Eligibility back on the agenda
-
"Clearly the clubs are motivated by their own success - although I think everyone would be in agreeance that a strong showing by the national team lifts the sport, the premiership etc. But the path to success if very much set by the negotiations with the RFU in regards to rules for English eligible players, incentives for academies, funding etc."
Of course, a strong showing by the national side will be supportive of rugby in general, but the path to success for the clubs is a very immediate issue. It is all about today, be it winning the league, qualifying for Europe or avoiding relegation. The RFU is trying to promote England qualified young guys through effectively bribing the clubs, this is not an altruistic stance from the clubs. The situation in England and France is totally different to more or less anywhere else. None of the other 6N countries have an issue with relegation and in reality there's not much of an issue in qualifying for Europe. In the SH every franchise knows that next season they will be playing in the pre-eminent competition that they are eligible for. Accordingly they can plan longer term. For the English clubs (and French) it is all about now.
"Also you assume the the clubs are one cohesive unit, the bottom clubs have different motivations to the blue ribbon franchises with European business to attend to.
'I wouldn't say cohesive, but without a doubt they all have the same concerns, the only thing that differentiates them is the degree of last season's success.
"The academy set up is about creating another stream of imports at a younger level - otherwise there would be caps on the number of non-English qualified players allowed in the academies. The academy incentive structure is about developing the best players possible who are England qualified once they hit the Premiership or soon after - whether they begin their academy stint from Salford, Suva or Stewart Island it is irrelevant to the RFU and clubs."
I call BS on the first bit, the imports bit. I'd like to see your evidence to support this as I have not seen anything that would suggest such a thing, as Margin Walker states earlier. The assertion that the country of origin is irrelevant and the implication that there is a drive to find potential imports at academy level is something that I've seen no evidence for.
Your points about Michael Jones and Frank Bunce are completely valid and I have no problem with either position - and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
Your last point about purity or sensibleness has traction but we are none of us whiter than white, nor blacker than each other in reality. We all have our shameful history and we'd be blind to think otherwise. We could all spend hours pouring through historical selections both at club/provincial level as well as national level, we can all point out attempts to assimilate players. However that is not the problem, the problem is trying to make things work in the future.
-
The biggest issue I have with the 3 year residency rule is that is the average term of a pro contract.
You are contracted to a club for 3 years
, don't break it and you will qualify for an English/French jumper.It should involve more commit,net to a country than an initial contract that you have obtained a work permit for.
-
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
The voting structure:
(16) The eight "foundation unions" have two votes each: Australia, England, France, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa, and Wales.
(6) Three additional unions have two votes each: Argentina, Canada, and Italy.
(4) Four unions have one vote each: Georgia, Japan, Romania, and the USA.
(12) The six regional associations representing Europe, Americas North, South America, Africa, Asia and Oceania each have two votes.
(2) The Chairman and Vice Chairman each have one vote. (These two individuals generally come from two of the eight foundation unions; as of June 2016, these positions are respectively held by Bill Beaumont of England and Agustín Pichot of Argentina.)
(In total, European countries have 16 permanent votes and 17 in all; Oceanian countries have 6 votes; North American countries have 5 votes; South American countries have 4 permanent votes and 5 in all; African countries have 4 votes; and Asian countries have 3 votes.)So Canada gets the same number of votes as Fiji, Samoa, Tonga (and other lesser Pacific rugby powers) combined.
That's Tui Statement if ever there was one
-
@dogmeat said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
The voting structure:
(16) The eight "foundation unions" have two votes each: Australia, England, France, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa, and Wales.
(6) Three additional unions have two votes each: Argentina, Canada, and Italy.
(4) Four unions have one vote each: Georgia, Japan, Romania, and the USA.
(12) The six regional associations representing Europe, Americas North, South America, Africa, Asia and Oceania each have two votes.
(2) The Chairman and Vice Chairman each have one vote. (These two individuals generally come from two of the eight foundation unions; as of June 2016, these positions are respectively held by Bill Beaumont of England and Agustín Pichot of Argentina.)
(In total, European countries have 16 permanent votes and 17 in all; Oceanian countries have 6 votes; North American countries have 5 votes; South American countries have 4 permanent votes and 5 in all; African countries have 4 votes; and Asian countries have 3 votes.)So Canada gets the same number of votes as Fiji, Samoa, Tonga (and other lesser Pacific rugby powers) combined.
That's Tui Statement if ever there was one
Yes. Apparently none of the 3 PI countries met a good governance criteria. (When they re-jigged the votes a year or 2 back). But USA, Romania, Georgia etc did and now have a voice/vote.
-
@Margin_Walker said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Does anyone actually have any figures for foreign academy players at English clubs? I really don't think it's very many. Certainly in terms of players who moved to the UK to play rugby.
At London Irish for example (last year's unbeaten U18 Academy League champions), the Senior Academy this year has 12 players signed. Of those there's one Fijian guy who moved to the UK as a toddler as his old man was in the army and one Scottish guy who moved to England in his early teens. That's it really. Genuine question really, are there hoards of SH kids in the English academy structure?
This aspect is certainly well out of any rugby control but the funny thing is that Fijians in the British Army probably earn more foreign exchange remittances for Fiji than rugby. The 'poaching' from the Fijian army is basically an export industry that goes back generations.
The reason we now see more players emerging is that the kids of those long term army guys have grown up and are available to select if they haven't chosen to follow their fathers into the military. There are rare occasions when some has left service to play sport but part of the reason the MOD is so keen on Fijians is that they are good soldiers that stay the full 22 years to obtain a decent pension so they can support their extended families as long as possible.
Point being that although they players themselves are not lured from home to play rugby and earn money, their parents were lured from home to join the British forces and earn money.
-
If that WR voting structure posted above is accurate then I don't see why a change to the eligibility rules is that difficult. Unless there is FIFA style bargaining going on where big NH Unions are providing support in games/coaching arrangements etc with other voters its looks to me like those that would be against change are outnumbered.
-
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
.... Point being that although they players themselves are not lured from home to play rugby and earn money,
their parents were lured from home to join the British forces and earn money. Were provided with an opportunity to see the world and provide a better life for themselves and their families whilst securing their future with an index linked pension and all the time earring right of residency in the UK.There you mate, fixed it for you
-
You mean like the way NZ poach talent by spotting two year olds in the islands, then allow their parents to move to NZ as 'economic migrants".
-
@Catogrande it all comes back to the military again though. Don't forget that 100 years ago Britain asked New Zealand to undertake a "great and urgent Imperial service" and occupy Samoa.
Since then they were under our trusteeship until the 60s then have had preferential immigration treatment since. All way before professional rugby. If only your lot had bothered to chase the Germans out of there by yourselves eh?I do believe though that the NZRU actively encourage young children from the island of Tokoroa to take up playing rugby with a view to them making it to the ABs one day.
-
On a slightl;y related topic, from the Guardian cricket mailout today -
A Brexit side effect nobody considered
In February 2000, a butterfly flapped its wings in the small town of Östringen, just over the German border from France. And with that one flap, English cricket was changed for a generation. Maros Kolpak, a goalkeeper in the second division of the German handball league, signed a new three-year contract with his team, TSV Östringen. Because he was Slovakian, the national federation decided to register him as an overseas player. Under league rules, each team was only allowed two foreigners in its squad. Kolpak, who had lived and worked in Germany for three years already, decided to challenge them in the local court. Slovakia wasn’t in the EU, but had recently signed a trade agreement with it. Kolpak argued it entitled him to work in Germany without restriction.
Kolpak’s case went all the way to the European court of justice in Luxembourg, where, on 8 May 2003, after almost a full year of deliberation, the judges finally settled in his favour. He returned to Östringen and resumed his career. But a strong wind had started to blow. The next February, Leicestershire signed the South African spinner Claude Henderson as a UK-registered player. He had played seven Tests, but felt he had been frozen out by the selectors. South Africa was one of 78 nations to sign the Contonou Agreement with the EU. So Henderson was covered by the same court ruling, and entitled to the very same rights, that allowed Maros Kolpak to play for TSV Östringen.
In the past few weeks, three recent South Africa internationals have signed Kolpak deals. Simon Harmer has joined Essex, Stiaan van Zyl has joined Sussex, and Hardus Viljoen has headed to Derbyshire. All three have played Test cricket for South Africa in the previous 12 months, and all three have decided to give up their international careers for the duration of their contracts. Dane Piedt and at least one other current Test player are also said to be seeking Kolpak deals. This is likely to be the last great gust, a final flurry of Kolpak signings before Brexit comes into effect, and the route into English cricket through EU legislation is cut off by the Home Office.
Henderson was the first Kolpak player. Within five years, 50 more followed. The ECB tried to turn back the tide. They brought in a rule that no Kolpak player could have played international cricket in the year before he had signed. But this was challenged, and overturned, when Yorkshire signed Jacques Rudolph in 2007. So the ECB started charging fees to teams who included more than two Kolpak players in any one match. This didn’t work either. By 2008, in an infamous game between Leicestershire and Northamptonshire in a Friends Provident Trophy match at Wantage Road, 12 of the 22 players were South Africans on Kolpak deals.
In 2009, the ECB finally found a fix. They concocted a another new rule which meant that only players who had held a valid work permit for four years would be able to sign Kolpak deals, unless, like Viljoen, Harmer, and Van Zyl, they had played one Test match in the past two years or five in the past five. Since the ECB made that change, the debate has settled down, and the number of Kolpaks on the county circuit has declined. Today the ECB say it is around 3-4% of the domestic/non-overseas registered playing base. This latest flurry of fresh Kolpak signings is down to three things: the weak Rand, the increase in quotas in South African cricket, and Brexit.
One of the many little issues that went unreckoned during the referendum campaign – incredible, this, since there can scarcely have been many more important things to consider – was what the result would mean for county cricket. But the Kolpak players themselves, like many other migrant workers in the country, soon began wondering where the result left them. The day after the vote, Brendan Taylor, on a Kolpak deal with Nottinghamshire, asked the ECB for guidance. They’re waiting to hear from the Home Office. In the meantime, cricketers are working under the assumption that any Kolpak deal signed before the end of 2017 won’t be affected by Brexit. A race is on, then, to hitch up with a county club before the door is shut.
The South African economy is weak, and the government has started pursuing an “aggressive” transformation policy, so players in South Africa have two good reasons to leave – income and opportunity. In 2015 Viljoen was weighing up an offer to move to New Zealand. He decided at the time: “I don’t want to have second best. You get brought up in your country to play for your country.” He’s now played one Test, against England, and seems to have changed his mind. There is talk of an “exodus” of top talent, though the player drain isn’t yet as bad as the one affecting South African rugby.
Even as the Kolpak system winds down, it’s still unclear after all these years whether it has improved English cricket or not. There are good arguments on both sides. The standard improved because there were better players on the circuit, but by being here those same players denied opportunities to young English players. What is clear, though, is that it has undermined South African cricket. Piedt counts as a “player of colour” in the quota system. If he and others like him sign, the situation will get trickier still. As for the man himself, Maros Kolpak is 39, and still playing handball. Only now he’s back in Slovakia. The Wisden Almanack tracked him for an interview in 2005. It was the first he’d heard that he’d become so famous, and he seemed to be tickled by the idea. He’d never intended to change anyone else’s life, he said, but “did it for myself”.
-
The county cricket / kolpak solution by the ecb is diabolical IMO. From a non-English perspective.
It's not really a kolpak specific rule that they changed but it was brought in because of the sheer number of kolpaks.
But it's unintended consequence is that guys like Kyle Jarvis of Zimbabwe 'retires' from international cricket in his mid 20s to get past the red tape loophole. Brendan Taylor, plus the Saffas. ECB is really damaging international cricket at the moment.
Or young NZ cricketers like Quinn, Fuller with English roots or Cachopa with Portuguese roots - who are not Kolpaks - but 'must declare' for England to have a county career.
It's incentive based now, rather than prescriptive.
Not getting on my high horse. NZ in rugby needing to fit so much talent in only 5 teams means there are incentives for PI players (and PI qualified players) to go the NZ route, and those not good enough for AB level don't declare for a PI team until they finish their nz career and move to euro or jap club rugby.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
I think there is a good chance a watered down version would pass. I don't think France and England are so "desperate" for players that they would be against 5 years for example to qualify.
I really don't like the 2-country rule which is patronizing to the Pacific Islands: it's basically a rule to to let SANZAR/6N players return to play for fiji etc once they are based their use by date.
We see what happens, but I'm predicting with some confidence that the 3-year rule will be somewhat extended. Not sure about the grandparent rule and others.
It's not just the awesome players that are passed their used by date. It will also make available some of the fringe players as well. Ben Atiga comes to mind. Francis Saili is another who would struggle to crack the ABs again.
We would welcome any player with open arms. -
Just a thought on the grandparents rule. It's probably decidedly not in the interests of Pacific Island Unions for those rules to be tightened.
If it becomes parents only by birth place, you get weird situations where Umaga, Weepu and Nonu's kids cannot represent Samoa - yet Mehts' can represent South Africa and Ben Franks' Australia right out of the gate. Which seems... less than ideal.
-
Didn't Sivi have to wait 6 years?
Probably already mentioned, but the problem with any new rule is that someone can challenge it in court. Personally I think 6 years is a nice round number and should also apply to anyone who has been capped for another country. I don't see why playing for one country should forever disqualify you for playing for another. Particularly if a good period of time (6 years) has passed.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel think it was just longer because he came here when he was 15, and the clock for 3 year eligibility only started when he left school (or 18?)
-
@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rancid-Schnitzel think it was just longer because he came here when he was 15, and the clock for 3 year eligibility only started when he left school (or 18?)
He was 23 when he first played for the abs so it must have been 5 years after he turned 18. He definitely would have been selected earlier if available. Seems a bit unfair.
-
It would be interesting to see, for say the last series of internationals, how many players in each match 23 were qualified by virtue of residency.
By my count in the 2016 November matches between the 6N and Rugby Championship teams, it would appear that Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, England, France, Scotland, South Africa and Italy all fielded players who qualified by virtue of residency. Wales and Argentina are the only two that appear to me not have fielded players by virtue of residency qualification (where the person qualified for residency as an adult). So it is a rule that every major rugby playing country appears to be willing to take advantage of with the exception of Argentina. Wales have taken advantage of this rule in the recent past.
You can come up with a hundred reasons why one type of residency qualified player is better than another, but I'd favour a five year qualification period over the age of 18 and require the person has citizenship or subject status of the country/ies where the Union is situated. I'd also favour a system whereby if the country of players birth calls them up during that the three year period, then they any residency qualification has been bilaterally approved by the two countries.
One loophole that I would be wary of is, is where a talented player is identified at 14 or 15 in another country, and they and their family are encouraged to move to the country where they are to be given an academy place or scholarship. Normally schooling cannot qualify for residency, but if the family moves the residency requirements are reduced for kids. In soccer this has happened and I could see how a unscrupulous union, club or school would avail of this for their own benefit.
In terms of changes to the residency rules, by my reckoning the main losers in the medium term would be Japan, Italy and the US. They have the largest differential between the residency qualified players and the rest of the playing squads. Fiji and Tonga would appear to me to be the main winners as there are players from both countries playing for much higher ranked countries purely by virtue of residency.
I would be strongly against any attempt to get rid of the so-called granny rule. Provided that country allows for that person to be a citizen or subject, it should be continued with. For countries with traditions of large scale forced emigration like Ireland or Italy, there is a sustained relationship with many of the disapora and they are entitled to citizenship. Removing those players eligibility would be essentially taking a view point of the world in which people only arrive and never leave.
Allowing players to double back on their country would only encourage the residency qualification efforts relating to players from second tier countries. I think the double back rule could be employed for Tier Two countries where they qualify by birth for a Tier One country, play for that country, but can double back for the familial country. However, if it is allowed in residency cases, it will just encourage your Fijian or Tongan player to try their luck with the Tier One nation because they have the freedom to double back - the emotional blackmail of playing for the country of your birth is reduced.
World Rugby - Wikipedia
