Is IRFU policy against a person's rights?

CMOTDibbler

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Free movement of people is exactly the issue. I used a short quote because the unfortunately the posts brevity didn't match it's inaccuracy. Did you read the article that was linked to?

How to confuse people by ibf

Use a superfluous 'the'.
A double negative or two won't hurt.
An ambiguous reference to 'a post'.
And of course a deflecting question to round it all off nicely.

All the ingredients really

sydthebeat

I think people have this "free movement" protocol completely mixed up.

The free movement law provides for movement to be allowed between countries. If the Irfu prohibited Madigan from playing in France, they would be in breach of the law. They did no such thing.
Does Madigan enjoy equal treatment with his colleagues in that country in the areas of employment rights, taxation, residence etc.... Yes he does. So no infringement of free movement from the French side.

Does the irfu have a policy where they do not accept foreign based players as being available for selection, no they do not. England does.

Are the irfu correct to say that being based in a foreign country makes it harder to be selected and thus at a disadvantage? Yes of course they are.

Are they somehow in breach of employment law by stating this? Absolutely not in my non legal, non informed, opinion

Charles Babbage

This thread is largely pointless. No EU law is broken if the IRFU select those players who are most available for training etc and give a lower priority to those who have restricted availability in this regard.

CMOTDibbler

sydthebeat wrote: »

I think people have this "free movement" protocol completely mixed up.

The free movement law provides for movement to be allowed between countries. If the Irfu prohibited Madigan from playing in France, they would be in breach of the law. They did no such thing.
Does Madigan enjoy equal treatment with his colleagues in that country in the areas of employment rights, taxation, residence etc.... Yes he does. So no infringement of free movement from the French side.

Does the irfu have a policy where they do not accept foreign based players as being available for selection, no they do not. England does.

Are the irfu correct to say that being based in a foreign country makes it harder to be selected and thus at a disadvantage? Yes of course they are.

Are they somehow in breach of employment law by stating this? Absolutely not in my non legal, non informed, opinion

+1000

As regards the thread title, the question has been asked and answered a hundred times over. There is no 'policy'.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Free movement of people is exactly the issue. I used a short quote because the unfortunately the posts brevity didn't match it's inaccuracy. Did you read the article that was linked to?

I'm sure if you're so clued in you can spell out to us mere mortals exactly where there was a restriction in movement within the EU in the case where Mads moved to France.....

The Rape of Lucretia

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm sure if you're so clued in you can spell out to us mere mortals exactly where there was a restriction in movement within the EU in the case where Mads moved to France.....

It cant be spelt out. He is off on his own on this one.

As with drummers dying in bizarre gardening accidents, the advice is....best just leave it....

irishbucsfan

sydthebeat wrote: »

I think people have this "free movement" protocol completely mixed up.

The free movement law provides for movement to be allowed between countries. If the Irfu prohibited Madigan from playing in France, they would be in breach of the law. They did no such thing.
Does Madigan enjoy equal treatment with his colleagues in that country in the areas of employment rights, taxation, residence etc.... Yes he does. So no infringement of free movement from the French side.

The only credible source I've read on the issue disagrees.

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm sure if you're so clued in you can spell out to us mere mortals exactly where there was a restriction in movement within the EU in the case where Mads moved to France.....

I'll ask again, did you actually read the article? Can you respond to it? It says exactly why that policy, if it does exist, could be argued to be illegal. You don't seem to acknowledge the existence of the article. I'm not sure if you haven't read it or if it's just convenient to ignore it. This thread is about whether that policy could be legal:

It is plainly arguable that the selection policy adopted for the England team has the aim and indeed the effect of limiting players’ ability to move to other EU countries to take up employment as professional rugby players. It is important to note that EU law does not require that a rule act as an absolute barrier to free movement, only that it discourage or disincentivise that movement. While the selection policy may not effect a total ban on players moving overseas, it will certainly act as a limiting factor and make it less likely that players will place their international careers in doubt by choosing to play their trade abroad. This seems particularly the case given the commercial opportunities likely to available to England rugby internationals around the Rugby World Cup, due to be contested on these shores in 2015.

...

Flood, or any other player who might choose to go to court to fight this policy, could face the prospect of a lengthy legal process; but ultimately it seems unlikely that the policy could be sustained when pitted against intense legal scrutiny. It might be better for the RFU to reconsider its approach now, rather than face the expense and distraction of and extended legal battle.

If the IRFU are suggesting that people abroad are not being considered beyond what is "absolutely necessary" then they can be argued to be in breach of that article. Gavin Cummiskey certainly seems to be suggesting that policy is in place, although it's certainly not as blatant as in England.

sydthebeat

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=457&langId=en


Perhaps everyone should have a read

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'll ask again, did you actually read the article? Can you respond to it? It says exactly why that policy, if it does exist, could be argued to be illegal. You don't seem to acknowledge the existence of the article. I'm not sure if you haven't read it or if it's just convenient to ignore it. This thread is about whether that policy could be legal:



If the IRFU are suggesting that people abroad are not being considered beyond what is "absolutely necessary" then they can be argued to be in breach of that article. Gavin Cummiskey certainly seems to be suggesting that policy is in place, although it's certainly not as blatant as in England.

I glanced at the article, but I was a bit busy reading and quoting official EU documentation to pay much heed on a random article from Nottingham Trent University. He doesn't even mention the specificity of sport, which is a pretty fundamental element of how the EU treats sport. Maybe instead of reading blog articles you could have a look at the EU White Paper I linked, or the explanatory document on how the new clauses in the Lisbon Treaty impact how the EU approach sport.

Regardless, I'm done. I've been down this road before. I'm not doing it again. Ive provided more than enough links and information to make the whole thing clear. People can do with that what they will.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

I glanced at the article, but I was a bit busy reading and quoting official EU documentation to pay much heed on a random article from Nottingham Trent University. He doesn't even mention the specificity of sport, which is a pretty fundamental element of how the EU treats sport. Maybe instead of reading blog articles you could have a look at the EU White Paper I linked, or the explanatory document on how the new clauses in the Lisbon Treaty impact how the EU approach sport.

Regardless, I'm done. I've been down this road before. I'm not doing it again. Ive provided more than enough links and information to make the whole thing clear. People can do with that what they will.

The specificity of sport? He's a senior lecturer of sports law and director of their centre for sports law and he's giving his opinion about a section of European law which has ALREADY been applied to sports in the past.

The white paper you linked to is about a completely different article of a completely different treaty. It's irrelevant. Article 45 of the TFEU has been applied to sport in the past so it's relevance can't be denied.

If you actually read article 165 of the Lisbon treaty you'll see that it's actually about Education and sport is a very small part of it. It's just not relevant to this particular problem.

CMOTDibbler

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'll ask again, did you actually read the article? Can you respond to it? It says exactly why that policy, if it does exist, could be argued to be illegal. You don't seem to acknowledge the existence of the article. I'm not sure if you haven't read it or if it's just convenient to ignore it. This thread is about whether that policy could be legal:

If the IRFU are suggesting that people abroad are not being considered beyond what is "absolutely necessary" then they can be argued to be in breach of that article. Gavin Cummiskey certainly seems to be suggesting that policy is in place, although it's certainly not as blatant as in England.

The pin dancing angels are strong in this one.

There is no policy despite what Gavin Cummiskey or the editorial staff have said. FFS, he even goes on to quote Nucifora who says almost exactly the opposite. You yourself said there was nothing wrong in what Nucifora said.

irishbucsfan

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The pin dancing angels are strong in this one.

There is no policy despite what Gavin Cummiskey or the editorial staff have said. FFS, he even goes on to quote Nucifora who says almost exactly the opposite. You yourself said there was nothing wrong in what Nucifora said.

You don't know that there is no policy, it's completely possible that there is. Regardless, the question is whether the IRFU CAN implement the policy, not whether it's currently in place. I even said "if it does exist," not sure how I could make that any clearer for you.

CMOTDibbler

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You don't know that there is no policy, it's completely possible that there is. Regardless, the question is whether the IRFU CAN implement the policy, not whether it's currently in place. I even said "if it does exist," not sure how I could make that any clearer for you.

What you said was clear enough, except you're now selectively quoting yourself :rolleyes:.

If the IRFU are suggesting that people abroad are not being considered beyond what is "absolutely necessary" then they can be argued to be in breach of that article.

They are not suggesting any such thing. You've agreed that they are not. You said so. The thread title is: "Is IRFU policy against a person's rights?" That policy does not exist as stated by David Nucifora and as evidenced by Jonny Sexton's experience. You can argue as long as you like that it 'might' exist despite all evidence to the contrary. It won't change the facts.

Such a policy would be counter-productive in any case. Ireland does not have the professional player pool to be in a position to put a policy like that in place. Many would suggest that the RFUs policy has come back to bite them in the arse.

The RFU have that policy. We know it exists, we know it's not been challenged yet. We'll see if it ever is. Which I doubt.

irishbucsfan

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

They are not suggesting any such thing. You've agreed that they are not. You said so.

Again, the first word of that quote was "if".

David Nucifora did not say the policy does not exist. There is nothing to say that the IRFU don't employ the policy at some level. A lot of people believe they do, I think they do as well, in fact I think they'd be utterly stupid not to employ the policy, or at least to allow the suggestion that they do employ the policy, for the exact same reason that the RFU employ the policy.

Speaking of selective quoting, the OP asks:

Is it correct that the IRFU can discriminate against a player that decides to earn a living abroad for national selection?

Could this be challenged in a court?

That's the question, you're the one trying to create a straw man argument about whether or not the IRFU can be proven to implement the policy. Noone knows, and it's not the question.

Riskymove

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That's the question, you're the one trying to create a straw man argument about whether or not the IRFU can be proven to implement the policy. Noone knows, and it's not the question.

"Is it correct that the IRFU can discriminate against a player that decides to earn a living abroad for national selection?"

YES (although I think discriminate does not apply in the legal sense)

Any selection team will apply a number of factors in selecting players. Their familiarity, influence and control with players in the provinces who also happen to be more available to them, is likely to mean they favour them in marginal calls.

as Sexton and Bowe showed you can still be chosen if you are better options



"Could this be challenged in a court?"

YES - because anything can be challenged in Court

on what grounds? a solid case? likely to win? other stories altogether

CMOTDibbler

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Again, the first word of that quote was "if".

David Nucifora did not say the policy does not exist. There is nothing to say that the IRFU don't employ the policy at some level. A lot of people believe they do, I think they do as well, in fact I think they'd be utterly stupid not to employ the policy, or at least to allow the suggestion that they do employ the policy, for the exact same reason that the RFU employ the policy.

Despite the fact that the only use of the word 'policy' was in the editorialised part of the article you're now moving the goalposts to 'Yes Minister' like proportions: "It's not true until it's officially denied".

They'd be just as mad to adopt such a policy as I pointed out. The evidence that they haven't goes back over a decade:

Simon Easterby
Eoin Reddan (got his first cap after he moved to Wasps)
Tommy Bowe
Bob Casey
Jonny Sexton

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That's the question, you're the one trying to create a straw man argument about whether or not the IRFU can be proven to implement the policy. Noone knows, and it's not the question.

How is it a straw man argument to quote the thread title and the article in the newspaper that prompted it? I have read both and all of this thread. You on the other hand didn't fully read the article until four pages into this thread.

And I'm not trying to argue whether or not the IRFU can be proven to have implemented this policy. They have already said they don't. You on the other hand have been trying to do exactly that.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There is certainly no real evidence either way. I'd be very surprised if that policy isn't in place currently. You can't really say with any certainty that the policy isn't in place anyway, so it's a possibility worth considering.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's a hypothetical but it is where it'd get interesting, the IRFU would be faced with possibly having to admit they have a policy of not selecting overseas players.

So the straw man is yours.

irishbucsfan

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

And I'm not trying to argue whether or not the IRFU can be proven to have implemented this policy. They have already said they don't.

Go ahead then. Show me where the IRFU have said they don't implement a policy of preferring players based domestically over players based overseas.

former total

I think the weirdest argument is that there is no policy at all.

Of course there is.

CMOTDibbler

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Go ahead then. Show me where the IRFU have said they don't implement a policy of preferring players based domestically over players based overseas.

I think the first thing for you to do is admit that you wrongly accused me of a straw man argument before we start into another one.

irishbucsfan

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I think the first thing for you to do is admit that you wrongly accused me of a straw man argument before we start into another one.

You are still in the middle of a straw man argument, I'm just entertaining it.

Whether or not the IRFU implement the policy doesn't actually have any relevance (even though you can't really say whether or not they do). The question is whether the IRFU can do this, not whether they do, and taking the thread's title out of the context of the original post doesn't change that.

CMOTDibbler

former total wrote: »

I think the weirdest argument is that there is no policy at all.

Of course there is.

If there is a policy (and like all 'if' based discussions, it's not going to be proven either way) then I would believe that it's one of encouraging players to stay in Ireland rather than 'punish' them for leaving.

In support of that, there is the tax break regime and salary top-up payments from the IRFU to help the provinces match or come close to foreign offers. The player welfare scheme would also come into it as an incentive.

It's not evidence of course, but it's a far better policy to adopt when we aren't really in a position to be closing the door firmly on any player that moves abroad.

I'm not the first to suggest this btw, it's been suggested a good few times on this thread and is probably closest to the truth and far easier to defend than a boycott.

CMOTDibbler

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You are still in the middle of a straw man argument, I'm just entertaining it.

Whether or not the IRFU implement the policy doesn't actually have any relevance (even though you can't really say whether or not they do). The question is whether the IRFU can do this, not whether they do, and taking the thread's title out of the context of the original post doesn't change that.

That question has already been answered in this thread, by yourself among others.

sydthebeat

former total wrote: »

I think the weirdest argument is that there is no policy at all.

Of course there is.

Is there a policy of not selecting over seas players?

Really?

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

Is there a policy of not selecting over seas players?

Really?

I'm interested to know what exactly this policy is. You can clearly be selected while playing overseas if you're good enough.

sydthebeat

Exactly, and that fact alone shows there is no such policy.

The only statements on this recently have been to the effect that you're at a disadvantage for selection if you're playing abroad, which is completely acceptable.

former total

sydthebeat wrote: »

Is there a policy of not selecting over seas players?

Really?

No. And I never said there was.

There is a definite policy of preferring Irish-based players.

CMOTDibbler

former total wrote: »

No. And I never said there was.

There is a definite policy of preferring [insert province of choice] Irish-based players.

FYP :P

sydthebeat

Irish based players are at an advantage for selection without there needing to be any explicit policy.

irishbucsfan

sydthebeat wrote: »

Irish based players are at an advantage for selection without there needing to be any explicit policy.

That doesn't mean there isn't one in place. It'll be interesting to see what happens if/when JJ becomes Northampton's full time starting 10.

sydthebeat

You're going metaphysical on this now.

I'm a believer in "if it can't measured it doesn't exist" myself

former total

sydthebeat wrote: »

Irish based players are at an advantage for selection without there needing to be any explicit policy.

And a policy doesn't need to be "explicit" in order to be a policy.

irishbucsfan

sydthebeat wrote: »

You're going metaphysical on this now.

I'm a believer in "if it can't measured it doesn't exist" myself

I don't think the ECJ are quite so laissez faire unfortunately

sydthebeat

And thus the myriad of cases to this effect.....

Oh wait.

CMOTDibbler

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That doesn't mean there isn't one in place. It'll be interesting to see what happens if/when JJ becomes Northampton's full time starting 10.

I would imagine he'll be given a shot. I can't see any reason to ignore him if he's playing well and could be the answer to the question as to who succeeds Sexton.

I was at Stade de France when Eoin Reddan got his first senior cap for Ireland and he was almost a full season at Wasps then. JJ could well be called into the Irish training camp this 6N.

alias no.9

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Go ahead then. Show me where the IRFU have said they don't implement a policy of preferring players based domestically over players based overseas.

Given that in the eyes of the EU, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom (of which Northern Ireland is a constituent part) are different countries, the IRFU is already a transnational organisation with employees and operations in both the ROI and the UK, their acceptance and even promotion of the inclusion of individuals from/resident in different jurisdictions in their representative teams is beyond question.

This whole thing is silly season nonsense.

Editing...

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That doesn't mean there isn't one in place. It'll be interesting to see what happens if/when JJ becomes Northampton's full time starting 10.

In the eyes of the EU, Belfast and Northampton are the same Country so there's no discrimination based on country of residence.

irishbucsfan

alias no.9 wrote: »

Given that in the eyes of the EU, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom (of which Northern Ireland is a constituent part) are different countries, the IRFU is already a transnational organisation with employees and operations in both the ROI and the UK, their acceptance and even promotion of the inclusion of individuals from/resident in different jurisdictions in their representative teams is beyond question.

This whole thing is silly season nonsense.

Editing...



In the eyes of the EU, Belfast and Northampton are the same Country so there's no discrimination based on country of residence.

The IRFU aren't based in Belfast.

You can't just get away with infringements because you respect these rights most of the time. If you're disincentivising any individuals from moving to any other member states, not just the UK, the courts could interpret that as illegal.

irishbucsfan

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I would imagine he'll be given a shot. I can't see any reason to ignore him if he's playing well and could be the answer to the question as to who succeeds Sexton.

I was at Stade de France when Eoin Reddan got his first senior cap for Ireland and he was almost a full season at Wasps then. JJ could well be called into the Irish training camp this 6N.

Eoin Reddan was a long time ago at this stage.

I can't see any reason to ignore JJ either, I agree with you. Apart of course, as Cummiskey said: "The problem for the union is that if he, or JJ Hanrahan who appears to have settled at Northampton, are picked on form for Ireland, there is no reason why more players in a similar situation won’t take the opportunity to earn as much as they possibly can abroad in the ever-shortening career that is professional rugby."

alias no.9

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The IRFU aren't based in Belfast.

You can't just get away with infringements because you respect these rights most of the time. If you're disincentivising any individuals from moving to any other member states, not just the UK, the courts could interpret that as illegal.

They have subsidiary operations there called Ulster Rugby. In your hypothetical exclusion of JJ, I'd like to propose Paddy Jackson as the player who makes the team, show me how the EU could possibly even consider that as being anything to do with free movement of people?

irishbucsfan

alias no.9 wrote: »

They have subsidiary operations there called Ulster Rugby. In your hypothetical exclusion of JJ, I'd like to propose Paddy Jackson as the player who makes the team, show me how the EU could possibly even consider that as being anything to do with free movement of people?

It doesn't matter who makes the team ahead of him. The point isn't about making the team at all, that comes afterwards. The point is that if you are considering different employment opportunities and you are being disincentivised from moving to another state by actions which are disproportionate, beyond what is absolutely necessary, then that could be impacting on your rights to find employment which are protected under the article. Paddy Jackson never comes into it.

alias no.9

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It doesn't matter who makes the team ahead of him. The point isn't about making the team at all, that comes afterwards. The point is that if you are considering different employment opportunities and you are being disincentivised from moving to another state by actions which are disproportionate, beyond what is absolutely necessary, then that could be impacting on your rights to find employment which are protected under the article. Paddy Jackson never comes into it.

It absolutely does matter in your JJ example if the player picked ahead of him is also resident in the UK. There is no discrimination in the eyes of the EU on the basis of country of residence.

CMOTDibbler

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Eoin Reddan was a long time ago at this stage.

I can't see any reason to ignore JJ either, I agree with you. Apart of course, as Cummiskey said: "The problem for the union is that if he, or JJ Hanrahan who appears to have settled at Northampton, are picked on form for Ireland, there is no reason why more players in a similar situation won’t take the opportunity to earn as much as they possibly can abroad in the ever-shortening career that is professional rugby."

The way to deal with that is with incentives that make it harder to go abroad. Not with disincentives. Successive Irish coaches have selected foreign-based players, going back as far as Warren Gatland. Simon Easterby never played in Ireland yet got 65 caps for Ireland.

Most people would accept that JJ didn't move to Northampton primarily for the money. Jonny Sexton clearly did and the IRFU dealt with that issue by introducing the salary top-up to assist provinces in holding onto key players. Madigan has left for the best money he could get, but his career development was as much a motivation as the money.

It's never a simple equation and we'll never be able to prevent players from leaving. Leaving the door open for a return is just as important.

irishbucsfan

alias no.9 wrote: »

It absolutely does matter in your JJ example if the player picked ahead of him is also resident in the UK. There is no discrimination in the eyes of the EU on the basis of country of residence.

No, it's not about international selection. You're missing the point here.

alias no.9

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, it's not about international selection. You're missing the point here.

It can only be about discrimination on the basis of country of residence. With ongoing examples of UK residents being selected and the recent example if Sexton when he was French resident, what's left, was Dave Ryan discriminated against in his days at Zebre?

The EU doesn't care about internal boundaries. In JJs case you may as well be arguing that he's being ignored because he's from Kerry citing the lack of selection of a Kerryman since Mick Galwey, but the EU couldn't care any more than when he's UK resident and other UK residents make the squad in his stead.

CMOTDibbler

alias no.9 wrote: »

It can only be about discrimination on the basis of country of residence. With ongoing examples of UK residents being selected and the recent example if Sexton when he was French resident, what's left, was Dave Ryan discriminated against in his days at Zebre?

The EU doesn't care about internal boundaries. In JJs case you may as well be arguing that he's being ignored because he's from Kerry citing the lack of selection of a Kerryman since Mick Galwey, but the EU couldn't care any more than when he's UK resident and other UK residents make the squad in his stead.

The point he's making (if I'm not mistaken) is that the guy who would have the case to make is one who stayed in the country and lost out on a more lucrative career abroad for fear of losing his international place.

The guy who actually moved abroad is a different matter.

sydthebeat

Those are economic choices made be people every single day.

Every decision to change job, change employer etc had an economic cost.

jacothelad

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Despite the fact that the only use of the word 'policy' was in the editorialised part of the article you're now moving the goalposts to 'Yes Minister' like proportions: "It's not true until it's officially denied".

They'd be just as mad to adopt such a policy as I pointed out. The evidence that they haven't goes back over a decade:

Simon Easterby
Eoin Reddan (got his first cap after he moved to Wasps)
Tommy Bowe
Bob Casey
Jonny Sexton


How is it a straw man argument to quote the thread title and the article in the newspaper that prompted it? I have read both and all of this thread. You on the other hand didn't fully read the article until four pages into this thread.

And I'm not trying to argue whether or not the IRFU can be proven to have implemented this policy. They have already said they don't. You on the other hand have been trying to do exactly that.





So the straw man is yours.

It's not just :-

"The evidence that they haven't goes back over a decade:"
but over decades.

"Simon Easterby
Eoin Reddan (got his first cap after he moved to Wasps)
Tommy Bowe
Bob Casey
Jonny Sexton"

David Humphreys
Keith Wood
Jim Staples
Simon Geogeghan
Nick Popplewell
Simon Mason
Paul Wallace
Johnny Bell
Alan Clarke
Eric Millar
Niall Woods
Rob Henderson
Kevin Maggs
Justin Bishop

were all capped while playing in England

alias no.9

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The point he's making (if I'm not mistaken) is that the guy who would have the case to make is one who stayed in the country and lost out on a more lucrative career abroad for fear of losing his international place.

The guy who actually moved abroad is a different matter.

Even less of a case for that. All employment choices require you to forego other options. I can't take on work tomorrow that will interfere with my current job without either resigning my current job or negotiation significant changes with my current employer. If anything the case would be against a club team in another country who would not be prepared to make the player available for international training camps.

molloyjh

It's nothing short of hilarious to think that the case of Ian Madigan shows issues with regard the free movement of people when he has actually moved. And despite that the IRFU have stated clearly that while it puts him at an obvious disadvantage in terms of the national team it doesn't preclude him from selection. Yet somehow there's an issue. It's genuinely funny.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

It's nothing short of hilarious to think that the case of Ian Madigan shows issues with regard the free movement of people when he has actually moved. And despite that the IRFU have stated clearly that while it puts him at an obvious disadvantage in terms of the national team it doesn't preclude him from selection. Yet somehow there's an issue. It's genuinely funny.

I don't think anyone who has posted in this thread has actually said that. But apart from that it's a stupendously fine misrepresentation of the point.

Slideshowbob

The lure of abroad continues yet IRFU still bias against them?

Gerry Thornley: How the Irish provinces have hit a brick wall
via The Irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/gerry-thornley-how-the-irish-provinces-have-hit-a-brick-wall-1.2647086

'We're not bank of last resort' - IRFU warning after confirming each province will get €1m http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/munster-rugby/were-not-bank-of-last-resort-irfu-warning-after-confirming-each-province-will-get-1m-34710655.html