Not really. I just thought I'd be as the rude and condescending as you but in less words. But good work on the name calling.
You jumped to a wild conclusion about me with your "you've made your mind up" stuff, so really your post didn't deserve a proper response. Especially as I was pretty much agreeing with the point you made.
Reardless how is the Fekitoa situation different to Tuilagi?
Tuilagi educated in the UK. Played all his rugby in the UK. Longer than Fekitoa was in NZ.
Hartley moved aged 16 he didn't play through your academy streams and age groups he came through ours. Yet we get called thief's, but your just generous?
I also like how you just launch into the home nations when Australia are as bad but its purely a home nation issue in your opinion.
And comparing Payne to Fluety who want a project player? He played in the England a long time before he selected.
The laws are what the laws are. Everyone exploits them. Including NZ your article confirms that just on different scales. Besides the article is just as one eyed. Kids benefit from scholarships as though Tashkent scoring isn't exactly the same as poaching. You just get them early and sift the talent to your needs.
In any profession talent drain is a concern it is for NZ to manage its own house not everyone else.
The fact is the rules won't change because all tier 1 nations benefit, and a hell of a lot of tier 2 nations.
1. Read again. I said no one is attacking Hartley or Tuilagi playing for England, it's professional rugby players being poached which is the problem.
2. If player who has played for the Hurricanes and NZ Maori - eventually playing for England and the B&I Lions - who is now back playing for Wellington, doesn't make you blush, I don't know what will.
3. You are right, Australia is pretty terrible at it. I mentioned the UK particularly because it was relevant to the Anscombe story. I missed Samoa as well, but that's another kettle of fish.
4. The number of children who get rugby scholarships is huge. The number of them that go on to professional rugby is very small. They get a quality education for it, and generally stay in New Zealand and join the work force, often sending money back to the Islands. There are scholarships for many other things than rugby as well. I'm not sure who would benefit from dropping it - and I don't see how schools giving scholarships to unprivleged kids is the same as a
national body signing overseas talent to stock their national team. Once again if you can't see the difference I am forced to think you are being deliberately obtuse. There is no exploitation of the laws, the NZRU has given an immigrant kid who has come through the NZ rugby system the oppertunity he has earned. To not to would be discrimination. This is very different to promising a national jersey to a Chiefs player should he jump ship and exploit ridiculous and archaic heritage laws.
5. It's up to New Zealand to manage itself, just reinforces how eager you are to exist on an uneven playing field. New Zealand is a country of recent immigrants, of course everyone has grandparents born overseas, particularly in the UK.
If you think New Zealand benefit from this system, then you are simply ignoring the facts. As usual. If my response seemed condecending and presumptious - it may help to offer a reply which wasn't
exactly what I was expecting.
we are going to be poaching foreign players and get them a french passport on a scale never seen before.
Actually, French clubs prefer to sign NZ and Aus players who have already been capped. Means they don't have to worry about the insignificant distraction of international rugby. The last thing a French club wants is a French internation player, except to blame when the 114th match they play in a season is one of the 10 or so internations that year, as it gives them someone to blame for when they break down
.
