Ratu Naulago for GB?

[Kayakman]

If he is good enough to serve and die for Great Britain then he is certainly good enough to represent them in a rugby match.

[deluded pom?]

23 minutes ago, Scubby said:

None of the Burgess boys' kids would be eligible too if they were good enough.

How desperate does that sound? How old are they? One? Two?

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, deluded pom? said:

How desperate does that sound? How old are they? One? Two?

I think he is making a point on eligibility rather than suggesting they are selected. Based on the size of the Burgess family though, I think they will be ready for international selection in about 3 or 4 years. 

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, deluded pom? said:

How desperate does that sound? How old are they? One? Two?

Yep, father and son professional players never happen  It was an example of how migration affects nationality and you know it you #### stirrer!!   Although even at 2 they could probably coach that Leeds squad better than Agar could atm. 

[deluded pom?]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I think he is making a point on eligibility rather than suggesting they are selected. Based on the size of the Burgess family though, I think they will be ready for international selection in about 3 or 4 years. 

I know what he’s getting at. There are literally thousands of Aussies born to British parents who would not be eligible under ‘spuds’ criteria. 

[deluded pom?]

18 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

If he is good enough to serve and die for Great Britain then he is certainly good enough to represent them in a rugby match.

What’s it got to do with a Canuck?

[Kayakman]

3 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

What’s it got to do with a Canuck?

Careful now DP, careful...its game day and I'm going to be heading out soon...careful now.  Always remember: Canucks go where they want, when they want and how they want....easy now...easy.....

The lengths some English will go to beat OZ is crazy indeed....fabrications on heritage players extreme (e.g. Hastings)...all that I'm saying is that serving in the Armed Forces should be considered as a special compensation for heritage.

Easy now...getting keyed up for game day...Wolfpack starting to stir...beware the Ides of March.

[deluded pom?]

Just now, Kayakman said:

Careful now DP, careful...its game day and I'm going to be heading out soon...careful now.  Always remember: Canucks go where they want, when they want and how they want....easy now...easy.....

The lengths some English will go to beat OZ is crazy indeed....fabrications on heritage players extreme (e.g. Hastings)...all that I'm saying is that serving in the Armed Forces should be considered as a special compensation for heritage.

Easy now...getting keyed up for game day...Wolfpack starting to stir...beware the Ides of March.

It’s July.

[Kayakman]

2 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

It’s July.

I told you to calm down and go easy....why are you always trying to stir up trouble with stuff like this?...now just relax and enjoy Thanksgiving will ya>

[deluded pom?]

5 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

I told you to calm down and go easy....why are you always trying to stir up trouble with stuff like this?...now just relax and enjoy Thanksgiving will ya>

We don’t copy America as much as you lot do.

[Kayakman]

1 minute ago, deluded pom? said:

We don’t copy America as much as you lot do.

Turn that frown upside down...we don't copy America at all.  Now you British...well...well we all know now don't we.

Happy Hanukka.

[deluded pom?]

1 minute ago, Kayakman said:

Turn that frown upside down...we don't copy America at all.  Now you British...well...well we all know now don't we.

Happy Hanukka.

Don’t let Jeremy see that.

[Oxford]

18 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

.why are you always trying to stir up trouble with stuff like this?.

It's a forum contagion everyone has it but no one's diagnosed with it and the worse cases are sent to the Any Other Business Ward for the incurable. The Not Long For this World Ward for those who are a risk to themselves and others is on the Cross Code Forum all soon to be privatised!

 

 

[ghost crayfish]

4 hours ago, Oxford said:

To me this is the only argument that has any purchase here. Ayhting else is just whinging.

 

And this means there shouldn't even be a question if he wants to play for England.

Which is why I brought it up, and said ultimately it's his decision.

[daz39]

Why him? is there not plenty of other wingers that could qualify for GB?

[Gates1]

Personally I think his service in our armed forces defies any moral arguement for him not to play.

He serves our country more than most, if he is eligible, the best option (and i think he is genuine quality)and wants to, then let him play.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

20 hours ago, Kayakman said:

If he is good enough to serve and die for Great Britain then he is certainly good enough to represent them in a rugby match.

Absolutely agree with this. How disrespectful would it be to our armed forces, to say to someone you can serve and fight for us, but can’t represent us in sport. 

[deluded pom?]

1 hour ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Absolutely agree with this. How disrespectful would it be to our armed forces, to say to someone you can serve and fight for us, but can’t represent us in sport. 

As I pointed out earlier the U.K. government doesn’t have a problem with using foreign personnel and then kicking them out of the country once they leave the forces.  The Gurkhas, for one, have been disgracefully treated like rubbish. Having said that two wrongs don’t make a right. I’d let anyone who has served in the British forces to stay here, if they wanted to, after a minimum length of service.

[Adelaide Tiger]

On 12/07/2019 at 16:44, Harry Stottle said:

If our national team included say 6 or 7 of those you describe in your first paragraph, firstly would you attend, secondly could you take satisfaction from a victory?

If England or GB had 6 or 7 of those players then it’s a poor indictment of our game. But even though I have no issue with countries using the existing criteria although I would support tighter controls.

I noted that in another post on this topic you stated that you have retired so I am assuming that you may have supported the England cricket since the 70’s or 80’s and fairly regularly the team had 3 or 4 players born overseas in the team.

As for your comment about how do the England RU folk watch their team with overseas players, it would appear that they want the best possible team on the field within the existing rules.  

[Adelaide Tiger]

On 13/07/2019 at 19:22, Kayakman said:

If he is good enough to serve and die for Great Britain then he is certainly good enough to represent them in a rugby match.

Exactly.

During the Second World War blokes who were from RL communities were expected to fight and die for King and Country but were banned from playing RL whilst serving.

That was disgusting and I would hope that men and women born outside the UK but serve in our Armed Forces are also eligible to represent us should they qualify and should they want to.

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

I would hope that men and women born outside the UK but serve in our Armed Forces are also eligible to represent us should they qualify and should they want to.

If they qualify via another method then this makes the argument about Naulago (and others) qualifying through serving in the UK Armed Forces moot.  The wider question is if they don't qualify via heritage lines and residency then should they qualify by virtue of serving in the UK forces?

By the way, this is not argumentative to your point on people serving the UK in conflict and then being denied residence - that was outrageous and wrong.

[Kayakman]

21 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

If they qualify via another method then this makes the argument about Naulago (and others) qualifying through serving in the UK Armed Forces moot.  The wider question is if they don't qualify via heritage lines and residency then should they qualify by virtue of serving in the UK forces?

By the way, this is not argumentative to your point on people serving the UK in conflict and then being denied residence - that was outrageous and wrong.

If they are good enough to wear the uniform and represent the country then they are good enough to don the jersey and represent the country.

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

If they are good enough to wear the uniform and represent the country then they are good enough to don the jersey and represent the country.

Fair enough.  And I assume you would extend this to every other sport and every other nation so a country could pick a sporting team based entirely around the people who were serving in their military regardless of nationality?

[Kayakman]

24 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Fair enough.  And I assume you would extend this to every other sport and every other nation so a country could pick a sporting team based entirely around the people who were serving in their military regardless of nationality?

First, they must make the quality standard of the team in question and secondly, yes.

[Harry Stottle]

7 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

If England or GB had 6 or 7 of those players then it’s a poor indictment of our game. But even though I have no issue with countries using the existing criteria although I would support tighter controls.

I noted that in another post on this topic you stated that you have retired so I am assuming that you may have supported the England cricket since the 70’s or 80’s and fairly regularly the team had 3 or 4 players born overseas in the team.

As for your comment about how do the England RU folk watch their team with overseas players, it would appear that they want the best possible team on the field within the existing rules.  

You assume very correctly AT, Cricket is my second passion behind RL and yes I have not been an advocate of England's Cricket selection over the years. 

Just started a thread re Ben Stokes on this platform.