Maybe this is why I don't get the NH club rugby

[Maverick1987]

Fair enough Jim, in that it does seem to be the French teams that do this more than others. However, if PRL get their way, then IMO we will see English club rugby heading more towards what happens in the EPL, where sometimes "spot the Englishman" is no easy task. IIRC, the 2013/14 EPL season started with only 68 England qualified players; about three per team.

I'd have no objection to one or two "marquee" players in the Crusaders, but nine foreigners would make them no longer the Crusaders in my eyes. If I was a Toulon supporter from way back, they would lose me with this ridiculous state of affairs.

It's not the same in England . The first week in the AP there was 70% english players selected in the starting 23 across the board . I saw it because they were comparing AP against the football premier league . Also as someone said above there are extra financial incentives to work with young English players rather than buying in foreigners

Just from a Leicester point of view I'll do our "first team" sheet players in capitals being foreigners

1. AYERZA
2. T. Youngs
3. Cole
4. Deacon/Slater
5. Parling/Kitchener
6. Croft
7. SALVI
8. Crane/Waldrom
9. B. Youngs
10. Flood
11. Thompstone/GONEVA
12. Allen
13. Tuilagi
14. Benjamin
15. Tait

So probably 3 at most in starting lineup although people like Bowden, Mele, stankovic(who is English qualified in his defense) and Hamilton may be in the squad so we do have some more non-English qualified player but to put English clubs in the same bracket as the French clubs would be inaccurate

Also it cannot be 3 per team as that would be 36 players english qualified out of 276 players named in the starting 23 . It would equate to a little over 10% of the players over the weekend . I think you will find it's more like 3 foreign players in each 23

 

[ratsapprentice]

I can't remember what the EQP quota agreed upon by the RFU and PRL is but it's around 70%~, I think.

English fans should remember though, that this is not a self-imposed quota by the PRL, if the RFU hadn't told them to then they wouldn't have done it themselves.
This is exactly the sort of thing they will look to unburden themselves of when they can afford to ignore the RFU.

 

[smartcooky]

I can't remember what the EQP quota agreed upon by the RFU and PRL is but it's around 70%~, I think.

English fans should remember though, that this is not a self-imposed quota by the PRL, if the RFU hadn't told them to then they wouldn't have done it themselves.
This is exactly the sort of thing they will look to unburden themselves of when they can afford to ignore the RFU.

Developing and nurturing English rugby talent to play rugby for England is considered a "burden" by English rugby clubs. How sad!

 

[Amiga500]

As for the Irish, i dont see many new youngsters coming through in the same way, as it seems they are still playing the same old codgers from 10yrs ago. And the appeal of the Irish Regions is only possible if they have a viable product to sell, which is looking increasingly precarious in the long term with events playing out in Wales, England & France.

Yip - there is an argument that the existence of central contracts stifles the development of players that are somewhere between young-and-full-of-potential and promising-but-needs-gametime-to-develop.

If you aren't:
- a big impact player when your 20-22 [i.e. Henderson @Ulster, Zebo @Munster, Madigan @Leinster].
- playing in a position a non-irish qualified player will shortly be vacating [Sexton @Leinster].
- playing in a position extremely important to the national team [Conor Murray @Munster, Devin Toner @Leinster].

Then you'll struggle to fulfil your promise [Donnacha Ryan @Munster, Fitzpatrick @Ulster].

 

[ratsapprentice]

Developing and nurturing English rugby talent to play rugby for England is considered a "burden" by English rugby clubs. How sad!

Not necessarily, but why would they want those sorts of rules enforced on themselves.
From their standpoint it would limit them as businesses.

 

[Rhyer]

Completely agree. I also don't like it when teams get gutted much like what happens in South Africa. Weaker teams just feed Toulouse. Louis Picamoles for instance!!!

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

Because some people don't actually give a **** about international rugby and care more about the club game.

Because some people don't care who plays for their club, they just want to see their club win. Ice Hockey in Canada and the US is very much like this. The Detroit Red Wings for instance, have only 6 Americans on their 40 man roster.

Their team, which is usually one of the strongest in the NHL consists of:

6 Americans
9 Swedes
6 Canadians
1 Russian
2 Slovaks
2 Czechs

Some of the players who are from different countries will end up playing for a franchise their entire career and become heroes in that city. As long as they keep winning nobody gives a **** where they come from so in that regard I can completely understand the viewpoint of club rugby fans in Europe.

I think in the next 15 to 20 years you will see rugby turn a corner and the club game become more powerful then their respective national unions. Right now the money isn't good enough for the majority of the clubs so they are forced to side with the unions but as the financial situation improves unions will need to loosen their grip. Money in rugby is still very small, Stade Toulouse only has a 35 Million Euro budget, that is not a lot of money. Once you start to see Soccer/NFL/NHL/MLB money the international game will lose clout.

 

[smartcooky]

Because some people don't actually give a **** about international rugby and care more about the club game.

Because some people don't care who plays for their club, they just want to see their club win. Ice Hockey in Canada and the US is very much like this. The Detroit Red Wings for instance, have only 6 Americans on their 40 man roster.

Their team, which is usually one of the strongest in the NHL consists of:

6 Americans
9 Swedes
6 Canadians
1 Russian
2 Slovaks
2 Czechs

Some of the players who are from different countries will end up playing for a franchise their entire career and become heroes in that city. As long as they keep winning nobody gives a **** where they come from so in that regard I can completely understand the viewpoint of club rugby fans in Europe.

I think in the next 15 to 20 years you will see rugby turn a corner and the club game become more powerful then their respective national unions. Right now the money isn't good enough for the majority of the clubs so they are forced to side with the unions but as the financial situation improves unions will need to loosen their grip. Money in rugby is still very small, Stade Toulouse only has a 35 Million Euro budget, that is not a lot of money. Once you start to see Soccer/NFL/NHL/MLB money the international game will lose clout.

Ice Hockey is not a fair comparison. There is pretty much no serious international game outside the Olympics, and far less countries play it than rugby. There are only three or four serious contenders for the Olympic Gold medal; Canada, Russia, the USA and Sweden.

If your prediction does come to pass, and the club game does become more powerful that the international game, it will be a very sad day indeed, one in which rugby union heads down the path to join mungoball!

Hopefully, it will be long after I have gone.

 

[Big Ewis]

Completely agree. I also don't like it when teams get gutted much like what happens in South Africa. Weaker teams just feed Toulouse. Louis Picamoles for instance!!!

that's right.

smaratycookie obviously you're right. I can't understand some ppl would ACTUALLY condone Toulon's moves with their money-crazed arabic owner Boudjelal.
People start saying things like "Boudjelal is the man, Toulon has never looked this good and they won the fkn H Cup !"
Well yeah they won the Euro Cup, I mean they still had to go out and do it, plenty of fantastic European teams out there, but still. What the hell did you expect ? A monster scrum with int'ls, great 2nd rowers, flankers, a fantastic 9-10 pair (incl. excellent pen kicker Wilko) and excellent backs with a killer bench. All big names. Like, wow, really ??!!! These guys won the Cup ??!!! nooooooooooooooooo...

Money money money. Don't give a fk about anything else. The only law is money. Doesn't matter if ppl have to fkn die, it's all money, green. That's it. Top 14 Rugby is starting to look more and more like a cold business and a lot less of a sport with values, humanity and tradition.

I know some Toulon followers myself....spoken to them. You see RCT stickers on car bumpers throughout the Var department where I go during the summer. They've followed the club since forever, and won't stop now. You can't blame them, it would be ridiculous.
It's reprehensible if you're a brand new fan, and you're not even from Toulon or its whereabouts, and you hop onto the bandwagon because they have all the stars and are winning and say "we" when talking about Toulon.

Personally, I can't support or really enjoy a super-super-super team. It's cool if it's a good looking team on paper, with all positions covered nicely, and some good coaching and cohesion in the team but I can't support Toulon.

I like Toulouse, Clermont (borderline, this one), Montpellier, the Saracens...they look mighty solid on paper, and can produce fantastic Rugby, but they're not made up of a World XV either.

 

[LittleGuy]

Ice Hockey is not a fair comparison. There is pretty much no serious international game outside the Olympics, and far less countries play it than rugby. There are only three or four serious contenders for the Olympic Gold medal; Canada, Russia, the USA and Sweden.

If your prediction does come to pass, and the club game does become more powerful that the international game, it will be a very sad day indeed, one in which rugby union heads down the path to join mungoball!

Hopefully, it will be long after I have gone.

Apologies being a bit pedantic cooky, but I'd throw in Finland(have won Gold at World Championships, and Silver's in Olympics before) and Czech Republic(Gold medalists in 1998 Olympics, have had a slight decline since) as outside but possible gold medalists. Slovakia aren't good enough to win gold but are possible Bronze contendors. Those three along with the other four you mentioned are referred to as "The Big Seven" in Ice Hockey.

Aside from those there is a noticeable drop off in quality in the next tier with the Swiss being the only side consistently able to knock off one of these "big seven" teams on their day.

 

[j'nuh]

Not necessarily, but why would they want those sorts of rules enforced on themselves.
From their standpoint it would limit them as businesses.

Exactly.

Also, people notice and care about the effects that a player quota might have on the mega rich, such as Toulon, but they don't consider what might happen at the other end of the table. A good, international-quality young player will always understandably want to play at the top clubs. So bottom-half teams often lose their best young players to the top teams. Whilst the mega rich (eg Toulon) who can afford to have world class players in every position don't generally sign these types of players in bulk, the richer/top sides do. The concentration of the national team for France is based in the top teams that aren't as rich as Toulon, eg Toulouse and Clermont. This means that the bottom teams will struggle to grow without access to a number of foreign players.

This is why Exeter have done so well for themselves. They got in guys like Tui, Mumm, Shoemark, James, Steenson, Dollman etc., to cover for weaker areas in the squad. If you aren't allowed to resource foreigners to cover up for inadequacies in the squad, then you'll show little ambition going forward, and players will get up and leave. There's no way Gloucester would be able to keep so many stars in contract this season if they didn't have the ability to recruit guys like Afoa and Hibbard in order to show ambition.

In general, a compromise needs to be made. 70% seems reasonable IMO, but I wouldn't be upset if a team just had to dip below it.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

Ice Hockey is not a fair comparison. There is pretty much no serious international game outside the Olympics, and far less countries play it than rugby. There are only three or four serious contenders for the Olympic Gold medal; Canada, Russia, the USA and Sweden.

If your prediction does come to pass, and the club game does become more powerful that the international game, it will be a very sad day indeed, one in which rugby union heads down the path to join mungoball!

Hopefully, it will be long after I have gone.

Sure it is a fair comparison. In actuality the sport is very similar to Rugby in a lot of ways

1. There is a clear tier of country's who are a notch above the rest

- Canada
- Russia
- USA
- Sweden
- Finland
- Czech Republic
- Slovakia
- Switzerland and Germany arguably

Then you have the rest who make up the numbers but are still fairly competitive

Austria
Belarus
Denmark
Slovenia
Latvia
Norway
Kazakhstan
Ukraine
France
Italy

So it's noted, every single one of these countries also has a professional league with their top players playing professional ice hockey. Almost sounds like the sport is better off then rugby. If we look in terms of money as well Ice Hockey dominates Rugby. Here are some money (In Euro's €) numbers for you:

NHL (North America)

Highest Budget: €142 Million
Lowest Budget: €47.8 Million
Average: €74.1 Million

KHL (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Croatia, Czech Republic, Slovakia)

Highest Budget: €52.2 Million
Lowest Budget: €10.4 Million
Average Budget: €23.6 Million

NLA (Swiss National League)

Highest Budget: €28.9 Million
Lowest Budget: €7.4 Million
Average Budget: €12.3 Million

Swedish Hockey League

Highest Budget: €12.5 Million
Lowest Budget: €4.6 Million
Average Budget: €6.9 Million

SM-Liga (Finland)

Highest Budget: €7,7 million
Lowest Budget: €3,5 million
Average Budget: €5,7 million

DEL (Germany)

Highest Budget: €7,5 million
Lowest Budget: €3,5 million
Average Budget: €5,3 million

Extraliga (Czech Republic)

Highest Budget: €6,4 million
Lowest Budget: €2,2 million
Average Budget: €4 million

Ersteliga (Austria, Croatia, Hungary)

Highest Budget: €7 million
Lowest Budget: €1 million
Average Budget: €2,95 million

Asian Hockey League (China, Korea, Japan)

Highest Budget: €5 million
Lowest Budget: €1,1 million
Average Budget: €2,44 million

Get Ligean (Norway)

Highest Budget: €3 million
Lowest Budget: €500 000
Average Budget: €1,49 million

Source: http://forums.internationalhockey.net/showthread.php?11337-Team-budgets-around-the-world!

Going by all these numbers I would say Ice Hockey is far better off then Rugby and there are more nations that are competitive at the very top. You talked about the Olympics being the only real international ice hockey, this is not true, their is also the Ice Hockey World Championships which occur every year in May and the World Junior Championships which are going on right now (Top 10 U-19 teams in the world). Top 16 teams in the world compete with promotion and relegation from the lower divisions. NHL players do participate as well unless their team is in the playoffs. Technically it is not our best sides as over half the teams are still in the NHL playoffs; however, their is a lot of parity between teams and their are really no blowouts. The only time all players get released from their clubs is for the Olympics which kick off in a few weeks.

I personally think the popularity of international rugby is grossly overstated, it is popular in (UK, France, NZ, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Italy and Ireland) realistically out of all those countries the only nations that have a realistic chance of winning the WC are NZ, Australia, South Africa, England and France (5 countries). Of course we could say that rugby is also popular in the Pacific Isles who are also strong rugby nations; however, I would point to this as a key indicator that rugby is a pretty weak sport in terms of its drawing power and participation rate if 3 countries (Tonga, Fiji and Samoa) with just over 1 million inhabitants can be considered to be some of the strongest rugby countries in the world. They also have no professional setups and are dirt poor.

Right now rugby is a closed shop because the clubs aren't wealthy enough to tell the Unions to stuff it but again I will point to Ice Hockey as a perfect example of where the sport of rugby is going to be headed in the next 15 to 20 years. Clubs are going to get wealthier and are going to want/need to buy the best players they can to be competitive in their respective leagues. Eventually the SH will be unable to compete and the draw of big $$$ will start luring players away.

The fact that the gate attendance for the entire Super 15 last year was 2.5 Million (average of only 20,000) shows me just how fragile professional rugby really is. Mark my words the day will come when the clubs will not be taking orders from the Unions anymore and the players will ultimately side with the clubs because that is who pays the bills at the end of the day.

 

[Amiga500]

Mark my words the day will come when the clubs will not be taking orders from the Unions anymore and the players will ultimately side with the clubs because that is who pays the bills at the end of the day.

The clubs only pay the bills in 2 countries. :huh:

 

[LittleGuy]

The clubs only pay the bills in 2 countries. :huh:

Think he's talking about what it will change to eventually if the club game grows more powerful, with the clubs being able to provide stronger salaries than a central governing body would. That's up to Canadian Rugger to clarify though.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Yeah, but apart from France, England and Wales there are no independent clubs... they are all just arms of their respective unions.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

Yeah, but apart from France, England and Wales there are no independent clubs... they are all just arms of their respective unions.

Yes but as the clubs in France and England become more powerful they will be paying bigger money which will allow them to buy players from whomever they choose. The money in rugby is pretty small but that is because it is in it's infancy at the professional level. Players careers are short and you need to make the most money you can in the limited amount of time you have. It isn't going to happen today or tomorrow but 15 years down the line the clubs will have more money and more purchasing power. Who would of thought 5 years ago we would be having a discussion on whether the Heineken Cup would happen next year but here we are, a lot can change in 5 years, let alone 15 to 20. I am a firm believer that the clubs will eventually triumph over the Unions, they have the money and with money comes power.

 

[ratsapprentice]

That's only the case in two countries though.

I don't disagree that if the clubs get loose of the Unions then they will relegate the international game to a sideshow - much like in League.
I don't however, see it as inevitable... but the time is runniing out for the unions and IRB to cement their control of the sport.
They do currently have the money and power to do this, but like you say... if they don't act now, will that still be the case in 5 years or so?

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Get yoself an Irish province. We dig that home grown ****.

Like Botha, Pienaar, Stander, Diack, Wannenberg, van den Heever, Muller, Roux, Kirchner

 

[Peat]

We did you guys a favour taking Diack tbfh.

 

[Prestwick]

Not necessarily, but why would they want those sorts of rules enforced on themselves.
From their standpoint it would limit them as businesses.

I completely disagree that the English Clubs see developing and nurturing English rugby talent to play rugby for England is considered a "burden". Far from it!

Even before the current agreement encouraging English clubs to develop new talent clubs like Saracens were pumping money into their academy structures. As far back as 2005/6 odd, I think at one point they were going around St Albans (where their academy is based) renting any spare room they could find to house all the new talent coming in.

Most PRL clubs have had excellent academy structures in place before the RFU formalised the reward system for having home grown talent in your squads and I doubt that would change if that money went away.

Success on the balance sheet depends on success on the pitch and to ensure that keeps happening, you need to keep developing new talent. You can't just buy it in like Toulon do. So it makes good sense to have a strong academy structure and to have even stronger links with the clubs in the Championship and beyond.

I don't buy the idea of "independent clubs bad - unions good" or vice versa. Both have excellent strengths but also limitations as well.

The system we have at the moment where PRL and RFU work together for the benefit of both in terms of booming revenues and results on the pitch works very well. It isn't perfect but I think rugby in England is far better now than it was at the time of the crisis in English rugby when the last agreement between the clubs and the Union ended.