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.

The amount of project players that really make the grade internationally for other countries is actually not all that high.

In the Scotland set up, Probably only WP Nel is the only one who has become really established. Even such good players as Cornel du Prez and Josh Strauss have not really managed to set the heather on fire internationally and have only really been fringe players at best. Both however have been great servants for the clubs they played for and added a great deal in their time there and hopefully have absorbed and developed some Scottish character. The fans certainly took them to their hearts.

With the change in time limit for qualification going out to 5 years now, there won't be many players qualifying by that route now and those that do, having done 5 years on the coal face, most certainly deserve to.

I have to say I don't like using the word poached. Most players make an informed decision about these matters and in many cases are probably genuinely conflicted about it, especially when they legitimately qualify for two or more countries. Some of them are sons of famous fathers, Cameron Redpath, son of Bryan or Michael Lynagh son. In those cases, their fathers have sensibly stood back and allowed them to make their own calls. We have to respect their choices.

Biltong wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not a clue but of course the world is wider than the countries you've mentioned.

You're avoiding the issue.

I can tell you I know of not one European that represented SA in the Pro Era, There might have been one or two for Australia but on NZ I don't know, but doubt it.

Compare that to how many SANZAAR players have represented the Six Nations.

That ratio will be significantly skewed

Well considering SANZAR sides all get players from countries that are generally poorer than their countries such as Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Papua New Guinea, Zimbabwe etc. the criticism is a bit rich given it seems to be mainly down to economics whichever hemisphere you come from.

If you are European you are much less likely to head South if you are going to get paid significantly less.

BigGee wrote:The amount of project players that really make the grade internationally for other countries is actually not all that high.

In the Scotland set up, Probably only WP Nel is the only one who has become really established. Even such good players as Cornel du Prez and Josh Strauss have not really managed to set the heather on fire internationally and have only really been fringe players at best. Both however have been great servants for the clubs they played for and added a great deal in their time there and hopefully have absorbed and developed some Scottish character. The fans certainly took them to their hearts.

With the change in time limit for qualification going out to 5 years now, there won't be many players qualifying by that route now and those that do, having done 5 years on the coal face, most certainly deserve to.

I have to say I don't like using the word poached. Most players make an informed decision about these matters and in many cases are probably genuinely conflicted about it, especially when they legitimately qualify for two or more countries. Some of them are sons of famous fathers, Cameron Redpath, son of Bryan or Michael Lynagh son. In those cases, their fathers have sensibly stood back and allowed them to make their own calls. We have to respect their choices.

Correct.

Anyone got a definition of what a project player is?

Pot Hale wrote:Anyone got a definition of what a project player is?

I've always assumed, although I might be wrong. The following.

• Union/club identify a problem position

• Union/club go and find a young player from another country with the potential to fill that position

• If said player turns out to be of sufficient standard he is then offered a contract by said union

• The said player then pledges his allegience to the nation that has offered him the contract

Please point out where I am wrong.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not a clue but of course the world is wider than the countries you've mentioned.

You're avoiding the issue.

I can tell you I know of not one European that represented SA in the Pro Era, There might have been one or two for Australia but on NZ I don't know, but doubt it.

Compare that to how many SANZAAR players have represented the Six Nations.

That ratio will be significantly skewed

Well considering SANZAR sides all get players from countries that are generally poorer than their countries such as Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Papua New Guinea, Zimbabwe etc. the criticism is a bit rich given it seems to be mainly down to economics whichever hemisphere you come from.

If you are European you are much less likely to head South if you are going to get paid significantly less.

You're having a laugh right?

Do you know what SA rugby does for African rugby and has done in the past?

They have played in many domestic tournaments and many of their players play in our domestic teams, some (very few) actually play for SA, most represent their own nations.

Trying to compare that to the exodus of players from SA to Six nations teams is just laughable.

You clearly reaching here mate.

BigGee wrote:The amount of project players that really make the grade internationally for other countries is actually not all that high.

In the Scotland set up, Probably only WP Nel is the only one who has become really established. Even such good players as Cornel du Prez and Josh Strauss have not really managed to set the heather on fire internationally and have only really been fringe players at best. Both however have been great servants for the clubs they played for and added a great deal in their time there and hopefully have absorbed and developed some Scottish character. The fans certainly took them to their hearts.

With the change in time limit for qualification going out to 5 years now, there won't be many players qualifying by that route now and those that do, having done 5 years on the coal face, most certainly deserve to.

I have to say I don't like using the word poached. Most players make an informed decision about these matters and in many cases are probably genuinely conflicted about it, especially when they legitimately qualify for two or more countries. Some of them are sons of famous fathers, Cameron Redpath, son of Bryan or Michael Lynagh son. In those cases, their fathers have sensibly stood back and allowed them to make their own calls. We have to respect their choices.

Does it matter whether they establish themselves? The fact is they are capped, once capped they are ineligible for their original country.

Besides, that is just the end result, which is created by recruitment "projects"

Is there a definition for project player? It's just a median phrase isn't it? So by that like in world class it'll be down to who is using it and what they mean themselves.

Ah so SA have sufficiently helped zimbabwe so mtawarira is fair game so to speak.

I do not know why people are arguing about this. We are all at it, and we are all guilty. It's just up here in the NH, we seem to go looking for them. In New Zealand and South Africa, for the most part, they are already there, playing in that country.

Biltong wrote:

BigGee wrote:The amount of project players that really make the grade internationally for other countries is actually not all that high.

In the Scotland set up, Probably only WP Nel is the only one who has become really established. Even such good players as Cornel du Prez and Josh Strauss have not really managed to set the heather on fire internationally and have only really been fringe players at best. Both however have been great servants for the clubs they played for and added a great deal in their time there and hopefully have absorbed and developed some Scottish character. The fans certainly took them to their hearts.

With the change in time limit for qualification going out to 5 years now, there won't be many players qualifying by that route now and those that do, having done 5 years on the coal face, most certainly deserve to.

I have to say I don't like using the word poached. Most players make an informed decision about these matters and in many cases are probably genuinely conflicted about it, especially when they legitimately qualify for two or more countries. Some of them are sons of famous fathers, Cameron Redpath, son of Bryan or Michael Lynagh son. In those cases, their fathers have sensibly stood back and allowed them to make their own calls. We have to respect their choices.

Does it matter whether they establish themselves? The fact is they are capped, once capped they are ineligible for their original country.

Besides, that is just the end result, which is created by recruitment "projects"

I agree with that, they were recruited primarily to improve their respective clubs and that is what they were paid for. International selection was never promised, they had to earn that still. Players will continue to come from the SH to play in Europe with or without the potential of international rugby, 5 years ahead is just to long to contemplate and contracts never really run that long in sport. I don't think playing international rugby was even the primary reason why players came even on three year residency. I would say financial considerations plus the chance to experience a different culture were just as, if not more important.

I really don't see how you can stop that.

Biltong wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not a clue but of course the world is wider than the countries you've mentioned.

You're avoiding the issue.

I can tell you I know of not one European that represented SA in the Pro Era, There might have been one or two for Australia but on NZ I don't know, but doubt it.

Compare that to how many SANZAAR players have represented the Six Nations.

That ratio will be significantly skewed

Well considering SANZAR sides all get players from countries that are generally poorer than their countries such as Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Papua New Guinea, Zimbabwe etc. the criticism is a bit rich given it seems to be mainly down to economics whichever hemisphere you come from.

If you are European you are much less likely to head South if you are going to get paid significantly less.

You're having a laugh right?

Do you know what SA rugby does for African rugby and has done in the past?

They have played in many domestic tournaments and many of their players play in our domestic teams, some (very few) actually play for SA, most represent their own nations.

Trying to compare that to the exodus of players from SA to Six nations teams is just laughable.

You clearly reaching here mate.

No. A couple of points:

Firstly I referred to SANZAR countries not SA.
Secondly, don't kid yourself if any of the surrounding countries to SA had any way decent domestic leagues there would be more players playing for SA based on residency. If anything where their leagues are poor they will come over at an earlier age at which point the spin from the SANZAR unions is look at what we are doing for these poor unfortunate souls. Look how great we are.
You could list hundreds of players who have played for SANZAR sides based on residency over the years from poorer countries for economic reasons which is exactly why South Africans come to Europe. The holier than thou attitude is laughable.

BigGee wrote:I agree with that, they were recruited primarily to improve their respective clubs and that is what they were paid for.

Nope. I do not agree with that, they are not always signed to just improve their clubs. You and I both know this.

They are for England.

BigGee wrote:International selection was never promised, they had to earn that still.

I agree, but international selection is used as a carrot to dangle.

BigGee wrote: don't think playing international rugby was even the primary reason why players came even on three year residency. I would say financial considerations plus the chance to experience a different culture were just as, if not more important.

As much as you would like to think that is the case, it clearly isn't, we have seen too many instances why this is not entirely true.

No 7&1/2 wrote:They are for England.

Then they are encouraged not to commit themselves to their native country so the clubs can reap the benefit of not having NEQ players. Which however way you try and spin it, is just as bad.

That's fine but as I said previously it's important to note that in that case it's about clubs looking out for their best interest and also about players developing to their best ability e.g. mtawarira who not many people have minded about.

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's fine but as I said previously it's important to note that in that case it's about clubs looking out for their best interest and also about players developing to their best ability e.g. mtawarira who not many people have minded about.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am sure he lived in South Africa from a very young age.

Not from what I've read. Spotted and capped for zimbabwe under 18s or something like that then picked up by the sharks and capped following residency by sa. As I've said I have no issue with it. Play to the rules.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not from what I've read. Spotted and capped for zimbabwe under 18s or something like that then picked up by the sharks and capped following residency by sa. As I've said I have no issue with it. Play to the rules.

Well that's another one then.

But like I said, we are all guilty of it. But the home nations are the worst for doing it.

You keep saying that but I don't think you know for sure. And worst is a bit emotive. It's all within the rules.

Within the current rules its inevitable that established players from weaker economies will come to leagues that offer richer contracts. Likewise countries that have playing populations but weak domestic league structures will see a drain of potential players leaving at a younger age before they miss the boat associated with not getting exposure to high level domestic tournaments. This is the main reason that Argentina rarely attracts players representing Argentina based on residency, their economy is shot, they don't have a strong professional domestic league and nor do any of their neighbours.

Its mainly down to economics rather than unions poaching, if people really dislike it then world rugby will probably change the rules at some point.

If SA players didn't have the exception for European Competitions would they be so sought after. If you could only play 3 players from AUS, NZ & SA i think SA players value would go down

Brendan wrote:If SA players didn't have the exception for European Competitions would they be so sought after. If you could only play 3 players from AUS, NZ & SA i think SA players value would go down

Hmmm.... I'll try to do some reverse science on that.

So if you could only play 3 players from AUS, NZ and SA, SA players' value would go down.  But some teams might only be able to afford the SA players at that point.  Cheap but affordable?  

So, SA players' value might actually then go up by the process of demand exceeding supply?

Brendan wrote:If SA players didn't have the exception for European Competitions would they be so sought after. If you could only play 3 players from AUS, NZ & SA i think SA players value would go down

If the value of SA according to you is less valued, then why are there so many playing in Europe?

And don't tell me they are cheaper labour, that is just cowpat.

The fact that the opportunity exists for players to switch countries is not great but I do question the players themselves for doing this. How much pride can you have in yourself if you choose to switch countries for a chance to play international rugby...

eirebilly wrote:The fact that the opportunity exists for players to switch countries is not great but I do question the players themselves for doing this. How much pride can you have in yourself if you choose to switch countries for a chance to play international rugby...

Are you going to tell Stander that he doesn't have pride in himself or should I?

Collapse2005 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:The fact that the opportunity exists for players to switch countries is not great but I do question the players themselves for doing this. How much pride can you have in yourself if you choose to switch countries for a chance to play international rugby...

Are you going to tell Stander that he doesn't have pride in himself or should I?

I think CJ has passion but I do question his ethical pride. I don't know the full story but he seemed very quick to leave SA and come to Ireland with the intention of playing International rugby. I think the guy is great and great for Munster but I do not believe he should be representing Ireland.

What is ethical pride? Are you saying its unethical to play rugby for another country? Not sure I agree.

Collapse2005 wrote:What is ethical pride? Are you saying its unethical to play rugby for another country? Not sure I agree.

You are on the recieving end of talent, most people would agree with you in that position.

There are some of us though that value ethics, traditon, culture and still pride ourselves in valueing these ideoligies above money.

I am born and raised in Ireland but now live in Holland, fluent in Dutch and am a Dutch citizen (Dutch passport). In no way would I wish to represent Holland in anything, I am Irish.

I have a pride in where I am from regardless of where I live or ply my trade. That to me is ethical pride.

Unless it benefits you like mtawarira? Then apparently acceptable.

This is just my personal opinion on the matter. I simply do not understand people switching countries for the opportunity to play international rugby. I have nothing against players plying their trade in other countries for personal financial gain but also believe that a tight line should be drawn on the number so as to not stifle the development of home grown players.

Biltong wrote:There are some of us though that value ethics, traditon, culture and still pride ourselves in valueing these ideoligies above money.

eirebilly wrote:I have a pride in where I am from regardless of where I live or ply my trade. That to me is ethical pride.

I can only echo this. 100% well said lads. When people ask me where I come from, I tell them with pride. Whether it's when I'm on holiday, on work or anything, I always swell with pride that I am Welsh.

There is nothing else I would rather be, or represent.

I am glad that there are others on here that share the same sentiments as me.

Biltong wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:What is ethical pride? Are you saying its unethical to play rugby for another country? Not sure I agree.

You are on the recieving end of talent, most people would agree with you in that position.

There are some of us though that value ethics, traditon, culture and still pride ourselves in valueing these ideoligies above money.

Stander hasn't done anything unethical.

Its not like he ate a swan or lit a paper bag of dog poo in your doorstep.

If you analyse everything you do daily at a granular level a large volume of things could be considered unethical. Turn a light switch on in Ireland and you are contributing to the burning of fossil fuels. There are a million examples in modern western life that people are either oblivious to or turn a blind eye to. Unless you are planning on wearing a hemp onesie and living in a cave for the rest of your life you will be faced with tough ethical dilemmas all the time of which there are often no good answer.

Some tradition and culture is a good thing alright but times change all the time and Id rather change with the times than resist change for no good reason. For example lots of people love the national anthem of Ireland because it makes them feel patriotic. If there was a vote to change it tomorrow I would because it is a dreadful song and desperately outdated.

LordDowlais wrote:

Biltong wrote:There are some of us though that value ethics, traditon, culture and still pride ourselves in valueing these ideoligies above money.

eirebilly wrote:I have a pride in where I am from regardless of where I live or ply my trade. That to me is ethical pride.

I can only echo this. 100% well said lads. When people ask me where I come from, I tell them with pride. Whether it's when I'm on holiday, on work or anything, I always swell with pride that I am Welsh.

There is nothing else I would rather be, or represent.

I am glad that there are others on here that share the same sentiments as me.

Its fine to be proud of your nationality but some people exhibit levels bordering on brain washing.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Unless it benefits you like mtawarira?  Then apparently acceptable.

For the last time, WTF does Mtwarira have to do with how I feel?

Do you struggle to comprehend?

LordDowlais wrote:

Biltong wrote:There are some of us though that value ethics, traditon, culture and still pride ourselves in valueing these ideoligies above money.

eirebilly wrote:I have a pride in where I am from regardless of where I live or ply my trade. That to me is ethical pride.

I can only echo this. 100% well said lads. When people ask me where I come from, I tell them with pride. Whether it's when I'm on holiday, on work or anything, I always swell with pride that I am Welsh.

There is nothing else I would rather be, or represent.

I am glad that there are others on here that share the same sentiments as me.

Thus my lukewarm attitude to Ye Lions.

There is only one outfit that has me raging at the TV, storming around the room DEMANDING that the coach listens to my advice! Only one outfit that wrecks my heart when they lose and sends it into the stratosphere when they win.....

yep, it's the ABs for me.

It's just how I feel about the subject guys. I do not expect everyone else to feel the same.

Just as you lot cannot expect me to think it's OK to change my allegience to another country at a drop of a hat.

Biltong wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Unless it benefits you like mtawarira?  Then apparently acceptable.

For the last time, WTF does Mtwarira have to do with how I feel?

Do you struggle to comprehend?

He is very sapping isn't he ?

I obviously do struggle to follow you biltong but no need to swear. You pointed to the beast who I assume is mtawarira as acceptable and not a poach?

eirebilly wrote:I am born and raised in Ireland but now live in Holland, fluent in Dutch and am a Dutch citizen (Dutch passport). In no way would I wish to represent Holland in anything, I am Irish.

I have a pride in where I am from regardless of where I live or ply my trade. That to me is ethical pride.

You switched countries. I think its more unethical of you to have accepted Dutch citizenship without accepting what it means to be Dutch. You are willing to accept the benefits of being a Dutch citizen without ever intending on putting yourself forward as Dutch. That to me is unethical, not what Stander has done.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I obviously do struggle to follow you biltong but no need to swear. You pointed to the beast who I assume is mtawarira as acceptable and not a poach?

It's the same thing that happens in England, that you reckon does not happen.

Collapse2005 wrote:You switched countries. I think its more unethical of you to have accepted Dutch citizenship without accepting what it means to be Dutch.

Change Eiribilly to CJ Stander, and change Dutch to Irish and you can have the same question, which you reckon is OK.

LordDowlais wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:You switched countries. I think its more unethical of you to have accepted Dutch citizenship without accepting what it means to be Dutch.

Change Eiribilly to CJ Stander, and change Dutch to Irish and you can have the same question, which you reckon is OK.

I think you have unsurprisingly missed the point. Stander is willing to accept everything that is involved in being Irish, Eirebilly is not willing to accept being Dutch yet is willing to accept the benefits of being a Dutch citizen. BIG difference!!!

Collapse2005 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:You switched countries. I think its more unethical of you to have accepted Dutch citizenship without accepting what it means to be Dutch.

Change Eiribilly to CJ Stander, and change Dutch to Irish and you can have the same question, which you reckon is OK.

I think you have unsurprisingly missed the point. Stander is willing to accept everything that is involved in being Irish, Eirebilly is not willing to accept being Dutch yet is willing to accept the benefits of being a Dutch citizen. BIG difference!!!

The only difference here is:-

Eirebilly is not willing to accept being Dutch, because, he isn't.

CJ Stander is not Irish, but he will represent Ireland.

At least Eiribilly is not pretending to be something he isn't.

So what I’ve gleaned from this thread is that we have to respect individuals feelings on the subject, i.e. peoples right to either support and like the rules or not. So why the f**k are you still arguing about it? Respect each other’s right to feel how they like on the topic and move on.

LordDowlais wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:You switched countries. I think its more unethical of you to have accepted Dutch citizenship without accepting what it means to be Dutch.

Change Eiribilly to CJ Stander, and change Dutch to Irish and you can have the same question, which you reckon is OK.

I think you have unsurprisingly missed the point. Stander is willing to accept everything that is involved in being Irish, Eirebilly is not willing to accept being Dutch yet is willing to accept the benefits of being a Dutch citizen. BIG difference!!!

The only difference here is:-

Eirebilly is not willing to accept being Dutch, because, he isn't.

CJ Stander is not Irish, but he will represent Ireland.

At least Eiribilly is not pretending to be something he isn't.

If you don't want to be Dutch then don't accept citizenship of Holland because it is unethical to do so. It is not unethical to accept citizenship of another country if you are willing to accept what that means. Come on Lord its not difficult.

Stop with the silly insults lord.

Collapse2005 wrote:If you don't want to be Dutch then don't accept citizenship of Holland because it is unethical to do so. It is not unethical to accept citizenship of another country if you are willing to accept what that means. Come on Lord its not difficult.

But CJ Stander is about as Irish as I am. FFS. He did not grow up hoping to don the jersey of the emerald isle did he ? NO, he wanted to wear a different shade of green. You know it, I know it, and so does everybody else.

He is not Irish, yet he is willing to turn his back on what he is and become something else. Which is something I could not do.