Ringfencing won't stop this as clubs will still be trying to be as high in the table to qualify for European placings and prize money. 

Former Gloucester owner Ryan Walkinshaw admitted that the development of academy players was "Low down the priority reasons to Ringfence the Premiership" on Twitter a couple of years ago. 

I am surprised in the post Brexit employment/visa world that some of these players qualify for work permits. 

I was brought up there and they are good players, but you wouldn't find the reverse happening.

We all need to remember that race, background, origin should be supported and welcomed into our amazing sport, if it is going to add value to the game....

Comments such as X number to South Africans joining Leicester Tigers will only lead to discrimination 

Quite sure the intent of the original post is to point out that more and more Squads in the Premiership are now having an influx of non-English qualified players. It has nothing to do with race/ethnicity or in indeed gender because that's where all this is heading if you think someone pointing out the fact the Team A now has X number of non-EQP will lead to any form of discrimination. In fact to expand on your point, why aren't any Transgender players in the Prem, or women, or unicorns?

From Wikipedia

The clues being the word English, the more non-English players involved can only make the game in England weaker further down the line. Now remember we voted on whether we wanted to stay in the European Union, turns out we didn't so we've stopped being "European" and become full fledged "British" again which means our laws (the employment ones) don't allow non-Brits too much leeway in the way of work. Therefore these numbers of non-EQPs will start to decrease as the likelihood is they won't get visas to work a professional rugby players. If that is discrimination then go and complain to your local MP because it will be a law that will be enforced. All those SA players who came over here with the Kolpak ruling no longer can, therefore lots of journeymen players will not have the freedom of movement they use to have, that is not discrimination its a fact. 

I've said it before and I will say it again, the recruitment by any Premiership club of an overseas signing (no matter the country) throws up a series of questions about the Academy structure, the players within and the coaching. 

With the exception of the 'Marque' player (and to me that is some one who has represented their country at the highest level on a good number of occassions), clubs shouldn't need to look outside of this country for their players. 

If they are doing, you must question why. Is it because the Academies are not producing the type of player that clubs require - if not, why not. What are the coaches doing to rectify this? Or is it because the recuitment of players into the academies is off kilter? Again, what is being done to resolve this?

Or is that the Academy player is not being given game time to develop in the Premiership because the clubs recruit overseas players therefore create a Catch 22 of their making?

Hopefully the post Brexit visa environment will cut back on the number of overseas players. It will take some kind of official intervention to do because I fear the clubs won't do it themselves. 

 

It was always my understanding that the RFU "gave" the Clubs x £s to run Academies to produce EQP players. In the early years that happened for instance Leeds Academy turned out decent EQP players at a really high rate who then went on to other Clubs. Then all of a sudden that changed, more Academies started to allow players with no English qualifications backgrounds to join. Now I'm not saying they shouldn't but if you provide funding to help young players develop in to international class players then it should be more swayed in favour of EQP. Take a look at Cameron Redpath, son of a Scottish International, went thru the AASE and Academy system at Sale and played Age Grade Rugby for England, why did he play for England? Because he was classed as eligible having been in the Academy system. He then leaves Sale to join Bath and shows enough class for Scotland to reel him back in. The thing is the SRU spent diddly squat in his development.

 

How do we square that circle? Firstly make it a condition that all English Academies must have 95% EQP, anyone holding a possible dual nationality must be told that if they have change allegiance to another national union that national union must pay some form of compensation to that Academy to re:invest back in to game in England.  

And you can't then charge other unions for the player development if that player changes his allegiance - I'm fairly sure there would be anti-competition laws to prevent that.  On the one hand, it might stop England chasing the next Brad Shields (remember him?) or New Zealand pillaging the islanders (or is that an outdated cliche...?) but on the other it would encourage the RFU to persuade the academies to sign up even more talent in case they let one slip through the net.

Is there an argument to be made that there are too many academies and if there were fewer it would concentrate the minds on the recruitment into them?

I can't agree with your assertion that "less than 50% of Academy players will become Premiership regulars" Think you need to shift the decimal point a notch. My guesstimate would be more like less than 5%!

I'm going back several years now to when I was DoR at a Level 5 club in the Midlands - our better 16/17 year olds were hoovered up every season by Worcester, Leicester or Wasps who had around 50 youngsters in their academies. At this time they received approx £3.5k per youngster each year from the RFU giving annual income of circa £175k to fund the coaching and development programmes (1 Of these clubs actually tried to invoice the parents of these players for the £3.5k - how do I know this? Because the mother came to a committee meeting begging the club to pay it because she couldn't afford to - yeah I know - scandalous!) 

Most of these kids (95% if my assumption above is correct) don't make the grade and the sense of rejection sees most disappear from the game rather than continue to play at a level that their competence merits. I don't think clubs generally believe their academies are a key to their future success, it's just a box-ticking and fund raising exercise

This is clearly historical info and I don't know how it's run in today's world but comments on here suggest their will be less and less opportunities for our home bred youngsters to make it to Premiership level

In South Africa they have a very competitive schools rugby system Every year they have inter provincial competitions and the big clubs like Blue Bulls send scouts to sign players up.

I presume some of these players get signed up, play a bit, realise that they probably won't make it to the first team and come here. Others come here for the money after a few years at top level. Some go to Japan.

So you have a surplus of good, motivated players who want to earn more money.

We have clubs who want the complete article, much like the Association Football clubs. They want to win and training youngsters is obviously expensive and a total drag.

However, the RFU pay them to train yongsters.

Of course it does not help if Englad bring in foreign and legue players as stop gap solutions.

I think you're probably right.  I was basing that on 10-12 'senior' academy players in each club, but looking at a couple of websites they seem to have 16-17 players listed - and of course that doesn't include those who are in the system but not yet on a full academy contract.

Either Tigers are trying to make some Saffas EQPs or the Saffas are coming over because of the discriminatory quota system in SA.