Nine posted:
DaveO posted:
... despite what someone may feel they are, the law will take a different view. For example someone of "Irish-American" decent will be considered American not Irish legally if they are sufficiently far removed generation wise despite what they may think.
It depends on where you live as to what extent you can decide your nationality from a legal point of view.
That wasn't what I meant, Dave. I was referring specifically to people who have two nationalities/passports, not people who chose to attach a label to themselves.
Fair enough but for people who have dual NZ and (say) Tongan nationality I find it rather cynical to see them use the Tongan passport to get a place in a side here when they live in NZ and may have even played representative football for NZ at some stage of their career.
This is why lumping all such people together with single nationalities (if this could be done) solves the dual nationality loop hole.
On the Hansen example, I think a club should get a benefit from producing its own players. Situations such as Hansen's are very rare so it would have a negligible effect on GB's ability to produce more quality players, but the very fact that Wigan, in this case, has invested in the lad should mean the club gets some reward.
They do get a reward. He is in in the Wigan squad and looks to be becoming a very good player. The issue is should he count on the quota or not as a senior player and I think he should.
The club is not affected at junior level by him being a foreigner so can chose to employ him all the way up to playing in the first team squad with no problem.
The club can decide if he should have a quota spot or not. IMO he should be given one over an older Kolpak player.
If you look into it further, to do otherwise would mean clubs refusing a chance to youngsters who potentially qualify for a nation other than GB. Where those boys are being brought up over here (e.g. Hansen, Josh Veivers, and for the last 7 years Ian Millward's son, who plays for Leigh East) they surely have as much right to be coached and brought on as rugby players as any other youngster.
I don't think it would prevent or hinder young players such as those you mention getting a place in the junior set up at a club. It would hinder them getting a first team place when they were eligible for the senior squad if they were not good enough which is what we want.
However if the clubs refuse to take on someone like Hansen because he is a Kiwi then doesn't that mean the policy is working? If he had not been taken on then his place would have gone to a UK lad, which is the object of the exercise.
I don't think clubs would do that however. They would take them on regardless in part because they have no crystal ball so won't necessarily know who they will choose to represent if they get that good.
When they qualify for the senior squad and count on the quota it becomes time to decide if they are worth a quota spot or not. It would mean the only overseas youngsters who went through the ranks and on to the first team would be quality players which is what we want the quota players to be.
It would be extremely unfair and blinkered of us to deny them that opportunity because they may pick NZ, Samoa, Australia, or whatever, down the track. And penalising any professional club who picks them up could do just that.
If they pick a foreign country down the track I see no problem in them being on-quota. They have benefited from the training they have had here, the club has benefited form their play in the junior sides and will do so in the senior side if it gives them a quota spot. So if they chose to hang their cap elsewhere that is up to them to accept the consequences.
Given the above regime they may of course choose to play for GB and thus not end up on quota at all. If that was the case then that would fine by me as then they would not have had the junior coaching that could have gone to a UK junior.
It all depends on how serious you are about getting the maximum number of GB qualified players to SL standard.
Dave
