Wallabies 2025

[Adam84]

these kids aren’t on that much in french academies, you could gamble a little and offer two or three of the best $50,000 to sign a contract that they won’t apply for eligibility in France.

Don’t know if that would be legal or biding if they’re in France.

but you could stay engaged and help them maintain allegiance and a feeling of gratitude to Australia in other ways. Support their career in France, fund them to attend training camps in Australia, invite them to train with the wallabies on spring tour, give them free tickets to watch the games etc.

It’s the little things which add up.

 

[Backintheolddays]

if they have the moment to increase spending, then id argue it should be done via the Super Rugby clubs rather then centrally controlled.

Increase funding to Super Rugby clubs for academy contracts, but just coordinate this funding with a national plan/talent identification program.

Don’t they just end up scratching their arse training? I’d rather them getting a flogging playing 30-40 games per season in France.
We’ve just had a big capital injection from Lions. It is not just about the Wallabies or Super Rugby. Junior rugby has fallen of a cliff in the past decades so investment there is required and then the development of the 18-23yo cohort which this in part considers.
Sure you can drive a truck through who or how much, but in my opinion the offshore model is attractive to those that don’t have somebody greasing their wheels and this is a “cheap” option to keep them tagged.

 

[Major Tom]

Run Australia A games in July. Select Australian-eligible 21-year-olds in France. Play the game against whichever PI team wants a run. Play it in London. It's out of season for the French clubs, no reason for the club to block it, or the player not to play and it captures them for the future, at the cost of 23 x match fees.

This is a good idea, except for playing in London. Play it here or in the islands, it'd cost a bit to get them here but you'd get the pacific islands or Japan interested.

 

[Wilson]

Yep I’m suggesting $5M a year to keep a finger on the pulse of the offshore junior talent. Now that could go straight to clubs or any model, don’t care. We spend more on those we retain domestically but I believe local opportunities are materially limited (and don’t foresee any opportunity to effectively uplift) and therefore embracing some form of global development channel without losing them as foreign qualifying players has merit. Getting the offshore clubs to bite would take a lot of work but worth pursuing.
What are the viable alternatives? If you think we can develop a similar experience locally for less you’re smoking the good stuff.

What are you suggesting we'd receive for spending $5 million per year on players contracted to French clubs? I honestly can't see where there is any benefit for Australian in rugby spending that money.

 

[Wilson]

these kids aren’t on that much in french academies, you could gamble a little and offer two or three of the best $50,000 to sign a contract that they won’t apply for eligibility in France.

Though not it's direct intent, I'm pretty sure regulation 9.3 prevents that:

9.3 No Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club whether by contract, conduct or otherwise may inhibit, prevent, discourage, disincentivise or render unavailable any Player from selection, attendance and appearance in a National Representative Team or National Squad session when such request for selection, attendance and appearance is made in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation 9. Any agreement and/or arrangement between a Player and a Rugby Body or Club or between a Union or an Association and a Rugby Body or Club (and/or any proposal made and/or attempted to be made howsoever communicated) which is contrary to this Regulation 9.3 is prohibited, including, but not limited to any agreement and/or arrangement and/or proposal pursuant to which a Player is (or would be) unable to exercise the right to play for a Union.

 

[Dctarget]

Though not it's direct intent, I'm pretty sure regulation 9.3 prevents that:

9.3 No Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club whether by contract, conduct or otherwise may inhibit, prevent, discourage, disincentivise or render unavailable any Player from selection, attendance and appearance in a National Representative Team or National Squad session when such request for selection, attendance and appearance is made in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation 9. Any agreement and/or arrangement between a Player and a Rugby Body or Club or between a Union or an Association and a Rugby Body or Club (and/or any proposal made and/or attempted to be made howsoever communicated) which is contrary to this Regulation 9.3 is prohibited, including, but not limited to any agreement and/or arrangement and/or proposal pursuant to which a Player is (or would be) unable to exercise the right to play for a Union.

Crucially that rule seems to have one quarter of fuck all gravity in France as they're constantly strong-arming our players (or the Islands) not to turn out for us.

And if you wanna get a bit legalese, that clause reads as it only applies when they're eligible. Nothing about preventing eligibility.

 

[Wilson]

The only way you can viably contract players to prevent them gaining foreign residence eligibility (aside from capping them for Wallabies, Australia A or 7s) is by having them register with Australian rugby sides every year in addition to their foreign sides.

This would stop them from accruing eligibility (or at least reset it) every year due to the change from residence to "exclusively contracted". This would almost certainly not fly with their French (or other) club sides, and would likely run counter to rules in those comps like JIFF or the new Japanese eligibility ones (depending on their specific wording).

 

[Wilson]

Crucially that rule seems to have one quarter of fuck all gravity in France as they're constantly strong-arming our players (or the Islands) not to turn out for us.

And if you wanna get a bit legalese, that clause reads as it only applies when they're eligible. Nothing about preventing eligibility.

The point at which they become eligible is the only relevant point - we don't care about a player accruing the 5 years required for eligibility, only them exercising it. To contract against them exercising their eligibility would be in direct violation of the clause.

 

[Strewthcobber]

The only way you can viably contract players to prevent them gaining foreign residence eligibility (aside from capping them for Wallabies, Australia A or 7s) is by having them register with Australian rugby sides every year in addition to their foreign sides.

This would stop them from accruing eligibility (or at least reset it) every year due to the change from residence to "exclusively contracted". This would almost certainly not fly with their French (or other) club sides, and would likely run counter to rules in those comps like JIFF or the new Japanese eligibility ones (depending on their specific wording).

World Rugby Regulation 4

4.5.8 A Player may not be registered simultaneously with more than one Union unless the Player is aged under 18 years old; or is a student that has reached the age of majority and is in full time education (“Student”) which for the avoidance of doubt excludes any Contract Player; or has reached the age of majority and is a full-time member of the armed services (“Military Personnel”).

 

[Major Tom]

World Rugby Regulation 4

So there's nothing stopping RA from selecting Lemoto for U20's?
I think if you can somehow show interest in the kids whilst supporting them developing in France it's a win.

 

[Wilson]

World Rugby Regulation 4

yeah, so it would effectively break their registration with their French side each year if the were to come home and say play in Hospitals Cup which would almost certainly break their JIFF status, or they would be considered 'on loan' and not registered with that side from a world rugby point of view.

 

[Strewthcobber]

So there's nothing stopping RA from selecting Lemoto for U20's?
I think if you can somehow show interest in the kids whilst supporting them developing in France it's a win.

He's eligible by birth right? So nothing stopping Australia from selecting him. You don't have to be registered to play in a union to represent the union in rep teams. I'd imagine he probably declines the invitation

yeah, so it would effectively break their registration with their French side each year if the were to come home and say play in Hospitals Cup which would almost certainly break their JIFF status, or they would be considered 'on loan' and not registered with that side from a world rugby point of view.

Rugby Australia won't register them to play in Australia without a release from France.
I mean, they technically could, but they wouldn't

 

[Upthemaroon!]

yeah, so it would effectively break their registration with their French side each year if the were to come home and say play in Hospitals Cup which would almost certainly break their JIFF status, or they would be considered 'on loan' and not registered with that side from a world rugby point of view.

Yes that would break their JIFF status. Playing national sides should not.

 

[Major Tom]

He's eligible by birth right? So nothing stopping Australia from selecting him. You don't have to be registered to play in a union to represent the union in rep teams. I'd imagine he probably declines the invitation


Rugby Australia won't register them to play in Australia without a release from France.
I mean, they technically could, but they wouldn't

Why would anyone decline it though?

 

[Wilson]

He's eligible by birth right? So nothing stopping Australia from selecting him. You don't have to be registered to play in a union to represent the union in rep teams. I'd imagine he probably declines the invitation


Rugby Australia won't register them to play in Australia without a release from France.
I mean, they technically could, but they wouldn't

Yeah, I don't see it happening, my point was that it was the only legal (or within regulation) way to contract against a change in eligibility.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Why would anyone decline it though?

Same reason any rugby player contracted in France to train and play for a high paying club declines to accept an invitation to play for a non-French national team. They want to keep their employer happy and the cash flowing

 

[KOB1987]

The most logical way to stem this flow is to compensate them adequately. Which presumably is at the core of the change in policy, now that we can potentially do this. I don’t know how far Lemoto is into the process, but I’d be surprised if RA aren’t talking to him,

 

[Major Tom]

Same reason any rugby player contracted in France to train and play for a high paying club declines to accept an invitation to play for a non-French national team. They want to keep their employer happy and the cash flowing

I mean we were throwing Aus A around before. Not much difference between 20s and that.

 

[Major Tom]

The most logical way to stem this flow is to compensate them adequately. Which presumably is at the core of the change in policy, now that we can potentially do this. I don’t know how far Lemoto is into the process, but I’d be surprised if RA aren’t talking to him,

I’m not sure he’s actually signed anything either. Sounds like a done deal but they might have just agreed in principle.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I mean we were throwing Aus A around before. Not much difference between 20s and that.

One off game v a decent season of games (unless you just mean a parachute into the World Cup and none of the training/squad/other games?)