Are we making moves?

[Cap'n Grumpy]

Slow down guys and ask yourselves the question - can he meet the criteria to achieve a T2 or T5 endorsement?

BUT ........... It's a BIRTHDAY present!

[Rooster]

Slow down guys and ask yourselves the question - can he meet the criteria to achieve a T2 or T5 endorsement?

Australia A count ?

[fuzzylogic]

by Rooster on Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:46 pm

Australia A count ?

I dont know how that all works, how were we able to sign Shifty last summer, or Diack?!

[Setanta]

That whisper got any louder, Browner? Hopefully not BJ?

[Ardglass2]

Duiack as a Saffer/Irishman was not subject to the same restrictions - Kolpak (sp?)

Shifty - did he play for Australia Rugby League - that may be the reason

[WhiteKnightoftheWeld]

looking like bad news for the force, Giteau already on his way out, now drew mitchell and james o'connor set to follow...

Whats this T2 or T5 business cables? something to do with overseas players having to have met a certain standard?

[Rooster]

That whisper got any louder, Browner? Hopefully not BJ?

BJ is already signed for another 2 years anyway, what about The Bear or Roache though ?

[cables]

This is a section of the 'regulations':

2. For a player
A Governing Body Endorsement will only be issued for a player to play for a Sponsor which is endorsed by the IRFU Ulster Branch if all of the following requirements are met:

a. Initial Application
i. Players from countries that are within the first or second tier of the national rugby unions of the International Rugby Board (IRB) will be eligible.

Tier 1 countries
Argentina; Australia; New Zealand; South Africa.
Tier 2 countries
Canada; Fiji; Japan; Romania; Samoa; Tonga; United States of America.
Please note: only the tier 1 and 2 non-EEA countries are mentioned above.

ii. They must have started at least one full international match (15-a-side), during the 15 months immediately prior to the date of the application.

Players from other countries must have started in an international match in the last 15 months and have played in a minimum of 10 full internationals (15-a-side) during their playing career.

iii. Players from Tier 1 Countries who have played at least 20 Super 12/14matches.

Re the highlighted text above:

Cap(s) at 'A' level would not count - "full international match".

It is not ii OR iii, it is ii AND iii - "if all of the following requirements are met".

Obviously I cannot comment on the intent of those who drafted the regulations.

[cables]

Obviously I cannot comment on the intent of those who drafted the regulations.

After a little more research, I think I will stick my toe a little deeper.

The equivalent approved Governing Body for England is the RFU. Their website includes their relevant UKBA CLEARED document.
http://www.rfu.com/pdfs/regulations/gbe ... 8-UKBA.pdf

A quick comparison of the 2 documents suggests that they originated from the same original draft. (not a surprise really) There is however either an omission in the England version OR an addition in the UR version.

The England version does not have a sub-para iii (see post above).

My best guess at intent would be that sub-para iii was intended to include an alternative to sub-para ii. If this is so, then the intent would have been to allow ii OR iii but the word 'or' has not been included.

Very puzzling.

[mikerob]

Cables - I've only taken a quick glance at this so may be mistaken, but I think there may have been a change in the process for handling immigrating sports people.

Previously the UK Border Agency had a document that listed the eligibility criteria for a number of sports.

Now it looks like the UK BA has devolved this responsibility to recognised governing bodies who must publish their own criteria, ensuring they meet with the UK BA code of practise.

Ulster Rugby is listed as one of the governing bodies so that explains why they have published the information on their website. This is based upon the criteria the UK BA used to have - but now UR own this document so can phrase it or edit how they like as long as it complies with overall UK BA policy. It looks like the UK BA isn't being as prescriptive as they used to be and are now leaving this to the governing bodies.

So now it looks like UR is "judge and jury" - they are the governing body that decides what players can play for them! (or at least recommends to the UK BA that a player meets their eligibility requirements)

While they need to publish their criteria... there could be a certain amount of flexibility how they decide to interpret them... such as the term "full international". IRB rules are that playing an A international means you are now ineligible to play for another country... so it could be argued that an A international and a senior international are the same when it comes to international representation. And it looks like in the first instance, UR will be arguing this point with themselves!

[cables]

Yes Mike there was a change, late last year I believe. Your basic take on it is how I read it also.

Still think they have left out an important word however.

And it looks like in the first instance, UR will be arguing this point with themselves!

Not themselves Mike - looks like the PTMC will have to argue the point with the Ulster Branch.

[pwrmoore]

Ulster Rugby is listed as one of the governing bodies so that explains why they have published the information on their website. This is based upon the criteria the UK BA used to have - but now UR own this document so can phrase it or edit how they like as long as it complies with overall UK BA policy. It looks like the UK BA isn't being as prescriptive as they used to be and are now leaving this to the governing bodies.

So now it looks like UR is "judge and jury" - they are the governing body that decides what players can play for them! (or at least recommends to the UK BA that a player meets their eligibility requirements)

I wonder is the a subtletly here that has been missed in what you've typed Mike and what difference it makes in practice?

I'd be surprised if UR were designated as a governing body. UR is a wholly owned subsidiary company of the IRFU Ulster Branch (Or possibly just of the IRFU - not sure which is the actual parent of UR) its sole remit is to run the professional rugby team.

The governing body must surely be the Ulster Branch of the IRFU which, while it may share personnel with UR and may also be in ultimate control of UR is not actually the same entity and has the wider remit of administering and developing all aspects of the game in the 9 counties.

[The Ulsterian]

From
http://twf.com.au/showthread.php?s=5b2f ... 36&t=20772

Tamaiti Horua is quoted as saying
"It's a bit different in that Canberra is a one spot town and in Perth nobody really knows a lot about the Force, and rugby's not the No.1 sport though. However, my fiance loves life in Perth with the weather, the beaches and everything about the city, I really enjoying playing and living there and I'm in talks at the moment about sticking around."

[mikerob]

I wasn't being precise with my terminology... but then the UK BA aren't either as they list "Rugby Union Ireland Ulster Rugby" as the governing body on their website.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/emplo ... ingbodies/

It just highlights the messy governance of the UB/UR where there doesn't appear to be clear separation between the amateur game, professional game and the "ruling body" function. I believe that Mike Reid is CEO of both UB and UR, albeit answerable to various committees.

[Windeos]

Maybe Tamaiti Horua has great irish grand parents?

All a bit crazy but looks like we could be out to get a few SH players for the irish team

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 39,00.html

Ancestral nightmare for ARU and John O'Neill

ARU chief executive John O'Neill is proud of his Irish heritage, but it is unlikely he would have been too pleased with an announcement by the Irish Government on St Patrick's Day.
Thousands of Australians will find it easier to take out Irish citizenship after the announcement that foreigners with an Irish great-grand parent would be eligible.

At present, Ireland requires a person to have at least one Irish grand parent to claim ancestral right to citizenship.

But Ireland has decided to loosen the rules to extend naturalisation rights to people who are one generation further away from their Irish roots.

As a result of the Irish diaspora of over 80 million people, this initiative will have political and social ramifications around the globe, including the world of rugby.

In particular, Australian and New Zealand rugby will be significantly affected.

If you have Irish citizenship, you also carry with it a coveted European Union passport, which gives you the right to live and work in 27 nations - and that applies to professional rugby players as much as anyone else.

Since the advent of professional rugby in 1995, Australia and New Zealand have been suffering from a player drain to rich clubs in Europe.

Several years ago Australia lobbied the IRB to abolish the grand-father clause, which allowed Australians of European grand parentage to play as locals in Europe and represent European national teams in Test rugby.

Now the Irish are opening the door to the spoils in Europe to a whole new generation of players.

For South Africa, New Zealand and Australia (SANZAR), this could not come at a worse time.

The SANZAR partners are currently discussing the expansion of Super rugby to a 15-team competition with an additional team in either Australia or South Africa.

It appears Australia will secure a fifth Super rugby franchise in Melbourne, Gold Coast, western Sydney, Central Coast or Newcastle.

But there are question marks over whether Australia has sufficient depth to support a fifth team.

O'Neill has effectively acknowledged this by saying the ARU would look at filling a new Super rugby team with Australians playing overseas, rugby league converts and Pacific Islanders and Argentinians.

Certainly, there is a whole squad of Australians playing in Europe and Japan - Manny Edmonds, Peter Hewat, Adam Wallace-Harrison, Justin Harrison, David Lyons, Rocky Elsom, Steve Kefu and Rodney Blake to name but a few.

And there is just as many, if not more, New Zealanders playing in Europe.

That does not even include rugby league converts Mark Gasnier, Sonny Bill Williams and Craig Gower.

Some of these players such as Elsom and New Zealand inside backs Dan Carter and Luke McAllister are coming back to the Antipodes to be part of the 2011 World Cup.

Elsom, Carter and McAllister are party of a new trend of high profile players earning big bucks in Europe between World Cups.

But how is the ARU going to lure the majority of Australian players playing overseas to come back, especially as there are other players such as NSW Waratahs fulback Sam Norton-Knight who are on their way to Europe or Japan at the end of this season?

Most of the players who head overseas are Super 14 standard players who cannot secure an ARU top up to their contracts.

The ARU's Clayton's salary cap restricts them to earning no more than $155,000 a season unless they secure a wild card, which bumps up their worth to about $220,000.

The Australian expatriates are earning much more than this in Europe and Japan.

Once they realise their dream of playing for the Wallabies is either over or never going to happen, they have little financial incentive to remain in Australia.

The only reason players do not go overseas is for family and friends or lifestyle reasons.

Every now and then an Australian prodigal does return from Europe or Japan, but the traffic flows much more heavily in the opposite direction.

To be sure, the decision by the Irish government to extend citizenship will only increase the player drain from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere, which will inevitably undermine ARU attempts to fill a fifth Super team with Australian expats.