WiganWarriorsFans.com

Nine posted:
Just to clarify re H: the "grandparent" rule has nothing to do with it. He is a Kiwi, born of Kiwi parents, in New Zealand. He was brought up here because the family came over when his dad signed for Swinton. Shane is still one of the coaches at Folly Lane amateur club in Swinton, BTW.

If he is a Kiwi as described then the only way he can't count on the overseas quota is because he has a UK passport because he certainly isn't a Kolpak!

Dave

DaveO posted:

Nine posted:
Just to clarify re H: the "grandparent" rule has nothing to do with it. He is a Kiwi, born of Kiwi parents, in New Zealand. He was brought up here because the family came over when his dad signed for Swinton. Shane is still one of the coaches at Folly Lane amateur club in Swinton, BTW.

If he is a Kiwi as described then the only way he can't count on the overseas quota is because he has a UK passport because he certainly isn't a Kolpak!

Dave

Well, not quite. Sorry to labour the point, but people can be both e.g. Samoan or Tongan citizens AND New Zealand citizens, just as one person can be both a NZ and a GB citizen. That's just a fact in law. (I don't think it applies to H though, but I'm not sure if his family heritage is Islander or Maori. It could potentially be both, just to confuse matters further.)

So if a player coming over here is a citizen of one of the Pacific Island nations he is a Kolpak, and there's nothing the RFL can do about it, even if he does have a Kiwi passport as well and has chosen to pay for the Kiwis. Which is another fact in law.

Which brings us back to the point made earlier by yourself, Dave, that perhaps the RFL needs to find some way of discriminating based on "rugby nationality" - chosen e.g. by which national team a player opts to play for at 18. I'm still not sure where that would leave us with the law of the land, though (well, the law of the EU, actually).

Nine posted:
Well, not quite. Sorry to labour the point, but people can be both e.g. Samoan or Tongan citizens AND New Zealand citizens, just as one person can be both a NZ and a GB citizen. That's just a fact in law. (I don't think it applies to H though, but I'm not sure if his family heritage is Islander or Maori. It could potentially be both, just to confuse matters further.)

So if a player coming over here is a citizen of one of the Pacific Island nations he is a Kolpak, and there's nothing the RFL can do about it, even if he does have a Kiwi passport as well and has chosen to pay for the Kiwis. Which is another fact in law.

That is not entirely true as some nations have banned duel citizenship, although I don't think that Tonga and NZ have that law the case is more about duel nationality than due citizenship.

Many people claim nationality because it is their origin or the origin of their culture, someone from Tonga with NZ parents could claim they have NZ nationality without even living in NZ, but they could not claim citizenship.

I think in Hansen’s case he plays for NZ because of Nationality as NZ is his origin but he is an EU citizen.

The difference between Nationality and citizenship can cause from problems for example you can have English nationality and not English citizenship, but citizenship is the more legal of the two because it gives people the right to vote etc, were as nationality is an identity.

Hansen has British citizenship but NZ nationality now it is obvious from that were the problem lies, his identity is as a New Zealander but legally he is a English citizen as Hansen could vote in England but not in NZ. So is it citizenship or nationality that decides what country you play for and whether you’re an overseas player or is it impossible to have just one?

Nine posted:

DaveO posted:

Nine posted:
Just to clarify re H: the "grandparent" rule has nothing to do with it. He is a Kiwi, born of Kiwi parents, in New Zealand. He was brought up here because the family came over when his dad signed for Swinton. Shane is still one of the coaches at Folly Lane amateur club in Swinton, BTW.

If he is a Kiwi as described then the only way he can't count on the overseas quota is because he has a UK passport because he certainly isn't a Kolpak!

Dave

Well, not quite. Sorry to labour the point, but people can be both e.g. Samoan or Tongan citizens AND New Zealand citizens, just as one person can be both a NZ and a GB citizen. That's just a fact in law. (I don't think it applies to H though,

That is what I meant.

So if a player coming over here is a citizen of one of the Pacific Island nations he is a Kolpak, and there's nothing the RFL can do about it, even if he does have a Kiwi passport as well and has chosen to pay for the Kiwis. Which is another fact in law.

Yes, it is the Kolpak bit that counts as to a players right to play in the SL.

Which brings us back to the point made earlier by yourself, Dave, that perhaps the RFL needs to find some way of discriminating based on "rugby nationality" - chosen e.g. by which national team a player opts to play for at 18. I'm still not sure where that would leave us with the law of the land, though (well, the law of the EU, actually).

It is hard to say because the clubs don't advertise the job of loose forward for example so would not be discriminating against a Kolpak applicant over a GB applicant for the position. The clubs effectively "head hunt" the players they want and I am pretty sure it is not illegal for any company to target a specific individual for a job be that a computer programmer or a RL player.

There just needs to be some way to coerce clubs into looking toward UK player more.

The idea Geoff posted about counting the wages on the cap differently seems a good one but if the RFL proposed this the SL clubs hold the power of veto over any changes to the salary cap so I'd expect a tough fight to get anything like that through as certain clubs seem addicted to Kolpak players.

I suppose this means any change must come from the clubs themselves.

Dave

adrenalinxx posted:

That is not entirely true as some nations have banned duel citizenship...

But not the UK, New Zealand, Australia or the Pacific Island states. So that point doesn't apply for the purposes of what we are discussing here: the vast majority of players are GB, Aussie, Kiwi or Pacific Islanders.

Many people claim nationality because it is their origin or the origin of their culture, someone from Tonga with NZ parents could claim they have NZ nationality without even living in NZ, but they could not claim citizenship.

Yes, they could, and do. Huge numbers of New Zealand citizens are also Tongan or Samoan citizens. I'll say it again: many people have two passports and are citizens of two countries.

I think in Hansen’s case he plays for NZ because of Nationality as NZ is his origin but he is an EU citizen.

True, but then - though I'm not certain because I don't know him personally - I believe Hansen has two passports, and is a citizen of both NZ and the UK. It's not that unusual: I have the same.

Nine posted:
I believe Hansen has two passports, and is a citizen of both NZ and the UK. It's not that unusual: I have the same.

Sshh - Mo will sign you up for WIgan if you say that, it's the main qualification for getting in the team these days

Dave

If it'll get me in that dressing room with Stuart Fielden's legs and the cuddle-able Feka I'd accept a non-20/25 offer too!

GeoffN posted:
Unfortunately, excluding Kolpaks is illegal.

I do like the idea that was suggested on RLFans of a sliding scale within the salary cap - that might be ok legally.

Why is placing Kolpak players in an overseas quota illegal

Manxie posted:

GeoffN posted:
Unfortunately, excluding Kolpaks is illegal.

I do like the idea that was suggested on RLFans of a sliding scale within the salary cap - that might be ok legally.

Why is placing Kolpak players in an overseas quota illegal

It is all about work permits.

Kolpaks are treated as having equal employment rights as EC citizens si they din't need a work permit. So if an RL club wants to sign one there is nothing you can do to stop them.

Overseas players on the other hand need a work permit and the competition and the players union have rules about who can be granted a work permit. So does the immigration service. Clubs have to prove the UK competition benefits from the overseas player.

This means an overseas player is unlikely to get a work permit if he has not played in the NRL at 1st grade for a certain number of matches in the recent past for example.

When we signed Dobson there was some doubt at first if he could get a work permit for the UK (as opposed to Freance for Les Cats) but the fact he played in 1st grade SL helped Wigan get the permit.

None of this applies to Kolpaks so they are just far easier to sign. If the EU changed the rules and decided the "Kolpak" countries were no longer to be granted special status then all the Kolpak players running around in SL would suddenly need a work permit.

Only those with a UK or EC passport would not.

So from Wigan's point of view Feka and DV would suddenly go on-quota but Richards and Hansen would remain off it.

Dave