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.

This question is to collapse and No 7&1/2.

What is the difference, between New Zealand offering college opportunities to players from the islands, and to what England do to young Welsh players through colleges like Hartpury ?

LordDowlais wrote:

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.

It appears you cant keep up?

LordDowlais wrote:

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.

Yes Im beginning to question the age of this one. 2005? Hmmm

As Bilt says, think we’re done here Lordy

No 7&1/2 wrote:Clubs in France are doing some similar now aren't they I'm respect to young prospects?

No what France is doing is far, far worse, it's borderline human rights territory.

LordDowlais wrote:This question is to collapse and No 7&1/2.

What is the difference, between New Zealand offering college opportunities to players from the islands, and to what England do to young Welsh players through colleges like Hartpury ?

Not familiar with the scenario you present but I assume there is no difference if you have done your research properly. Though knowing you....

Collapse2005 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:This question is to collapse and No 7&1/2.

What is the difference, between New Zealand offering college opportunities to players from the islands, and to what England do to young Welsh players through colleges like Hartpury ?

Not familiar with the scenario you present but I assume there is no difference if you have done your research properly. Though knowing you....

As well as buying seasoned pros, players and coaches, they need the kids as well? Geez. Truly a sad state of affairs.

The question of schools. No real difference.
Re the first I honestly don't know the answer. Can you tell me the numbers for the last 5 years for everyone not born in respective countries for say the top 20 countries and we can then just say yes or no. As things stand I don't know how many players from England were born outside england and the breakdown of how they qualified. I don't know hat for others either without looking it up. You seem to be stating it's a fact so you obviously do know all those things. Cut us a break and just post the numbers!

In all fairness Wales and England have a land border and people from both places are effectively the same nationality. Tonga by contrast is more than 2000 km away from NZ. It takes another level of cynicism to poach Tongan youngsters.

Collapse2005 wrote:In all fairness Wales and England have a land border and people from both places are effectively the same nationality. Tonga by contrast is more than 2000 km away from NZ. It takes another level of cynicism to poach Tongan youngsters.

Ha ha. Then what does that say about you pinching hundreds of our players and coaches from 20,000 km away?
What ‘level’ of cynicism does that require? Stratospheric?

LordDowlais wrote:This question is to collapse and No 7&1/2.

What is the difference, between New Zealand offering college opportunities to players from the islands, and to what England do to young Welsh players through colleges like Hartpury ?

It is entirely unremarkable for a school leaver living in South Wales wanting to go to a sports university to choose one that is just a short drive away. A Tongan child to choosing to go to school a couple of thousand miles away is perhaps a little more remarkable.

Exiledinborders wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:This question is to collapse and No 7&1/2.

What is the difference, between New Zealand offering college opportunities to players from the islands, and to what England do to young Welsh players through colleges like Hartpury ?

It is entirely unremarkable for a school leaver living in South Wales wanting to go to a sports university to choose one that is just a short drive away. A Tongan child to choosing to go to school a couple of thousand miles away is perhaps a little more remarkable.

You guys are funny, is that what we are going to see on the field in the next few weeks. Excuses, ducking and diving? Harden up people, theres a match to play.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:In all fairness Wales and England have a land border and people from both places are effectively the same nationality. Tonga by contrast is more than 2000 km away from NZ. It takes another level of cynicism to poach Tongan youngsters.

Ha ha. Then what does that say about you pinching hundreds of our players and coaches from 20,000 km away?
What ‘level’ of cynicism does that require? Stratospheric?

It says a lot of people want to leave New Zealand.

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 ?

Actually if you watched the pacific combine video on world rugbys youtube page this is exactly what is happening. Super rugby and Mitre 10 sides sent scouts to the combine in order to identify talent for their rugby teams. I'm not saying this is a bad thing by the way, I'm happy anytime a talented PI players gets a pro contract as it potentially helps their national side. Watching the PI sides in full swing is one of the great joys in rugby.

Id rather the PI sides were given the means to develop their own leagues.

Biltong wrote: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.

Good question. Just thinking about my own nation, it’s tempting to say that for Wales we are net recipients. That’s probably what people outside of Wales would automatically think. But actually, when you consider how many Welsh players play outside of Wales (not just the international players but all of the club players), it’s probably about evens currently. A bit old now, but there was a list compiled in 2017 of 84 Welsh players playing in England. There’s nowhere near than many ‘foreigners’ at the 4 regions.

Collapse2005 wrote:Id rather the PI sides were given the means to develop their own leagues.

They do have their own leagues though? Samoa just recently formed a super 9s competition with the best teams in the country competing. You can't seriously expect these tiny islands to have a fully professional league?

Someone was asking about foreign player numbers n 6N unions.

Here’s a few current numbers in Irish Rugby that I posted earlier in this thread.

254 Players total in senior squads and academies - not including Sevens or Women's Squads
204 are Irish-born - 80%

The Foreign-born 50 come from 11 different countries
Eng 13;SA 13;NZ 12; Aus 5; Nig/Fra/Spa/Can/USA/Geo/Zim - 1 each

The 31 SH-born players make up 12% of the total:
- 6 are non-Irish eligible - they're already capped - 4 of whom finish in June '19.
- 6 have birth parents/grandparents with some moving before 18yo.
- 4 have been Irish residency-capped
- 4 have Irish residency-qualified (under 3-year rule) but not been capped.
- 5 can still qualify under 3-year rule if still contracted beyond 31 Dec 2020.
- 6 are not residency-qualified and uncapped but could only qualify after 1 Jan 2023 at the earliest.

So by end of 2018/19 season, only 2 players in Irish Rugby will not be eligible to be, or become, Ireland-qualified.

It'll be interesting to see who might be signed before then. (Last season 57 players left the provinces/academies - retirement, released, play Ireland 7s, or new contract elsewhere - SH 14; Eng 1; USA 1; and 31 Irish-born.)

Irish-born players do leave Ireland to go play in and occasionally for other countries eg McKinley for Italy, MacGinty for USA (plus 3 or 4 other Irish players).  Many of them go to play for clubs in England and a number in France in their lower leagues.  There’s about 50 players in UK I think.  Some of them go mid-career - Madigan, Moore, Zebo; others go towards end of career - Donncha Ryan, Paul O’Connell, Donncha O’Callaghan, Peter Stringer, etc.  
Does Irish Rugby bring in more players than go out?  Certainly over some time it brought more in, higher quality ones anyway.   In more recent years, I’d estimate that has changed. Oddly, there’s more Irish-born asst or senior coaches working abroad in England, Wales, France, Italy and NZ than there are working in Ireland.  Erasmus tried to bring another one from Munster to the Springboks.

For as long as there are agents and scouts working anywhere in the world, players and coaches will move around the globe particularly those with the resources to employ them.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:In all fairness Wales and England have a land border and people from both places are effectively the same nationality. Tonga by contrast is more than 2000 km away from NZ. It takes another level of cynicism to poach Tongan youngsters.

Ha ha. Then what does that say about you pinching hundreds of our players and coaches from 20,000 km away?
What ‘level’ of cynicism does that require? Stratospheric?

It says a lot of people want to leave New Zealand.

Aha. Ok then. They just all happen to be awesome rugby players. Ok then.

I think we should rename this site 'The Odd Couple'

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Id rather the PI sides were given the means to develop their own leagues.

They do have their own leagues though? Samoa just recently formed a super 9s competition with the best teams in the country competing. You can't seriously expect these tiny islands to have a fully professional league?

Why not?

Collapse2005 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Id rather the PI sides were given the means to develop their own leagues.

They do have their own leagues though? Samoa just recently formed a super 9s competition with the best teams in the country competing. You can't seriously expect these tiny islands to have a fully professional league?

Why not?

Money

Collapse2005 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Id rather the PI sides were given the means to develop their own leagues.

They do have their own leagues though? Samoa just recently formed a super 9s competition with the best teams in the country competing. You can't seriously expect these tiny islands to have a fully professional league?

Why not?

The financial backing is not there for them to achieve this. Do you see this an issue for the RFU or an issue for New Zealand to sort out?

Why would the RFU need to get involved? Its maybe a World Rugby issue, but not an English responsibility.

Sorry, I meant World Rugby...

No 7&1/2 wrote:The question of schools. No real difference.

There you go, you are now starting to see the picture, small steps and all that.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Re the first I honestly don't know the answer. Can you tell me the numbers for the last 5 years for everyone not born in respective countries for say the top 20 countries and we can then just say yes or no. As things stand I don't know how many players from England were born outside england and the breakdown of how they qualified. I don't know hat for others either without looking it up. You seem to be stating it's a fact so you obviously do know all those things. Cut us a break and just post the numbers!

Still skirting around the question.

You can get all the info you need of the internet. But you really shouldn't need to. Like Biltong has alluded to, we are all net recipients of non qualified players up here in the home nations.

Collapse2005 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:This question is to collapse and No 7&1/2.

What is the difference, between New Zealand offering college opportunities to players from the islands, and to what England do to young Welsh players through colleges like Hartpury ?

Not familiar with the scenario you present but I assume there is no difference if you have done your research properly. Though knowing you....

oh here we go, the irony of this post is just....

Go and do some of your own research, and find out how many young Welsh players get offered place in colleges in England for their rugby ability. Check out Sam Costelow and Tommy Refell just for starters. Go and find out how they ended up at Leicester.

Regarding schools what's your point I've never argued against that.

There's a helluva lot of checking regarding players not born in the countries they represent lord. You've already done those checks just post them.

There's 4 currently in the england squad not born in England. I couldn't tell you how many people born in England there is in the squads of Scotland wales etc. Used to be more than that so again not sure if england are currently a net importer or exporter if you want to view it like that.

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's 4 currently in the england squad not born in England.  I couldn't tell you how many people born in England there is in the squads of Scotland wales etc. Used to be more than that so again not sure if england are currently a net importer or exporter if you want to view it like that.

There are 4 currently, but you know there have been more, and potentially there could be even more.

I can only find the extended squad for wales but looks like there are more there so at present net exporter without checking other squads. As I said first up its all ok if you play by the rules.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I can only find the extended squad for wales but looks like there are more there so at present net exporter without checking other squads.  As I said first up its all ok if you play by the rules.

Everyone plays by the rules, or laws as they are now.

Nobody is doing anything legally wrong, nobody can be sued.

That is not what this discussion is about.

Each person need to answer for themselves whether their country as a whole benefit from the situation as it is now, or not.

Debating this issue just goes in circles as each tries to outwit the other.

Simple question to a debate made complex.

Is your country a net importer or exporter of rugby playing stock?

Easy to answer.

I'm aiming my annoyance more at players who have come through other unions pathways, then getting taken to other leagues and then getting capped, not where they were born in reality.

They could have been born anywhere but moved to a country as a young child, then come through that countries pathway, that is not poaching in my book.

Biltong wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I can only find the extended squad for wales but looks like there are more there so at present net exporter without checking other squads.  As I said first up its all ok if you play by the rules.

Everyone plays by the rules, or laws as they are now.

Nobody is doing anything legally wrong, nobody can be sued.

That is not what this discussion is about.

Each person need to answer for themselves whether their country as a whole benefit from the situation as it is now, or not.

Debating this issue just goes in circles as each tries to outwit the other.

Simple question to a debate made complex.

Is your country a net importer or exporter of rugby playing stock?

Easy to answer.

It is very easy to answer Bilt.

But don't get your hopes up.

Actually biltong the thread is about what people think should be the rules more than if someone has broken them. It looks as if england is a net exporter.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Actually biltong the thread is about what people think should be the rules more than if someone has broken them. It looks as if england is a net exporter.

How would you say that ?

How many players have gone through the English system, only to play in other leagues and get capped for other countries ?

Not as many as there are SH players playing up here I bet.

Like I said lord I'll look at the current squads and we're a net exporter. I haven't the time to go back to whenever you've checked to. Tbh I don't know how you've had the time but seeing as you have post the results it'll be interesting.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Like I said lord I'll look at the current squads and we're a net exporter. I haven't the time to go back to whenever you've checked to. Tbh I don't know how you've had the time but seeing as you have post the results it'll be interesting.

Excellent method of deflection 7&1/2.

Make the other guy do the research to prove his point, until then he is in the worng

He's already done it I believe biltong. It's a helluva lot of work checking that though hence I've gone a little way to checking and confirmed at present england are net exporters. Buys good will you know.

Biltong wrote:...Simple question to a debate made complex.

Is your country a net importer or exporter of rugby playing stock?

It's actually not that simple a question, Biltong. What do you mean by "import"? Simon Shaw was born in Kenya, but I don't think you mean someone like him. Almost every definition you choose will probably exclude someone you want to include, or vice versa. English flanker Gary Graham's dad was a Scotland prop; Rhys Ruddock was born in Dublin, and is tipped to captain Ireland at the weekend, but his father was Head Coach of Wales and took the team to a Grand Slam. Japan captain Michael Leitch was born in New Zealand but naturalized as a Japanese citizen, which is about as big a commitment you can make to a country. His legal name now is actually リーチマイケル (Riichu Maikeru). Malakai Fekitoa, an eight Test All Black at the time, wasn't eligible for the Rio Olympics because he wasn't a NZ citizen. Nor was Waisake Naholo.

Similarly, 7 1/2 has already assumed you are talking only about national team players, but perhaps you are talking about clubs, provinces and franchises. Fekitoa plays in France now but is he an import from New Zealand, as Tman has indicated, or from Tonga, as he still uses their passport?

If you do include clubs etc then you load the dice, since Super Rugby is, to some extent, a closed shop to overseas players. One of the aims of the competition is to develop talent for the national teams, so it doesn't suit the unions to use overseas-qualified players. It uses limited financial resources, and fills a place in the side which could go to someone else. They do exist, but the aim is to keep the numbers down.

The RFU and FFR have no say on who clubs in their country employ. They aren't responsible for any of the players which join teams from overseas. The same is largely true of the JRFU in Japan. They are however, responsible for taking players away from the clubs to play international matches while the domestic seasons continue. One of the reasons clubs in the north employ professional rugby players from overseas is that they usually don't go away on international duty, so can cover the gaps in the squad.

You'd think the SANZAR unions know that's one factor which stokes demand for their players, so you might imagine it's an issue they would have wanted to help address, when discussions were held about more closely aligning the seasons in the hemispheres. Far from it. They priority was ensuring their own Test windows and Super Rugby seasons didn't overlap.

The net result of that focus, is that the English season just got longer, and England international players will have more restrictions placed on their availlability for clubs. It's quite possible that some English clubs will regard employing England Test players as an obstacle to domestic success, and will prefer more overseas players again. The moves have also led to changes to the schedule for Lions tours, which some fear will threaten the future of that institution. Last time I looked New Zealand, Australia and South Africa depend on Lions Tour income to a significant extent. Great negotiating SANZAR!

I'm trying not make assumptions hence my questioning in earlier threads. Biltong has said he means anyone moving abroad with a few caveats excluding people like mtawarira. Lords thinking anyone based on residency or grandfather's but that does keep changing hence I just did it on born in a different country.

Kane Thompson, born Taranaki, played Highlanders, now, you guessed it, Newcastle

That's cowpat.

He hasn't played for us for ages.

Wasn't much cop anyway.

Biltong wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Id rather the PI sides were given the means to develop their own leagues.

They do have their own leagues though? Samoa just recently formed a super 9s competition with the best teams in the country competing. You can't seriously expect these tiny islands to have a fully professional league?

Why not?

Money

You think Ireland has more money than England, France, South Africa, Australia? Far from it however, with sensible structures Ireland competes with these teams. No reason why there cant be at least one island sides in super rugby.

In football Ireland doesn't have a fully professional domestic league instead Irish talent goes to the UK to play in lower leagues. This in my view is down to a long history of mismanagement which could be fixed with some sensible changes. I see similar potential for the island nations because lets face its clear they can produce talent.

LordDowlais wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:This question is to collapse and No 7&1/2.

What is the difference, between New Zealand offering college opportunities to players from the islands, and to what England do to young Welsh players through colleges like Hartpury ?

Not familiar with the scenario you present but I assume there is no difference if you have done your research properly. Though knowing you....

oh here we go, the irony of this post is just....

Go and do some of your own research, and find out how many young Welsh players get offered place in colleges in England for their rugby ability. Check out Sam Costelow and Tommy Refell just for starters. Go and find out how they ended up at Leicester.

Did they drive a few hours down the road?

Collapse2005 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:This question is to collapse and No 7&1/2.

What is the difference, between New Zealand offering college opportunities to players from the islands, and to what England do to young Welsh players through colleges like Hartpury ?

Not familiar with the scenario you present but I assume there is no difference if you have done your research properly. Though knowing you....

oh here we go, the irony of this post is just....

Go and do some of your own research, and find out how many young Welsh players get offered place in colleges in England for their rugby ability. Check out Sam Costelow and Tommy Refell just for starters. Go and find out how they ended up at Leicester.

Did they drive a few hours down the road?

Reffell and Costelow were offered junior academy contracts and places at 6th form by us. They and their parents decided this was a better opportunity for them than staying in Wales and signing their first contract with a region. Both players fully intend to try and play for Wales in the future with Reffell already tied having played in a relevant fixture for their U20s. 

This move was instigated by the club and the players. Unlike similar arrangements in France, and college led in NZ (and maybe Hartpury) these lads will not "lose" their Welsh nationality and the intention is they will contribute to the club and to their country (ie Wales). Seems to me this is a win/win situation for Wales as the development of two of their promising players is being paid for by the English, and frees up two spots at a region.

Is there such thing as a Welsh nationality? What are the qualification rules for playing for Wales? Can someone from England or Scotland not just play for Wales if they want as they effectively have the same nationality?

Rugby Fan wrote:

Biltong wrote:...Simple question to a debate made complex.

Is your country a net importer or exporter of rugby playing stock?

It's actually not that simple a question, Biltong. What do you mean by "import"? Simon Shaw was born in Kenya, but I don't think you mean someone like him. Almost every definition you choose will probably exclude someone you want to include, or vice versa. English flanker Gary Graham's dad was a Scotland prop; Rhys Ruddock was born in Dublin, and is tipped to captain Ireland at the weekend, but his father was Head Coach of Wales and took the team to a Grand Slam. Japan captain Michael Leitch was born in New Zealand but naturalized as a Japanese citizen, which is about as big a commitment you can make to a country. His legal name now is actually リーチマイケル (Riichu Maikeru). Malakai Fekitoa, an eight Test All Black at the time, wasn't eligible for the Rio Olympics because he wasn't a NZ citizen. Nor was Waisake Naholo.

Similarly, 7 1/2 has already assumed you are talking only about national team players, but perhaps you are talking about clubs, provinces and franchises. Fekitoa plays in France now but is he an import from New Zealand, as Tman has indicated, or from Tonga, as he still uses their passport?

If you do include clubs etc then you load the dice, since Super Rugby is, to some extent, a closed shop to overseas players. One of the aims of the competition is to develop talent for the national teams, so it doesn't suit the unions to use overseas-qualified players. It uses limited financial resources, and fills a place in the side which could go to someone else. They do exist, but the aim is to keep the numbers down.

The RFU and FFR have no say on who clubs in their country employ. They aren't responsible for any of the players which join teams from overseas. The same is largely true of the JRFU in Japan. They are however, responsible for taking players away from the clubs to play international matches while the domestic seasons continue. One of the reasons clubs in the north employ professional rugby players from overseas is that they usually don't go away on international duty, so can cover the gaps in the squad.

You'd think the SANZAR unions know that's one factor which stokes demand for their players, so you might imagine it's an issue they would have wanted to help address, when discussions were held about more closely aligning the seasons in the hemispheres. Far from it. They priority was ensuring their own Test windows and Super Rugby seasons didn't overlap.

The net result of that focus, is that the English season just got longer, and England international players will have more restrictions placed on their availlability for clubs. It's quite possible that some English clubs will regard employing England Test players as an obstacle to domestic success, and will prefer more overseas players again. The moves have also led to changes to the schedule for Lions tours, which some fear will threaten the future of that institution. Last time I looked New Zealand, Australia and South Africa depend on Lions Tour income to a significant extent. Great negotiating SANZAR!

Ok lets break this down to firstly what importing talent means in my eyes. This may differ from how you view it.

We can all acknowledge that clubs, schools, varsities etc use some format of scouts, be it they are independant, or actually in the employ of said institution.

Amateur scouting are mostly students and scholars showing potential. Now scouting can be within one's own nation, or cross border. But what is the crucial ingredientis talent identification.

At an amateur level this mostly promises better education and better pathways to success and opportunity to possible play professional rugby.

I think as far as amateur rugby goes, it is no different to how rugby players were targeted and provided better jobs and opportunities in the amateur era.

I think this happens to a lesser or greater extent in most countries. The only losers here are the very poor nations who cannot promise better education and pathways to a professional career. However it has to be considered that kids should be excluded from the debate of import, export or poaching as plenty can still go wrong at that stage that prevents them to ever play professional sport.

For me it all start in the last year of school, this is where talent can be defined, it can be identified and the future stars for the most part show their potential. Yes this is still a numbers game as not every potential star at age 18 is going to become the next best thing.

That is however a risk most professional set ups will take, perhaps with a junior contract and then after a season or two more senior and beneficial contracts.

Then there are the esatablished professionals who have already made a name for themselves.

Now let me first make it clear, being a nett importer or exporter of talent is a seperate issue to poaching.

We are discussing importing players here.

Player imports and exports are at club/franchise/provincial level, this has to do with richer clubs/provinces/franchises scouting other nation's players to benefit them.

That to me is what defines import and export of players.

Poaching as I explained before is when a certain union has an agreement, verbal, under the table or openly to find players in other countries to represent them. Be it through residency grand parents.

So basically you see nothing wrong with poaching kids as opposed to approaching established pros? Is that right? If that's what you are saying it seems massively inconsistent in my view.

If you approach an established pro you are also potentially offering them a better life even possibly in terms of education. Felipe Contepomi because a Dr while playing for Leinster and studying at the Royal College of Surgeons at the same time.

LondonTiger wrote:Reffell and Costelow were offered junior academy contracts and places at 6th form by us. They and their parents decided this was a better opportunity for them than staying in Wales and signing their first contract with a region. Both players fully intend to try and play for Wales in the future with Reffell already tied having played in a relevant fixture for their U20s. 

This move was instigated by the club and the players. Unlike similar arrangements in France, and college led in NZ (and maybe Hartpury) these lads will not "lose" their Welsh nationality and the intention is they will contribute to the club and to their country (ie Wales). Seems to me this is a win/win situation for Wales as the development of two of their promising players is being paid for by the English, and frees up two spots at a region.

How did Leicester identify these players ?

Collapse2005 wrote:Is there such thing as a Welsh nationality? What are the qualification rules for playing for Wales? Can someone from England or Scotland not just play for Wales if they want as they effectively have the same nationality?

Is this for real ?