Rugby World Cup - Eligibility, Poaching etc

First topic message reminder :

LondonTiger wrote:
https://rugby365.com/countries/argentina/world-cup-players-born-abroad

To try and avoid other threads getting caught up in discussions about player eligibility and following recent comments from Agustin Pichot and Danny Care I have set up this thread with the above article as a starter. Taken from a NZ website it is as you would expect defensive of NZ. A WoL article would do the same for Wales as would joe.ie etc etc.

Some key things:

Birth does not always tell the full story.

Some examples then given where place of birth is not always relevant.

Number of Foreign-born Players per Country

19 Samoa
16 Tonga
15 USA
14 Japan, Scotland
12 Australia
8 Italy, Wales
7 England
5 France
4 Canada, Fiji, Ireland, New Zealand
1 Georgia, Russia South Africa
0 Argentina, Namibia, Uruguay
The Main Donors
48 New Zealand
18 England
13 Australia, South Africa
8 Tonga
7 Fiji
6 Ireland

It should be noted that these numbers are not necessarily correct. England have 6 players not born in England, the guys writing the article just cannot count.

Now the warning (and I may regret starting this thread):

This is not an excuse to slag off other countries. Please concentrate on your own country as much as possible, after all are you actually losing players you want to keep? 

Just seen this from care as well on the bbc:

Players are just pawns. You look at it and is there much loyalty in it? Maybe not," he told Rugby Union Weekly.

"Some are given an easier route than those who worked a fair bit harder."

Subscribe to the BBC's Rugby Union Weekly podcast

Care, 32, has won 84 England caps, but only one of those has come at a World Cup. He was ruled out of the 2011 tournament with a toe injury and was third-choice scrum-half in 2015, making a solitary appearance in England's 60-3 dead-rubber win over Uruguay.

He says that he holds no hard feelings towards Heinz, who moved to Gloucester in 2015 from Canterbury-based Crusaders, but believes the current eligibility rules are unfair.

Second row Devin Toner was overlooked for Ireland's World Cup squad in favour of South Africa-born Jean Kleyn, who served out the required three-year residency period in August.

At 33, Toner is unlikely to be in contention for a place at France 2023

World Rugby vice president Agustin Pichot tweeted that he was sympathetic to Toner's predicament. The governing body has already changed the rule, extending the residency period to five years from the end of 2020.

"I started playing rugby at five in England, dreamed of playing for my country in a World Cup," continued Care.

"You do all the hard work, you stay in England, don't look to play for a club abroad to make more money because you want to play for England and win a World Cup - now that is not going to happen.

"A lot of players who have done well for whatever country and it comes to the World Cup, the pinnacle, where you hope that loyalty and hard work is paid back and it is taken away from you. That is the disappointment. That is why is hurts so much."

You can understand the bitterness but it's a little me me me and somehow being owed. Comes back for me to those comments coming out about how it's a better atmosphere in the england camp these days. Perhaps you dont want those players who perhaps spit their dummy out a little?

Hobnailed TVs eh?

They'd probably pick up a fair valuation on the Antiques Roadshow

Nah, they're a dime a dozen at our flea markets.

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Breaching human rights?  Bit strong, is it?

read the links above and you tell me if it's a "bit strong".

Using leverages to stop players from declaring for International duty....yes, despicable.

But trying to entice young players somewhere by giving their fathers jobs, well cheeky but hardly impacting a thing called human rights.

So my comment was directed at that bit, Lord

Just a few snippets for SF. If you think this is all fine, then fair play to you. But if these were young girls/women being trafficked, under the same circumstances then you would be screaming about human rights.

First being a professional sports star is not a human right.
In Soccer lots of lower league teams own houses into which they put their players
Are we saying at 18 or 19 if a club had offered us 2-3k a month or even for 6months to have a shot at being a professional player we wouldn't have taken it. The lower levels of Rugby are full of people who would like that much.

In jobs all the time people get paid more if they sign something to say when they quit they won't work for a competitor during the contract and a certain time after. How are the contracts in relation to international playing time different. You will miss 20% of the season to pay for yourself to fly around the world and put yourself up in hotels to play for you country, or we can give you the extra 20% because we don't need cover and we will pay for you to fly home during the summer to see home. Which would you choose.

Deleted as human rights are off topic.

I think one of the issues/problems might be in people's continued desire to believe in the fundamental cut-off of ambitions between private clubs in big Nations and their International Union.

For me it is potentially a bit of a bluff.  I think behind the scenes there must be plenty of discussions and chats between head honchos of Private Leagues plus controllers of the International game.

Sport is politics.  Sport is Propaganda.  Every Nation realises the benefits of winning things at a political level and therefore common strategies to success must be discussed at some level within each Nation.

Then back to this idea of contracts to discourage players from making themselves available to their Home International sides.
"It's just good business sense.  We have a club to run and profits to make for our investors."

But what might the Union be thinking?
 "It's just good business practice.  Suck up competitors that might meet you in the market place.  Neutralise them by syphoning off their potential best assets ... and International win rates potentially increase."

So for me, there is always the possibility of a more sinister, hidden, whispering-in-dark-corridors link up of aspirations between Private clubs and the Unions in their realm.

If Ireland could fund 8 teams and fill 50% of each squad with good imports who would push standards inside the squad I would do it.

Irish players would be playing with better people and expected to reach higher levels.

NH has improved because of SH players driving standards both on and off the field. It means that NH players push themselves more. The French are better for their imports. The real reason they struggle is management and structures. O'Gara talked alot about it. Their underage system is now reaping the rewards

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah. Finally a positive from brexit. We can cut away all the protections and right immigrants have and take advantage of them properly.

Did you not read the story I posted to the Breit thread about an increase in dogging amongst truckers

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah. Finally a positive from brexit. We can cut away all the protections and right immigrants have and take advantage of them properly.

No way!! I thought Johnson wanted to get away from the EU conventions on human rights because he wanted to make them better in the UK!

They're flooding in now LT.

Can I put in a complaint about mods and posters alike discussing things that are off topic? I think for most people this forum is a getaway from some of that bollix, we’d like to keep it that way. Cheers.

mikey_dragon wrote:Can I put in a complaint about mods and posters alike discussing things that are off topic? I think for most people this forum is a getaway from some of that bollix, we’d like to keep it that way. Cheers.

I was just thinking this myself.

there is a brexit thread in the other section.

I would like to keep politics and rugby apart if that is ok ?

mikey_dragon wrote:Can I put in a complaint about mods and posters alike discussing things that are off topic? I think for most people this forum is a getaway from some of that bollix, we’d like to keep it that way. Cheers.

You can report any post, including those by a mod.

Apologies. It affects the eligibility discussion directly in relation to the point LD made on human rights however.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Apologies. It affects the eligibility discussion directly in relation to the point LD made on human rights however.

How so ?

I was talking about France and Australia, not GB.

Ok LD. If you now consider it off topic delete it. I'll do the same.

LondonTiger wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Can I put in a complaint about mods and posters alike discussing things that are off topic? I think for most people this forum is a getaway from some of that bollix, we’d like to keep it that way. Cheers.

You can report any post, including those by a mod.

If you were smart then you'd just clean up the thread already, before your chums descend it into the usual which keeps getting them locked.

Binary Equations!

That's what I'd like to discuss.

mikey_dragon wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Can I put in a complaint about mods and posters alike discussing things that are off topic? I think for most people this forum is a getaway from some of that bollix, we’d like to keep it that way. Cheers.

You can report any post, including those by a mod.

If you were smart then you'd just clean up the thread already, before your chums descend it into the usual which keeps getting them locked.

I thought we had already agreed I was 100% stupid. From my point of view all threads have some off topic stuff, and we all do it. If you think anything here is inappropriate report it and another mod will look at it.

I've deleted my point responding to your off topic point LD.

Yeah it is stupid allowing the usual people to insult others based on their vote regarding a trading bloc! So that's likely a number of people coming here to discuss rugby, but being insulted again. I think we can all agree to leave out religion, politics, and to a lesser extent racial issues unless it directly affects our game, no? I know threads go off topic often but it's usually lighthearted, and rare that it's inappropriate stuff, like it is here and now.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I've deleted my point responding to your off topic point LD.

Sigh.......

You do realise, that my "off topic" point that you refer to was a reply to something brendon wrote on here ? It was about the poaching of Island players. I will refer you to the title:-

Rugby World Cup - Eligibility, Poaching etc


So I was very much ON topic, something that seems to have gone over your head, and you are reverting to type with your behaviour, others might not see it, but I do. Anyway, lets move on.

Already moved on LD. I appreciate human rights in the uk and human rights in france have nothing to do with this.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I've deleted my point responding to your off topic point LD.

Sigh.......

You do realise, that my "off topic" point that you refer to was a reply to something brendon wrote on here ? It was about the poaching of Island players. I will refer you to the title:-

Rugby World Cup - Eligibility, Poaching etc


So I was very much ON topic, something that seems to have gone over your head, and you are reverting to type with your behaviour, others might not see it, but I do. Anyway, lets move on.

Sorry but you haven't shown anything about human rights but rather that immigration is hard especially being away from family.  You brought up if it was human trafficking but it is not, they don't get cut off from family, smuggled around in back of vans and moved from place to place, doing jobs they are forced to do. Not every player who tries to make it as a professional makes it, those players get a rough deal till they give up. Unless you are implying Bernie was trafficked into Wales and had his rights violated his first year at Scarlets, they took a chance on him and he got paid accordingly

PI players pay their own transport and accommodation when turning out for Their country.  Why would you take less money for all that hassle when you can earn more and get extra chances while the internationals are away.

Brendan wrote:Unless you are implying Bernie was trafficked into Wales and had his rights violated his first year at Scarlets, they took a chance on him and he got paid accordingly

What an earth are you talking about ?

I am talking about the exploitation of Pacific Island players and how they are poached. They are taken advantage of because of the difficulties they face in their own countries.

What this has to do with an Irish player coming to Wales only you can tell us, but I think you are trying to move this debate into a different direction.

I really think that people are not seeing the points being made by others - easy to miss I guess with a plethora of posts and multiple quotes used.

Some of the stuff LD pointed to have nothing to do with elite players from PI countries. They get well rewarded and can use the monies received to support their entire extended family.

The issue he is trying to point out is that there are agents and clubs operating below this level with zero regard for the player welfare etc. Allegations by Ben Ryan leveled at French and Australian agents/clubs (RL as well as RU) is that there are large numbers of very young players being enticed away from home with false promises, minimal recompense and often abandoned. We are talking about kids under 18 brought in on student visas, housed in dodgy conditions with no return ticket available should they fail to make the grade.

It can be argued this is the rugby equivalent to the 30s/40s Hollywood Starlet system that kept the brothels full.

Poaching is quite an emotive word without any true meaning in this context. Really need to define what that means.

Yeah agreed poaching is a stupid word, in most cases residency qualified players aren't poached to the extent that they are generally only delighted to play for the team that caps them for any number of reasons including financial, circumstantial, family, ambition etc. and in many cases (not all) they were surplus to requirements in their country of origin.

The conclusion that I have come to is that almost all teams would and are capping residency qualified players as permitted by the current rules and those that aren't are only not doing it because factors outside of their control such as weak economies, distance, no professional domestic leagues etc. and they more than likely would exploit the rules if they could. I see it as a bi-polar issue, you are either doing it or you are not, promises of the chance of a better life propaganda does not change anything for me.

So perhaps that's the issue the rules only really benefit some and then increasing the residency thresholds are good and fair. I personally am ok with that but for as long as it lasted Im also ok with guys like Stander and Aki playing for Ireland as they have really represented the jersey well.

Yep, agree with all of that. The shouting tends to come from those who are either losing players to other nations, or those who are seeing that their nations can only attract poorer quality players while their rivals do better out of it

Have far more sympathy for the former than the latter

I dont have much nor any sympathy for teams that are losing a lot of players that have a rich history of gaining players from elsewhere at the same time.

LondonTiger wrote:I really think that people are not seeing the points being made by others - easy to miss I guess with a plethora of posts and multiple quotes used.

Some of the stuff LD pointed to have nothing to do with elite players from PI countries. They get well rewarded and can use the monies received to support their entire extended family.

The issue he is trying to point out is that there are agents and clubs operating below this level with zero regard for the player welfare etc. Allegations by Ben Ryan leveled at French and Australian agents/clubs (RL as well as RU) is that there are large numbers of very young players being enticed away from home with false promises, minimal recompense and often abandoned. We are talking about kids under 18 brought in on student visas, housed in dodgy conditions with no return ticket available should they fail to make the grade.

It can be argued this is the rugby equivalent to the 30s/40s Hollywood Starlet system that kept the brothels full.

This issue is not about Nations/Unions and more about individuals.

In Soccer kids can only travel a certain distance from their home to their Team.  Oz, NZ and SA are against this because they benefit from under 18s coming for schooling.  I knew an Aussie kid who had a year in England and was attached to Tigers underage so it happens all over.

Regarding agents there will always be dodgey people.  WR should make all agents dealing with Union registered clubs be approved and ban the third party ownership.  It's important that WR learn from football's issues. If clubs don't sign players from these people it would soon stop.

A few years ago there was uproar because a French club set up an academy in the PIs, surely if the PIs had academies run by outside organisations vetted by WR it would fix the problem and pay for developing the PIs like we all want.

This though has nothing to do with countries (Unions and clubs) poaching players but more to do with people looking to make a quick buck.

Collapse2005 wrote:I dont have much nor any sympathy for teams that are losing a lot of players that have a rich history of gaining players from elsewhere at the same time.

If someone is going to complain about the Moriarty's of this world deciding to come home, then they need to have a word with the premiership clubs.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:I dont have much nor any sympathy for teams that are losing a lot of players that have a rich history of gaining players from elsewhere at the same time.

If someone is going to complain about the Moriarty's of this world deciding to come home, then they need to have a word with the premiership clubs.

Pretty sure Collapse is talking about NZ.

Could easily apply to england as well. People find it hard to be sympathetic to losing players to the surrounding unions. Vast majority of the time it's down to family links, and i do think its because the majority of our population look typically British or irish that's it's not made out to be an issue. Moriarty and francis are good examples of being viewed differently (by some.obviously) due different qualifications for wales. The rfu did help to develop both and while theres some compensation involved I personally dont think theres enough.
There will always be people swapping teams due to the rules and there'll always be instances where some.feel comfortable with 1 instance and not with another. That's why I think they should be looking more to fair recompense rather than grumbles that a kiwi etc 'stole' a chance from a born and bred Englishman.

Francis and Moriarty are very different situations. Pretty clear Francis was effectively 'poached' from Exeter and the RFU, if you want, despite not coming up through any academy system, while Moriarty was 'poached' by England and the Hartpury development programme before coming back to play for Wales.

Which shows why it's so hard applying hard rules to grey areas.

Again poaching is too emotive for me. But in a case like moriarty I'd like to see a review of the compensation offered. There'll always be a amount of swapping as players will regularly qualify for more than 1 country.for me if that was sorted you would at least get a better value back for input into development. Rfu raised it but were knocked back understandably by the other unions as it would benefit the rfu more than some others.