Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

NIQs qualifying through residency to play for Ireland. Thoughts?

Options
  • 26-10-2010 11:01am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭


    Rugby Analyst, Neil Francis - Rugby needs its very own Home Rule

    The international game has become a joke with players featuring for countries they have no links with, so it's time that the IRB and IRFU clamped down on it.

    Something was bugging me after Munster's Heino demolition of Toulon last Saturday. Mick O'Driscoll was awarded man of the match. The award was well merited as Munster's second row did indeed have a very big game. What irked me about the whole thing was what his opposite number was doing while O'Driscoll was striding around the park like a colossus. Indeed, what was Donncha O'Callaghan, a Lions test lock and Ireland's starting second row for the last seven years, doing while his partner was having a stormer? Who was O'Driscoll's opposite number in Thomond? I ask this because his name was not called once during the game. I had to look it up – K Chesney. Well that explains it, Kenny Chesney the country and western star from Knoxville married to Renee Zellweger for four months, probably looking to sing his new hit at the half-time show – "The Boys of Fall" (well I suppose Don Henley had already done "The Boys of Summer"). Kenny was probably hanging around the corridors in Thomond. Mourad Boudjellal, Toulon's trigger-happy cash splasher, liked the cut of his jib and suddenly he starts at second row for Toulon.

    "Sorry... Kris Chesney you say... He is actually a second row... bought from Saracens last season... Not a country and western singer... you're certain... couldn't hit water if he fell out of the Queen Mary... okay."

    Folks, Toulon's lack of heart for the battle and determination to win that match could end up in one of Kenny's doleful ballads. I have seen more grit on a plate of mushy peas. Philippe Saint-André made 11 changes to his side that played Munster. He picked his strongest side for yesterday's match in Paris against Stade Francais. Clearly his priority is the Top 14. Connacht would have presented a far more difficult proposition. Although they were never tested, the occasion did rouse them and one could never hope to call it a full-scale revival. The win, the winning feeling and most importantly the winning template has returned. I wouldn't get carried away just yet but it is only in hindsight that we can see how awful they were against a moderate and uncomplex side of London Irish's calibre.

    The Ospreys beat Munster home and away last season and turned up to Thomond a few weeks ago to play silly buggers. I have never seen such an ambitious side play with such a lack of ambition. They did nothing. They did not play rugby on purpose. I think from a long way out the Ospreys have targeted the Munster game in Thomond and played in such a neutral gear so as to give Munster nothing. They will turn up to play, compete and win – something Toulon did not bother their collective swiss to do. Unfortunately for Ospreys, Toulon's compliance has kick-started Munster's season.

    Back to Kris Chesney's old club Saracens, who are not a very good side at all. When they come to Dublin in January, if it is a dry day they will get filleted with a bonus point to boot. Leinster will have to be cognisant of the fact that they will get caught out one of these days trying to defend their way to victory. That 6-5 win over Harlequins at the Stoop was the start of it and they seem to enjoy the electro-cardiographic excitement and rather than close out with a bit of margin they choose to play a game where they sail too close to the wind for their close-out – a touch of Michael Hutchence about them – don't get caught lads.

    If Van Drickenburgen had been playing against Sarries, Leinster with a little more focus could have bonus-pointed that one. Sarries threw themselves about gamely in the collisions but were unable to sustain their wits in the second half as the pace told. Normally they can cut loose against Leeds Carnegie, Newcastle and Exeter when three-quarters of the game is up and holes appear. Leinster squeezed just a little tighter and Sarries resolve becomes a little more fraught. If you need reminding of how we compare quality – the English media trump up Sarries players like Alex Goode or Brad Barritt who played last Saturday and are both in the English Saxons squad. The truth is that if Saracens had Andrew Conway and Brendan Macken, our academy players, in at full-back and centre respectively against Leinster, they would have won because they possess the cutting edge that the Saracens three-quarters singularly lacked. Hard to keep Leinster bubbling up: Wembley one week, the Sportsground the next . The only common denominator was that a greyhound track bordered both stadia. Alas Lucky Dan in trap three no longer gets to ****e on the pitch at Wembley.

    Belatedly, we get to the point of the article. One of the things that surprised me this week was that 45,000 people turned up to watch a rugby match in Wembley in London. Huge population, great city, people do turn up, but why would you go and watch eight South Africans play for an average London club? The fabric and culture of the club would have to change fundamentally for Englishmen to shout "come on Schalk, come on Burger, come on De Kock ...."

    Whatever about the supporters, I don't know how the RFU can countenance subventing Sarries to the tune of nearly £4m to have a little rugby enclave of Saffers who are not, and never will be, England qualified.

    Gary Lineker did a sports documentary called Can England win the next World Cup? The answer quite disarmingly, even for Lineker, was a resounding no. Of course they couldn't, their league is so full of foreigners that only somewhere in the region of 30 per cent of the Premier League is England qualified. It was amazing to see Jose Mourinho's Inter Milan win the Champions League with a team that not only included nobody from Milan, but nobody from Italy. How can Inter Milan – as Italians – take themselves seriously? The win can have no resonance for any Italian who supports that club.

    The English Union and League governing bodies as well as their cricketing chums probably watched that documentary and probably said "Jeez the soccer boys are f**ked." England have beaten us once in seven years and they still haven't copped on why. But before we get all self-congratulatory in a Winston Wolf type of way let's just have a look around at ourselves.

    One of the things that has to be looked at, and the regulatory bodies will have to make a call on this issue because it has become too lax, is the issue of residency and country qualification, to ask whether the player has or has not got any parental or grand-parental link to an adopted country.

    Regular readers of this column will be aware of the high esteem I hold Richie Flutey (onomatopoeic) in. Flutey's situation is symptomatic of where the game is going wrong. He was born in New Zealand and has no connection with England at all – after playing only five games for Wellington he buggers off to the UK to play for London Irish. After two seasons he buggered off to Wasps. In the 2008-09 season he becomes qualified to play for England – Stephen Jones picks him in Martin Johnson's England squad and he gets to wear the rose. After qualifying to play for England while playing for an English team in England he buggers off to play for Brive, in France, has an unhappy time there and buggers off back to Wasps. In between all that I can barely keep my lunch down when he is selected to play for the British and Irish Lions in 2009, getting a test cap in the dead rubber.

    I find the whole thing objectionable. It is, more importantly, unethical. Qualification by residency sticks in the craw, but the IRB must move to legislate. If mercenaries arrive on the shore and qualify to play for the host country, then they must stay and play within that country, otherwise forfeit the right forever to represent their adopted country – it turns the thing into a mockery. In my opinion, Flutey has no loyalty to England; he gets paid to play for them but he is not English. When he retires from playing rugby he will undoubtedly return to New Zealand and his mates will call him a silly bugger for playing for the Poms. This has to stop.

    Takudzwa Ngwenya was born in Zimbabwe, heads off to the States, and gets his green card and then buggers off to France to Biarritz to play his club rugby. Completely incongruous. He is not American, but when his career finishes he might out of necessity return to the USA. Dan Parks and Nathan Hines, both Australian, qualify for Scotland while both are playing well south of where they should be playing.

    I remember a while back one of the national dailies, giddy with anticipation, announcing that the 'talented' Cameron Jowitt would become Irish qualified that year. 'Talented'? A mix -up surely. Maybe he could tackle like Liberace and sing like Lawrence Taylor. 'Talented' – Madre de Dios! He buggered off to Australia and unbelievably is playing for the Warratahs. I just wonder how much better a player Kevin McLaughlin would have been if he had played all the games that Jowitt got instead.

    We remember Denis Hickie as being for a while our top try scorer; he had exceptional speed, dash and possessed serious rugby intelligence. One of Ireland's greats. We forget that he was dropped for the extravagantly gifted Matt Mostyn (below) – a package tourist with boots. Wazza gave him six caps for which Ireland's foreign debt of Hail Marys would not give the Kiwi redemption. Hickie in a wheelchair and an eye-patch would have smoked the guy. He is back in Australia and he can tell his grandchildren about the time he played for a quaint little old country called Ireland – what larks.

    I see that Robbie Diack and Richardt Strauss will go down the three-year qualification/residency route. It's just plain wrong. What is the point in having academies, lads? They are South African, not Irish, and if they get picked in the squad you are just not paying attention to what is going on in the UK. It has to stop.

    I would go further and take a view that all interpros should be played only with Irish players. I don't think it would do too much damage to the gate or television. It would however allow you to take stock and assess the real quality of what is available to the national side. I'd prefer to see Brian O'Driscoll go toe-to-toe with Keith Earls than Lifeimi Mafi. I'd like to see how Tony Buckley fares against Cian Healy, not with Heinke van der Merwe.

    If the last four to five years has showed us anything, it demonstrates that Irish-born, Irish-bred rugby players that come through the system are vastly superior to some of the imposters who find themselves on these shores.

    When Nigel Wray gets bored and the South Africans go home, that club, to use their coach's phrase, is dead in the water.

    http://www.tribune.ie/sport/rugby/article/2010/oct/24/rugby-analyst-neil-francis-rugby-needs-its-very-ow/

    Franno does write some good articles.

    I'm not sure where I stand on foreigners coming to play there and suddenly deciding they want to play for Ireland. We could have a few players with no ties to Ireland wearing green in the future: Robbie Diack, Richardt Strauss and Peter Borlase who is on his way as an "IRFU project" player. They are certainly hampering Irish indigenious players from representing their country. Is it right or even ethical that in theory anyone in the world (once they have completed their residency obviously) can represent Ireland?

    I think the Irish only interpros are an interesting concept but unrealistic as the coaches would be very annoyed.

    Certainly I agree with Franno (first bolded bit) that foreigners must stay in that country forever if they want to represent it internationally. Riki Flutey is taking the píss IMO.

    Any thoughts on this? Oh and please don't turn this thread into another round of Franno bashing, it's been done.

    Foreigners playing for Ireland through residency? 62 votes

    The present rules are fine, 3 years is enough to prove you are committed to playing for a country.
    0%
    The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years
    38%
    Otacon[Jackass]chupacabratolosencBluredbudhabobongaritemarco_poloBenny Cakemurphym7ktulu123tomred1CIARAN_BOYLEeoferrallWeeBushyflasambiddavidpfitzJustinDeeSuperbus 24 votes
    If you from a certain country, you play for that country. If you aren't good enough then tough.
    41%
    Peter BCrash[Deleted User]randomname2005Dave_The_Sheepeyeball kidBeanmachinetheKramercornycrisco10HazysScrubsfanChrispixelburpmolloyjhDiabhal Beagboredatwork82RisteardCiaran-Irlkibamboozling 26 votes
    No opinion.
    19%
    marcphistoGoodluck2meBarzipanSomeFoolGiftofGabthomond2006maherrodanthefanprofitiusBullmastiffSandwlchchrissymc 12 votes


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭danthefan


    No opinion.
    Don't like the current rules. Diack, Strauss, Wilkinson, Court should not be playing for Ireland imo.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years
    Provided a player cannot switch between countries having represented them at senior, 'A' or Sevens level there's nothing wrong with players qualifying to play for a country.

    Not every player is a Ricky Flutey.
    The likes of Simon Geoghegan, Guy Easterby, Andy Ward, Kevin Maggs are all from overseas and qualified via heritage or residency to play for Ireland. Whatever they did after playing is nobody else's business and should not be a prerequisite to being selected in the first place.
    If an Irish player wants to quit the country and play in France or Australia, thats their choice too.
    If an Irish player, qualified or otherwise, is good enough to be selected then select them.
    Acadamy players are brought through ranks and chosen.

    Much fluff about nothing that article.


  • Registered Users Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    No opinion.
    Heritage is different though. Personally I don't like the idea of residency but heritage is a different kettle of fish. I'm indifferent to the likes of Tom Court (Irish grandmother?) playing for Ireland.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years
    Heritage is different though. Personally I don't like the idea of residency but heritage is a different kettle of fish. I'm indifferent to the likes of Tom Court (Irish grandmother?) playing for Ireland.

    Why?
    Whats the difference?
    Someone who has probably never even set foot in the country before is fine but someone who comes here to qualify via residency and commit is not?


  • Registered Users Posts: 751 ✭✭✭lologram


    The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years
    Court, Wilkinson, Strauss, Diack etc are fine by me. If they aren't capped by another country, and they want to declare themselves for our country, there's nothing wrong with that. They don't get into the team just by virtue of the fact that they say they want to, they have to earn selection after becoming eligible. If they earn that selection, then they're obviously better than whoever else would be in that positon. Nothing wrong with that, the Irish team and the provinces benefit by their presence here.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 532 ✭✭✭ki


    If you from a certain country, you play for that country. If you aren't good enough then tough.
    Simple Solution:

    Increase the number of years required from 3 to 5. It then becomes less attractive to the Money men.

    Then true players who want to play for there adopted country are more likely to put down roots also.

    I believe the residency rule was brought in to cover the young player who doesn't make it in his own country and moves on. It gives him a fresh start and a possibility to repay a country for an opportunity.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭danthefan


    No opinion.
    lologram wrote: »
    Court, Wilkinson, Strauss, Diack etc are fine by me. If they aren't capped by another country, and they want to declare themselves for our country, there's nothing wrong with that. They don't get into the team just by virtue of the fact that they say they want to, they have to earn selection after becoming eligible. If they earn that selection, then they're obviously better than whoever else would be in that positon. Nothing wrong with that, the Irish team and the provinces benefit by their presence here.

    There's something very wrong with that. They're not Irish, completely defeats the purpose of international rugby.

    There are a couple of situations where I think it's alright, for example if someone was born abroad but move to Ireland young-ish, grow up here, learn their rugby here etc, then I'd have no problem with them playing for Ireland. Guys who come over in their 20s because they get offered more money or can't make it back at home, I have a real problem with playing for Ireland.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Personally I think the rule should be that the player must spend 3 years in the country before his 24th birthday. i.e His residency starts before his 21st.

    That cuts out any already-established rugby players from moving with the intention of gaining residency and moves the scope back to people who are genuinely in that country for other reasons from a young age. It also means that the player will more than likely undergo some significant development as a player in that country (which I think is important). I have no problem with the likes of Stewart Maguire or Rhys Ruddock (pretty sure Ruddock is elligible anyway for being half-Irish), who are graduates of Irish academies.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    JustinDee wrote: »
    The likes of Simon Geoghegan, Guy Easterby, Andy Ward, Kevin Maggs are all from overseas and qualified via heritage or residency to play for Ireland.

    All of those players qualified through heritage.

    Completely different thing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭danthefan


    No opinion.
    Personally I think the rule should be that the player must spend 3 years in the country before his 24th birthday. i.e His residency starts before his 21st.

    That cuts out any already-established rugby players from moving with the intention of gaining residency and moves the scope back to people who are genuinely in that country for other reasons from a young age. It also means that the player will more than likely undergo some significant development as a player in that country (which I think is important). I have no problem with the likes of Stewart Maguire or Rhys Ruddock (pretty sure Ruddock is elligible anyway for being half-Irish), who are graduates of Irish academies.

    Rhys Ruddock was born in Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭conf101


    danthefan wrote: »
    There's something very wrong with that. They're not Irish, completely defeats the purpose of international rugby.

    There are a couple of situations where I think it's alright, for example if someone was born abroad but move to Ireland young-ish, grow up here, learn their rugby here etc, then I'd have no problem with them playing for Ireland. Guys who come over in their 20s because they get offered more money or can't make it back at home, I have a real problem with playing for Ireland.

    I agree with you in theory that people who move here at a young age and come up through the ranks here are ok but how do you regulate for that?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭danthefan


    No opinion.
    conf101 wrote: »
    I agree with you in theory that people who move here at a young age and come up through the ranks here are ok but how do you regulate for that?

    I have no idea. It's a very hard thing to nail down.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years
    All of those players qualified through heritage.
    Completely different thing.
    It isn't a greater form of qualification than living in a country and declaring for it however.
    It most certainly doesn't make a non-national more Irish qualified than someone who actually lives here qualifying. Why should someone from another country's grandmother make them more Irish than living here for the required amount of time?


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    danthefan wrote: »
    Rhys Ruddock was born in Ireland.

    And I think Maguire would qualify through heritage as well.

    If they were two fully Welsh guys who joined the Leinster academy when they were 18/19, and then went on to play for Ireland when they were 22 then I wouldn't have a huge problem with that, as at least a large part of their development as players took place in the country.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    JustinDee wrote: »
    It isn't a greater form of qualification than living in a country and declaring for it however.
    It most certainly doesn't make a non-national more Irish qualified than someone who actually lives here qualifying. Why should someone from another country's grandmother make them more Irish than living here for the required amount of time?

    It doesn't make them more Irish. That's not really the point though... It's just those guys who are qualifying through heritage would be elligible for Ireland even if they never set foot in the country. They're Irish, so it isn't like they're just mercenaries like Riki Flutey.

    They're not non-nationals with no links to the country, who have moved to the country with the intention of representing them, despite a complete lack of any links.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years
    It doesn't make them more Irish. That's not really the point though... It's just those guys who are qualifying through heritage would be elligible for Ireland even if they never set foot in the country. They're Irish, so it isn't like they're just mercenaries like Riki Flutey.

    They're not non-nationals with no links to the country, who have moved to the country with the intention of representing them, despite a complete lack of any links.
    Because of a grandparent, they are more "Irish" than someone who qualifies via residency?
    You are basically denegrating residency in this country.
    By your logic, I am Greek and not Irish.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,516 ✭✭✭The Rooster


    JustinDee wrote: »
    Because of a grandparent, they are more "Irish" than someone who qualifies via residency?
    You are basically denegrating residency in this country.
    By your logic, I am Greek and not Irish.
    Yeah that's exactly what he's saying :rolleyes:

    There is of course a massive difference between qualifying via heritage versus qualifying via residence.

    I have not got a problem with qualification through residence, but I would put a proviso that we only pick such players when they are still playing in Ireland.

    If I was part of the Scottish Rugby Union, there is no way I'd pick Dan Parks and Nathan Hines (two fine players but who only qualified via the residency rule), unless they came back to Scotland and were contributing to Scottish rugby (and maybe they wouldnt have left if that was the case).


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭conf101


    I have not got a problem with qualification through residence, but I would put a proviso that we only pick such players when they are still playing in Ireland.

    If I was part of the Scottish Rugby Union, there is no way I'd pick Dan Parks and Nathan Hines (two fine players but who only qualified via the residency rule), unless they came back to Scotland and were contributing to Scottish rugby (and maybe they wouldnt have left if that was the case).

    Completely agree. I also think 3 years is a bit short. Like has already been said, raise the residency rule to 5 years and it requires a lot more commitment both from the home nation and from the player themselves. 5 years is a serious investment and not one that would be undertaken lightly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 180 ✭✭Ste_D


    If you from a certain country, you play for that country. If you aren't good enough then tough.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    Provided a player cannot switch between countries having represented them at senior, 'A' or Sevens level there's nothing wrong with players qualifying to play for a country.

    I think its a bit harsh when someone represents a country at 7s that they are automatically excluded from representing another country. Anyone who has played 7s to a reasonable lever will appreciate that it is a very different game.
    There are a lot of cases in the southern hemisphere where developing rugby nations have players who were made ineligible by representing Aus/NZ at 7s when they were young. It would help the smaller countries develop if these players were freed up.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,352 ✭✭✭funky penguin


    Difference between Heritage and Residencey is semantics imo.

    If Strauss could play for Ireland like he has been for Leinster, I'd love to see him in an Irish jersey. I don't see the problem. Yes he may oust an Irish born hooker, but if Strauss is a better player and can play for Ireland......romanticism can get lost.

    Re: the all-Irish interpro......what an utterly stupid idea.

    They are provincial clubs, not international teams. Imagine dropping Ica Nacewa just because he isn't Irish. He might as well be, with the reception he has recieved here. In fact, imagine him as a utility back for Ireland? Damn that 1 Fijian cap!!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years
    Yeah that's exactly what he's saying :rolleyes:

    There is of course a massive difference between qualifying via heritage versus qualifying via residence.

    I have not got a problem with qualification through residence, but I would put a proviso that we only pick such players when they are still playing in Ireland.

    If I was part of the Scottish Rugby Union, there is no way I'd pick Dan Parks and Nathan Hines (two fine players but who only qualified via the residency rule), unless they came back to Scotland and were contributing to Scottish rugby (and maybe they wouldnt have left if that was the case).

    Dan Parks as did Nathan Hines (ex-Norths RL club :cool:) qualified for Scotland via heritage ruling.
    Not residency.
    I would say putting your body on the line every time for Scotland is more than enough to make a player like either of these folks "worthy".


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    If you from a certain country, you play for that country. If you aren't good enough then tough.
    I think to really answer this question we need to look at what we and the IRFU want to see happen. We want:

    1. A strong national side
    2. Strong provinces
    3. To develop homegrown talent to fuel the 1 & 2

    I don't think having non-Irish in the national squad nessecarily prevents the homegrown talent coming through, just as it doesn't at provincial level. Look at Leinsters second row for example. Devon Toner has been getting his game time there which has led to an Ireland call up despite the fact that we have Hines in the Leinster side. If Toner can get his game time in Leinster then he could get it in Ireland even if Hines were to have qualified for us rather than Scotland.

    I think the big issue we would have is with the Fluteys of this world. The money grabbers who could and would feck off at the first sign of more cash. If a player is living and working here and really investing themselves here then I see no issue with them being allowed to play in the Irish side. However strict rules would need to be put in place first.

    To my mind the 3 year restriction is about fair. If you bump it up to 5 and someone doesn't come over until they are 24/25 then would there be much point in it at all? Instead I reckon it should be that they are here 3 years (i.e. played here & have their primary residence here) and have a deal signed with their province for the next 2/3 years or something similar. And they continue to be eligible for as long as they play and live here. As soon as they leave they are no longer eligible, and some form of "breakage" penalty should be applied.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,698 ✭✭✭Risteard


    If you from a certain country, you play for that country. If you aren't good enough then tough.
    Would like to increase to maybe 7 years or one parent must be Irish.

    I don't really like the idea of Strauss, Diack, borlase etc. playing for Ireland, no matter how good they are/will be.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,806 ✭✭✭corny


    If you from a certain country, you play for that country. If you aren't good enough then tough.
    Difference between Heritage and Residencey is semantics imo.

    If Strauss could play for Ireland like he has been for Leinster, I'd love to see him in an Irish jersey. I don't see the problem. Yes he may oust an Irish born hooker, but if Strauss is a better player and can play for Ireland......romanticism can get lost.

    Re: the all-Irish interpro......what an utterly stupid idea.

    They are provincial clubs, not international teams. Imagine dropping Ica Nacewa just because he isn't Irish. He might as well be, with the reception he has recieved here. In fact, imagine him as a utility back for Ireland? Damn that 1 Fijian cap!!

    In fairness Isa would probably have a few NZ caps if it weren't for Fiji so we'd have to get in line.

    Saw an interview a while back with a NZ chap where he basically said he was coming to England for the money with the added incentive that after 3 years he'd have more money with a few England caps. It meant nothing to him. Only money. I'm not the romantic type but for me thats not what international rugby is about. Should up it to at least 5 years imo.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭danthefan


    No opinion.
    JustinDee - I seem to recall not so long ago you going on about how it's every schoolboy player's dream to play for the national side.

    Seems a bit incongruous with the views you're expressing in this thread, you being ok with foreigners over here making a bit of money taking the places of those schoolboy players in the national side.

    Though of course since Ireland select guys like Court, you will defend that to the hilt.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years
    danthefan wrote: »
    JustinDee - I seem to recall not so long ago you going on about how it's every schoolboy player's dream to play for the national side.
    Seems a bit incongruous with the views you're expressing in this thread, you being ok with foreigners over here making a bit of money taking the places of those schoolboy players in the national side
    I'm fine with anybody who qualifies to play for Ireland and gives 100%. I can't really think of any who are selected and don't.
    Out of all this 'outrage' I've seen one name of a player who would, in my view, make the squad. The only other players I've seen mentioned are from other countries playing for teams in other countries.
    I would also take issue at somebody who has no idea about me, saying I wasn't Irish.
    danthefan wrote: »
    Though of course since Ireland select guys like Court, you will defend that to the hilt.
    Don't speculate what I would or would not do or think. Its irrelevant and bound to be wrong.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years
    Yeah that's exactly what he's saying :rolleyes:
    Its what their logic implied.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭danthefan


    No opinion.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    Its what their logic implied.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    Don't speculate what I would or would not do or think. Its irrelevant and bound to be wrong.

    Good man Justin.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years
    danthefan wrote: »
    Good man Justin.
    Look, if you're in the mood for an anonymous argument on the internet, please don't bother especially if you don't understand the difference between the context of both those quotes.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭danthefan


    No opinion.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    Look, if you're in the mood for an anonymous argument on the internet, please don't bother especially if you don't understand the difference between the context of both those quotes.

    The context is you seem to be able to tell other people what they're thinking, but nobody can do it to you.

    And if you don't contradict yourself nobody will point it out, simples.


Advertisement