Steffon Armitage’s mooted move to Bath from Toulon has fallen through, according to the West Country Side’s head coach Mike Ford.
Armitage had been linked with a move to Bath this week, but due to regulations surrounding eligibility for the European Rugby Champions Cup – he would have to have been registered by noon on Tuesday – the opportunity has passed and he will stay with Toulon.
“Bruce and Mourad, the Toulon president, have been chatting away but inevitably it’s about finances and we’ve not been able to cross the line,” Ford told Sky Sports. “It’s unfortunate, all England and Bath fans alike were excited and we were close to signing a great player which would have helped club and country.
“We tried our very, very best. Bruce came up with a lot of solutions for everybody involved but it has not happened, not for the want of trying. Obviously we are gutted but from a Bath Rugby point-of-view, we still need a player in the back-row and we will still be looking.”
Ford said a deal after this round of Champions Cup fixtures was unlikely: “If Steff plays for Toulon in the Champions Cup this weekend, I’d be stupid to sign him as he wouldn’t be able to play for us. If that happens then it’s dead in the water.”
Ford also quashed rumours that Armitage was close to signing Premiership rivals Saracens, too: “I spoke to Steff at the weekend and he from his point-of-view he just wanted to come and play for Bath and have a shot at the World Cup.
“I feel a bit sorry for him that it hasn’t happened but that’s the way life works sometimes. It is what it is and there was no other club, from what I can see, talking to him.”
As you know by now, we are hilarious, and you should be following us on Facebook and Twitter. 
Sad news for SA & Bath… & England. Old ground I know, but IMO the best (incl stats wise for the number crunchers) No 7 (&/or back cover) in the country (well, if he lived here i.e.). And as SA was Euro player of the yr, has Lancs missed a trick here? Or did he just sleep walk through an opportunity of at least trying to get a proven openside who is actually an, er … openside?
But good news for the Premiership. It seems the deal fell through because the RFU wisely refused to fund it. It seems Bath didn’t just want to ‘buy the best’ they wanted the rest of the Rugby world to fund it – now where have we heard that befiore? ….Burgess?
Ray
Well, if you pref inferior players, then ok, but as Robshaw had a much inferior turn over rate compared with SA last yr, can England afford a blind @ open. AI’s may tell.
That’s if you believe in the “proper 7″ nonsense. We have plenty of other players who are good over the ball (Hartley, Launchbury, even Manu), who says that it has to be the 7 forcing the turnovers?
Even if SA walked on water or was called McCaw this would still have been a bad deal Don. If the RFU was to start subsidising individual clubs by paying transfer fees imagine the mayhem that would result. The hard built partnership between clubs and country would be undermined at a stroke. Why should the subsidy go to Bath? why not to Saracens or Newcastle? It would be the start of an irresistable move to central contracts and the death of the RFU policy of prioritising English based players.
A sustainable vibrant and competitive premiership is more important than a RWC; success in which is does not in any case depend on any one man however talented..
Ray. Well Bath should pay the bill but perhaps they weren’t that serious afterall, hasn’t their owner got dosh coming out of his ears? And didn’t the RFU already set a precedent prev by helping fund Farrell’s (the coach) arrival into Union? My point is & has been that maybe more could have been done sooner to facilitating moving a player of Armitage’s proven ability to England. Afterall & depite Geat’s being hidebound & erroneous in his opinion of SA (Euro player of the yr etc, surely render his view irrelevent), there are some players who can turn, or influence (you yrself mention McCaw), particularly in tight games, more than others. With the upcoming Nov matches this & nxt yr, are England so good that they can afford to ingore any potential advantage? Also wouldn’t central contracts (altho too late to start IMO) have given an opportunity to effect a uniformity of (the Manger’s) rugby style in how players effect a game plan? An advantage that the SH already enjoy. Seems that the thinking can be somewhat rigid in English rugger, but each to his own I guess. It ain’t no skin off my hooter.
Geat
Common sense dictates a “proper 7?. He’s meant to be faster than a lumbering, lard arsed, lummox of a lock or hooker in GETTING TO THE BALL in the 1st place! Tui esp, would render himself out of posi, thus leaving a parting of the Red Sea for the oppo!? And why ‘nonsence’? You give no reasons… other than yr opinion of yr aforementioned players being ‘good over the ball’… WHEN THEY GET THERE. Give me strength!
Steff is certainly one of the elite world back rowers. I also think he has massive squad value as although not a tall guy he can still cover 6,7 and 8. Check out some of his highlights here – https://www.sporple.com/steffon-armitage
Mat Cole
Regrdless of SA’s abilities, many think that he should not be considered for England because he plays (an hr away) in France; full stop. Ah, the rigid & the blinkered (non) thinkers of the world. A NH issue?
Australia and NZ have the same policy – don’t ply your trade in our country, don’t play for our country.
Geat
You prove my pt (rigid & blinkered ). NZ have, as you know, allowed, e.g., Carter & McCaw sabbaticals & the former to play away for 6 mths, so there is the element of flexiblity. Therefore in practice it is NOT as an entrenched a policy as you infer. Besides the latest ST is of the same opinion as mine. Maybe you should get out more… &/or change yr paper?
Many people agree with the RFU policy. You dont Don, that’s your right but the policy is in place grow up, deal with it and move on. There is nothing new to be said here.
Ray
If ‘There is nothing new to be said here’, why are you commenting then? The RFU policy may not be new, but with England’s 5 zip loss v NZ e.g. & with the English press berating Lanc’s lack of success, perhaps some review of his/RFU strat/tactics may be in order (esp as yr b/row were largely ‘outplayed’ last up; acc to yr pundits). And because many, according to you (? – how many btw?), agree with this policy, does that automatically make it unquestionable? Also, since when is voicing an opinion an indicationion of needing to grow up? This is a blog site Ray. What else is it here for but to express opinion… just as you have?. But thanks for yr advice. I’ll now move on… til the nxt time… if that’s ok with you? Ttfn.
Geat
Bit thin skinned. I’ve dealt with far worse. Besides there is SOME evidence to back up what I say.
The thing is, when the NZ players were on their sabbaticals they were not available for selection by New Zealand. That’s quite different to a player being selected for England whilst half way through a 3-year deal in a different country.
Resorting to personal insults? I’m out.
Geat
And I thought you were ‘out’. Fundamentally, I suppose, what I’m trying to pt out is an e.g. of a difference in thinking between NH (incl England’s) & SH (incl NZ’s). So, surely, the pt here is that ‘… the NZ players were on their sabbaticals’ in the 1st place. That’s an actual difference & a flexibilty within NZ’s policy compared to England’s. And of course ‘they were not available for selection by New Zealand’, because of the said ‘difference & flexibilty ‘. Another pt is that you & I see the same issue differently & I doubt that we’re going to change our minds. It’s a belief (& likely a dollop of patriotism thrown in 4 gd measure?) thing. Can we agree on that at least? Then we can both go away (un)happy(?).
The reason the rule exists is to keep players in the country – as soon as you make exceptions, there’s the risk our best players will chase the Euro in France, knowing they can be picked for England. As a supporter of both England and Bath (who currently have 7 players in the England squad), I think this is a good thing for both club and country.
In what world is a sabbatical and not selecting foreign based players the same thing? Also, just to give you a heads up, the likes of Robshaw were given the summer off (could even call it a sabatical) in 2013. How unflexible of Eng. If only we were like NZ.
England have pretty much copied NZ in this respect. What we can’t copy is your club structure and your skill set that is ingrained in players from a young age. Wish we could take those too – but we are working our best with what we have.
Geat I know. Just going over old ground, altho Wales & SA don’t buy into this & the latter just beat the ‘wobbley’ ABs. If you think it’s for the best, then you do. Personally, I think you fear the wrong things, as it’s not whether Engalnd’s players ply their trade in Fr that should be yr concern, but whether yr coaching is up to it. But we’re not going to agree, so we can agree to disagree then.
Jacob Be as sarcy as you want, but doesn’t everyone have a hol? Even from rugger? Summer off? Weeks, not mths then? But split hairs, knock yrself out. And it’s not the club structure, or just ingrained kids’ stuff. England’s game is club based. Almost ‘separate’ from, the RFU (who must neg player release), so some conflict of interest. NZ rugby is RUN top to bottom by the Union, i.e. ABs, S15, prov, clubs to tots, so a uniformity of style, (coaching, strat, tactics etc). Simimilar to US Gridiron, NZRU moves players from stronger to weaker teams thereby maintaining, in theory @ least, more even comp. Also diff coaching mind set, e.g. JS v SL & as other HN sides now?
Don P, sit down because I’m about to agree with you.
I do wish we had the union run approach, it’s definitely better for the national team. It would also benefit us to have fewer clubs, so the players are more used to playing together. However, as we don’t, I do think the “play in England” approach is the best we can hope for.
Also, I’ve been a staunch defender of Lancaster – I do think where he’s got the side is no mean feat. However, the time for that is now over. If we don’t win our remaining games, then at the very most it could be considered treading water – if not going backwards – and that’s just not good enough. Wins over the remaining big 3, though, would put us back on track. The Springboks match is huge for this reason.
Geat
Happy days! Ideally an RFU run sport would streamline the game here, but England’s sit is what it is. As I recall the RFU, some yrs ago belatedly tried {acc 2 the ST} a ‘takeover’ of the game, but it didn’t happen; 2 little, 2 late? Again ideally, English players based here is better for the national team, but human nature being what it is (greed, temptation, greener grass, whatever?), some players will see it diff & ‘mkt forces’ can/do dictate, so some flex may be required by England to accomodate this need? Regds Lancaster, I agree. Nxt Sat is likely his (& England’s?) crunch time… as it may also be for SA. I’ve never seen that much diff between SL & his predecessors, altho to his credit he attempted an all round, wider game in NZ. It’s gd to instill pride & discipline, altho not convinced abt his ‘youth’ policy, but to win a WC, it needs a bit more than that. JH has mentioned England’s ‘giant strides’, but 5 v NZ? SL’s running out of support. Already mentioned skills, accuracy, decision making @ speed in which he has 10 mths to get right… starting Sat?
There’s talk of Dylan Hartley moving to France after the world cup. If he does, and others follow, then I believe the policy needs to be reviewed. But whilst we only have one potential England player overseas I don’t think we should change it, nor should there be any exceptions.
I don’t think the skills and accuracy issue is one that can be laid at Lancaster’s door, it’s more of a grassroots thing.
I do feel we’ve made progress under Lancaster, we’re in a better place than probably any time from 2004 to 2011, but after 3 years I don’t feel I can make excuses any more that that alone is enough. Having said that, our 4-match losing streak does skew perception a little, as it is solely against the best side in the world! If we were to win the remaining 3 AIs and then the Six Nations, I’d find it hard to complain. A big IF – and that starts on Saturday.
Geat
We’ll see, but I’d just like to have seen Steffon Armitage play for England as I think he could make a diff @ break down; turning over, getting or stopping ball. And he’s in his prime . IMO it’s where the game is most important. Win there & likely win the game. Anyway, it ain’t gonna happen, but sad for his (& England’s?) sake methinks.
Regds skills, if the players aren’t proficient enough, then it ought to be SL’s priority to get them there… PRONTO. Joe Schmidt got Ireland off to a good start (ok, following spells @ Cl. Auvegne, Leinster… where he had their backs playing better than Int’al teams IMO). Mind you, as I’ve also said, 1 swallow & all that, but Sat will tell more. G’luck.