Eligibility back on the agenda
-
Does the issue need to be as complicated as people are making it?
I think the answer is relatively simple. Leave most of the rules as they are, but eliminate the links between the country and the clubs. I.e if Connact want to sign Aki, then thats no problems. But if the IRFU want Connact to sign Aki, and then hence will support/top up contracts etc - thats a massive problem. Every single journo up north, without exception, wants the clubs to maintain power, so lets give it to them.
I kind of also get sick of the whole focus on this. The players we are talking about are the absolute standout MINORITY of people in the game. More has been written about Nathan Hughes, than has been written about Farrell, Joseph, who have been much more the key to the England turnaround than their back up number 8.
And lets talk about Fiji for a second. The sevens champs, the olympic golds winners. Sensational stuff. But then one picture of seven Fijian boys ALL SMILING playing for seperate teams and everybody talks about how sad it is. Why? they are all outside backs - and none of them would usurp Nadolo, so you are looking at Fiji missing out on one, maybe two players maximum.
The cynic in me thinks that this whole thing is suddenly front and centre of everybody's plate because of one person. Ben Ryan. Now I admire this guy for playing his part in the Fiji gold medal, I really do. But it speaks volumes that the coverage given to this issue was so much less when these teams had local and/or NZ/Aus coaches.
And for what it's worth, I don't want any single person in the AB jersey that doesn't 100% want to be there. Which is why losing players like Piutau sucks arse, but it's the better decison for everybody involved. When it comes to top level rugby, if you aren't 100% all in .. well, you aren't in.
-
Does the issue need to be as complicated as people are making it?
I think the answer is relatively simple. Leave most of the rules as they are, but eliminate the links between the country and the clubs. I.e if Connact want to sign Aki, then thats no problems. But if the IRFU want Connact to sign Aki, and then hence will support/top up contracts etc - thats a massive problem. Every single journo up north, without exception, wants the clubs to maintain power, so lets give it to them.
I kind of also get sick of the whole focus on this. The players we are talking about are the absolute standout MINORITY of people in the game. More has been written about Nathan Hughes, than has been written about Farrell, Joseph, who have been much more the key to the England turnaround than their back up number 8.
And lets talk about Fiji for a second. The sevens champs, the olympic golds winners. Sensational stuff. But then one picture of seven Fijian boys ALL SMILING playing for seperate teams and everybody talks about how sad it is. Why? they are all outside backs - and none of them would usurp Nadolo, so you are looking at Fiji missing out on one, maybe two players maximum.
The cynic in me thinks that this whole thing is suddenly front and centre of everybody's plate because of one person. Ben Ryan. Now I admire this guy for playing his part in the Fiji gold medal, I really do. But it speaks volumes that the coverage given to this issue was so much less when these teams had local and/or NZ/Aus coaches.
And for what it's worth, I don't want any single person in the AB jersey that doesn't 100% want to be there. Which is why losing players like Piutau sucks arse, but it's the better decison for everybody involved. When it comes to top level rugby, if you aren't 100% all in .. well, you aren't in.
@MajorRage said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Does the issue need to be as complicated as people are making it?
I think the answer is relatively simple. Leave most of the rules as they are, but eliminate the links between the country and the clubs. I.e if Connact want to sign Aki, then thats no problems. But if the IRFU want Connact to sign Aki, and then hence will support/top up contracts etc - thats a massive problem. Every single journo up north, without exception, wants the clubs to maintain power, so lets give it to them.
Every single journo up north??? Says who? Not all clubs/provinces are the same. The IRFU owns all four provinces. They employ everyone in the game ultimately.
Connacht identified and signed Aki because they wanted him to play for them. That's why Lam brought him in. Connacht were not required to follow the 2012 Player Succession Strategy - they didn't have to stick within quotas. Lam had a limited playing budget and sought to get the best value available.
Assuming the residency duration is increased, it'll be interesting to see what effect this has on uncapped salary levels in the marketplace if demand drops.
-
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Clear as mud.
It isn't cut and dry for sure, but it gives a pretty clear picture really.
That's why they explicitly state the importance of things like the family home, financial independence, load of study etc.
Earning 60k a year in a WTG at 18 while picking up a few papers at Uni (many Super players do this) likely counts toward residency. Studying full time on a scholarship (potentially on a student visa), relying on stipend or money from home, living in the dorms likely does not count as those factors indicate the permanent residence is elsewhere.
The way it reads financial independence, living space independence and the presence of deep(ening) roots all count for a lot. Study doesn't necessarily count or not count - except to say that full time study generally makes it difficult to achieve those earlier criteria.
In semper's example US will never be able to qualify players through their scholarships as NCAA players have to be amateurs and on students visas. Similarly time on a Rhodes scholarship wouldn't count due to the full-time study element plus the fact your selection in the program is predicated on being from another country.
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Clear as mud.
It isn't cut and dry for sure, but it gives a pretty clear picture really.
That's why they explicitly state the importance of things like the family home, financial independence, load of study etc.
Earning 60k a year in a WTG at 18 while picking up a few papers at Uni (many Super players do this) likely counts toward residency. Studying full time on a scholarship (potentially on a student visa), relying on stipend or money from home, living in the dorms likely does not count as those factors indicate the permanent residence is elsewhere.
The way it reads financial independence, living space independence and the presence of deep(ening) roots all count for a lot. Study doesn't necessarily count or not count - except to say that full time study generally makes it difficult to achieve those earlier criteria.
In semper's example US will never be able to qualify players through their scholarships as NCAA players have to be amateurs and on students visas. Similarly time on a Rhodes scholarship wouldn't count due to the full-time study element plus the fact your selection in the program is predicated on being from another country.
What is clear as mud, from POV, is whether that applies to an adult over the age of 18 on a university scholarship.
U18 school Scholarship , or u18 and smart enough to be in a uni scholarship- yes I understand.
-
@MajorRage said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Does the issue need to be as complicated as people are making it?
I think the answer is relatively simple. Leave most of the rules as they are, but eliminate the links between the country and the clubs. I.e if Connact want to sign Aki, then thats no problems. But if the IRFU want Connact to sign Aki, and then hence will support/top up contracts etc - thats a massive problem. Every single journo up north, without exception, wants the clubs to maintain power, so lets give it to them.
Every single journo up north??? Says who? Not all clubs/provinces are the same. The IRFU owns all four provinces. They employ everyone in the game ultimately.
Connacht identified and signed Aki because they wanted him to play for them. That's why Lam brought him in. Connacht were not required to follow the 2012 Player Succession Strategy - they didn't have to stick within quotas. Lam had a limited playing budget and sought to get the best value available.
Assuming the residency duration is increased, it'll be interesting to see what effect this has on uncapped salary levels in the marketplace if demand drops.
@Pot-Hale Really? So are you telling me the IRFU at no point had Aki playing for Ireland in their agenda at any point in time? Same as Jared Payne??
http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/mcassidy/irfu-special-player-project-waste-time-money/
-
@Pot-Hale Really? So are you telling me the IRFU at no point had Aki playing for Ireland in their agenda at any point in time? Same as Jared Payne??
http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/mcassidy/irfu-special-player-project-waste-time-money/
@MajorRage said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Pot-Hale Really? So are you telling me the IRFU at no point had Aki playing for Ireland in their agenda at any point in time? Same as Jared Payne??
http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/mcassidy/irfu-special-player-project-waste-time-money/
You do realise that quoting Pundit Arena as a source is the equivalent of 'I met a bloke last week who said he met another fella....'
Of course, the IRFU were aware that an uncapped player who remains in the country after 3 years becomes qualified. That's what the PSS was about - reducing quotas on foreign capped imports and (after uproar by provinces) allowing 1 player in who might qualify to play for Ireland through residency. Connacht wanting to bring in Aki would have been subject to similar scrutiny as Borlase, van den Heever, etc for Munster. (Not a lot). It was Lam who persuaded him to come and buy into the vision he had for the province. That's what motivated a lot of the players that he's brought in since he arrived. My point was that the provinces identify the players, not the IRFU. Who knows whether they'll work out or not during their contract period. It's a bit of a lottery. Some contracts are only one year, others two, some three. Some might want to leave after less than a year. Some might be perma injured all the time. Some might not simply be good enough. Some might get homesick. Some might choose to move on to another team/country. Some might be loaned to another province. All of these scenarios have occurred with so-called project players.
Aki is not a happy camper about Lam's departure. Aki's contract was up in June 2017. But he wouldn't have been qualified at that point. He had offers to go elsewhere. And as he said himself, he could potentially play for 2-3 countries - Samoa, NZ or Ireland if he stayed. But he was persuaded to sign a new three-year contract with Connacht with business support to augment his salary for the period, presumably based on their PRO12 success, and a chance to qualify and play in Champions Cup, and if he's playing well, to be selected for test rugby. I suspect that with Lam leaving, he may think their continuing chances of success won't be as good. And that might affect his chances of selection.
If he's selected by Schmidt and capped, then at some point, he might be given a central contract which would alleviate Connacht's wage bill somewhat.
Oh and in case it's not clear, I sincerely hope he gets fed up and leaves. Henshaw, Ringrose, Marshall, Olding, Scannell, McCloskey will do me just fine in the green shirt.
-
@MajorRage said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Pot-Hale Really? So are you telling me the IRFU at no point had Aki playing for Ireland in their agenda at any point in time? Same as Jared Payne??
http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/mcassidy/irfu-special-player-project-waste-time-money/
You do realise that quoting Pundit Arena as a source is the equivalent of 'I met a bloke last week who said he met another fella....'
Of course, the IRFU were aware that an uncapped player who remains in the country after 3 years becomes qualified. That's what the PSS was about - reducing quotas on foreign capped imports and (after uproar by provinces) allowing 1 player in who might qualify to play for Ireland through residency. Connacht wanting to bring in Aki would have been subject to similar scrutiny as Borlase, van den Heever, etc for Munster. (Not a lot). It was Lam who persuaded him to come and buy into the vision he had for the province. That's what motivated a lot of the players that he's brought in since he arrived. My point was that the provinces identify the players, not the IRFU. Who knows whether they'll work out or not during their contract period. It's a bit of a lottery. Some contracts are only one year, others two, some three. Some might want to leave after less than a year. Some might be perma injured all the time. Some might not simply be good enough. Some might get homesick. Some might choose to move on to another team/country. Some might be loaned to another province. All of these scenarios have occurred with so-called project players.
Aki is not a happy camper about Lam's departure. Aki's contract was up in June 2017. But he wouldn't have been qualified at that point. He had offers to go elsewhere. And as he said himself, he could potentially play for 2-3 countries - Samoa, NZ or Ireland if he stayed. But he was persuaded to sign a new three-year contract with Connacht with business support to augment his salary for the period, presumably based on their PRO12 success, and a chance to qualify and play in Champions Cup, and if he's playing well, to be selected for test rugby. I suspect that with Lam leaving, he may think their continuing chances of success won't be as good. And that might affect his chances of selection.
If he's selected by Schmidt and capped, then at some point, he might be given a central contract which would alleviate Connacht's wage bill somewhat.
Oh and in case it's not clear, I sincerely hope he gets fed up and leaves. Henshaw, Ringrose, Marshall, Olding, Scannell, McCloskey will do me just fine in the green shirt.
@Pot-Hale Thanks - good response.
Yes, I am aware of what pundit arena is, but I thought that article was as good as anything else out there & it's certainly not devoid of fact. Remember this is a quote from Aki himself - ""That's a big part of my decision to move. Hopefully when the time is right and if I'm playing good footy, hopefully I can play for the Ireland international team."
Lam seems to be hugely popular up north. Which I do fine quite odd, as he struggled here.
-
@Pot-Hale Thanks - good response.
Yes, I am aware of what pundit arena is, but I thought that article was as good as anything else out there & it's certainly not devoid of fact. Remember this is a quote from Aki himself - ""That's a big part of my decision to move. Hopefully when the time is right and if I'm playing good footy, hopefully I can play for the Ireland international team."
Lam seems to be hugely popular up north. Which I do fine quite odd, as he struggled here.
@MajorRage said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Pot-Hale Thanks - good response.
Yes, I am aware of what pundit arena is, but I thought that article was as good as anything else out there & it's certainly not devoid of fact. Remember this is a quote from Aki himself - ""That's a big part of my decision to move. Hopefully when the time is right and if I'm playing good footy, hopefully I can play for the Ireland international team."
There is a lot of focus on what Ireland has done with 'project players'. But I struggle to see what the substantive difference is between what is done there and what was done in the case of Fekitoa?
-
@MajorRage said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Pot-Hale Thanks - good response.
Yes, I am aware of what pundit arena is, but I thought that article was as good as anything else out there & it's certainly not devoid of fact. Remember this is a quote from Aki himself - ""That's a big part of my decision to move. Hopefully when the time is right and if I'm playing good footy, hopefully I can play for the Ireland international team."
There is a lot of focus on what Ireland has done with 'project players'. But I struggle to see what the substantive difference is between what is done there and what was done in the case of Fekitoa?
@semper he came on a rugby scholarship to Wesley College, what school did Aki get a scholarship for?
-
@semper he came on a rugby scholarship to Wesley College, what school did Aki get a scholarship for?
@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper he came on a rugby scholarship to Wesley College, what school did Aki get a scholarship for?
Fekitoa still had to qualify by proper residency subsequent to the scholarship. He was contracted to two Super Rugby teams during that time. If he had decided to play for the country of his birth and upbringing during that time or had said he never wanted to play for NZ, would that gave impacted his contacts? Hansen was talking about picking him for the All Blacks before he completed his residency which suggests there has been discussion about playing for NZ with him before he qualified to play.
-
@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper he came on a rugby scholarship to Wesley College, what school did Aki get a scholarship for?
Fekitoa still had to qualify by proper residency subsequent to the scholarship. He was contracted to two Super Rugby teams during that time. If he had decided to play for the country of his birth and upbringing during that time or had said he never wanted to play for NZ, would that gave impacted his contacts? Hansen was talking about picking him for the All Blacks before he completed his residency which suggests there has been discussion about playing for NZ with him before he qualified to play.
@semper Aki was already a professional rugby player, unattached to any nation when he went to Ireland, Fekitoa was a school boy when he came to NZ, at which time he was a good 4+years off being eligible...that is a substantial difference I'd of thought?
-
@semper Aki was already a professional rugby player, unattached to any nation when he went to Ireland, Fekitoa was a school boy when he came to NZ, at which time he was a good 4+years off being eligible...that is a substantial difference I'd of thought?
@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper Aki was already a professional rugby player, unattached to any nation when he went to Ireland, Fekitoa was a school boy when he came to NZ, at which time he was a good 4+years off being eligible...that is a substantial difference I'd of thought?
@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper Aki was already a professional rugby player, unattached to any nation when he went to Ireland, Fekitoa was a school boy when he came to NZ, at which time he was a good 4+years off being ...that is a substantial difference I'd of thought?
Fekitoa was not offered a scholarship on strength of his academic work. It was a rugby scholarship, with the benefits of it based on his rugby skills and naught else.
So one is about a kid being moved from their home place to a country where he has no familial ties and no previous relationship with and the other is about doing the same with an adult. All based purely on their skills with an oval ball.
I don't stand over Irish project players. I would happily only play residnecy qualified players for Ireland if they hold an Irish or UK passport. I am just asking for consistency from those who criticise what Ireland does.
-
@semper What bollocks, you know there is a clear difference. One moved as a schoolboy to a high school and the other moved to a professional club owned by the national body with the intention of playing for that nation. That's not even close.
@Nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper What bollocks, you know there is a clear difference. One moved as a schoolboy to a high school and the other moved to a professional club owned by the national body with the intention of playing for that nation. That's not even close.
So when Fekitoa got contracts from NZRFU Super Rugby teams his intention to qualify for NZ was not something that was even remotely a factor in it all? Hansen was talking about him in a NZ squad before he had qualified, so if it had occurred to him it probably wasn'the the first time someone in the Union thought about it.
-
@Nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper What bollocks, you know there is a clear difference. One moved as a schoolboy to a high school and the other moved to a professional club owned by the national body with the intention of playing for that nation. That's not even close.
So when Fekitoa got contracts from NZRFU Super Rugby teams his intention to qualify for NZ was not something that was even remotely a factor in it all? Hansen was talking about him in a NZ squad before he had qualified, so if it had occurred to him it probably wasn'the the first time someone in the Union thought about it.
@semper The NZRU would likely have had no knowledge of Fekitoa before he he started putting good performances in at schoolboy level - for a scholarship that he sought out himself.
When he decided to stay in NZ and play his way up through provincial to Super rugby of course they'd offer him a contract - which is different than luring him to NZ as a project player which was the case with Aki.
-
@semper The NZRU would likely have had no knowledge of Fekitoa before he he started putting good performances in at schoolboy level - for a scholarship that he sought out himself.
When he decided to stay in NZ and play his way up through provincial to Super rugby of course they'd offer him a contract - which is different than luring him to NZ as a project player which was the case with Aki.
@Nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper The NZRU would likely have had no knowledge of Fekitoa before he he started putting good performances in at schoolboy level - for a scholarship that he sought out himself.
When he decided to stay in NZ and play his way up through provincial to Super rugby of course they'd offer him a contract - which is different than luring him to NZ as a project player which was the case with Aki.
So if it was Aki's agent who contacted the Irish team first it would be okay?
-
@Nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper The NZRU would likely have had no knowledge of Fekitoa before he he started putting good performances in at schoolboy level - for a scholarship that he sought out himself.
When he decided to stay in NZ and play his way up through provincial to Super rugby of course they'd offer him a contract - which is different than luring him to NZ as a project player which was the case with Aki.
So if it was Aki's agent who contacted the Irish team first it would be okay?
@semper Are you on the troll? Seriously? Because only a fool would equate a schoolboy moving to a country on a scholarship to a fully formed professional rugby player moving to another country with the intention of representing that country at international level.
-
@semper Are you on the troll? Seriously? Because only a fool would equate a schoolboy moving to a country on a scholarship to a fully formed professional rugby player moving to another country with the intention of representing that country at international level.
@Nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper Are you on the troll? Seriously? Because only a fool would equate a schoolboy moving to a country on a scholarship to a fully formed professional rugby player moving to another country with the intention of representing that country at international level.
No. Fekitoa's scholarship made no difference to his eligibility to play for NZ. He was ineligible. He only became eligible because he was given three years of professional work in NZ - he got a significant portion of that work from two Super Rugby teams.
Aki will only become qualified to play for Ireland when he completes three years residency. The reason he will be able to complete that residency is because he is on a contract from a province (not the IRFU but a structure operating within the IRFU's control).
The fact the Fekitoa was on an educational scholarship would make not a job of difference to his ability to apply for a NZ passport. It makes not a jot of difference to his ability to demonstrate residnecy to the IRB in satisfaction of rule 8. The only thing that makes him a runner for either is the fact that he is a legal permanent resident that is only enabled by him having a professional rugby contract.
-
@MajorRage said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Pot-Hale Thanks - good response.
Yes, I am aware of what pundit arena is, but I thought that article was as good as anything else out there & it's certainly not devoid of fact. Remember this is a quote from Aki himself - ""That's a big part of my decision to move. Hopefully when the time is right and if I'm playing good footy, hopefully I can play for the Ireland international team."
There is a lot of focus on what Ireland has done with 'project players'. But I struggle to see what the substantive difference is between what is done there and what was done in the case of Fekitoa?
@semper Firstly, to be clear, I am not a fan of Fekitoa playing for the All Blacks either. I understand that people make life choices for whatever reason and I respect that - just like I respect Aki's decison.
But what you are talking about is not the same situation. I've seen early interviews with Fekitoa which I've not been comfortable with either - those a young man from Tonga stating clearly that he wants to play for the All Blacks, and also saying that he would only play for Tonga, if he could't make the All Blacks. I don't really like that either.
Now, can you honestly say that either of these things happened for Aki? He wanted to play for Ireland? Before bags of money were hung before him? No way. The situation is totally different, it's not even remotely the same.
I appreciate your frustration in that some of my original thoughts may have been inaccurate fallacies brought about by reading media from those who should know better, as we down here have suffered that same fate for many a year. But lets compare apples with apples.
EDIT: Also this - So one is about a kid being moved from their home place to a country where he has no familial ties and no previous relationship with and the other is about doing the same with an adult. All based purely on their skills with an oval ball.
Do you have any idea at all about the demographic of the NZ make up? Here's a heads up. Tonga has a population of 100,000. NZ has a Tongan population of around 75,000. No familial ties you say?
-
@semper Are you on the troll? Seriously? Because only a fool would equate a schoolboy moving to a country on a scholarship to a fully formed professional rugby player moving to another country with the intention of representing that country at international level.
@Nepia of course he is. The Irish are remarkably sensitive about their state-sanctioned poaching agenda.
Probably because most of their poaches are decidedly average
-
@Nepia of course he is. The Irish are remarkably sensitive about their state-sanctioned poaching agenda.
Probably because most of their poaches are decidedly average
@mariner4life said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Nepia of course he is. The Irish are remarkably sensitive about their state-sanctioned poaching agenda.
Probably because most of their poaches are decidedly average
How dare you besmirch the name of Isaac Boss! He was a half-decent 3rd string halfback for Waikato.
