England's 2nd team, get rid of the Saxons. Ties players in and it's not like the Saxons have much use anyway.

Marty what rule could.possibly be brought in to cover the burgess situation? The only thing which could be applied would be for the ruling body in league to insist on some of the money paid going back to Bradford. It's nowt t do with anyone outside of that sport.

marty2086 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Burgess had already being "poached" to play in the ARL so it's not the same at all. Burgess is not a good example as firstly he's English and secondly he's from another sport. How did the English RL develop him to play union??? His development if you can it that, was done at Bath if anything.

Moriarty was already Welsh, it didn't stop him being used as an example and just because someone already poached him doesn't change the circumstances. He was no longer playing RL for England when he moved to union so had an impact on one of the organisations who had developed him

He was developed by Bradford (and other RL clubs) though....once he moved to Aus he couldn't play for them anymore. The English RL side has little to do with it really. This is such a pointless deabte. Solomana I have more sympathy to his RL side though, they were done over by he player and Sale......not the RFU.

You missed the point in the moriarty example of once he's played for wales england s development has been for nothing marty. Burgess is back in league and is available to play for England again as anything he did in union matters not a jot there.

Poorfour wrote:Most people on these boards who aren't trolling are comfortable with 1-5.

Yep, I would agree with that as well.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:"10 is what the RFU is trying to stop, and I have some sympathy for them. Moriarty was clearly never interested in playing for England, from what he's said since, but made the most of the English age grade system. I don't think that's particularly fair, but it's hard to stop, so some form of compensation system seems reasonable.'

Simple solution......make the U20 England's 2nd team, get rid of the Saxons. Ties players in and it's not like the Saxons have much use anyway.

Then unions target the younger age groups, it's what the French are doing in the Pacific Islands to get around the new residency rules though how Laportes directives will affect it remains to be seen