Poaching, project players, residency qualifications etc.

First topic message reminder :

Continue here about the greatness of NH rugby players, the money the clubs have, the greatness of the SH rugby players and the leak to the north.

Other topic is full

Etc.

Well thats a bit of a stretch and coaching is different. Coaches can get a look at the enemy/ies and a different perspective. Lochore wasnt an overseas coach nor wyllie nor Mains. So youre limiting it to the pro era, Hart, then Mitchell. Henry didnt get in because of his overseas stint he had already won many titles here at all levels.

Hansen certainly didnt get it for his Welsh experience and it took him 8 years and two world cups grooming to even remotely look like it, and then many had their doubts. So theres three, and for all overseas wasnt a pre requisite, it was a waiting game.

And Mitchell was a disaster in terms of creating the right culture, environment. Wayne Smith is the backbone of the ABs over the last eleven years, and although Super rugby is struggling in areas it still has the best non test rugby matches on the planet so Ill keep watching it while thats the case.

Rugby Fan wrote:Al lot

Opting not to quote the full piece as very long, but largely in response to that (and backing it up)

Looking specifically at NZ - they were indeed right at the front of the drive to professionalism (though it was oft argued that they already were professional in terms of both preparation and "expenses"). With the onset of professionalism they needed to find ways to generate cash to pay the players, coaches and support staff.

The problem NZ had/has was not a lack of players but rather a lack of viewers driven by the population. Put simply they had enough players to support a 12 team pro structure, but not the income to pay the wages. The international game cannot drive the income they need as attendances and commercial income are not a patch on that generated in the NH. Super Rugby has proven unable to create enough income to support the player base they are able to generate.

Thus there are more players than they can afford to employ, so it is no surprise that a lot of players head somewhere there is plenty of income, but not the same volume of players. The big issue for NZ is that far too often they are losing the "second choice" players. This has been driven largely by two things - paying so much to the top players to keep them there is a big drop off to the fringe players; lack of opportunity to play tests.

I appreciate it is no fun losing players overseas, but very few of these (for NZ) have been important players and it allows for the next wave to at least get a chance to press their claim.

In the end though it is quite simple, you have more players than you can actually employ properly and certainly pay properly. This is after all their job. It is how they pay their mortgage etc. NZ is in a strong enough position to withhold caps from players who leave. For those who stand a good chance of selection this is usually motivation enough. For those who are fringe players it may well not be. How do you compare the tentative chance at representing your country against financial security?

Taylor as you admit you have no idea about the comparison of club rugby across the globe as you don't watch and no nothing of nh rugby.

Perhaps ask Richie McCaw that. But yeah the synopsis is we’re a country of players, not so much watchers. And where there are a lot of watchers, the players arent so good so theres a quite a large niche there for our players. Nothing wrong with that. Rugby is a good profession for NZers. The lure of the AB jersey still remains the key to NZ rigby and why we have to win. In a way we are fighting for our survival in this game, and still, players go.

How hard do you think it is to lose 600 caps after one match and still retain the no. 1 spot since, as well as continuing to lose players every year. No side could get near doing that. Take 600 caps out of any side in 2015 and they may as well not play any more.

Same will happen next year, yet we’ll still expect them to win. But that wont last forever, not while even our school kids are getting offered NRL and Super rugby contracts in oz.

Taylorman wrote:Perhaps ask Richie McCaw that. But yeah the synopsis is we’re a country of players, not so much watchers. And where there are a lot of watchers, the players arent so good so theres a quite a large niche there for our players. Nothing wrong with that. Rugby is a good profession for NZers. The lure of the AB jersey still remains the key to NZ rigby and why we have to win. In a way we are fighting for our survival in this game, and still, players go.

How hard do you think it is to lose 600 caps after one match and still retain the no. 1 spot since, as well as continuing to lose players every year. No side could get near doing that. Take 600 caps out of any side in 2015 and they may as well not play any more.

Same will happen next year, yet we’ll still expect them to win. But that wont last forever, not while even our school kids are getting offered NRL and Super rugby contracts in oz.

Every team has succession issues and policies. Under Schmidt Ireland has seen just as many experienced players retire all while Ireland have steadily climbed the rankings.

Ireland are ranked #2 now but they have bounced up and down the rankings under Schmidt.

Taylorman wrote:Perhaps ask Richie McCaw that. But yeah the synopsis is we’re a country of players, not so much watchers. And where there are a lot of watchers, the players arent so good so theres a quite a large niche there for our players. Nothing wrong with that. Rugby is a good profession for NZers. The lure of the AB jersey still remains the key to NZ rigby and why we have to win. In a way we are fighting for our survival in this game, and still, players go.

How hard do you think it is to lose 600 caps after one match and still retain the no. 1 spot since, as well as continuing to lose players every year. No side could get near doing that. Take 600 caps out of any side in 2015 and they may as well not play any more.

Same will happen next year, yet we’ll still expect them to win. But that wont last forever, not while even our school kids are getting offered NRL and Super rugby contracts in oz.

To be fair you didn't lose 600 caps, you lost players with 600 caps, but other experienced (less experienced) took their place.

In that lies the strength of NZ rugby.

Exactly. Tommy Bowe, Gordan Darcy, Brian ODriscoll, Paul OConnell, Mike Ross, Stephen Ferris, David Wallace all retired between 14 and 16 and had about 800 caps between them. Happens to all teams at some point and yet if anything Ireland are stronger since those guys left.

Collapse2005 wrote:Exactly. Tommy Bowe, Gordan Darcy, Brian ODriscoll, Paul OConnell, Mike Ross, Stephen Ferris, David Wallace all retired between 14 and 16 and had about 800 caps between them. Happens to all teams at some point and yet if anything Ireland are stronger since those guys left.

I always smile a little when I think of the ancient 'Golden Generation'. We were told, and many Irish people told themselves too, that when all those GG guys were gone it would be curtains for us. But the ONCE IN A GENERATION collective were quite readily chewed up by the New Wave Generation in the end; a generation that didn't even delay too long in looking back and bowing - much too busy pushing into the future.

Collapse2005 wrote:Exactly. Tommy Bowe, Gordan Darcy, Brian ODriscoll, Paul OConnell, Mike Ross, Stephen Ferris, David Wallace all retired between 14 and 16 and had about 800 caps between them. Happens to all teams at some point and yet if anything Ireland are stronger since those guys left.

David Wallace retired from International Rugby in 2011 and from Munster in 2012, not between 2014 and 2016...

eirebilly wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Exactly. Tommy Bowe, Gordan Darcy, Brian ODriscoll, Paul OConnell, Mike Ross, Stephen Ferris, David Wallace all retired between 14 and 16 and had about 800 caps between them. Happens to all teams at some point and yet if anything Ireland are stronger since those guys left.

David Wallace retired from International Rugby in 2011 and from Munster in 2012, not between 2014 and 2016...

I had not realised he continued to play after crocking his knee in the RWC warm up game against us.

eirebilly wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Exactly. Tommy Bowe, Gordan Darcy, Brian ODriscoll, Paul OConnell, Mike Ross, Stephen Ferris, David Wallace all retired between 14 and 16 and had about 800 caps between them. Happens to all teams at some point and yet if anything Ireland are stronger since those guys left.

David Wallace retired from International Rugby in 2011 and from Munster in 2012, not between 2014 and 2016...

So he did. He was there in spirit. Take your pick from the other players who retired that I didn't mention, same point applies.

Eoin Reddan, Luke Fitzgerald, Heaslip the following year etc.

ebop wrote:Ireland are ranked #2 now but they have bounced up and down the rankings under Schmidt.

Ireland did bounce up and down but they are now very stable and fully deserved of their position in the rankings. Time will tell though as come the RWC, Ireland will be under a lot of pressure to get to the semi finals at least. Not sure any coach in the world can counter Irelands RWC demons...

Like I've said before often enough, Ireland have gone up and down because of sustainable ability, not because they get nervous and begin to doubt themselves in big contests (choke). We've always suffered the loss of 'focal' players and pretty much imploded under the pressure when trying to replace like with like.
The Squad has become something real now though, rather than just a symbolic word.  So, this is the next step for Ireland.... Prove it.  Prove that we can intermix players at the highest levels over a finite number of weeks at the hardest hitting International event.
We proved we had the ability to absorb the pressures in the last 6N.  Now the new test (WC).... to keep the system fighting to the end no matter who gets sent to the side line with injury....  AND to hopefully play a style that seeks to lessen a glut of injuries in the first place - another lingering gameplan weakness that has made Ireland suffer more than it should.

Another long, long International season of Trying to prove our strength-in-depth begins.......................

SecretFly wrote:Like I've said before often enough, Ireland have gone up and down because of sustainable ability, not because they get nervous and begin to doubt themselves in big contests (choke). We've always suffered the loss of 'focal' players and pretty much imploded under the pressure when trying to replace like with like.
The Squad has become something real now though, rather than just a symbolic word.  So, this is the next step for Ireland.... Prove it.  Prove that we can intermix players at the highest levels over a finite number of weeks at the hardest hitting International event.
We proved we had the ability to absorb the pressures in the last 6N.  Now the new test (WC).... to keep the system fighting to the end no matter who gets sent to the side line with injury....  AND to hopefully play a style that seeks to lessen a glut of injuries in the first place - another lingering gameplan weakness that has made Ireland suffer more than it should.

Another long, long International season of Trying to prove our strength-in-depth begins.......................

I think Ireland is in the best position they have ever been from a ground roots development, club/province development and international depth.

The wheel has turned to the downside for Australia and South Africa who just 3 and a half years ago got to the RWC semifinals.

Ireland have benefitted in the rankings due to their poor performances since 2015.

Although it could be argued Ireland got their 90 odd point ranking regardless of SA and OZ results.

I do have a lot of sympathy for Taylorman and Biltong, and not in a patronizing "poor you" way.

I'm always disappointed when an England player goes to France, and I even feel upset that Christian Wade has left rugby. I can't imagine what it must be like to see many times that number leave, including genuine stars who haven't really fulfilled their potential on the national stage.

Rugby Fan wrote:I do have a lot of sympathy for Taylorman and Biltong, and not in a patronizing "poor you" way.

I'm always disappointed when an England player goes to France, and I even feel upset that Christian Wade has left rugby. I can't imagine what it must be like to see many times that number leave, including genuine stars who haven't really fulfilled their potential on the national stage.

Went through that as a proud Welsh rugby supporter for most of the 90's and late 80's when players were defecting to rugby league. It was a nightmare.

How any of us up here in the NH can take some moral high ground over this just bemuses me.

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Perhaps ask Richie McCaw that. But yeah the synopsis is we’re a country of players, not so much watchers. And where there are a lot of watchers, the players arent so good so theres a quite a large niche there for our players. Nothing wrong with that. Rugby is a good profession for NZers. The lure of the AB jersey still remains the key to NZ rigby and why we have to win. In a way we are fighting for our survival in this game, and still, players go.

How hard do you think it is to lose 600 caps after one match and still retain the no. 1 spot since, as well as continuing to lose players every year. No side could get near doing that. Take 600 caps out of any side in 2015 and they may as well not play any more.

Same will happen next year, yet we’ll still expect them to win. But that wont last forever, not while even our school kids are getting offered NRL and Super rugby contracts in oz.

To be fair you didn't lose 600 caps, you lost players with 600 caps, but other experienced (less experienced) took their place.

In that lies the strength of NZ rugby.

True but none other than Richie retired. Smith and Nonu were and still are a huge loss, yet both are still playing three years later. Seems we dont get to see our players retire, we have to replace them a year or three before they retire. Big difference between that and Irelands situation. Take their players out three years earlier.

LordDowlais wrote:How any of us up here in the NH can take some moral high ground over this just bemuses me.

I don't assume any moral high ground, either personally, or on behalf of the team I support. However, if someone wants to claim moral superiority over the way rugby has been run in their country, then I'll happily call that out.

Rugby Fan wrote:I do have a lot of sympathy for Taylorman and Biltong, and not in a patronizing "poor you" way.

I'm always disappointed when an England player goes to France, and I even feel upset that Christian Wade has left rugby. I can't imagine what it must be like to see many times that number leave, including genuine stars who haven't really fulfilled their potential on the national stage.

Yeah it is what it is and Ive over moaned again on the subject but at least we have the depth to cover, and to be honest one of the best things about watching the ABs is watching the younger players coming through. Its when they go that annoys most. In some cases some potentially great ones.

The upcoming matches look exciting now that Hansens managed the side through to this point of the year nicely. Our injuries have turned into well timed breaks for many of the tight five and that should see us well next few tests.

Really interested to see how our scrum goes vs Ireland and England this time around. Thinking here is with no Murray Irelands chances look grim in terms of a win but theyre helped by us playing England first. I think we’ll get both but ones going to push to the line. Cant see us losing both under the circs.

I have some sympathy for Billtong but limited sympathy for Taylorman as NZ have regularly benefitted from players getting capped for NZ based on residency including the current NZ squad.

I would be in favour of increasing the residency qualification period.

Collapse2005 wrote:I have some sympathy for Billtong but limited sympathy for Taylorman as NZ have regularly benefitted from players getting capped for NZ based on residency including the current NZ squad.

I would be in favour of increasing the residency qualification period.

Name one player we selected that was already a professional rugby player. Youve no idea still have you. Without NZ they wouldnt have a career. Half the Samoan side is NZ born and trained. How many are Irish? Anywhere? How about helping out multiple countries as we do, including your own.

How about complaining about that? We had more NZ born players in other sides at the World cup than our own. No...idea.

And your sympathy? Whats that worth? Half a chip?

You certainly wont be getting mine in a few weeks thats for sure so dont worry, its mutual.

Main question is whether you select enough kiwis to perform a haka really.

Yeah doesn't count as poaching if the country they're coming from is poorer eh?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah doesn't count as poaching if the country they're coming from is poorer eh?

No, didnt say that. Doesnt count if theyre not already a top rugby player, which none of them were. Difference between poaching test ready pros and inviting kids to attend school that have a promising future. And many of them play fir the countries they came from. So if you cant see the good in that then you have a screw loose.

Only in one case does a huge gap have to be filled. Anyway. If people are too thick to understand that basic concept then too bad. Its that obvious.

How about you help out with other countries? We’re getting tired of solving everybodys shortfalls.

Taylorman wrote:... Half the Samoan side is NZ born and trained...

I don't know if that is true but, if Wikipedia is accurate (a big if) then only one of the players in the 2015 Samoan side was employed by a New Zealand team.

And that's a crucial point. Super Rugby franchises are primarily aimed at developing players for the national sides, so there is often no room at the inn for anyone who declares for another team.

And yet how are teams with no real domestic professional competition supposed to develop, if their players can't play top level club rugby? New Zealand is reluctant to play second tier Test teams, because it's not financially worth their while, and also has no interest in employing overseas talent in Super Rugby, in case it reduces opportunities for local boys to develop into All Blacks. It's fair to ask, then, how that helps the sport develop.

England produce shed loads of players. Movement of players is going to happen. In the same way clubs in Europe will pay more for players than those in nz can nz schools and clubs can offer a better standard of living then where a lot of players from tonga etc can expect. Rugby and economic movement. You can't really spit feathers while accepting it when it happens in your favour.
I still think there should be a stronger rule on compensation to youth teams for development but the subject didn't gt much support up here.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:... Half the Samoan side is NZ born and trained...

I don't know if that is true but, if Wikipedia is accurate (a big if) then only one of the players in the 2015 Samoan side was employed by a New Zealand team.

And that's a crucial point. Super Rugby franchises are primarily aimed at developing players for the national sides, so there is often no room at the inn for anyone who declares for another team.

And yet how are teams with no real domestic professional competition supposed to develop, if their players can't play top level club rugby? New Zealand is reluctant to play second tier Test teams, because it's not financially worth their while, and also has no interest in employing overseas talent in Super Rugby, in case it reduces opportunities for local boys to develop into All Blacks. It's fair to ask, then, how that helps the sport develop.

Take one...Motu Matu'u, born Wellington, played Wellington Lions, then Hurricanes, now with you guessed it, London Irish.
Anthony Perenise, born Wellington, played Wellington and Hurricanes, now with, you guessed it, Bath.
Kane Thompson, born Taranaki, played Highlanders, now, you guessed it, Newcastle

Shall I go on? Think youll find half of the squad are in that shape. Theyre born here, or move here young, and we train em up as pros and your lot go shopping. So the reason we dont keep them is because the north take anyone who wants the money and cant make the ABs, and some that can.

And their links back to the Islands allow them a second shot at a international career. Thats why guns comments are laughable. Our trained players are propping sides up the globe over, club and country.

No one....has trained any of ours.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:I have some sympathy for Billtong but limited sympathy for Taylorman as NZ have regularly benefitted from players getting capped for NZ based on residency including the current NZ squad.

I would be in favour of increasing the residency qualification period.

Name one player we selected that was already a professional rugby player. Youve no idea still have you. Without NZ they wouldnt have a career. Half the Samoan side is NZ born and trained. How many are Irish? Anywhere? How about helping out multiple countries as we do, including your own.

How about complaining about that? We had more NZ born players in other sides at the World cup than our own. No...idea.

And your sympathy? Whats that worth? Half a chip?

You certainly wont be getting mine in a few weeks thats for sure so dont worry, its mutual.

Main question is whether you select enough kiwis to perform a haka really.

Are there even professional leagues in Fiji, Tonga or Samoa?

Even if there were the standard isn't high enough for players to be poached when they are established. Instead guys like Frizzel are spotted when they tour NZ and offered scholarships or contracts when they are younger. Its pretty much the exact same outcome, residency based caps. No sympathy for you at all.

You got to laugh how the spin in NZ is that you helped the poor unfortunate Islander souls but when Kiwis come to the NH to make more money than in their native backwater they are being exploited. I find it funny.

New Zealand doesn't help the island sides at all, if they did they would help them establish proper professional leagues, let their domestic sides join super rugby, tour the island nations every so often or even invite them to NZ. NZ clearly doesn't give a toss about anything other than revenue. Who are you trying to fool Taylorman, yourself?

All pro players get training up here. Professional set ups

Yeah, Lowe was a bum before Leinster set him straight.

Not what I was going for!

I think some of the stuff written on here by some people is quite embarrassing. Taylorman is right, it's not as though New Zealand go shopping in Tonga/Samoa/Fiji for players who are already put through a system, then cap them, is it ?

But that's what we are doing up here. We are not bringing these players over at a young age and offering them, and their families better lives and all the recourses that go with getting a young player to the standard we expect.

No. We are taking players who have had money and time and recourses spent on them for a number of years by New Zealand and then we cap them, or they chose to play for the island nations because of New Zealands over seas philosophy.

It stinks. I cannot fathom why people are trying to defend it. I am not saying New Zealand are not guilty, but we are far, far worse than any of the SH countries for doing this.

Why can't people on here just admit this ?

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:I have some sympathy for Billtong but limited sympathy for Taylorman as NZ have regularly benefitted from players getting capped for NZ based on residency including the current NZ squad.

I would be in favour of increasing the residency qualification period.

Name one player we selected that was already a professional rugby player. Youve no idea still have you. Without NZ they wouldnt have a career. Half the Samoan side is NZ born and trained. How many are Irish? Anywhere? How about helping out multiple countries as we do, including your own.

How about complaining about that? We had more NZ born players in other sides at the World cup than our own. No...idea.

And your sympathy? Whats that worth? Half a chip?

You certainly wont be getting mine in a few weeks thats for sure so dont worry, its mutual.

Main question is whether you select enough kiwis to perform a haka really.

Are there even professional leagues in Fiji, Tonga or Samoa?

Even if there were the standard isn't high enough for players to be poached when they are established. Instead guys like Frizzel are spotted when they tour NZ and offered scholarships or contracts when they are younger. Its pretty much the exact same outcome, residency based caps. No sympathy for you at all.

You got to laugh how the spin in NZ is that you helped the poor unfortunate Islander souls but when Kiwis come to the NH to make more money than in their native backwater they are being exploited. I find it funny.

New Zealand doesn't help the island sides at all, if they did they would help them establish proper professional leagues, let their domestic sides join super rugby, tour the island nations every so often or even invite them to NZ. NZ clearly doesn't give a toss about anything other than revenue. Who are you trying to fool Taylorman, yourself?

So we fill half the Samoan side with established pros born here and thats not helping them? You find one 15 year old who migrates to NZ and we’re poaching even though hes a product of our league.

Honestly, this is the dumbest conversation Ive had this year.

And from an Irishmen who absolutely do nothing for others, other than buy players and coaches as their only venture outside the country. What do you do for Georgia? Russia? Spain? Germany? Romania? They all relying on good old Irish support?

Nothing?

LordDowlais wrote:I think some of the stuff written on here by some people is quite embarrassing. Taylorman is right, it's not as though New Zealand go shopping in Tonga/Samoa/Fiji for players who are already put through a system, then cap them, is it ?

But that's what we are doing up here. We are not bringing these players over at a young age and offering them, and their families better lives and all the recourses that go with getting a young player to the standard we expect.

No. We are taking players who have had money and time and recourses spent on them for a number of years by New Zealand and then we cap them, or they chose to play for the island nations because of New Zealands over seas philosophy.

It stinks. I cannot fathom why people are trying to defend it. I am not saying New Zealand are not guilty, but we are far, far worse than any of the SH countries for doing this.

Why can't people on here just admit this ?

No. What happens instead is that NZ invite island schools teams to NZ to new Zealand and then offer guys like Frizzel and Vaea Fifita contracts to play in NZ which is the exact same as sending a scout to the islands except they make the talent come to them instead.

I think you just don't really understand what goes on Lord.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:I have some sympathy for Billtong but limited sympathy for Taylorman as NZ have regularly benefitted from players getting capped for NZ based on residency including the current NZ squad.

I would be in favour of increasing the residency qualification period.

Name one player we selected that was already a professional rugby player. Youve no idea still have you. Without NZ they wouldnt have a career. Half the Samoan side is NZ born and trained. How many are Irish? Anywhere? How about helping out multiple countries as we do, including your own.

How about complaining about that? We had more NZ born players in other sides at the World cup than our own. No...idea.

And your sympathy? Whats that worth? Half a chip?

You certainly wont be getting mine in a few weeks thats for sure so dont worry, its mutual.

Main question is whether you select enough kiwis to perform a haka really.

Are there even professional leagues in Fiji, Tonga or Samoa?

Even if there were the standard isn't high enough for players to be poached when they are established. Instead guys like Frizzel are spotted when they tour NZ and offered scholarships or contracts when they are younger. Its pretty much the exact same outcome, residency based caps. No sympathy for you at all.

You got to laugh how the spin in NZ is that you helped the poor unfortunate Islander souls but when Kiwis come to the NH to make more money than in their native backwater they are being exploited. I find it funny.

New Zealand doesn't help the island sides at all, if they did they would help them establish proper professional leagues, let their domestic sides join super rugby, tour the island nations every so often or even invite them to NZ. NZ clearly doesn't give a toss about anything other than revenue. Who are you trying to fool Taylorman, yourself?

So we fill half the Samoan side with established pros born here and thats not helping them? You find one 15 year old who migrates to NZ and we’re poaching even though hes a product of our league.

Honestly, this is the dumbest conversation Ive had this year.

And from an Irishmen who absolutely do nothing for others, other than buy players and coaches as their only venture outside the country. What do you do for Georgia? Russia? Spain? Germany? Romania? They all relying on good old Irish support?

Nothing?

No its not helping them at all. A sustainable domestic league with involvement in super rugby is what they need so that they can develop themselves.

Frizell and Vaea Fifita were about 18 or 19 when they came to NZ. Naholo was around the same age. It would be even worse if either were 15 and offered a professional contract.

Ireland doesn't do anything for Georgia? Russia? Spain? Germany? Romania? but we don't take anything from them either.

Collapse2005 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I think some of the stuff written on here by some people is quite embarrassing. Taylorman is right, it's not as though New Zealand go shopping in Tonga/Samoa/Fiji for players who are already put through a system, then cap them, is it ?

But that's what we are doing up here. We are not bringing these players over at a young age and offering them, and their families better lives and all the recourses that go with getting a young player to the standard we expect.

No. We are taking players who have had money and time and recourses spent on them for a number of years by New Zealand and then we cap them, or they chose to play for the island nations because of New Zealands over seas philosophy.

It stinks. I cannot fathom why people are trying to defend it. I am not saying New Zealand are not guilty, but we are far, far worse than any of the SH countries for doing this.

Why can't people on here just admit this ?

No. What happens instead is that NZ invite island schools teams to NZ to new Zealand and then offer guys like Frizzel and Vaea Fifita contracts to play in NZ which is the exact same as sending a scout to the islands except they make the talent come to them instead.

I think you just don't really understand what goes on Lord.

Complete...waste...of...time.

Collapse2005 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I think some of the stuff written on here by some people is quite embarrassing. Taylorman is right, it's not as though New Zealand go shopping in Tonga/Samoa/Fiji for players who are already put through a system, then cap them, is it ?

But that's what we are doing up here. We are not bringing these players over at a young age and offering them, and their families better lives and all the recourses that go with getting a young player to the standard we expect.

No. We are taking players who have had money and time and recourses spent on them for a number of years by New Zealand and then we cap them, or they chose to play for the island nations because of New Zealands over seas philosophy.

It stinks. I cannot fathom why people are trying to defend it. I am not saying New Zealand are not guilty, but we are far, far worse than any of the SH countries for doing this.

Why can't people on here just admit this ?

No. What happens instead is that NZ invite island schools teams to NZ to new Zealand and then offer guys like Frizzel and Vaea Fifita contracts to play in NZ which is the exact same as sending a scout to the islands except they make the talent come to them instead.

I think you just don't really understand what goes on Lord.

I know exactly what goes on thank you.

It's not right what goes on, but it is a far cry to how we exploit the situation in the NH. New Zealand offer these kids, and their families a life that would not be available to them should they stay in their own countries. The New Zealand RFU spend their own money and recourses on these kids to get them to a suitable level, if they do not make the grade, then that's New Zealand's loss, but for teams in the NH to then flutter the £££££'s in front of them, and then in some cases cap them, then that is far worse in my opinion.

These players are lost to New Zealand rugby, after they have put a lot into them, and other leagues and other nations get the benefit. How come we cannot do better with the recourses we have in our own countries ? We should not be relying on players and coaches from the SH, but we are.

We are not forcing these people up here though, but we are enticing them, we are bar far worse than any country from the SH for doing this, why people cannot admit this is beyond me.

And they poached james haskell. Shocking behaviour.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And they poached james haskell. Shocking behaviour.

Played for New Zealand did he ?

This conversation is beginning to go in circles.

Some here are splitting hairs to justify their point of view.

The fact of the matter is , some nations are nett importers of rugby players, they benefit from player stock born, bred and some already developed into professional class players.

Just answer yourself one question, no need to admit it in public.

Is your country a net recipent of rugby playing stock?

Yes or no.

If your answer to yourself is yes, stop arguing and thank your lucky stars.

You not paying attention lord? Some on here consider poaching to be any player playing abroad. I don't myself but by their definition fair game to point out they do it themselves.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I think some of the stuff written on here by some people is quite embarrassing. Taylorman is right, it's not as though New Zealand go shopping in Tonga/Samoa/Fiji for players who are already put through a system, then cap them, is it ?

But that's what we are doing up here. We are not bringing these players over at a young age and offering them, and their families better lives and all the recourses that go with getting a young player to the standard we expect.

No. We are taking players who have had money and time and recourses spent on them for a number of years by New Zealand and then we cap them, or they chose to play for the island nations because of New Zealands over seas philosophy.

It stinks. I cannot fathom why people are trying to defend it. I am not saying New Zealand are not guilty, but we are far, far worse than any of the SH countries for doing this.

Why can't people on here just admit this ?

No. What happens instead is that NZ invite island schools teams to NZ to new Zealand and then offer guys like Frizzel and Vaea Fifita contracts to play in NZ which is the exact same as sending a scout to the islands except they make the talent come to them instead.

I think you just don't really understand what goes on Lord.

Complete...waste...of...time.  

Feel free to point out any factual inaccuracies.

LordDowlais wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I think some of the stuff written on here by some people is quite embarrassing. Taylorman is right, it's not as though New Zealand go shopping in Tonga/Samoa/Fiji for players who are already put through a system, then cap them, is it ?

But that's what we are doing up here. We are not bringing these players over at a young age and offering them, and their families better lives and all the recourses that go with getting a young player to the standard we expect.

No. We are taking players who have had money and time and recourses spent on them for a number of years by New Zealand and then we cap them, or they chose to play for the island nations because of New Zealands over seas philosophy.

It stinks. I cannot fathom why people are trying to defend it. I am not saying New Zealand are not guilty, but we are far, far worse than any of the SH countries for doing this.

Why can't people on here just admit this ?

No. What happens instead is that NZ invite island schools teams to NZ to new Zealand and then offer guys like Frizzel and Vaea Fifita contracts to play in NZ which is the exact same as sending a scout to the islands except they make the talent come to them instead.

I think you just don't really understand what goes on Lord.

I know exactly what goes on thank you.

It's not right what goes on, but it is a far cry to how we exploit the situation in the NH. New Zealand offer these kids, and their families a life that would not be available to them should they stay in their own countries. The New Zealand RFU spend their own money and recourses on these kids to get them to a suitable level, if they do not make the grade, then that's New Zealand's loss, but for teams in the NH to then flutter the £££££'s in front of them, and then in some cases cap them, then that is far worse in my opinion.

These players are lost to New Zealand rugby, after they have put a lot into them, and other leagues and other nations get the benefit. How come we cannot do better with the recourses we have in our own countries ? We should not be relying on players and coaches from the SH, but we are.

We are not forcing these people up here though, but we are enticing them, we are bar far worse than any country from the SH for doing this, why people cannot admit this is beyond me.

If anything approaching kids is much more cynical a practice than established adults. Im glad Irish rugby doesn't do that.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You not paying attention lord? Some on here consider poaching to be any player playing abroad. I don't myself but by their definition fair game to point out they do it themselves.

I am paying attention. It's people like you who will not admit things though, as I have asked you this question, but you always dodge the answer, but why won't you admit, that we are by far the worst of all up here in the NH when it comes to capping players who have gone through another unions pathway ?

Collapse2005 wrote:If anything approaching kids is much more cynical a practice than established adults. Im glad Irish rugby doesn't do that.

No it isn't.

New Zealand look after the families of these kids as well. A lot of money and recourses is spent, only for another union to go "shopping" and take the player away.

For the record, I also get annoyed when this happens with young Welsh players who end up playing in France or England. Especially England when Hartpury college among others offers contracts to young Welsh players.

I've answered previous versions of that question lord. You've tweaked the wording again. I'm afraid it's a similar answer though from me. It's not that I don't want to answer it's that I can't. I don't know how many players have played for England who have qualified through residency or extended lineage in he last 10 years let alone before that. I certainly couldn't tell you those from the rest of he nh or sh. You obviously know those stats though so what are they from say the last 5 years?

LordDowlais wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:If anything approaching kids is much more cynical a practice than established adults. Im glad Irish rugby doesn't do that.

No it isn't.

New Zealand look after the families of these kids as well. A lot of money and recourses is spent, only for another union to go "shopping" and take the player away.

The fact that Kiwi players that go abroad have been invested in is a fairly meaningless argument when the islands don't have money and resources to spend in the players in domestic leagues. If they did then NZ would just poach them when they were established pros rather than when they are kids. There is literally nothing to suggest that they wouldn't.

That said the players I have mentioned were on their countries school level side so they were churned out by their systems.

Collapse2005 wrote:The islands don't have money and resources to spend on the players in domestic leagues. If they did then NZ would just poach them when they were established pros rather than when they are kids. There is literally nothing to suggest that they wouldn't.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I've answered previous versions of that question lord. You've tweaked the wording again. I'm afraid it's a similar answer though from me. It's not that I don't want to answer it's that I can't. I don't know how many players have played for England who have qualified through residency or extended lineage in he last 10 years let alone before that. I certainly couldn't tell you those from the rest of he nh or sh. You obviously know those stats though so what are they from say the last 5 years?

See, just will not answer the question.

Clubs in France are doing some similar now aren't they I'm respect to young prospects?