Thoughts on residency.

First topic message reminder :

Surely the whole point of the residency rules is that there should be accommodation for players who have had a period of development in a new nation and are prepared to represent them. So long as the players have pride in the shirt then why should they not represent it, it would be like saying immigrants cannot be proud of an adopted country and therefore should not be allowed to support our teams!

When it comes to this subject there may always be a level of contention regarding origins and newly qualified players being chosen over players who have always been of one nationality such as waldrom over narraway (who tweeted his annoyance earlier). I am not sure however why people bring up players such as Shaw and say he should be playing for Kenya despite spending most of his life in england and being of english heritage or joe simpson seems to be the new 'import' despite being brought up in england and playing most of his age grade rugby in the uk.

as you can see this is mainly aimed at the england situation but has equal relevance in many countries and maybe more in countries such as new zealand!

Stag – what about a bit of a compromise on what you are saying. If I was in charge of IRB policy, this would be my suggestion for the vote

If you are over the age of 18 and move from one country to another, then it is a 5 year stand-down. The logic being that as an 18 yr old leaving for another country that person is making the sole decision as an adult, but we don’t want to rob anyone of a test match career by imposing anything longer than this.

If you are under the age of 18, there is no stand down. Most players ‘moving’ from country to country will be with family, not for rugby – case in point here is the young Llewellyn fella tearing up for the Baby Blacks at the moment.

Chewie if you are 16 and move to another country you'd be 21 when your eligable for them. If you want to play for them you'd have a whole decade to do so.

Scrap the ganny rule would be a must for me.

Out of every suggestion so far it looks like grannies are out.

It's a good start point.

red_stag wrote:What I would say is that residency as a concept is fine. I can not argue with anyone playing for another country after following the rules and accept its a multicultural world we live in.

However the rules are nonsense and it allows Unions to buy players. 3 years is not much of an investment. There is nothing stopping a wealthy nation buying the cream of the crop in the U20 tournament and having a World Class team assembled within 3 years.

Extending the residency period is a must. 3 years is nowhere near long enough. 5 years I could accept but 7 would be the most practical solution IMO.

That's why I would say if you play for the Under-20s (or any senior team), you should be tied into that nation. If you move somewhere as a kid you can play age groups for that country up to 18s, but then - as an adult - you have to make a decision as to whether you are going to dedicate your rugby career to the country of your birth or your new adopted nation. Either choice is fine, but representing the Under-20s represents an adult making a choice to represent a certain nation at rugby, and therefore that commitment should be binding.

Carpe Diem wrote:Out of every suggestion so far it looks like grannies are out.

It's a good start point.

If I were to be asked by the IRB should they choose to review this law, I would push that actual residency, not non domicile, work permit, temporary visa or visa waiver should be a stipulation.

Residency shows allegiance. It should also be confirmed when an inquisition is performed that the residency was awarded legally in an above board manner similar to any other applicant for residency and not with the assistance of a club supporters political position.

The cash for passports affair in government was a messy one, we wouldn't want that to further tarnish the RFU.

Well said Maesteg. I agree.

I'm inclined to "value" years spent in-country as a minor more than time as an adult - so if you move at 16 and you're a prodigy I don't have a problem with you getting selected at 20. Whereas if you go at 22, then "making it" at 27 is probably OK, but not any earlier.

Kiwireddevil wrote:Well said Maesteg. I agree.

I'm inclined to "value" years spent in-country as a minor more than time as an adult - so if you move at 16 and you're a prodigy I don't have a problem with you getting selected at 20. Whereas if you go at 22, then "making it" at 27 is probably OK, but not any earlier.

I am not sure about your "value years" argument.

Nations have taken advantage of foreign players of talent being offered scholarships at the ages of sixteen or seventeen, knowing that the player would be a IRB compliant resident before the age of senior rugby.


Sitiveni Sivivatu the All Black winger, cousin of fellow all black, Fijian born, Joe Rokocoko, is an interesting example of this. He was offered a scholarship to Wesley College from his native Fiji aged 17. The same school as the Auckland born Tongan descendant Kiwi winger Jonah Lomu attended.

Siviatu was training in all black colours before his three year qualification for residency was finished and was capped immediately after.

This was all legal within the IRBs acknowledged laws, but it shows how easy it is for a wealthy nation to lure a player away from a less wealthy nation due to the increased likelihood of them attaining increased cash and success with their adopted nation.

I am not sure that it is a good thing. Especially when as an international rugby community I pressume we would all like to aid the poorer nations in becoming as competitive as possible and not allowing wealthier nations to poach their players.

Sorry a second here. Why does it matter where Lomus ancestors were from. He was born in NZ and played for NZ. Honestly theres facts and theres just spin.

red_stag wrote:Sorry a second here. Why does it matter where Lomus ancestors were from. He was born in NZ and played for NZ. Honestly theres facts and theres just spin.

Commentators do it all the time. It's the eqivalent of refering to Monye as "the black winger". Just doesn't happen and would be frowned upon.

To be honest, NZ behaved much worse when we poached Vidiri in the '90s. (IIRC) Sivi came over on a soccer scholarship Maestag . But it is an easy thing for a richer country to draw in talent.

It is quite a common thing for young PIs to come to NZ in general. There's an awful lot of young Polynesians living and working in Auckland, sending money home to relatives. Just as there are Poles in London.

I sometimes think that the Island teams benefit more from NZ born/raised players turning out for them than the reverse. The NZ schools development system makes a big difference. But NZ could and should do more for PI rugby.

A couple of years back on old 606 someone was peddling the old saw about NZ Schools' talent agents scouring the islands, and I managed to dig out some stats on the actual numbers of PI students moving to NZ on scholarships - the number was surprisingly low. I can't find it now but will see if I can dig it out tonight if anyone's interested.

As an aside, technically Sivi and Roks aren't blood relatives, they consider themselves cousins as Sivi lived with the Rokocoko family while at Wesley.

I agree that New Zealand has benefitted with improving PI players undoubtedly and I agree that more could be done too.

They are the worlds most natural rugby players and a pleasure to watch.

I hope very much that a PI team lift the fifteen a-side RWC before I die as it would be a just credit for them to do so.

Maybe the amount of EU immigrants in the UK might take a passionate love for rugby to their home countries and help spread the gospel of the great game. I spent a holiday in the Balkans last year, my, if those lads took rugby seriously they would create a difference to the top tiers.

I have Samoan, Cook islander and Tongan friends, the term cousin does not mean blood relative to them as you say. They are wonderful people and I cherish their valuable contribution to the quality of rugby union.

The Islands...ie Samoa, Fiji atc have also beneftitted from the Kiwi influence...it goes both ways...and after all they're ALL pacific islanders are they not

How do people feel about a rule that would allow a person capped say once....but not again play for another team in the lesser tiers...

Ie If Dan Luger had played once or twice for England...then been cast aside for two years or so....then wanted to play for Croatia and they were in the SIx Nations B.....

Would that be suitable....I personally think it would be....as it enhances the Croatian side...but it would need to be strictly monitored.

Geordie I think that would be good. As long as it was heavily monitored.

Likewise the top ten nations should have far more stringent laws applied.

maestegmafia wrote:Geordie I think that would be good. As long as it was heavily monitored.

Likewise the top ten nations should have far more stringent laws applied.

I agree. A player (with say < 5-10 caps) could be allowed to nominate a "change of nationality" to a tier 2 or lower team that he's qualified for by birth/ancestry. And then serve a decent (5 years) stand down period. I think anyone choosing to do that would have to feel some connection to the nation he's switching too, or he wouldn't do it

Chur! Sweet as but it ain't cousin it's 'Cuzzie bro".

Maori / PI's have a huge pride in their whakapapa (Ancestory / family tree) and if you believe Maori many say they can give their whakapapa to the waka their ancestors sail to New Zealand on! Personally I think 'Chinese whispers' may have popped in now and again through the centuries, but they do have genuine prode in their extended family and 6th and further removed cousins are still seen as family. In UK 2nd cousins in most cases is enough to NOT consider them as family lol.

Sorry off topic a bit but when you take into consideration the Maori team there have been cases of players being crucially distanced from any Maori family with as much as a 65th bloodline. In fact there is no criteria for being Maori when it comes to a bloodline.

Apart from the grandma issue, the things I'd change about the residency rules, should be graduated by age.

And the clock should only start when the player starts playing RU. To prevent a repeat of the Vainikolo situation.

The changes I would make would be two very simple ones:

You have to be a resident citizen of the nation you represent (naturalisation usually requires at least 5 years residency for the top rugby nations).

&

If you have represented any nation at any sport at senior level you are committed to that nation.

Everyones points allude to the same basic synopsis that in general no one likes what nations like England, for example, are doing with their selection.

It may well be within the laws but employing/selecting players like Tuialagi, Flutey, Hape and Paul do not sit well with other nations, where as Hartley is ok.

I couldn't care less what other nations think.

At these they're sticking to the rules and not fielding ineligible players. Nor does RFU recognised a difference between NEQ players with caps and NEQ who could gain residency. The Welsh regions have a limit of two 'project' players don't they?

I imagine that must enrage you?

HammerofThunor wrote:I couldn't care less what other nations think.

At these they're sticking to the rules and not fielding ineligible players. Nor does RFU recognised a difference between NEQ players with caps and NEQ who could gain residency. The Welsh regions have a limit of two 'project' players don't they?

I imagine that must enrage you?

I think it's 5 NWQ's per region. Though it will reduce over time.

AlynDavies wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I couldn't care less what other nations think.

At these they're sticking to the rules and not fielding ineligible players. Nor does RFU recognised a difference between NEQ players with caps and NEQ who could gain residency. The Welsh regions have a limit of two 'project' players don't they?

I imagine that must enrage you?

I think it's 5 NWQ's per region. Though it will reduce over time.

Enrage is a very bizarre choice of words?

Wales do not have a project player policy, Ireland do, though it has not seen any dividends yet.

maestegmafia wrote:Wales do not have a project player policy, Ireland do, though it has not seen any dividends yet.

Ireland's policy is basically scouring Wales looking for anyone with Irish ancestry. It baffles me looking at the comparative youth and teenage pools between our countries. they out number us 3 to 1 in every area.

Ireland
Pre-teen Male Players:57409
Teen Male Player:57867
Number Of Registered Players:153080

Wales
Pre-teen Male Players:12318
Teen Male Player:14500
Number Of Registered Players:50557

Read the the current agreement

http://www.wru.co.uk/22135.php

Specifically the line

"* agreement that a six non Welsh qualified player plus two 'time serving player' limit in Regional squads will be honoured. This is intended to fall to a minimum total of six including 'time serving players' by season 2013/14"

The "time serving players" are players working toward residency qualification. No different to project players except wording. It's supposed to stop in 2013/14 season but you never know.

And Maesteg, if the RFU gave the clubs funding to bring in NEQ to gain residency qualification for England I would be enraged. I'm surprised you're not given some of your opinions.

HammerofThunor wrote:And Maesteg, if the RFU gave the clubs funding to bring in NEQ to gain residency qualification for England I would be enraged. I'm surprised you're not given some of your opinions.

True however all the players who are within the regions and are qualified, Wales have never bothered with, though Ben Morgan may be the exception.

AlynDavies wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:And Maesteg, if the RFU gave the clubs funding to bring in NEQ to gain residency qualification for England I would be enraged. I'm surprised you're not given some of your opinions.

True however all the players who are within the regions and are qualified, Wales have never bothered with, though Ben Morgan may be the exception.

Why bother with it then? Why not just say "8 NWQ players"? The only reason I can think of is to encourage the regions to bring in non-capped foreigners to get them to play for Wales. The fact only the mediocre non-capped players want to go to Wales is besides the point.

maestegmafia wrote:Everyones points allude to the same basic synopsis that in general no one likes what nations like England, for example, are doing with their selection.

It may well be within the laws but employing/selecting players like Tuialagi, Flutey, Hape and Paul do not sit well with other nations, where as Hartley is ok.

I can understand concern over players like Flutey & Hape, but if the selection of Tuilagi doesn't "sit well with other nations", do they feel the same way about the likes of Faletau, Pocock, Cooper & Sivivatu?

I think some of these comments prove that it's easier (and more satisfying) to get enraged on somebody else's behalf.

Though it's a difficult balancing act keeping that high horse steady on a soapbox (while juggling rocks in a glass house).

johnpartle wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Everyones points allude to the same basic synopsis that in general no one likes what nations like England, for example, are doing with their selection.

It may well be within the laws but employing/selecting players like Tuialagi, Flutey, Hape and Paul do not sit well with other nations, where as Hartley is ok.

I can understand concern over players like Flutey & Hape, but if the selection of Tuilagi doesn't "sit well with other nations", do they feel the same way about the likes of Faletau, Pocock, Cooper & Sivivatu?

Faletau, Pocock, Sivivatu and Cooper were not illegal immigrants illegally staying in a country. Tuialagi was.

AlynDavies wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:And Maesteg, if the RFU gave the clubs funding to bring in NEQ to gain residency qualification for England I would be enraged. I'm surprised you're not given some of your opinions.

True however all the players who are within the regions and are qualified, Wales have never bothered with, though Ben Morgan may be the exception.

This actually also includes players like Joe Bearman of England and Paul Tito of New Zealand both in their late twenties when they started playing in Wales.

The rule is not to poach players but to clarify what the clubs are doing by hiring overseas players that will qualify as a resident player that means that the regions can hire further NWQ players and still stay within the quota.

This is very different to encouraging talented foreigners to come to Wales without any other reason but to play rugby for an adopted country.

maestegmafia wrote:This actually also includes players like Joe Bearman of England and Paul Tito of New Zealand both in their late twenties when they started playing in Wales.

The rule is not to poach players but to clarify what the clubs are doing by hiring overseas players that will qualify as a resident player that means that the regions can hire further NWQ players and still stay within the quota.

This is very different to encouraging talented foreigners to come to Wales without any other reason but to play rugby for an adopted country.

Deacon Manu would be another player who falls into this catagory, he put his name forward for Wales but was told to play for Fiji.

So because the people around him as a child didn't think to apply for a student visa, he shouldn't be allowed to play for the country he's spent the last 6 years growing up in and considers his home, despite him currently residing here legally and this all taking place a year before he was selected?

AlynDavies wrote:he put his name forward for Wales but was told to play for Fiji.

Apparently that's how Nacewa got caught out too

Maybe if we were young professional players who not only has to compete with his fellow countrymen but also has to compete for a place in representing his country with a guy who only needs to live here for three years perhaps our views on residency would by slightly different.

Many have said that a child/young man moving here should be able to represent his adopted country ,In that case increasing the residency rule to six years should pose no problem he should still be young enough to be considered for selection.

The problem is the differing hemispheres have differing view points on this, the north wants stricter controls the New Zealanders on behalf of the Pacific Islands want them reduced. Clearly we cant go back to the chaos we had during the 90's though.
Didnt one of the Bachop brothers start with Samoa, then go to new zealand before playing for Japan? lol

johnpartle wrote:So because the people around him as a child didn't think to apply for a student visa, he shouldn't be allowed to play for the country he's spent the last 6 years growing up in and considers his home, despite him currently residing here legally and this all taking place a year before he was selected?

His brothers, all bar one, most have spent longer in the UK are happy to represent Samoa. They all seemed to know how to be in a country legally.

What is odd about this situation is that without the aid of a Leicester MP Manu would have been extradited.

AlynDavies wrote:The problem is the differing hemispheres have differing view points on this, the north wants stricter controls the New Zealanders on behalf of the Pacific Islands want them reduced. Clearly we cant go back to the chaos we had during the 90's though.
Didnt one of the Bachop brothers start with Samoa, then go to new zealand before playing for Japan? lol

Nope. Stephen started with Samoa (91 RWC), switched to NZ (dropped just before 95 RWC) and switched back to Samoa (99 RWC). Graeme started with NZ (91, 95 RWCs with a stint living in Japan in between), switched to Japan, and played against Stephen in 99 RWC. It was only a couple of years later that their nephews Aaron and Nathan Mauger emerged. Not a bad start to a family backline, just need to find 2 wings and a fullback.

maestegmafia wrote:What is odd about this situation is that without the aid of a Leicester MP Manu would have been extradited.

So an MP fights a battle for someone in his constituency to not be extradited. Sounds like a good news story to me! Also, knowing that people would go to those lengths to keep you in the country might make you think, 'Ah, a fine place to live and play sport and I feel at home here. I hope I can repay the loyalty and play for England'

Or maybe I should be a cynic like you, maesteg. You really are an old curmudgeon

Carpe Diem wrote:

red_stag wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:Kevin-Prince plays for Ghana, George plays for the Netherlands.

Kevin-Prince played u21s for Germany then switched to Ghana.

Apologies. Its Germany U21 I was thinking about. carry on nothing to see here

It's such a convoluted career path i had to treble check to make sure i wasn't making it up!

I think you still have it mixed up - Kevin-Prince has two brothers - George (not the George Boateng you are thinking of who played for Holland and isn't related) and Jerome who plays for Germany.
They're the footballing version of the Tagicakibaus

SafeAsMilk wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:What is odd about this situation is that without the aid of a Leicester MP Manu would have been extradited.

So an MP fights a battle for someone in his constituency to not be extradited. Sounds like a good news story to me! Also, knowing that people would go to those lengths to keep you in the country might make you think, 'Ah, a fine place to live and play sport and I feel at home here. I hope I can repay the loyalty and play for England'

Or maybe I should be a cynic like you, maesteg. You really are an old curmudgeon

I think the only people who don't see the cynical side of this debate are English, to be perfectly honest.

maestegmafia wrote:I think the only people who don't see the cynical side of this debate are English, to be perfectly honest.

Well, I'll look forward to a bright, young player with a great future ahead of him representing my country while you harrumph away in the background. Then we're both happy

[quote="SafeAsMilk"][quote="maestegmafia"]

SafeAsMilk wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I think the only people who don't see the cynical side of this debate are English, to be perfectly honest.

Well, I'll look forward to a bright, young player with a great future ahead of him representing my country while you harrumph away in the background. Then we're both happy

I presume you will be in the minority.

I don't think I'm in the minority in hoping that Manu makes it for England. The impression I get is that most people respect his decision that he wants to commit to England, that he feels at home here and is enjoying his rugby. Who his brothers play for is immaterial.

I don't think we're going to agree on this one.

maestegmafia wrote:

AlynDavies wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:And Maesteg, if the RFU gave the clubs funding to bring in NEQ to gain residency qualification for England I would be enraged. I'm surprised you're not given some of your opinions.

True however all the players who are within the regions and are qualified, Wales have never bothered with, though Ben Morgan may be the exception.

The rule is not to poach players but to clarify what the clubs are doing by hiring overseas players that will qualify as a resident player that means that the regions can hire further NWQ players and still stay within the quota.

No idea what you're trying to say. Why have 6+2 and not just 8 if not to encourage the regions to bring in future residency qualifiers?

maestegmafia wrote:His brothers, all bar one, most have spent longer in the UK are happy to represent Samoa. They all seemed to know how to be in a country legally.

What is odd about this situation is that without the aid of a Leicester MP Manu would have been extradited.

Not sure why you would consider that odd, but in any case the deportation was an automatic order that was subject to appeal, the MP, huge local media & public support & petitions all had a bearing on that process.

The difference was, to enter the country his brothers had to get work visas. Manu entered the country on a perfectly correct visa, but the people around him didn't think to apply for a student visa (which are handed out ten a penny) when he decided to stay on and enrol in school here.

Had they done so, would you consider him the same as Faletau, Pocock, Cooper & Sivivatu, or is it that his brothers represented a different country that bothers you? Some of them may well have spent longer in England, but none of them arrived at such a young age and grew up here, spending as high a proportion of their lives here. If the names above had had older brothers that represnted other nations, would you raise the same issue for them?

Still no responses from non England supporters saying that they don't think that the Manu situation isn't a manipulation of the visa laws and making a mockery of the IRB laws.

It does seem that only England fans think the situation is straight.

maestegmafia wrote:Still no responses from non England supporters saying that they don't think that the Manu situation isn't a manipulation of the visa laws and making a mockery of the IRB laws.

It does seem that only England fans think the situation is straight.

Maybe most non-English supporters don't care? You're perhaps beating a drum on your own.

Still no clarification on Welsh project players?

maestegmafia wrote:It does seem that only England fans think the situation is straight.

Fortunately we have individuals like your good self and greyghost to set us on the straight and narrow. Obviously you've got no agenda and only have England's interests at heart. I will sleep soundly tonight.

maestegmafia wrote:Still no responses from non England supporters saying that they don't think that the Manu situation isn't a manipulation of the visa laws and making a mockery of the IRB laws.

It does seem that only England fans think the situation is straight.

And no one agreeing with you either.

How is it a manipulation of the visa laws? An appeal was launched which led to the UK Border Agency to come to the conclusion that "Taking into consideration factors such as his age, length of residence and family ties in the UK, a decision has now been made to grant Mr Tuilagi indefinite leave to remain."

As far as I'm aware, it is far from unusual for appeals against deportation to end in this result.

How does it make a mockery of the IRB laws? Which laws are you referring to? When Tuilagi was called up to represent England he had been resident for 6 years, the visa issue had been resolved and he had "indefinite leave to remain".