Crusader winger Maitland joins Glasgow

Bakkies, no a British grandparent does not entitle him to a passport. It entitles him to a 5 year Visa, which is a stamp that goes in his NZ passport and allows him to work in the UK for 5 years (provided he can prove a legitimate line of birth/marriage from said grandparent through to himself). I should know, because that's exactly what I'm currently using to work here in England. And if I stick around for 5 years then I'll be eligible to apply for British Citizenship, making me 'British' and entitling me to a passport. Until then I'm a Kiwi who can work here for slightly longer than the normal 2 year Visa. It is my opinion that until a person has a passport for a country then they shouldn't be able to represent that country. A work Visa entitles you to work, should a private company (read rugby club) be willing to hire you. But being paid to represent a nation is not the same and therefore the IRB rules should stipulate as such. I don't blame the players for taking the extra money/glory on offer. I don't blame the countries selecting them, as they want to win. Simply, the system is wrong and erodes the idea of test match rugby pittng one nation against another. If a player wants to represent that nation then they should have to put the effort in to obtain citezenship of that country or serve a 5 year waiting period. That means you have to be serious about wanting to play for that country, not bailing because you're not good enough and then pretending you're a proud Scotsman a couple of months later.

a query re: young guys like Maitland are earning hundreds of thousands a year anyway on Super Rugby and ITM Cup contracts I'd suggest not; Super Rugby contracts are capped at NZ $180,000 (latest info I could find, Sept 2012) for a top player; ITM contracts are capped at NZ $60,000 - and this rate only applies to a current member of the All Black squad (NZ $35,000 plus a contribution of $25,000 from NZRU to compensate for player unavailability). The average Super?ITM (I am not including ABs here, Maitland is not one) player would be on well under NZ $200,00 per annum. Easy to see why overseas contracts are so attractive when pay rates are considered. The NZ Players Collective Agreement is available online; a player like Maitland would have increased his earnings in 2010 when he was selected for NZ Maori - an additional NZ $3500 per week while 'active' in the squad on tour. Internationally, small $.

'' A person should have to hold a passport for a certain country before they are eligible to play for that countries national side. That means you can’t just have a grand parent, which only gives you a 5 year Visa for the UK, or parent to get you access. You must have a passport and therefore legally be of that nation.'' A British born grandparent entitles him to a passport so he probably already has one.

Johnno. A UK born (Scottish in this case) Grandparent entitles him to a UK passport and ancestry visa which classes him as British. That is good enough for the IRB. If you don't like that contact the UK Home Office.

Matt, you and I are kindred spirits on this one. If players wish to ply their trade overseas, well and good, but the buying up of other countries talent, with the cynical intention of offering a test jersey has simply got to stop. The "Mike Harris" affair really highlights this situation. As an aside, I see in the british press, they are referring to the upcoming test as being between nz 'a' and nz 'b'. Says it all, when even the poms, who like their oz counterparts perpetuated the myth of nz " raping the islands" are coming out with comments like this. Oh, the irony!

I think it's fine for guys like Maitland or Bent to sign for overseas clubs to earn more money. Let's fact it, there is more money in Europe or Japan and with private backing in France there is a ridiculous amount of money that can be earned. But let's leave that aspect to club rugby. If anyone is offered good money to work overseas most would take it, as it's an exciting opportunity as much as it is a lucrative one. But let's leave the mercenary aspect to club rugby, not internation/test match rugby. Because in the end it should be about playing for 'your' country, not 'a' country that you're technically are eligible for. Most, if not all, of these guys leaving to play for foreign teams would wish to represent New Zealand (in this instance) before any other if they could be selected. It undercuts the point of test rugby if they then choose a second choice outfit just to earn that extra money from test match performances. These guys will be financially set up by playing european club rugby anyway. And young guys like Maitland are earning hundreds of thousands a year anyway on Super Rugby and ITM Cup contracts. It's not like they're poor, especially compared to other people their age. Maybe the IRB should stipulate that all players must enter into tertiary study or a trade equivalent that is paid for by their club in order to safeguard their future. Then they don't have to pretend to be from a foreign country just to 'secure their future'.

I am keen follower of Taranaki in the ITM Cup. today prop Michael Bent (best name for a straight-backed prop!) flies to Ireland, will be playing for Leinster v Ospreys Sunday week, and is eligible (if selected, immediately) for Ireland via grandparent, holds an Irish passport. Nominated for 2012 Taranaki Player of the Year, played every one of the 13 matches this season. Recruited by another former Taranaki (and then Canterbury, and All Blacks) Greg Feek who is scrum coach for Leinster. Reported that Sean Fitzpatrick flew out to seal the deal! The Irish connection. Half of me wishes him all the luck in the world, as he was never in contention for an AB spot; financially it should set him up - as I understand it the top (and he wouldn't be there) ITM pay scale is $60,000 NZ (about 14 GBP maybe!) and he didn't get much game time in Super rugby for Hurricanes this year. Last year Taranaki lost their Promising Player of the Year Samuela Vunisa to an Italian scout for Calvisano - they seriously 'made him an offer he couldn't refuse' beyond anything he could earn in NZ, and in three years he may well be playing for Italy. Again, good for him, but frustrating for coaches (and supporters like me) to see leaving from smaller provinces. But we have a professional sport. Think - if you were eg 23 years old and had financial offers like these men are getting. what would you do? I'd have been off, anywhere that would have me (four grandparents from four different countries)

I've heard on the talk back radio few days ago, that Sean can play either Scotland or Samoa through his Mother's side. My money is on Scotland on this one. Good on him as I don't think the ABs coaches will even have a look at him now after he was the form winger in 2009 - 2010 but didn't get picked for the ABs.

Matt, it is true that no country is innocent, however the fact is the European based teams have deliberate "project contracts" to entice players to join their clubs. I believe it is 3 Non Irish, or Welsh etc. qualified projects per team. In SA we don't contract players as such, they move to SA most whilst still at school, if they do ever qualify for SA then it is merely coincidence. Beast was the first player who came to SA and had to first gain an SA passport before reprsenting us. In other words he was the first one that was an issue. The others were here long enough not to have that issue.

I know that South Africa is NOWHERE near as guilty of enticing players for professional contracts, but they're also not entirely innocent either biltong. And I wasn't really trying to get into a finger pointing exercise either, more to just highlight the fact that nearly all countries are guilty and therefore the rules need amendment, because people just can't help themselves when it comes to self-betterment. In the end humans are selfish and do what's best for them (including Steve Hansen, Mike Harries, John O'Neill and me). I just think the rules should be changed to protect the ideals of test match rugby from self interest and to ensure it doesn't become just about money. As an aside (I know I said I didn't want to get into finger pointing...) apart from Tendai “Beast” Mtawarira there has also been Tonderai Chavhanga, Brian Mujati and Adrian Garvey to represent South Africa during the professional era, dispite being native Zimbabweans. I also believe that you could guarantee that if a player like Hadleigh Parkes, who I coincedentally when to school with in NZ, starts showing form playing for the Southern Kings over the next few seasons then SARU will consider offering him a Bok jumper. And based on cases like Maitland/Harris and Strauss with Scotland he'd probably accept the pay rise and chance to play test footy. And of course he'd say he's proud to wear the green and gold, but really he'd prefer to be wearing black and it'd be a shame for all those true South African men who wore that jersey before and would have given anything to do so. So the point I'm trying to make is that all countries are now offering guys pro contracts at a club/provincial level, which is fine as that's part and parcel of domestic pro sport. But to then start capping players with such thin ties to an adopted country to me suggests the rules for test qualification need amendment. If you're good enough to play for your country that's fine, but to then jump ship to play for another country suggests it is a decision based more on money than a burning desire to represent a nation. Mike Harries is a Kiwi playing for the Wallabies, Sean Maitland will be a Kiwi playing for Scotland. But if they had the choice to play for the All Blacks before either of these teams they would take it and to me that means the current rules are wrong, because we are seeing Test rugby be treated like Club rugby.

Matt, South Africa doesn't take players from developed countries, Players from Zimbabwe and Nambia come to SA as teenagers hoping to get professional contracts as there are no such options in their home nations. Beast MTwarira is the only guy I can think of that played school rugby in Zimbabwe before coming to SA, others come here as youngsters and learn their trade in SA.

Atlas and Matt I agree it needs fixing up. And it goes both ways. Increase it too five years and hold a passport for sure, i agree. And it helps all countries and once again under this system the smaller countries would in fact be helped more not harmed. As would other countries as they would focus on developing more locals born in that country which would be much healthier for the promotion of the sport.

matt I agree 100% with your opinions and point. The IRB is better in the credibility stakes than say cricket or rugby league. Cricket example England VS Irleand. Ed Joyce one minute he is playing for England next minute he is playing for Irleand. And Morgan too. 1 minute he is playing for Irleand next minute he is playing for England. Rugby league needs to get tough too. And reality is by making it tougher eg parents born only not there parents, and 5 years is it all evens out anyway, and it helps the smaller nations more not harms it. As what is happening right now is players are going to Europe 18, or 19, 22 ready to represent say a England or France, or wales,Italy, Scotland, it is a joke. 5 years is more clear and would motivate the players to play test footy earlier as they would get impatient and a desire to play in a world cup. But even if they don’t scrap the 3 year rule to make it 5, I think if rugby ever goes back to the 2 coutnry policy not 1 you pick you stick for life it will be doomed much the same way cricket and rugby league are. And someone like Hape, Mike Harris or Sean Maitland, or The kiwi brothers, are all just as bad as James Tamou. Oh and I should also mention Henry Paul and Lesley Vainokolo playing for England, what a farce and circus and joke that is.

atlas exactly it goes both ways, other nations cry at NZ for so called poaching , but they do it too just as bad as shown by you example. And I like the outage example Brendan Lany so funny. Make it only parents birth , anything further like parentsparent sis a joke.

Their supporters don't care Brett, on other websites they have already discussed his inclusion in the scottish team for this november. They are jubilant about it.

matt I agree 100% with your opinions and point. The IRB is better in the credibility stakes than say cricket or rugby league. Cricket example England VS Irleand. Ed Joyce one minute he is playing for England next minute he is playing for Irleand. Eoin Morgan 1 minute he is playing for Irleand next minute he is playing for England. Rugby league needs to get tough too. And reality is by making it tougher eg parents born only not there parents, and 5 years is it all evens out anyway, and it helps the smaller nations more not harms it. As what is happening right now is players are going to Europe 18, or 19, 22 ready to represent say a England or France, or wales,Italy, Scotland, it is a joke. 5 years is more clear and would motivate the players to play test footy earlier as they would get impatient and a desire to play in a world cup. But even if they don't scrap the 3 year rule to make it 5, I think if rugby ever goes back to the 2 coutnry policy not 1 you pick you stick for life it will be doomed much the same way cricket and rugby league are. And someone like Hape, Mike Harris or Sean Maitland, or The Waldrom brothers, are all just as bad as James Tamou. Oh and I should also mention Henry Paul and Lesley Vainokolo playing for England, what a farce and circus and joke that is.

Brett, was this a sarcastic comment or do you actually think Scotland should start developing their own players? They do have a pretty poor history of 'repatriating' long lost grandsons and yet haven't really improved because of this, yet they have now upped the scale of the same flawed plan. They have tried to start investing more in youngsters, but if you were to use the wages paid to Maitland you could easily hire a dozen development officers to start getting more kids/schools to take up the game. If it takes IRB rule change intervention to start national Unions investing more sustainably then I'm all for it!

Johnno - and it goes both ways. Example - Scott Waldrom never played a test for NZ, but a match All Blacks played v Munster. Those 80 minutes (at least he got a full game!) on the field ruled him out of taking the England route his brother Thomas did (if he'd wanted to/selected etc) There are many other players in recent years who have given their best to be an AB, only got a couple of tests, who would have had grand-parent eligibility in other countries. While we have these eligibility laws, have to live with them. Wiki as my source as i wanted to check on Otago's Brendan Laney - it says he was in Scotland two days, never played a match there, when he was named in the Scotland squad. Must be a record of sorts.

I agree Johnno. Eligibility for Rugby should be linked to a persons official nationality, which generally has a 5 year residency period. A person should have to hold a passport for a certain country before they are eligible to play for that countries national side. That means you can't just have a grand parent, which only gives you a 5 year Visa for the UK, or parent to get you access. You must have a passport and therefore legally be of that nation. It is time for the IRB to treat this seriously and make some changes to protect the integrity of test rugby. It is quite clear that there are now a number of National Unions who are using the loose IRB eligibility system to negate the need for investment in developing systems to produce local talent. Scotland is one, Australia is another. South Africa and New Zealand have also done it and England, Ireland, Wales and France have also benefitted from the naive 3 year residency or grandparent rule. And the rules should be the same for all tiers, regardless of the initial impact on the lower tier countries. We need some consistency and credibilty here. Otherwise we're just ignoring the fact that nations will pay foreigners now rather than investing in local youngsters for the future. The SRU have a full-time (ex Kilted Kiwi, the irony) searching the globe for 'development' prospects who can play for Scotland. Quite clearly Scotland was a second choice for Maitland and he has waited for a call up to the All Blacks until he can no longer wait. And then he has decided that he is actually Scottish, much in the same way as Mike Harries has decided he is now Australian. But you can't tell me these guys, just as Hape, Waldrom and Flutey for England actually feel 'English'?! The truth is that they want to play test rugby, for the money and the glory, and don't care which colour jersey they wear to do so. That to me goes against what the point of international Rugby is about and what makes it attractive and so passion filled compared to Club rugby. What next, the French team resembling Toulon with a stack of guy born and raised in Argentina, Georgia, Fiji, Samoa and South Africa? Maybe Australia paying for deliberate spaces in their Super Rugby rosters for non-Australian players of promise to be paid to change nationality...oh wait, that's already happening. IRB, fix it.

And I do support the IRB policy of 1 country for life you pick you stick. Rugby league eligibility has turned into a circus and always has been. I think rugby league needs a 1 country for life right across the board, and start playing more tests to help the likes of Fiji,Samoa,Tonga develop. Then they would get players sticking with them for life, and players who might not become regular aussy or kiwi reps. Pacific island rugby has been helped not harmed by the 1 country for life rule now in place. For years I thought with cases like Sosene Anesi, who only played 1 AB test Samoa lose a medium standard player for life yes. But statistically for every 1 Sosene Anesi, they get 3 players from NZ with Samoan heritage eg A Paul Williams, Khan Fhoutali, Anthony Perenise. NZ developed all 3players, put them through the super rugby system only to lose them to Samoa for life, and club rugby in UK. NZ as someone pointed out yesterday has a staggering amount of players overseas playing for other countries. And can not go on forever losing depth it harms super rugby teams especially , and steve Hansen is right other countries need to develop talant more .