fortysix wrote:Bo**ox to the rules
We want to win the WC
If he' s good enough and fit, he should play.
I think it is heading that way. The thread was about comparing Flood to Armitage, and they are very different. Toby left as a member of the Eps, a consistent member of the match day 23, and when the clear rule existed. None of those apply to Armitage. Agree. Pick him if good enough.
But is he good enough? And will he be released for training?
tig1 wrote:Actually Bill. I am not sure when the rule must have come in.
Lancaster' s first six nations was 2012, and Tom Palmer was playing second row in that tournament and was still at Stade Francais.
So i think we can conclude that indeed Steffon Armitage's circumstance are exceptional should they choose to select him. Get him in the squad i say
Wasn't there a rule saying that those who had signed contracts at foreign club could play for England as long as they had signed that contract before the rule on foreign players was invented? I think this rule is actually a good thing. If a Toulon or Toulouse offered a player an extra 30k yet they could still play for their country they'd be a fool to turn that down. How many people can genuinely say they'd reject extra money? Look what's happened to the Welsh regions. Take away the threat of losing their international career and I can't see many of the top players staying. Money talks.
I don't know Bill ! I recall watching out for him in the QF against Tigers last year and he made no impact against Tigers back row that day. But other than that i couldn't say. Haven't seen a lot of him.
He has to be released for the minimum nominated International periods. Unless he has signed that right away in his contract i guess.
tig1 wrote:Actually Bill. I am not sure when the rule must have come in.
Lancaster' s first six nations was 2012, and Tom Palmer was playing second row in that tournament and was still at Stade Francais.
So i think we can conclude that indeed Steffon Armitage's circumstance are exceptional should they choose to select him. Get him in the squad i say
Wasn't there a rule saying that those who had signed contracts at foreign club could play for England as long as they had signed that contract before the rule on foreign players was invented? I think this rule is actually a good thing. If a Toulon or Toulouse offered a player an extra 30k yet they could still play for their country they'd be a fool to turn that down. How many people can genuinely say they'd reject extra money? Look what's happened to the Welsh regions. Take away the threat of losing their international career and I can't see many of the top players staying. Money talks.
I dont recall that specifically, but as i say Armitage moved well before the rule existed, so arguing exceptional circumstance anyway i think is very reasonable. He shouldn't be expected to uproot himself professionally and personally from Toulon because England subsequently chose to change their selection rules.
An interesting debate gents.............for which thanks!
To me the rule was set up by Management in whom we put no trust in the first place. As the workers everywhere know, rules are only put in place to suit the management who then have the right to remake the rules as they go along.
Personal view? If they are the best Englishmen available to play in their respective positions then they should be picked.
As for everyone going to France, take that to its logical conclusion and there would be no Frenchmen playing in key positions in French clubs thus effectively ruining their efforts to win the 6 Nations and the world cup......What's wrong with that?
I feel that a "Super 14" across Europe tournament will be the eventual out come.........maybe Tigers would be good enough (or rich enough??) to participate in that maybe not??
I'll get me coat!
Exile Wigstonite living in Wales.
Poet laureate of the "One Eyed Turk".
Bar stool philosopher in the "Wilted Daffodil"
"As for everyone going to France, take that to its logical conclusion and there would be no Frenchmen playing in key positions in French clubs thus effectively ruining their efforts to win the 6 Nations and the world cup......What's wrong with that?
I feel that a "Super 14" across Europe tournament will be the eventual out come.........maybe Tigers would be good enough (or rich enough??) to participate in that maybe not??"
1. World cup - every 4 years, six nations 5 weeks per year, Premiership 24 weeks per year.
2. A "super 14" would most likely be regional - do we want that?
"As for everyone going to France, take that to its logical conclusion and there would be no Frenchmen playing in key positions in French clubs thus effectively ruining their efforts to win the 6 Nations and the world cup......What's wrong with that?
I feel that a "Super 14" across Europe tournament will be the eventual out come.........maybe Tigers would be good enough (or rich enough??) to participate in that maybe not??"
1. World cup - every 4 years, six nations 5 weeks per year, Premiership 24 weeks per year.
2. A "super 14" would most likely be regional - do we want that?
The premiership as it stands can't live forever, more's the pity and whether you or I want regional rugby it may come anyway. A tournament with a lighter fixture load for the elite would remove the clashes with 6 nations and world cups..........I feel something must give? It's already not the Tigers I used to support......more change is inevitable.
Exile Wigstonite living in Wales.
Poet laureate of the "One Eyed Turk".
Bar stool philosopher in the "Wilted Daffodil"
Personally I cannot see what a regional "Super 14" competition would bring to the English and French party. It is diametrically opposed to the model of qualification through merit that PRL and RFU have fought for.
Personally I cannot see what a regional "Super 14" competition would bring to the English and French party. It is diametrically opposed to the model of qualification through merit that PRL and RFU have fought for.
No doubt the Celts would support it!!
And there you have it Bill! My all time nightmare! Some sort of weird concocted league that involves Cardiff + another Welsh Franchise (Swansea??) + Northern Ireland + Eire + Glasgow + Edinburgh + Paris + The South west of France + The South East of France + The north of England + The Midlands + the South West of England + London + Some Italian Franchise......Sorry for those who I've missed but I'm sure you see where this is going?
Club rugby then supports these "Elite" teams.
Grim, but inevitable?
Exile Wigstonite living in Wales.
Poet laureate of the "One Eyed Turk".
Bar stool philosopher in the "Wilted Daffodil"
It's all very well arguing about retrospective punishment and suggesting an exception could be made because he initially signed for Toulon before the ruling about overseas players was made, but I'm pretty sure that since then, he's signed a new contract at Toulon. He didn't have to re-sign for them. I doubt he'd have had much trouble finding a Premiership team to play for in England.
At the moment, I'm fully on board with the agreement not to select overseas players. I expect that a number of English players are only playing in the Premiership (rather than in France) because they won't get selected for England if they go abroad. If there's a massive injury crisis in a position before an important tournament, it's fair enough to then turn to the overseas players- they'd still be pretty much sacrificing their international prospects by moving abroad.I know we all like to think that the club culture and history here makes Tigers different and that players like Manu and Cole would therefore not get tempted away with a big pay check, but are we really that confident? (I mean no disrespect to the players- rugby is a short career and could finish for anybody at any time). If we see a mass exodus of top players to France, what impact do you think that will have on the overall quality of the Premiership? How do you think that might affect the willingness of people to buy tickets to attend matches? And how do you think this will affect the clubs' ability (and willingness) to develop future international standard players? Yes, it seems fair to say that we want to win a World Cup so if the best qualified player is playing club rugby abroad select them, but in my view, because of the precedent it would set, that is a very short-termist approach and in the long term might actually damage the national team's prospects.
Finally, several have said that the Premiership in this form is not sustainable. I find this a bit doom and gloom, not least because the alternatives suggested have hardly shown great financial success elsewhere. The fact is that the international game is the money-maker. The Super15 suffers from poor attendances just the same, if not moreso, than the Premiership. Yes, the Southern Hemisphere sides seem to have success (although Australia are looking very beatable at the moment), but it's very debatable whether that's due to the Franchises rather than other factors such as the much vaunted focus on skill over physicality at a young age.
So why in the preceding years weren't all Englands best players playing in France ? The money was available in France. They could have gone.
Why weren't the Tom Crofts, Ben Youngs, Dan Coles, Toby Floods, and all the other key England internationals playing in France in the 5, 6 or 7 years leading up to 2012 ?
Times change. Cultures change. I feel that the Armitage brothers, Nick Kennedy and Sheridan signed for French teams around the same sort of time and, bearing in mind that Wilkinson, Haskell and Palmer had also been playing in France, that's why the ruling was brought in- to prevent it becoming a trend. The culture in French rugby might have been changing too, with the likes of Boudjellal starting to properly splash the cash to strengthen their squads- remember that prior to the 2010/2011 season, Toulon were an Amlin Cup team. Perhaps the RFU and PRL anticipated that this might be the start of a pattern and acted pre-emptively to avoid it. Obviously speculation, but wait until after the next World Cup and see how many international players from all over the world sign for French teams.
Whilst the SH and the Celtic Nations have embraced regionalised franchises with no merit based promotion or relagation, the English and French have steadfastly refused it.
So where does the money lie?
In revenue terms in England and France.
Whether IRB recognise this is a moot point. But I have no doubt that if push came to shove England and France would break away from IRB and be followed by SA.
Bill / Dai...this is why Edward Griffiths was correct recently (IMVHO), when he made his comments about getting rid of relegation, removing the salary cap, and implicitly suggesting a reduction in the size of the AP.
His ideas will protect our clubs from being regionalised, by become stronger and generating a better quality game, that generates a better product to market than exists today.
Griffiths identifies exactly what Dai is saying. That in its current state the AP will head one direction over time, and thats down.
Griffiths is a smart guy. He is saying now is the time to move, protect the club system and make it stronger. But there have to be sacrifices. That sacrifice is the romance notion of small clubs growing to compete with big clubs.
