In short, no. PSA has been borderline disastrous over the past few years. I do believe in the cross-fertilisation of coaching, nonetheless.

The reality is, that if players with years ahead of them have an option of moving overseas, why would they not. A test quality player could stand to make as close to a million dollars for a few years work, and if they can come back to play for their country – all power to them.

In the case of New Zealand’s players, McAlister was always going to be a slightly different case, based on the standing in which he was held before he left, and on the fact that 10 and 12 are two of the weaker positions in their game.

He still needs to go through “a phase”, but I think it is overall good business by the NZRU.

After all, is not McAlister going to be a better player with exposure to a coach like Saint-Andre?

But there will still be merits. If McAlister doesn’t perform for the Baa’s-baa’s and Junior AB’s (his stipulation before earning test colours again) Henry is no chump, and won’t select him.

If anything, it will put pleasent pressure on someone like Nonu, who may have relaxed and thought the All Black number 12 is his.

I personally think it would be a travesty if the All Blacks selected from outside NEw Zealand ranks.

There was another article to this point on another good rugby site a while ago:

http://www.heavensgame.com/global-news/mike-rogers/player-drain-or-leaky-tap.html

But, beyond the topic at hand, I think that we have seen the worst of it. The NZRU has signed most key all blacks till 2011 and beyond, and French clubs will have tighter restrictions on their “foreign quota”. Add to this the financial crisis, and I don’t think we will see money bandied around like that again for a while.

More to the point, if the South African domestic teams are playing in the north anyway soon……. (sorry, I’m stirring)

Reputation – NZers and South Africans are going to be a lot more sought after than Australians.
Cost – Aussies are likely to ask for high prices, when Islanders/Georgians/Argentines are a hell of a lot cheaper.

I think Ireland is now on a par with the UK, Sheek, in terms of financial power, and of playing opportunities – Munster and Leinster are two of the top teams in Europe. Ulster apparently had a substantial offer for Halanghahu turned down – but I suspect this wasn’t just about money. Matt Williams isn’t a great draw as a coach, never mind the playing squad potential. However, there are, of course, more English premiership teams in the market.

Munster will be letting go somewhere between 9-11 players at the end of this season. They’ll be on the hunt during the off-season – Jean de Villiers is one of their targets, for example. And they have the bucks and pedigree available to get him.

France have the biggest amounts of money – witness the current flow of players from Ireland clubs and the UK to France for next season, with bigger financial payouts available. How long this lasts is another question. The French (FFRU) have stated publicly the need for rules to change and that limits should be brought in on the number of foreign players.

It’s interesting, nevertheless, that the French clubs have gone after English players in particular this season, despite their availability restrictions due to commitments to be available for the England team – something that SA, NZ and Aus players would not have to do.

1) Players have relatively short playing careers

2) Security in your career is a big issue

3) There are so many test matches being played now – and players being rotated – that a large part of treasuring the jersey is diminished (not gone – only diminished)

4) From reports the ARU contracts seemed to be loaded up with match payments – so if you don’t get picked there is a hefty chunk of your earnings gone – not too secure

5) unlike NZ and SA – there is no domestic national competition in place to help subsidise payments to the professionals – or give a small wage to up and comers

With all of this its reasonable to assume you are going to lose quite a few players – is that so bad – it works for brazil and Argentina in the soccer world

This is a brutal truth. For whatever reasons, mostly because of greater population & financial resources, the big money is obviously in the UK & France.

The ARU is obliged to produce a meaningful domestic comp in Australia, but that’s another story. The Saffies have successfully brought players back from Europe for the Boks. However, I think it is easier to return players to SA from Europe, than it is to return them to Australia or NZ.

I can accept some relaxation on this rule (Australian-domiciled players for selection) for long-serving players. But whether the benchmark is 60 tests, or some other criteria, I don’t know.

Also, whether players ought to be granted a mid-career ‘sabbatical’, is another factor that requires some further thought. Joe Roff for example, took off the 2002 season to play in France, before returning to the Wallabies in 2003 with mixed success.

How did Australian rugby reach this mess? Well, it’s not a total mess yet, but it’s going to require some courageous & wise decisions to take rugby union out of the wilderness it has/is falling into.

Lovely article about a very tricky and delicate situation.

I like your suggestions too… perhaps with some caveats.

“Those who have accumulated sixty Test appearances or more could be eligible to apply for a six month sabbatical leave between international seasons”. I agree with but think the numbers should be tweaked – i.e. you earn 6 months sabbatical after, say, 30 appearances and a year after 60 or something like that. There have been suggestions that Australian selectors have selected people in the past to ‘lock them in’ to playing for Australia. Could there be a chance that the quota games system would be abused so that selectors keep players ‘on ice’? You’d think the chance of this would be small.

Hoy,

Not sure what the point of your comment is. Staniforth could probably have got a gig at a different Australian Super team – perhaps on a lesser contract. Like everyone else he played overseas because, for him, the incentives to do so were higher than the incentives to stay. I think the point of Shannons article is to imagine if he had been offered a contract with Qld when the Tahs “overlooked” him that said that, after playing for us for a year, you can play overseas for a year but then you’d have to play for us again (AND still be eligible for the Wallabies perhaps?) that might have been a great incentive and we would have seen more of Staniforth in Australia. I think an arrangement such as that might have been good for EVERYBODY.

This would mean that the Wallabies would not be weakened, but the fact that the S14 or TT (if it eventuates) would be a much easier avenue to earn test selection would make sure we retain good players.

I people are going to go north we may as well not weaken our national team, specially during a world cup year. If Gregan or Larkham are still playing in 2 years time and we have a serious deficit in their positions, why not call them back as cover? Just an example.

It is just logical and in time it may even help us to world cup victory.

In fact I think if the TT comp becomes reality, the policy change will be pretty much a given, which would allow a fifth Aust team – let’s say Melbourne – to recruit NZ and PI players. Likewise, someone like Daniel Halangahu (who I know has just re-signed with NSW) may feel that he’ll get a better go playing 10 for a NZ team than he would being chopped and changed from bench to starting team for NSW.

And also, if someone is returning from the NH, I don’t have too much problem with them slotting straight back into the national team, should their form warrant selection (as may well be the case for McAlister and Elsom).