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
Pichot's message
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="petite" data-source="post: 923449" data-attributes="member: 62994"><p>as you say its like this that the richer nations are benefiting from their better economies and getting more players. doesent matter if we dont want o we cant bring players. its a fact that the welthier nations have the chance to choose from a wider pool of players. and it is unfair. that is what i think its needs to be more regulated, but not forbbiden attending to cases where real inmigration cases happen</p><p>cos when we adress this problem imo the case is not tawarira is more like brad shilds</p><p>due to historic bonds within the commonwelth its all very confusing in terms of nationality ( for us in the distance they are acturally, all gringos <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />) nz (white) australia england, sa, ireland, scotland wales ) tecnically any player of these could play for another country by just moving arround or having a grand mother. they speack the same language have migrating advantages etc. these happen to be the tier one countries. its only argentina and france in the tier 1 who are not from this bunch.</p><p>the real loosers here are the tier 2 and pooerer nations like samoa fiji and tonga, uruguay georgia etc who cant choose from the big english pool and or even worst they actually loose their players. ad argentina and sa as the weaker economies of the tier 1 (the spreding of sa players in europe is huge) there also a big bunch of arg players in europe who are not able to play for the pumas</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="petite, post: 923449, member: 62994"] as you say its like this that the richer nations are benefiting from their better economies and getting more players. doesent matter if we dont want o we cant bring players. its a fact that the welthier nations have the chance to choose from a wider pool of players. and it is unfair. that is what i think its needs to be more regulated, but not forbbiden attending to cases where real inmigration cases happen cos when we adress this problem imo the case is not tawarira is more like brad shilds due to historic bonds within the commonwelth its all very confusing in terms of nationality ( for us in the distance they are acturally, all gringos :)) nz (white) australia england, sa, ireland, scotland wales ) tecnically any player of these could play for another country by just moving arround or having a grand mother. they speack the same language have migrating advantages etc. these happen to be the tier one countries. its only argentina and france in the tier 1 who are not from this bunch. the real loosers here are the tier 2 and pooerer nations like samoa fiji and tonga, uruguay georgia etc who cant choose from the big english pool and or even worst they actually loose their players. ad argentina and sa as the weaker economies of the tier 1 (the spreding of sa players in europe is huge) there also a big bunch of arg players in europe who are not able to play for the pumas [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Pichot's message
Top