The Rugby Championship

First topic message reminder :

It starts again tomorrow. As ever the interest will wane quickly if the ABs resume their usual dismantling of all opposition. They look extremely strong with Retallick and Whitelock back in harness. Their strength in depth at 10 is frightening. The Aussies do have Pocock back, but hard to look beyond another comfortable AB win.

Argentina away in SA will be interesting I think. SA look like they are improving and Argentina play some good rugby - one to watch I think.

Hoping that somebody pushes the ABs and an Aussie win tomorrow would be the perfect tonic for the tournament, however unlikely that is.

ebop wrote:There you go again, being ignorant. Auckland has the largest population of Pacific Islanders in the world. Instead of being ignorant why don’t you listen and educate yourself.

What has that got to do with anything? I think you need to educate yourself. NZ does less for Pacific Island rugby than NH sides who play them much more often despite NZ being much closer and regularly benefitting for the proximity to island nations.

If NZ rugby really game a toss about island nations rather than taking their best young talent by way of scholarships NZ rugby would make more of an effort in helping them achieve sustainable ways of retaining their own talent or at least contribute to their rugby heritage by playing them every so often. NZ rugby doesn't play island nations because there is no money in it for them, fact.

eirebilly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I have to say, I agree with ebop on this. All the home nations are guilty. I hate it when we cap players after 3 years residency, it stinks.

It really does feel that if these players were good enough, then they would be playing for the country of their birth, not their adopted country.

I have no problem with already capped player coming north to earn a living, but when we are signing "project" players, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for me.

Have to agree with you here LordDowlais, it really does annoy me when project players are snapped up and it does take away opportunities for home grown players to get a chance. Sometimes I do wonder how much home grown talent has been missed due to these signings, talent that could have been developed if given the chance. I also do not understand how players can play for a country that they are not from, I am fiercely patriotic and could not imagine representing any other country than Ireland.

Yes, that isand has always been the bone of contention for me, representing the country of your birth is a dream for all rugby players, or so I thought, apparently you dream of being a springbok until you arent going to be one, then you dream of playing for another.

Biltong wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I have to say, I agree with ebop on this. All the home nations are guilty. I hate it when we cap players after 3 years residency, it stinks.

It really does feel that if these players were good enough, then they would be playing for the country of their birth, not their adopted country.

I have no problem with already capped player coming north to earn a living, but when we are signing "project" players, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for me.

Have to agree with you here LordDowlais, it really does annoy me when project players are snapped up and it does take away opportunities for home grown players to get a chance. Sometimes I do wonder how much home grown talent has been missed due to these signings, talent that could have been developed if given the chance. I also do not understand how players can play for a country that they are not from, I am fiercely patriotic and could not imagine representing any other country than Ireland.

Yes, that isand has always been the bone of contention for me, representing the country of your birth is a dream for all rugby players, or so I thought, apparently you dream of being a springbok until you arent going to be one, then you dream of playing for another.

Yeah tell that to Brian Mujati, Tendai Mtawarira and Bobby Skinstad. Oh boo hoo.

Collapse2005 wrote:

ebop wrote:There you go again, being ignorant. Auckland has the largest population of Pacific Islanders in the world. Instead of being ignorant why don’t you listen and educate yourself.

What has that got to do with anything? I think you need to educate yourself. NZ does less for Pacific Island rugby than NH sides who play them much more often despite NZ being much closer and regularly benefitting for the proximity to island nations.

How much money do the home nations pay Tonga, Fiji and Samoa when those island nations get to play on the hallowed NH turfs? Can you tell me that? The ABs played Samoa in Apia recently and NZ SR sides play in Fiji each year to sell out crowds. NZ provides a high number of players to Tongan and Samoan national teams, simply because, those players were born and raised in NZ! Tell me, what the heck has Ireland ever done for Pacific Island rugby? Feck all.

You seem to want to sidestep your own point ebop.

The only one boo hooing is you Guns. Maybe your ignorance is catching up with you.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I have to say, I agree with ebop on this. All the home nations are guilty. I hate it when we cap players after 3 years residency, it stinks.

It really does feel that if these players were good enough, then they would be playing for the country of their birth, not their adopted country.

I have no problem with already capped player coming north to earn a living, but when we are signing "project" players, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for me.

Have to agree with you here LordDowlais, it really does annoy me when project players are snapped up and it does take away opportunities for home grown players to get a chance. Sometimes I do wonder how much home grown talent has been missed due to these signings, talent that could have been developed if given the chance. I also do not understand how players can play for a country that they are not from, I am fiercely patriotic and could not imagine representing any other country than Ireland.

Yes, that isand has always been the bone of contention for me, representing the country of your birth is a dream for all rugby players, or so I thought, apparently you dream of being a springbok until you arent going to be one, then you dream of playing for another.

Yeah tell that to Brian Mujati, Tendai Mtawarira and Bobby Skinstad. Oh boo hoo.

Do you know how many players from Namibia and Zimbabwe come to South Africa to geta university education, a job, a schooling, with their families and you come up with three players?

Shame, you would think we have scouts roming Africa and offer them million pound contracts to play for us.

eirebilly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I have to say, I agree with ebop on this. All the home nations are guilty. I hate it when we cap players after 3 years residency, it stinks.

It really does feel that if these players were good enough, then they would be playing for the country of their birth, not their adopted country.

I have no problem with already capped player coming north to earn a living, but when we are signing "project" players, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for me.

Have to agree with you here LordDowlais, it really does annoy me when project players are snapped up and it does take away opportunities for home grown players to get a chance. Sometimes I do wonder how much home grown talent has been missed due to these signings, talent that could have been developed if given the chance. I also do not understand how players can play for a country that they are not from, I am fiercely patriotic and could not imagine representing any other country than Ireland.

Yes, billy, I could not agree more. I am Welsh, and very proud to be Welsh, I would not want to represent any other nation, in anything. Also, we are neglecting a lot of late bloomers, some players do not come into their own until their mid late twenties, by filling the gaps with project players, we are doing home grown players a massive disservice.

Stop being so dull 7.5, it’s wearisome

Biltong wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I have to say, I agree with ebop on this. All the home nations are guilty. I hate it when we cap players after 3 years residency, it stinks.

It really does feel that if these players were good enough, then they would be playing for the country of their birth, not their adopted country.

I have no problem with already capped player coming north to earn a living, but when we are signing "project" players, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for me.

Have to agree with you here LordDowlais, it really does annoy me when project players are snapped up and it does take away opportunities for home grown players to get a chance. Sometimes I do wonder how much home grown talent has been missed due to these signings, talent that could have been developed if given the chance. I also do not understand how players can play for a country that they are not from, I am fiercely patriotic and could not imagine representing any other country than Ireland.

Yes, that isand has always been the bone of contention for me, representing the country of your birth is a dream for all rugby players, or so I thought, apparently you dream of being a springbok until you arent going to be one, then you dream of playing for another.

Yeah tell that to Brian Mujati, Tendai Mtawarira and Bobby Skinstad. Oh boo hoo.

Do you know how many players from Namibia and Zimbabwe come to South Africa to geta university education, a job, a schooling, with their families and you come up with three players?

Shame, you would think we have scouts roming Africa and offer them million pound contracts to play for us.  

I love the way you rationalise it when it suits you.

You could expand your wonderfully thought through point then ebop. Why would england do a haka?

ebop wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

ebop wrote:There you go again, being ignorant. Auckland has the largest population of Pacific Islanders in the world. Instead of being ignorant why don’t you listen and educate yourself.

What has that got to do with anything? I think you need to educate yourself. NZ does less for Pacific Island rugby than NH sides who play them much more often despite NZ being much closer and regularly benefitting for the proximity to island nations.

How much money do the home nations pay Tonga, Fiji and Samoa when those island nations get to play on the hallowed NH turfs? Can you tell me that? The ABs played Samoa in Apia recently and NZ SR sides play in Fiji each year to sell out crowds. NZ provides a high number of players to Tongan and Samoan national teams, simply because, those players were born and raised in NZ! Tell me, what the heck has Ireland ever done for Pacific Island rugby? Feck all.

More than NZ pay them for not playing them. Don't pretend like NZ gives a toss about island rugby, they don't.

Sure Ireland visited Samoa years ago. Why did it take NZ until the last few years?

Lol 7.5, good one

There was a joke about you thinking things through glad you spotted it!

Why would england do a haka?

Guns, don’t pretend you have a clue, because you don’t. Fact is, Ireland ship in a bunch of existing professional coaches and players to fill talent gaps. This ‘is’ the point. NZ doesn’t ship in players and coaches to fill gaps because we don’t need to. You need to accept this both with respect to Ireland but also NZ.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I have to say, I agree with ebop on this. All the home nations are guilty. I hate it when we cap players after 3 years residency, it stinks.

It really does feel that if these players were good enough, then they would be playing for the country of their birth, not their adopted country.

I have no problem with already capped player coming north to earn a living, but when we are signing "project" players, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for me.

Have to agree with you here LordDowlais, it really does annoy me when project players are snapped up and it does take away opportunities for home grown players to get a chance. Sometimes I do wonder how much home grown talent has been missed due to these signings, talent that could have been developed if given the chance. I also do not understand how players can play for a country that they are not from, I am fiercely patriotic and could not imagine representing any other country than Ireland.

Yes, that isand has always been the bone of contention for me, representing the country of your birth is a dream for all rugby players, or so I thought, apparently you dream of being a springbok until you arent going to be one, then you dream of playing for another.

Yeah tell that to Brian Mujati, Tendai Mtawarira and Bobby Skinstad. Oh boo hoo.

Do you know how many players from Namibia and Zimbabwe come to South Africa to geta university education, a job, a schooling, with their families and you come up with three players?

Shame, you would think we have scouts roming Africa and offer them million pound contracts to play for us.  

I love the way you rationalise it when it suits you.

I am nit rationalising anything.

There are two seperate issues here.

One, the difference between capitalist poaching by way of the lure of money intiated by scturctures such as "projects" and the family or player who on his own volitian decides to do his thing, such as Mujati, or Beast or Mouritz Botha etc.

The other issue is I agree with LD and eirebilly that I can't and wont represent any other country except the one I grew up in.

LordDowlais wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I have to say, I agree with ebop on this. All the home nations are guilty. I hate it when we cap players after 3 years residency, it stinks.

It really does feel that if these players were good enough, then they would be playing for the country of their birth, not their adopted country.

I have no problem with already capped player coming north to earn a living, but when we are signing "project" players, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for me.

Have to agree with you here LordDowlais, it really does annoy me when project players are snapped up and it does take away opportunities for home grown players to get a chance. Sometimes I do wonder how much home grown talent has been missed due to these signings, talent that could have been developed if given the chance. I also do not understand how players can play for a country that they are not from, I am fiercely patriotic and could not imagine representing any other country than Ireland.

Yes, billy, I could not agree more. I am Welsh, and very proud to be Welsh, I would not want to represent any other nation, in anything. Also, we are neglecting a lot of late bloomers, some players do not come into their own until their mid late twenties, by filling the gaps with project players, we are doing home grown players a massive disservice.

In some ways it does work though. Look at Ulster for instance, they signed Ruan Pienaar and he was not only an excellent 9 but played a massive part in developing Paddy Jackson as a more accomplished 10 and had a massive influence on the club. He at least stayed true to his own country and only represented them.

I am not against signing players for clubs, although it should be kept to a minimum, but not for signing players with a view for international representation.

Biltong wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I have to say, I agree with ebop on this. All the home nations are guilty. I hate it when we cap players after 3 years residency, it stinks.

It really does feel that if these players were good enough, then they would be playing for the country of their birth, not their adopted country.

I have no problem with already capped player coming north to earn a living, but when we are signing "project" players, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for me.

Have to agree with you here LordDowlais, it really does annoy me when project players are snapped up and it does take away opportunities for home grown players to get a chance. Sometimes I do wonder how much home grown talent has been missed due to these signings, talent that could have been developed if given the chance. I also do not understand how players can play for a country that they are not from, I am fiercely patriotic and could not imagine representing any other country than Ireland.

Yes, that isand has always been the bone of contention for me, representing the country of your birth is a dream for all rugby players, or so I thought, apparently you dream of being a springbok until you arent going to be one, then you dream of playing for another.

Yeah tell that to Brian Mujati, Tendai Mtawarira and Bobby Skinstad. Oh boo hoo.

Do you know how many players from Namibia and Zimbabwe come to South Africa to geta university education, a job, a schooling, with their families and you come up with three players?

Shame, you would think we have scouts roming Africa and offer them million pound contracts to play for us.  

I love the way you rationalise it when it suits you.

I am nit rationalising anything.

There are two seperate issues here.

One, the difference between capitalist poaching by way of the lure of money intiated by scturctures such as "projects" and the family or player who on his own volitian decides to do his thing, such as Mujati, or Beast or Mouritz Botha etc.

The other issue is I agree with LD and eirebilly that I can't and wont represent any other country except the one I grew up in.

and yet you think its ok for players like Frizel and Vaea Fifita to be offered contracts and scholarships as soon as they arrive with touring island sides? Hmmm, a little inconsistent with your views. Its a sort of ala carte outrage. Both relocated to NZ specifically to play rugby.

In some ways it does work though. Look at Ulster for instance, they signed Ruan Pienaar and he was not only an excellent 9 but played a massive part in developing Paddy Jackson as a more accomplished 10 and had a massive influence on the club. He at least stayed true to his own country and only represented them.

Yes, but that is where South Africa loses much of their rugby intellect and senior players who should be examples and transfers of their knowledge back home.

But they are professionals and they must make a living. It is the patriotic part that is above all else paramount to someone like me.

Pretty hard to separate out lure of money and the players deciding for themselves. They're clearly intertwined.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I have to say, I agree with ebop on this. All the home nations are guilty. I hate it when we cap players after 3 years residency, it stinks.

It really does feel that if these players were good enough, then they would be playing for the country of their birth, not their adopted country.

I have no problem with already capped player coming north to earn a living, but when we are signing "project" players, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for me.

Have to agree with you here LordDowlais, it really does annoy me when project players are snapped up and it does take away opportunities for home grown players to get a chance. Sometimes I do wonder how much home grown talent has been missed due to these signings, talent that could have been developed if given the chance. I also do not understand how players can play for a country that they are not from, I am fiercely patriotic and could not imagine representing any other country than Ireland.

Yes, that isand has always been the bone of contention for me, representing the country of your birth is a dream for all rugby players, or so I thought, apparently you dream of being a springbok until you arent going to be one, then you dream of playing for another.

Yeah tell that to Brian Mujati, Tendai Mtawarira and Bobby Skinstad. Oh boo hoo.

Do you know how many players from Namibia and Zimbabwe come to South Africa to geta university education, a job, a schooling, with their families and you come up with three players?

Shame, you would think we have scouts roming Africa and offer them million pound contracts to play for us.  

I love the way you rationalise it when it suits you.

I am nit rationalising anything.

There are two seperate issues here.

One, the difference between capitalist poaching by way of the lure of money intiated by scturctures such as "projects" and the family or player who on his own volitian decides to do his thing, such as Mujati, or Beast or Mouritz Botha etc.

The other issue is I agree with LD and eirebilly that I can't and wont represent any other country except the one I grew up in.

and yet you think its ok for players like Frizel and co. to be offered contracts and scholarships as soon as they arrive with touring island sides? Hmmm, a little inconsistent with your views.

I have an issue with any poaching, there may be different levels of poaching at different age groups, but I still don't like any of it.

I suggest you tell me where I said it is ok.

eirebilly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I have to say, I agree with ebop on this. All the home nations are guilty. I hate it when we cap players after 3 years residency, it stinks.

It really does feel that if these players were good enough, then they would be playing for the country of their birth, not their adopted country.

I have no problem with already capped player coming north to earn a living, but when we are signing "project" players, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for me.

Have to agree with you here LordDowlais, it really does annoy me when project players are snapped up and it does take away opportunities for home grown players to get a chance. Sometimes I do wonder how much home grown talent has been missed due to these signings, talent that could have been developed if given the chance. I also do not understand how players can play for a country that they are not from, I am fiercely patriotic and could not imagine representing any other country than Ireland.

Yes, billy, I could not agree more. I am Welsh, and very proud to be Welsh, I would not want to represent any other nation, in anything. Also, we are neglecting a lot of late bloomers, some players do not come into their own until their mid late twenties, by filling the gaps with project players, we are doing home grown players a massive disservice.

In some ways it does work though. Look at Ulster for instance, they signed Ruan Pienaar and he was not only an excellent 9 but played a massive part in developing Paddy Jackson as a more accomplished 10 and had a massive influence on the club. He at least stayed true to his own country and only represented them.

I am not against signing players for clubs, although it should be kept to a minimum, but not for signing players with a view for international representation.

Ruan Pienaar was a revelation for Ulster, players like that I am 100% behind, because they give something back as well. Regan King is another I would put in that bracket, I reckon he did wonders for Jonathan Davies and Scott Williams. How good would Sexton be now if he did not learn off players like Contepomi ?

You dismissed my point when I said it was happening in NZ because you seem to be happy to turn a blind eye when it is a SANZAR side.

Biltong wrote:In some ways it does work though. Look at Ulster for instance, they signed Ruan Pienaar and he was not only an excellent 9 but played a massive part in developing Paddy Jackson as a more accomplished 10 and had a massive influence on the club. He at least stayed true to his own country and only represented them.

Yes, but that is where South Africa loses much of their rugby intellect and  senior players who should be examples and transfers of their knowledge back home.

But they are professionals and they must make a living. It is the patriotic part that is above all else paramount to someone like me.

Fair point that and one that I didn't really consider. For every plus there is always a negative.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Pretty hard to separate out lure of money and the players deciding for themselves.  They're clearly intertwined.

Nope, sadly you have one side where scouts approach schools, clubs universities etc.

The other is where a player decides he wants to make it on his own and moves to a country as an unknown to make a name for himself.

When Mouritz Botha made the England team I was very happy for him, he did it all on his own, through hard work.

Stander as an example heard one coach told him he was too small and took the first offer overseas.

Not the same thing in any way.

So the beast is spotted by zimbabwe joins their youth teams decides purely for himself to join the sharks no additional benefits through money and becomes south African. ....or its pretty similar to most players ie botha fourie or Rhodes et al.

Well you can hardly blame Stander. Anyone who has a job where they aren't valued will be unwise not to seek employment else where. That's down to ambition more than anything else.

Collapse2005 wrote:You dismissed my point when I said it was happening in NZ because you seem to be happy to turn a blind eye when it is a SANZAR side.

I didn't dismiss your point, I said provide proof as I heard these accusations before.

The fact is NZ rugby does more for Pacific rugby than any other nation. Not just Nz rugby but NZ as a nation.

They provide a development structure for many players representing the islands, if they do benefit with some then it might not be what I like, but it is a fair trade.

Similarly we do a lot for Namibian and Zimbawean rugby, not to speak of Kenya.

What does the European countries do for the nations they poach from?

What has any of them done for SA or NZ ?

Waiting....waiting....waiting....

No 7&1/2 wrote:So the beast is spotted by zimbabwe joins their youth teams decides purely for himself to join the sharks no additional benefits through money and becomes south African. ....or its pretty similar to most players ie botha fourie or Rhodes et al.

How hard is it for you to seperate the issue of what poaching is and what I condone?

Did I say it is okay for beast to play for another country, or did I say I don't understand how you can represent anihter country?

Collapse2005 wrote:Well you can hardly blame Stander. Anyone who has a job where they aren't valued will be unwise not to seek employment else where. That's down to ambition more than anything else.

There you nailed it.

Ambition is what rich rugby nations exploit.

Because money and international representation seems to trump patriotism.

You said that there are 2 issues poaching through lure of money and people like mtawarira and botha who make their own decisions. I'm simply saying that players will make their own decisions and money will be involved in all of those decisions.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You said that there are 2 issues poaching through lure of money and people like mtawarira and botha who make their own decisions. I'm simply saying that players will make their own decisions and money will be involved in all of those decisions.  

Of course money is involved in any scenario.

I don't condone poaching, simple as that, I don't keep record of who does and who doesn't though.

But there is a clear seperation of concept.

Biltong wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Well you can hardly blame Stander. Anyone who has a job where they aren't valued will be unwise not to seek employment else where. That's down to ambition more than anything else.

There you nailed it.

Ambition is what rich rugby nations exploit.

Because money and international representation seems to trump patriotism.

You really think in rugby terms Ireland is "richer" than NZ or South Africa? I'm not so sure.

In Ireland's case there are 5 overseas born players in the squad (not including those that were born overseas to Irish parents but grew up in Ireland their whole lives)

Carbery moved to Ireland as a young lad and has Irish parents the rest:

Quinn Roux, Rob Herring, CJ Stander and Bundee Aki came here to further their careers. In a squad of 30 plus 4 guys doesn't really amount to exploitation when you consider that the likes of NZ and Australia are guilty of the same thing rationalised in other ways.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Well you can hardly blame Stander. Anyone who has a job where they aren't valued will be unwise not to seek employment else where. That's down to ambition more than anything else.

There you nailed it.

Ambition is what rich rugby nations exploit.

Because money and international representation seems to trump patriotism.

You really think in rugby terms Ireland is "richer" than NZ or South Africa? I'm not so sure.

In Ireland's case there are 5 overseas born players in the squad (not including those that were born overseas to Irish parents but grew up in Ireland their whole lives)

Carbery moved to Ireland as a young lad and has Irish parents the rest:

Quinn Roux, Rob Herring, CJ Stander and Bundee Aki came here to further their careers. In a squad of 30 plus 4 guys doesn't really amount to exploitation when you consider that the likes of NZ and Australia are guilty of the same thing.

I don't care about the numbers, I only care about the issue.

Every player has a unique set of circumstances on how he got to represent another nation.

And place of birth doesn't mean a guy is foreign .

It is where he grew ul and learnt his skill.

Andrew Mehrtens was an All Black but was born in SA, yet he grew up in NZ, you won't find any South African claiming he should have played for us.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You said that there are 2 issues poaching through lure of money and people like mtawarira and botha who make their own decisions. I'm simply saying that players will make their own decisions and money will be involved in all of those decisions.  

Why can't you just admit that the home nations are guilty of this more than anyone ?

Hadliegh Parkes, he is now an established Welsh international, but there is no way on earth that he is Welsh, it's something that sticks in my craw.

Nathan Hughes for England is another, Stander for Ireland, and do not even get me started on Scotland.

And that's where I'm not sure there is Biltong. What realistically was the difference in mtawarira going to the sharks vs Rhodes going to saracens (or any other south African you believe was poached by am English club if not rhodes)? Or is it simply the guys like la roux who are being poached?

Collapse2005 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Well you can hardly blame Stander. Anyone who has a job where they aren't valued will be unwise not to seek employment else where. That's down to ambition more than anything else.

There you nailed it.

Ambition is what rich rugby nations exploit.

Because money and international representation seems to trump patriotism.

You really think in rugby terms Ireland is "richer" than NZ or South Africa? I'm not so sure.

In Ireland's case there are 5 overseas born players in the squad (not including those that were born overseas to Irish parents but grew up in Ireland their whole lives)

Carbery moved to Ireland as a young lad and has Irish parents the rest:

Quinn Roux, Rob Herring, CJ Stander and Bundee Aki came here to further their careers. In a squad of 30 plus 4 guys doesn't really amount to exploitation when you consider that the likes of NZ and Australia are guilty of the same thing rationalised in other ways.

How many "projects" have Ireland got undergoing at the moment ?

No 7&1/2 wrote:And that's where I'm not sure there is Biltong. What realistically was the difference in mtawarira going to the sharks vs Rhodes going to saracens (or any other south African you believe was poached by am English club if not rhodes)? Or is it simply the guys like la roux who are being poached?

I look at the poaching issue as this.

Player A plays for South African rugby franchise, Overseas rugby union has a deal with their clubs/franchises/provinces:

They need to find well developed/recognised players that has not been capped by their country of birth/plying their trade.

These players can then be eligible to represent new nation.

This "project" is proposed to said player with the hope it will sweeten the offer.

That to me is poaching.

Players offered professional contracts to earn bigger money is not poaching.

Quite simple really.

Cool. No players are poached by English clubs then as the rfu don't and can't dictate that.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cool. No players are poached by English clubs then as the rfu don't and can't dictate that.

FFS.

You are so hard work on here. You must be a nightmare to live with.

All the home nations are guilty of taking advantage of the three year residency rule, something might I add, that the SH countries do not do with players from the home nations. In fact, I do not think they do it at all.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cool. No players are poached by English clubs then as the rfu don't and can't dictate that.

FFS.

You are so hard work on here. You must be a nightmare to live with.

All the home nations are guilty of taking advantage of the three year residency rule, something might I add, that the SH countries do not do with players from the home nations. In fact, I do not think they do it at all.

They may be taking advantage of it, but not all of them have a deliberate plan to poach international quality players.

Yet I don't condone it.

Lord don't swear. Don't get personal. I was responded to a point that unions were involved with clubs which in the case of england is wide of the mark. Indeed it's the main point of criticism from some that the rfu and prl are at logger heads in too many cases.

LordDowlais wrote:


How many "projects" have Ireland got undergoing at the moment ?

As far as I know only the media ever labels players as project players. In other words any player that is from overseas but hasn't been capped by their country could be considered a project player but that deosnt mean they are. Not including those of Irish descent:

In Leinster you have James Low and Jamison Gibson Park who are uncapped.
In Munster Rhys Marshall, Ciaran Parker, Tyler Bleyendaal.
Ulster: Louis Ludik, Wiehahn Herbst, Schalk van der Merwe
Connacht: Tom McCartney, Jarrad Butler, Colby Fainga'a,

Of the above one or two may go on to represent Ireland but Id imagine none of them will be regulars.

The Crusaders squad in New Zealand has more foreign players including one Irishman than the Leinster squad for example.

And the point of clubs getting players who become eligible in England Bilton is a bit of a 2 edged sword. They'll get money for having a certain amount of england qualified players but the last thing they want is for them to be capped and lose them during the season.

Biltong wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cool. No players are poached by English clubs then as the rfu don't and can't dictate that.

FFS.

You are so hard work on here. You must be a nightmare to live with.

All the home nations are guilty of taking advantage of the three year residency rule, something might I add, that the SH countries do not do with players from the home nations. In fact, I do not think they do it at all.

They may be taking advantage of it, but not all of them have a deliberate plan to poach international quality players.

Yet I don't condone it.

It's something that really boils my pee.

Look, I know how things are, and collapse and 7 &1/2 are being annoying about it to say the least. I know that there are more people with Samoan/Tongan heritage living in New Zealand than in those two countries put together, and I know there are hundreds of thousands of Namibians and Zimbabweans living in South Africa, they move there for a better life.

Yes I know New Zealand and South Africa will get the picks of the litter with these players, but they are not luring them to their countries with the promise of caps and money.

Clubs/regions/provinces in the home nations go looking for players from the SH to bolster their ranks because they cannot fill them with home grown players, rather than working harder with what they have. There is murders up here at the moment, because Scarlets will not release a player from New Zealand that Scotland want to cap in the autumn internationals.

I never here of Welsh/Scottish/Irish/English players living in New Zealand/South Africa/Australia for three years and then playing for them. The SH countries seem to do better with what they have.

Not my fault you didn't follow the conversation and got the wrong end of the stick lord.

LordDowlais wrote:

Biltong wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cool. No players are poached by English clubs then as the rfu don't and can't dictate that.

FFS.

You are so hard work on here. You must be a nightmare to live with.

All the home nations are guilty of taking advantage of the three year residency rule, something might I add, that the SH countries do not do with players from the home nations. In fact, I do not think they do it at all.

They may be taking advantage of it, but not all of them have a deliberate plan to poach international quality players.

Yet I don't condone it.

It's something that really boils my pee.

Look, I know how things are, and collapse and 7 &1/2  are being annoying about it to say the least. I know that there are more people with Samoan/Tongan heritage living in New Zealand than in those two countries put together, and I know there are hundreds of thousands of Namibians and Zimbabweans living in South Africa, they move there for a better life.

Yes I know New Zealand and South Africa will get the picks of the litter with these players, but they are not luring them to their countries with the promise of caps and money.

Clubs/regions/provinces in the home nations go looking for players from the SH to bolster their ranks because they cannot fill them with home grown players, rather than working harder with what they have. There is murders up here at the moment, because Scarlets will not release a player from New Zealand that Scotland want to cap in the autumn internationals.

I never here of Welsh/Scottish/Irish/English players living in New Zealand/South Africa/Australia for three years and then playing for them. The SH countries seem to do better with what they have.

Is that not what happened with Frizel and Vaea Fifita? Don't be so naïve.

What are you harping on about now ?

I also noticed you have ignored my question a few posts up. But that's you all over.

Collapse2005 wrote:Is that not what happened with Frizel and Vaea Fifita? Don't be so naïve.

Im sorry, but are there some new fandangled colleges on these islands that they could have chosen ?