England want to tackle poaching of their academy products

First topic message reminder :

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.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Like who ruggerradge?

Huw Jones, perfect example, born in Scotland, spotted at an early age and signed on with Millfield in Somerset and developed as an Academy player for England. After finishing his schooling his parents moved to South Africa, where he was rediscovered by Scotland in one of their project player searches.

Mike Blair is another, spotted playing in Edinburgh and offered a lucrative spot at Durham University.

Adam Hastings is a recent example who again played with Millfield and was developed in the Bath Academy.

Those were the ones I found on a quick google search, there are almost certainly more....

Hamish Watson is a differant example, born in Manchester (2 scottish parents) worked his way through the English system Cheshire, Oakham finally to the Tigers academy, developed through the English system but always wanted to play for Scotland. Are the RFU seriously going to start telling players who have non English parents or grand parents that they can't play rugby in England at any age grade?

No they won't. Is the current compensation system fair and how do we find out without wr reviewing it?

Ultimately the question has to be asked 'why are the schools and club academies recruiting?'

It looks to me like there are several reasons, some of which lead to contrasting motives:

1 - For the best, to produce international class players for the RFU
2 - To develop good professional players at club level
3 - For the schools to get the best players into their rugby programs, which obviously have a certain inherent kudos.

Clearly, in terms of the RFU investment, their aim is to fulfil point 1 - developing players who will go on to play for England (or England 7s) as adults. To me, it seems fair that if a player has been developed with RFU money through the academy system that there should be fair and reasonable compensation should that player then represent another country (maybe with a cut-off of before the age of 25, so not just by residential qualifications). Of course, the vagaries of British 'nationalities' will always influence this, as there is free movement between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and birth places can be somewhat 'accidental' (pporfour's example).

At the other end, you have the schools, whose primary incentive is to get the strongest school-age team they can. Obviously this comes with inducements, as these tend to be public schools with a good academic standard (certainly better than the vast majority of non-selective schools anywhere in the UK). OK, the schools are ties into the RFU regions and through them into the club academy system - I assume that ultimately there is some of the RFU's money paid down through the club academies to the schools for player development.

The club-based academies actually have quite an interesting balancing act to achieve - they get RFU money to bring on international players, but if they are too successful it will actually undermine the playing strength of the club, and they need to be producing perhaps half a dozen players each year who can be relied on to be available for the club (i.e. good enough to play Premiership / European rugby but not to be always in the international setup). For these 'club pros' there isn't really any difference if they are English, Welsh, Outer Mongolian, and so it's not unreasonable to look outside the English player pool for these.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Like who ruggerradge?

Huw Jones, perfect example, born in Scotland, spotted at an early age and signed on with Millfield in Somerset and developed as an Academy player for England. After finishing his schooling his parents moved to South Africa, where he was rediscovered by Scotland in one of their project player searches.

"When Huw was just two years old, the Jones family moved down south and Junior attended Millfield College where he played in the same team as current England stars Jonathan Joseph and Mako Vunapola. But Jones was never part of the academy system, mostly on account of his stature, or rather his lack of it. He played at scrum-half well into his teens and was considered too small for the English youth teams in his chosen position at centre."

I don't think Jones had anything to do with English poaching reading this article RR. 2 years old is quite young to spotted!

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby-union/scotland/stormers-star-huw-jones-could-be-the-next-true-scottish-hero-1-4108641

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Like who ruggerradge?

Huw Jones, perfect example, born in Scotland, spotted at an early age and signed on with Millfield in Somerset and developed as an Academy player for England. After finishing his schooling his parents moved to South Africa, where he was rediscovered by Scotland in one of their project player searches.

"When Huw was just two years old, the Jones family moved down south and Junior attended Millfield College where he played in the same team as current England stars Jonathan Joseph and Mako Vunapola. But Jones was never part of the academy system, mostly on account of his stature, or rather his lack of it. He played at scrum-half well into his teens and was considered too small for the English youth teams in his chosen position at centre."

I don't think Jones had anything to do with English poaching reading this article RR. 2 years old is quite young to spotted!

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby-union/scotland/stormers-star-huw-jones-could-be-the-next-true-scottish-hero-1-4108641

Ok, leaving him aside, the article I saw made no mention of his age when he started playing at Millfield, what about the others? Blair, Hastings and the other case of Watson?

Hastings played U16/18/20 for Scotland and is Gavin Hastings son...hes not on England's radar, doubt he ever was. No idea why he was playing in England, perhaps his father wanted him at a certain school?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hastings played U16/18/20 for Scotland and is Gavin Hastings son...hes not on England's radar, doubt he ever was. No idea why he was playing in England, perhaps his father wanted him at a certain school?

No, the RFU controls all movement of people inside the UK.

I can't see an issue with Watson RR. Playing club rugby in England is different to through the English set-up.

Looking at this thread, it looks as though we can all give examples of this happening to all a of us. Well say us, our respective unions.

What is the answer ?
Are the compensation payments fair ?

My conclusion to all this is, all the unions are guilty, complaining to World Rugby will only end up doing one thing, and that is shooting the complainer in the foot. So, in my opinion, the RFU should keep schtum. Stop complaining, as all the unions seem as bad as each other where this is concerned.

Taking a slight detour on this, the Welsh Rugby Union has loads of bad press on many items, but on the subject of acadamies IMO, they have a far better system than especially the English, don't know too much about the other Nations, but the English will do for now.
Sam Davies son of Nigel HAD to play within the Ospreys academy because he was living east of the Loughor (river) even though Nigel played most if not all his club Rugby for Llanelli, which I presume his father would have preferred. The Lougher river is the border between Ospreylia and Scarlet territory, now very recently Cai Evans son of Lion and Welsh International Ieuan has also been assigned to the Ospreys Region, probably for the same reason. I don't know if there is an age at which these players can then move onto another Region, probably True Raven can enlighten us on this. Let me just say Leigh Halfpenny came through our system and was not offered either a development or full contract with us and he was snapped up by the Blues (let me just add the person who let Leigh through the net at the Ospreys was sacked not very long after).
There is a very detailed map, with all the clubs assigned to a particular Region and the map follows the extremities of each Region, this is in order to stop any one Region being able to snap any and everybody if they have the resources to do so. There have been MANY instances that I've read over the years on here, when Leicester have been slated for trawling basically all over England and as I've not really bothered with looking, probably all over the UK (if I'm wrong I'll apologise right now).
Why England with far and away the vast majority of Rugby players in the UK and vastly more money than any of the other Nations need to scout these other countries is beyond me.

As far as I know it's similar in England. Each club has an area they can recruit in up to a certain age.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:As far as I know it's similar in England. Each club has an area they can recruit in up to a certain age.

This was being discussed on another thread, iirc on the clubs section and relating to Wasps relocation. My recollection is that the professional clubs and their academies are tied to the RFU's existing county structures (with some sub-division as necessary), and their recruitment (at least initially) is restricted to players within the assigned counties. The one thing to complicate this is the presence of certain rugby stronghold schools (Millfield for one) that can recruit from further afield and then are within the catchment of one of the club academies (Millfield being aligned with Bath)

Radge, clubs and private schools are not part of the RFU, nor controlled by them. I have tried to set out some of the complexity as fairly as I can above. You could try reading it. Lord Dowlais found it quite helpful.

Wales, England and Ireland all employ a regional breakdown given each team a catchment area.
Lichfield for example is the Leicester catchment area
I would be interested in seeing an English map if someone has it

geoff999rugby wrote:Wales, England and Ireland all employ a regional breakdown given each team a catchment area.
Lichfield for example is the Leicester catchment area
I would be interested in seeing an English map if someone has it

I was considering this very question a while back and I came up with this by looking at what the clubs themselves say and the activities they do in the counties.

Newcastle: Durham, Northumberland & Cumbria
Sale: Lancashire & Cheshire
Yorkshire Carnegie: Yorkshire (really?!?)
Leicester: Leicestershire,Staffordshire, Nottinghamshire Lincolnshire & Derbyshire, Eastern Counties (Specifically Norfolk)
Northampton: Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Suffolk
Worcester: Worcestershire & entire west midlands region
Gloucester:  Gloucestershire, Shorpshire & Herefordshire
Bath: Somerset & Wiltshire
Exeter: Devon, Cornwall & Hampshire
London Irish: Berkshire, Middlesex Oxfordshire(?)
Harlequins: Surrey, Sussex & Kent
Saracens: Hertfordshire & Essex
Bristol: The city itself, South Gloucestershire & parts of North Somerset

Wasps: Haven't got a clue. Used to be Middlesex & Buckinghamshire, trying to horn in on Worcester territory now I guess?

Not saying you're wrong, but I know of a couple of Kent lads who ended up with Saracens

Great effort getting that together though!

Cheers. Yeah, I think there are exceptions/ overlaps and players go of to University and such like, nothing set in stone.

Sorry but this all seems a load of ****. I was born in Manchester and have lived in Yorkshire, Cumbria, Northumberland, Essex, Bedfordshire and Greater London. I have family in South Africa and Australia. Who am I allowed to play for? Both my parents were English born, but I had Irish grand parents, so presumably qualify for Ireland. In todays world trying to fix people to one country is unrealistic. Likewise trying to tie down teenagers to a country is not going to happen. Players will ultimately play for the country they feel aligned too, or where they get a second chance if they are not chosen for their 'home' country.

Ian McGeechan is as English as Sir Clive Woodward but a proud Scots man and always was - which I totally accept. Nathan Hughes is not English and is playing here for the money and the glory. Does that make him any 'less' than Sir Ian? Personally for me yes and I don't think I agree with that. But I don't see how you stop the Nathan Hughes's without stopping the George Norths, Dan Lydiates.

“If I'd been any good at rugby, I could have had three nations offering to take me on, and probably Ireland offering a "project player" deal for good measure. “

What’s a project player deal?

I assume you're annoyed that you feel the project player is more targeting lack of talent for clubs rather than country.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/ireland-gear-up-for-life-without-project-players-as-residency-period-is-extended-449848.html

Te

nlpnlp wrote:Sorry but this all seems a load of ****.  I was born in Manchester and have lived in Yorkshire, Cumbria, Northumberland, Essex, Bedfordshire and Greater London.  I have family in South Africa and Australia.  Who am I allowed to play for?  Both my parents were English born, but I had Irish grand parents, so presumably qualify for Ireland.  In todays world trying to fix people to one country is unrealistic.  Likewise trying to tie down teenagers to a country is not going to happen.  Players will ultimately play for the country they feel aligned too, or where they get a second chance if they are not chosen for their 'home' country.  

Ian McGeechan is as English as Sir Clive Woodward but a proud Scots man and always was - which I totally accept.  Nathan Hughes is not English and is playing here for the money and the glory.  Does that make him any 'less' than Sir Ian?  Personally for me yes and I don't think I agree with that.  But I don't see how you stop the Nathan Hughes's without stopping the George Norths, Dan Lydiates.

Actually, it would be quite easy with the examples you give above. You just make the rules age related, e.g. If someone moved to a country as a child and grew up and played all of their rugby in a country then fine; if you move over as a pro then it's not fine (to represent a country other than the one you were born in). Not saying that's what I'd like to see, just saying how you could stop the one (Hughes) without stopping the other (Lydiate and North - 4 and 2 respectively when they moved). They also differ due to parentage too as those two Wales players have Welsh parents while Hughes does not have English (I think).

Griff wrote:Te

nlpnlp wrote:Sorry but this all seems a load of ****.  I was born in Manchester and have lived in Yorkshire, Cumbria, Northumberland, Essex, Bedfordshire and Greater London.  I have family in South Africa and Australia.  Who am I allowed to play for?  Both my parents were English born, but I had Irish grand parents, so presumably qualify for Ireland.  In todays world trying to fix people to one country is unrealistic.  Likewise trying to tie down teenagers to a country is not going to happen.  Players will ultimately play for the country they feel aligned too, or where they get a second chance if they are not chosen for their 'home' country.  

Ian McGeechan is as English as Sir Clive Woodward but a proud Scots man and always was - which I totally accept.  Nathan Hughes is not English and is playing here for the money and the glory.  Does that make him any 'less' than Sir Ian?  Personally for me yes and I don't think I agree with that.  But I don't see how you stop the Nathan Hughes's without stopping the George Norths, Dan Lydiates.

Actually, it would be quite easy with the examples you give above. You just make the rules age related, e.g. If someone moved to a country as a child and grew up and played all of their rugby in a country then fine; if you move over as a pro then it's not fine (to represent a country other than the one you were born in). Not saying that's what I'd like to see, just saying how you could stop the one (Hughes) without stopping the other (Lydiate and North - 4 and 2 respectively when they moved). They also differ due to parentage too as those two Wales players have Welsh parents while Hughes does not have English (I think).

Both North and Lydiate have English dads and Welsh mums. Both realistically had a choice.

In all honesty we do get worked up about all this (and it seems like a good excuse to have a go at other nations) but the number of 'questionable' players is in fact very low.

It's a bit like the drop goal debate. Lots of people get upset about them but in practice they only decide a fraction of games.

Not sure if you're implying that I'm worked up, lostinwales? But if so, I'm honestly not! Just making a point that, in my opinion, there is a difference between someone like Hughes and someone like North. And if there is a difference then we (world rugby perhaps) have the opportunity to treat them differently in terms of policy, etc. I think the examples given are worlds apart, actually!

Griff wrote:Not sure if you're implying that I'm worked up, lostinwales? But if so, I'm honestly not! Just making a point that, in my opinion, there is a difference between someone like Hughes and someone like North. And if there is a difference then we (world rugby perhaps) have the opportunity to treat them differently in terms of policy, etc. I think the examples given are worlds apart, actually!

You are not, and I hope I was not implying that. Its just something that gets the usual suspects very excited.

Part of me just wants to see the best players playing rugby at the highest level. Despite the usual rivalry personally I really don't mind players in the England junior system following whichever route they want, given the standard rules on eligability, although I can understand that the RFU has good reasons to at least bring the matter up every once in a while. I also don't mind time served players. I know there are debates about how long that time should be, but given the likely length of career in a very physical sport even 3 years is a significant proportion of that career.

Nationality in the UK is a complicated business at the best of times.

Yeah the UK nationality thing is a very complicated beast. I sort of agree about wanting to see the best players playing at the top level, but I'm also conscious that without strict rules the best players will just gravitate to the highest paying countries. Fine at club level as I see that as no different than any other work/employment scenario. But at international level you'd want that not to be based on the highest payer. And unfortunately the 3 year residency thing leads to a blurring of the lines between club/business/employment-based rugby and representative rugby. Even if the motives of the clubs are pure, by bidding highest and bringing players over for 3 years they are skewing the distribution of players towards the 'haves' and away from the 'have nots'. It's a tricky one.

It's a shame George North was taken from England.

TightHEAD wrote:It's a shame George North was taken from England.

I agree. Bundled into the back of a Ford Mondeo in his child seat and driven to Anglesey. They should make a film.

Griff wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:It's a shame George North was taken from England.

I agree. Bundled into the back of a Ford Mondeo in his child seat and driven to Anglesey. They should make a film.

They did. It's called The Master

No 7&1/2 wrote:I assume you're annoyed that you feel the project player is more targeting lack of talent for clubs rather than country.  

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/ireland-gear-up-for-life-without-project-players-as-residency-period-is-extended-449848.html

No Im not annoyed, 7.5. I’m just puzzled by the ‘deal’ word.  What’s the implied deal?   You could be considered for national selection if you come to play with us?  You mean unlike Scotland, Canada, France, NZ, England, Italy, Wales, etc?  

It’s not a unique incentive or enticement that you could offer a player since it’s the same in other countries too.

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I assume you're annoyed that you feel the project player is more targeting lack of talent for clubs rather than country.  

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/ireland-gear-up-for-life-without-project-players-as-residency-period-is-extended-449848.html

No Im not annoyed, 7.5. I’m just puzzled by the ‘deal’ word.  What’s the implied deal?   You could be considered for national selection if you come to play with us?  You mean unlike Scotland, Canada, France, NZ, England, Italy, Wales, etc?  

It’s not a unique incentive or enticement that you could offer a player since it’s the same in other countries too.

I think the difference, whether real or perceived by fans/posters, might be down to the ownership and running of the clubs. While I'm sure there are examples of the RFU influencing a club's decision to employ a player so he can qualify for England in the future (same for France, Scotland, Wales and their unions too), generally a player is brought over in England just to play for the club and his qualification for the national side after a few years is a side effect and happy coincidence. With the IRFU ownership of the provinces I think there's always going to be more accusations of incentive and enticement (the project player thing) compared to other countries as in Ireland it's a bit more 'direct', if that makes sense. It is the IRFU bringing them over (or with their permission), while in other countries it is a private club. Not a criticism, but perhaps an explanation of why it is sometimes called out more when Ireland do it. As always, I could be wrong though!

Griff wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I assume you're annoyed that you feel the project player is more targeting lack of talent for clubs rather than country.  

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/ireland-gear-up-for-life-without-project-players-as-residency-period-is-extended-449848.html

No Im not annoyed, 7.5. I’m just puzzled by the ‘deal’ word.  What’s the implied deal?   You could be considered for national selection if you come to play with us?  You mean unlike Scotland, Canada, France, NZ, England, Italy, Wales, etc?  

It’s not a unique incentive or enticement that you could offer a player since it’s the same in other countries too.

I think the difference, whether real or perceived by fans/posters, might be down to the ownership and running of the clubs. While I'm sure there are examples of the RFU influencing a club's decision to employ a player so he can qualify for England in the future (same for France, Scotland, Wales and their unions too), generally a player is brought over in England just to play for the club and his qualification for the national side after a few years is a side effect and happy coincidence. With the IRFU ownership of the provinces I think there's always going to be more accusations of incentive and enticement (the project player thing) compared to other countries as in Ireland it's a bit more 'direct', if that makes sense. It is the IRFU bringing them over (or with their permission), while in other countries it is a private club. Not a criticism, but perhaps an explanation of why it is sometimes called out more when Ireland do it. As always, I could be wrong though!

You’re very accurate Griff in the involvement of the IRFU in decisions to bring in foreign players. And not always to the benefit of the province who may want to bring in a player (capped or not) that the IRFU are not convinced is good business eg ‘we don’t need another backrower/prop/whatever, go develop or use domestic players instead’ to paraphrase David Nucifora, IRFU High Performance Director, in recent interviews.

The guidelines are 4 capped plus 1 uncapped player who could qualify - the quotas apply to Munster, Leinster and Ulster. Given the recent policy shift to finding and monitoring IQ talent instead, it’s possibly on the wane. Gibson Park is Leinster’s nominated project player, but James Lowe who’ll arrive in next week after finishing with Tasman in the ITM Cup is also uncapped. His contract will finish at end May 2020 but he wouldn’t be 3 years until November 2020. He’d be turning 29 for the 6N in 2021. 31 for RWC 2023. Too old for a contract renewal?

I think the term 'project player' doesn't help either! Sounds so planned, so orchestrated, so......well, project-like I guess. Even in other countries where they have a plan in mind to get a player over and get him 3 years residency, they don't call it a project! You lot are too honest!

These tug of wars are going to become very common between Wales and England, currently 22% of the Welsh population is English born, while by 2070 there will be more English people in Wales, than Welsh people if current trends continue. Thats off the latest ONS report into the Welsh population. Wales is the no 1 retirement area for English people due to cheaper house prices.
Take Tom Shanklin and Moriarty as example, both fathers played for Wales, one moved to London Welsh the other to Rugby League, their sons were born in England and went through the English system.
England has money and young professional players will move there, and probably settle down with an English girl and the child will have duel nationality. It's a fact of life in professional sport, especially since many countries have a rugby team, but so few have a professional league to employ them.

Griff wrote:I think the term 'project player' doesn't help either! Sounds so planned, so orchestrated, so......well, project-like I guess. Even in other countries where they have a plan in mind to get a player over and get him 3 years residency, they don't call it a project! You lot are too honest!

Lol. Possibly. Although the phrase actually comes from a IRFU policy document - Player Succession Strategy - which was actually about restricting the contracting of foreign players in the provinces. Unintended consequences and all that.

The the analysis by Hautahi Kingi, which I've finally got round to reading, is very good and well worth a few minutes of your time- thanks to whoever posted it. Rugby Wanderers

What it shows is that while no country (apart from perhaps Argentina) is above taking in players who weren't born there, some countries are more sinned against than sinning and vice versa.

There's a graph at the bottom entitled "the Trade Balance" that summarises it all. Basically, the RC Nations and England are net providers of players born in their parish, and the other 6N countries are net takers of players. New Zealand are especially generous, and Scotland the biggest importers.

It's not a perfect analysis as it only looks at players born outside the country they eventually play for, so it over-represents players whose parents were working abroad when they were born but who were raised and play for a country that both they and their parents would regard as home. And by the same logic I think it's a little disingenuous in respect of the Pacific Islands diaspora to NZ - there's a sense in which these are also children born while their parents are working abroad, only in this case they grew to adulthood in NZ and their ancestral island loses their rugby talent as a byproduct. But that's a specific societal issue, and one that might need a different solution.

Other than that, it's a good analysis and the data is presented at the bottom so you can do your own digging.

Poorfour wrote:The the analysis by Hautahi Kingi, which I've finally got round to reading, is very good and well worth a few minutes of your time- thanks to whoever posted it. Rugby Wanderers

That would be me, and your thanks is very much appreciated.

Poorfour wrote:The the analysis by Hautahi Kingi, which I've finally got round to reading, is very good and well worth a few minutes of your time- thanks to whoever posted it. Rugby Wanderers

What it shows is that while no country (apart from perhaps Argentina) is above taking in players who weren't born there, some countries are more sinned against than sinning and vice versa.

There's a graph at the bottom entitled "the Trade Balance" that summarises it all. Basically, the RC Nations and England are net providers of players born in their parish, and the other 6N countries are net takers of players. New Zealand are especially generous, and Scotland the biggest importers.

It's not a perfect analysis as it only looks at players born outside the country they eventually play for, so it over-represents players whose parents were working abroad when they were born but who were raised and play for a country that both they and their parents would regard as home. And by the same logic I think it's a little disingenuous in respect of the Pacific Islands diaspora to NZ - there's a sense in which these are also children born while their parents are working abroad, only in this case they grew to adulthood in NZ and their ancestral island loses their rugby talent as a byproduct. But that's a specific societal issue, and one that might need a different solution.

Other than that, it's a good analysis and the data is presented at the bottom so you can do your own digging.

Useful link. Although some of the early birthplaces from 1880 are a bit wrong eg County Antrim, Fiji caught my eye on a few occasions!!

The point about the PI diaspora to NZ is a fair one, although you could equally claim the same about Ireland and the UK constituent countries as well.

Pot Hale wrote:
The point about the PI diaspora to NZ is a fair one, although you could equally claim the same about Ireland and the UK constituent countries as well.

The difference being that, pre-professionalism we had London Scottish, London Irish and London Welsh to handle the diaspora and it wasn't an issue. I support the efforts reinvigorate that.

Perhaps the Pacific Islands should establish Auckland Tongan or Canterbury Samoan clubs...

Poorfour wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:
The point about the PI diaspora to NZ is a fair one, although you could equally claim the same about Ireland and the UK constituent countries as well.

The difference being that, pre-professionalism we had London Scottish, London Irish and London Welsh to handle the diaspora and it wasn't an issue. I support the efforts reinvigorate that.

Perhaps the Pacific Islands should establish Auckland Tongan or Canterbury Samoan clubs...

Maybe. The Exiles programmes continue to do that I think. The IQ Rugby, SQ Rugby programmes are just an overlay on top of those.