Overseas signings

[Dizzy]

OMG what is up with all the international signings. I don't believe you should be eligible to play for the Waratahs if you're a kiwi, or for the Rebels or for whoever if you're not apart of their nationality...
Honestly, if Giteau played for the bloody Hurricanes I'd be ******.

Unless you've spent the last few years over there, thats when I'd let it go but not if you just get signed over there... Not good for loyalty

 

[Charles]

Why do your threads always appear on facebook?

 

[nickdnz]

OMG what is up with all the international signings. I don't believe you should be eligible to play for the Waratahs if you're a kiwi, or for the Rebels or for whoever if you're not apart of their nationality...
Honestly, if Giteau played for the bloody Hurricanes I'd be ******.

Unless you've spent the last few years over there, thats when I'd let it go but not if you just get signed over there... Not good for loyalty

Well, there are 2 ineligable players allowed for each NZ S14 team. I think it's being slightly extended with the addition of Argentina to the Tri Nations. There are also guidelines to allow this to happen. I don't see what your problem with this is.
1. Over seas based players are not allowed to play for the AB's.
2. Having someone like Anesi play for the Waratahs, strengthens New Zealand rugby. Anesi would not be able to gain a Super 15 contract with the Chiefs, as there are now better wingers, but he'll still only be eligable for the All Blacks, if he comes to play Super rugby in NZ, while he'll never be able to play for Australia. It's not weakening our player pool and it means more Super rugby experience will come through to the ITM Cup. It also allows some Australian teams, who are low on some options, being able to sign an (other wise unfranchised New Zealander), to help their team.
3. Because of the NZ rules on this, a marque player can not be signed if there is a quality replacement, so our home grown talent is safe, so you won't likely get Giteau playing for the Hurricanes, unless there is no other option (and if there is no other option, Giteau is a good option to have).

I'd rather our players stay in the Super 15, playing for a different franchise and gaining Super 15 experience for the ITM Cup, where they can help develop other players, than them **** off to France, where we'll never see them again of benmefit from them again.

 

[Quadecooper#1]

Well, there are 2 ineligable players allowed for each NZ S14 team. I think it's being slightly extended with the addition of Argentina to the Tri Nations. There are also guidelines to allow this to happen. I don't see what your problem with this is.
1. Over seas based players are not allowed to play for the AB's.
2. Having someone like Anesi play for the Waratahs, strengthens New Zealand rugby. Anesi would not be able to gain a Super 15 contract with the Chiefs, as there are now better wingers, but he'll still only be eligable for the All Blacks, if he comes to play Super rugby in NZ, while he'll never be able to play for Australia. It's not weakening our player pool and it means more Super rugby experience will come through to the ITM Cup. It also allows some Australian teams, who are low on some options, being able to sign an (other wise unfranchised New Zealander), to help their team.
3. Because of the NZ rules on this, a marque player can not be signed if there is a quality replacement, so our home grown talent is safe, so you won't likely get Giteau playing for the Hurricanes, unless there is no other option (and if there is no other option, Giteau is a good option to have).

I'd rather our players stay in the Super 15, playing for a different franchise and gaining Super 15 experience for the ITM Cup, where they can help develop other players, than them **** off to France, where we'll never see them again of benmefit from them again.

I completely agree, we don't have enough depth here in Australia so it strengthens our sides. I think the main thing is that their experience (e.g. Anesi and Braid) helps our younger players coming through. I think Anesi would have helped Kurtley and Braid would have helped the young backrowers coming through at the reds. With the amount of overseas experience at the rebels and the young Australian players signed there it will be interesting to see they turn out.

 

[markshaw]

as a blues supporter i wouldnt mind a quality 1st 5 coming from off shore at all. anyone but brett please

 

[Dizzy]

Well, there are 2 ineligable players allowed for each NZ S14 team. I think it's being slightly extended with the addition of Argentina to the Tri Nations. There are also guidelines to allow this to happen. I don't see what your problem with this is.
1. Over seas based players are not allowed to play for the AB's.
2. Having someone like Anesi play for the Waratahs, strengthens New Zealand rugby. Anesi would not be able to gain a Super 15 contract with the Chiefs, as there are now better wingers, but he'll still only be eligable for the All Blacks, if he comes to play Super rugby in NZ, while he'll never be able to play for Australia. It's not weakening our player pool and it means more Super rugby experience will come through to the ITM Cup. It also allows some Australian teams, who are low on some options, being able to sign an (other wise unfranchised New Zealander), to help their team.
3. Because of the NZ rules on this, a marque player can not be signed if there is a quality replacement, so our home grown talent is safe, so you won't likely get Giteau playing for the Hurricanes, unless there is no other option (and if there is no other option, Giteau is a good option to have).

I'd rather our players stay in the Super 15, playing for a different franchise and gaining Super 15 experience for the ITM Cup, where they can help develop other players, than them **** off to France, where we'll never see them again of benmefit from them again.

My problem is that Im old-fashioned... I believe that if the Australians don't have enough depth that's just bad luck on them. I know there are laws and guidelines that encourage this to happen but I'm more of a loyalty person if you get what I mean. I believe in then Super Rugby competition and in winning it for New Zealand. Take Howlett for example. Back in the day when Doug Howlett was like, the last resort winger for the Hurricanes in the Super 12, I would've hated to see him go and play for say,... the Waratahs or the Reds and see them go on to be more successful when he could have been used for the New Zealand squads.
Loyalty is all im saying.

 

[Tomsey]

I hate to burst your bubble, but there is no room for loyalty in professional sport. Rugby is Anesi's job. If he can't get a good job in NZ who are you to say he shouldn't be able to go to Australia and get one. It's got nothing to do with loyalty to NZ, its about paying the mortage. Loyalty in sport exists as a motivation for players to play at their best for their team. As soon as money becomes involved that becomes the motivation and loyalty becomes redundent. The nationalised model (teams made up predominantly one nationality) of Super rugby only exists because it is in the national sides (Wallabies, All Blacks, Springboks) interest. If Super rugby was "de-nationalised" you would see a similar scenario to the EPL where the English national team has been affected by the lack of English players in the competition, especially in Australia. However this situation would be much better for the competition. In effect it would eliminate people just "going for whichever Australian team is playing" and encourage them to support an individual franchise. Both of these interests are important and the competition needs to be managed with both of them in mind, Hence the reason there is a small amount of international players permitted to play for each franchise.