Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
having our pacific players back would be awesome
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Leonormous Boozer" data-source="post: 994288" data-attributes="member: 45598"><p>That's fair, but I don't think this rule, if implemented correctly, puts the game in a worse place than it already is. If you have a 4 year stand down period to stop any chance of players playing for two teams in a world cup cycle, require a player to be eligible for the country before the stand down period ends* and restrict it to movements from a higher tier to a lower tier I think you're ok and that the original decision on who to play for won't be any more financially motivated than they are now. </p><p></p><p>Unfortunately I don't think we can get to the point where money won't be a decisive factor on deciding who to play for in rugby without club rugby becoming the absolute pinnacle of the sport like club soccer. Even if match fees and requirements to play for a club in X country to play for the national team were abolished, Adidas are still going to pay the England or NZ international a lot more money than the Tongan.</p><p></p><p>*So players aren't qualifying for a second nation through residency, or at least devoting 9 years. (five year residence + 4 year stand down) </p><p></p><p></p><p>I think that's very fair. What I would say is that it seems to be very personal to Argentina (just comparing Olyy's post above shows the difference) and its definitely something that you would have to pride yourselves on rather than expecting it from everyone in my opinion. </p><p></p><p>I did leave Argentina and RSA out of my original post on purpose because it does get complicated with them and I couldn't tell you what either countries' statistics are regarding immigration v emigration. My argument is not as simple as poor v rich though. Population and the populations of surrounding countries play a part. </p><p>With the Pacific Islands and Ireland, as well as I would presume Wales and Scotland (it gets murkier there because moving from Cardiff to London isn't emigrating) you have countries that have either constantly experienced mass emigration or have had periods of it over their last two/three generations (my generation is the first in Ireland that hasn't experience a huge amount of permanent emigration) and the effects of which will continue to be seen for at least another 15-20 years on terms of eligibility for a rugby team. </p><p>That argument is exclusive to keeping the unpopular "granny rule" though. </p><p></p><p>Eligibility for me is more of a personal thing, I like the product that top class players produce and they deserve a certain amount of remuneration and protection for it in my opinion, if they were making even a fraction of what soccer or basketball players can with a club I'd be all for stricter rules, rugby just isn't there yet though.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Leonormous Boozer, post: 994288, member: 45598"] That's fair, but I don't think this rule, if implemented correctly, puts the game in a worse place than it already is. If you have a 4 year stand down period to stop any chance of players playing for two teams in a world cup cycle, require a player to be eligible for the country before the stand down period ends* and restrict it to movements from a higher tier to a lower tier I think you're ok and that the original decision on who to play for won't be any more financially motivated than they are now. Unfortunately I don't think we can get to the point where money won't be a decisive factor on deciding who to play for in rugby without club rugby becoming the absolute pinnacle of the sport like club soccer. Even if match fees and requirements to play for a club in X country to play for the national team were abolished, Adidas are still going to pay the England or NZ international a lot more money than the Tongan. *So players aren't qualifying for a second nation through residency, or at least devoting 9 years. (five year residence + 4 year stand down) I think that's very fair. What I would say is that it seems to be very personal to Argentina (just comparing Olyy's post above shows the difference) and its definitely something that you would have to pride yourselves on rather than expecting it from everyone in my opinion. I did leave Argentina and RSA out of my original post on purpose because it does get complicated with them and I couldn't tell you what either countries' statistics are regarding immigration v emigration. My argument is not as simple as poor v rich though. Population and the populations of surrounding countries play a part. With the Pacific Islands and Ireland, as well as I would presume Wales and Scotland (it gets murkier there because moving from Cardiff to London isn't emigrating) you have countries that have either constantly experienced mass emigration or have had periods of it over their last two/three generations (my generation is the first in Ireland that hasn't experience a huge amount of permanent emigration) and the effects of which will continue to be seen for at least another 15-20 years on terms of eligibility for a rugby team. That argument is exclusive to keeping the unpopular "granny rule" though. Eligibility for me is more of a personal thing, I like the product that top class players produce and they deserve a certain amount of remuneration and protection for it in my opinion, if they were making even a fraction of what soccer or basketball players can with a club I'd be all for stricter rules, rugby just isn't there yet though. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
having our pacific players back would be awesome
Top