[Aberlour10]

Already to get legal residence permit (carte de sejour)
in Monaco is not so cheap and easy, to get the citizienship considering it improbable. Only 10 year residence entitles the applicant to apply for citizenship and very very few of this applies are later positive decided. But Monaco lives in 100% from the own image, and this new team can be another part of it....so the general rules seem not to be valid in this case. Anyway, at the end The Prince decides it all

[Gerben42]

It's safe to assume that the permits can be paid from Zimmermann's profits from the latest Cavendish.

Quote

With B-Z back playing for Poland and this strong Monaco team, Italy will in future
have stronger opposition than usual in Europe. I imagine that Fantunes
will not sit out against Italy, and H-H will not sit out against Norway.

What can I say, I didn't sit out against Netherlands either. In fact, I wanted to insist on playing.

In other news, I agree 100% with AWM. Although in many sports this is already reality. We had one of our top speed skaters start for Belgium, and in return got some ski jumpers from Austria. Never mind that Belgium doesn't have a World Cup speed skating arena or Netherlands a ski jump arena.

[hrothgar]

 JLOGIC, on 2010-December-16, 15:02, said:

It is really obvious to me that the top bridge players would not be nearly as good as they are without the rise of professionalism. The top events would not be nearly as well played.

Richard, you ask why does this matter to anyone? I don't know, do you watch vugraph? Do you watch sports? Personally, I watch the NFL and sometimes NBA, but I do not watch the WNBA. This is because the WNBA players do not play at a very high level, so it is not very interesting for me to watch. Do you not believe there are any fans of bridge, some who love Fantunes, some who love Meckwell, some who love Zia, etc, and get a great thrill out of watching them play, mostly because of how well they play?

Hi Justin, I agree with most of what you're saying, however, I'm not sure whether a decline in the skill level of the top level of bridge pros would necessarily be noticable by the Vugraph audience.

For what its worth, I have mixed views about "professionalism" in Bridge.

In most cases, I think that pros and sponsors are a good thing.

My view is best express as:

• It benefits some people
  
• No one really gets hurt
  
• On average, its an improvement

There are some specific cases where I disapprove of sponsors.
Many of these are hypothetical:

Assume that bridge (somehow) became an Olympic Game.
I think that the presence of a sponsor on a team would be a disgrace.

I can conceive of cases in which

1. There was a glaring difference in the skill level of the sponsor and his pros
2. The pros were strong enough to carry the sponsor across the finish line for a major event

This would strike me as unseemly.
I can't necessarily say why, but it just feels wrong...

[Trinidad]

 wank, on 2010-December-16, 23:18, said:

i have no problem with people who make real life moves to other countries being allowed to represent their new country. russia with b+z, this monaco switch, etc have nothing to do with real life though. it needs to be stopped.

what's a realistic cutoff to judge what's legitimate and what's not? citizenship imo

The complicating issue with bridge is that the top of the bridge world is a mix between professionals and amateurs.

The bridge professionals are moving for their bridge professional career (see the Monaco team). If you see this as unwanted, you want to be as strict as possible.

On the other hand, there are also strong amateurs that have migrated for reasons that had nothing to do with bridge. The German doctors are an example of that. In that case, you might want to be a lot more leniant.

I could even imagine cases where people have fled their country and established themselves in a new country. Do we want to force those people to play for the country they ran from?

Rik

[awm]

The thing is, suppose that (for example) the Cayne team and the Diamond team are playing in the finals of the Spingold. Obviously if you are friendly with someone on one of the teams (or, I suppose, dislike someone intensely on one of the teams) you might have a strong rooting interest in this match. But for the vast majority of the bridge playing population, who don't really know these players, it doesn't make all that much difference to us who wins. Sure, we might watch the finals because it should be good bridge (although often fatigue has taken its toll by then).

But the Bermuda Bowl is (or should be) different. If the USA is playing Italy (for example) in the finals, almost everyone has a rooting interest! Despite the fact that (again) most bridge players don't actually know the people on the teams personally, they are representing countries (or to some degree, continents). This is part of what makes the Bermuda Bowl a much bigger deal than (say) the transnational teams.

If we allow sponsors to basically game the system by picking out a team of international professionals, then establishing what will probably be a fake address in some tiny country for their players, this seems to reduce the excitement of the event. Are we going to be equally excited to see Monaco play Guam in the Bermuda Bowl finals (despite the fact that none of the players are really from either of those countries) in a few years? Is there even a reason to call the teams Monaco and Guam rather than say Zimmerman and Cayne?

*** I want to emphasize that I've used the names of real teams to try to make a point. Personally I have nothing against Cayne, Diamond, or Zimmerman... or any of the regulars on their teams. The times I've played against people from these teams have been perfectly pleasant experiences (although I might not have done as well as I'd have liked). In fact given how the conditions of contest seem to be stated, what Zimmerman is doing with the Monaco address is perfectly reasonable... I just don't think the conditions of contest should be worded to permit that sort of thing.

[NickRW]

I don't entirely disagree with that sentiment. I suppose the question is, where exactly do you draw the line. The opposite extreme is to say something like Fred was born a Canadian - he plays for Canada or not at all and Zia was born Pakistani so he plays for Pakistan or not at all.

If, on the other hand, you say players are allowed to move around to take advantage of the opportunities that present themselves and maybe stay somewhere else other than where they were born, then you're permitting a shade of grey and you have to decide where to draw the line. As I understand it the team in question will have not just residency, but citizenship of their chosen country by 2012 and will not have played for another country for at least 2 years. That doesn't seem unreasonable if you're going to allow money to talk in this game (and it does whether anyone likes it or not).

Nick

[mike777]

If you are going to draw a line, one needs to clearly state what the goal or purpose of the line is.

Confusing goals will lead to a confusing drawn line.

[the hog]

"Who knows, maybe the Holy See will even get into the act..."

Hmm, a team from the Vatican. Now that would be interesting.

[qwery_hi]

So if I'm willing to work for Company A for $50000, but not for $30000 that makes me what?

oh you're talking about sex, not work. Right, so we should moralize and legalize what happens between two
consenting adults, and furthermore shame the woman.

How about:

Woman walks up to a man in a bar and says
"Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
Man thinks about it for a couple minutes and say "Yes?"
Woman replies, "Great, how about for $500?"
Man say "What do you think I am?"
Woman says "I know what you are, now we're just arguing about the price"

What do you call that man? Or will your example only work if the genders are reversed?

Funny thing is, your analogy is as hilarious as awm's was. And as wrong.

 hrothgar, on 2010-December-17, 06:55, said:

Man walks up to a beautiful woman in a bar and says

"Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"

Woman thinks about it for a couple minutes and say "Yes?"

Man replies, "Great, how about for $500?"

Woman say "What do you think I am?"

Man says "I know what you are, now we're just arguing about the price"

[qwery_hi]

 awm, on 2010-December-17, 23:07, said:

The thing is, suppose that (for example) the Cayne team and the Diamond team are playing in the finals of the Spingold. Obviously if you are friendly with someone on one of the teams (or, I suppose, dislike someone intensely on one of the teams) you might have a strong rooting interest in this match. But for the vast majority of the bridge playing population, who don't really know these players, it doesn't make all that much difference to us who wins. Sure, we might watch the finals because it should be good bridge (although often fatigue has taken its toll by then).

But the Bermuda Bowl is (or should be) different. If the USA is playing Italy (for example) in the finals, almost everyone has a rooting interest! Despite the fact that (again) most bridge players don't actually know the people on the teams personally, they are representing countries (or to some degree, continents). This is part of what makes the Bermuda Bowl a much bigger deal than (say) the transnational teams.

If we allow sponsors to basically game the system by picking out a team of international professionals, then establishing what will probably be a fake address in some tiny country for their players, this seems to reduce the excitement of the event. Are we going to be equally excited to see Monaco play Guam in the Bermuda Bowl finals (despite the fact that none of the players are really from either of those countries) in a few years? Is there even a reason to call the teams Monaco and Guam rather than say Zimmerman and Cayne?

*** I want to emphasize that I've used the names of real teams to try to make a point. Personally I have nothing against Cayne, Diamond, or Zimmerman... or any of the regulars on their teams. The times I've played against people from these teams have been perfectly pleasant experiences (although I might not have done as well as I'd have liked). In fact given how the conditions of contest seem to be stated, what Zimmerman is doing with the Monaco address is perfectly reasonable... I just don't think the conditions of contest should be worded to permit that sort of thing.

The desire to represent your country should come from within, and not be enforced from without.

[the hog]

 qwery_hi, on 2010-December-18, 22:24, said:

So if I'm willing to work for Company A for $50000, but not for $30000 that makes me what?

oh you're talking about sex, not work. Right, so we should moralize and legalize what happens between two
consenting adults, and furthermore shame the woman.

How about:

Woman walks up to a man in a bar and says
"Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
Man thinks about it for a couple minutes and say "Yes?"
Woman replies, "Great, how about for $500?"
Man say "What do you think I am?"
Woman says "I know what you are, now we're just arguing about the price"

What do you call that man? Or will your example only work if the genders are reversed?

Funny thing is, your analogy is as hilarious as awm's was. And as wrong.

Silly comment. The man would sleep with her for free, of course.

[awm]

 qwery_hi, on 2010-December-18, 22:29, said:

The desire to represent your country should come from within, and not be enforced from without.

The point is that we have an event that's about countries vying for the world championship. A lot of people do want to play for their country, and a lot of people do like watching their country and rooting them on. If Helgemo and Helness don't want to represent Norway (perhaps because they can make more money doing something else, or because they they're upset with their bridge federation) then more power to them. But should we allow them to "crash the party" by having a wealthy sponsor more or less buy citizenships in some tiny country for his "hired guns"? As soon as there are a few such "transnational" teams in the event, it's not really about countries any more is it? It's like allowing a horse to enter the olympic track events.

[mike777]

Again what is the goal. No one says.

If only citizens can play for a country ok...if other ok then why and who and be specific.

--------------


I understand one may be a citizen and never live there, speak the language or even visit there.

[qwery_hi]

They're citizens, period. The point is we should not make up arbitrary rules about how some citizens are more genuine than others.
The Olympics is all about disallowing professional athletes for reasons of "purity". Oh wait, they have become whores and are no longer pure.

 awm, on 2010-December-19, 00:47, said:

The point is that we have an event that's about countries vying for the world championship. A lot of people do want to play for their country, and a lot of people do like watching their country and rooting them on. If Helgemo and Helness don't want to represent Norway (perhaps because they can make more money doing something else, or because they they're upset with their bridge federation) then more power to them. But should we allow them to "crash the party" by having a wealthy sponsor more or less buy citizenships in some tiny country for his "hired guns"? As soon as there are a few such "transnational" teams in the event, it's not really about countries any more is it? It's like allowing a horse to enter the olympic track events.

[glen]

Chicago Blackhawks are the latest NHL champs - everybody from around Chicago?
SF Giants latest World Series champs - everybody SF/Oakland?
LA Lakers latest NBA champs - all raised in LA?
New Orleans Saints latest NFL champs - Reggie Bush is from New Orleans?
Chelsea F.C latest English Premier League champs - do they play in Chelsea? How many Chelsea players do they have? How many English players do they have?

[Fluffy]

 glen, on 2010-December-19, 02:05, said:

Chicago Blackhawks are the latest NHL champs - everybody from around Chicago?
SF Giants latest World Series champs - everybody SF/Oakland?
LA Lakers latest NBA champs - all raised in LA?
New Orleans Saints latest NFL champs - Reggie Bush is from New Orleans?
Chelsea F.C latest English Premier League champs - do they play in Chelsea? How many Chelsea players do they have? How many English players do they have?

lol, tomorrow will be monday - how many days till next weekend?

same correlation with the ongoing topic (none).

[Cyberyeti]

 glen, on 2010-December-19, 02:05, said:

Chicago Blackhawks are the latest NHL champs - everybody from around Chicago?
SF Giants latest World Series champs - everybody SF/Oakland?
LA Lakers latest NBA champs - all raised in LA?
New Orleans Saints latest NFL champs - Reggie Bush is from New Orleans?
Chelsea F.C latest English Premier League champs - do they play in Chelsea? How many Chelsea players do they have? How many English players do they have?

Completely irrelevant, not NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE events.

Spain won the world cup, how many players Spanish ? Now putting aside the "are Catalans/Basques Spanish" argument basically all of them. Barring injury, they might have had one Brazilian in their side (Marcos Senna came to Spain in 2002, got citizenship in 2006 and played for Spain from that point, but missed out on the final squad).

Football is slightly complicated by European employment law, where you can't discriminate against citizens of other EU countries, but can crack down on how many non EU players are in each club side, so an awful lot of Africans/South Americans take citizenship of a European country to avoid being part of this restriction. They are usually not good enough to get into their own national side, so are eligible to play for their new country, hence the obvious Croat Eduardo Alves da Silva etc.

[glen]

 Fluffy, on 2010-December-19, 02:15, said:

... same correlation with the ongoing topic (none).

At least the next post connected some dots: "... so are eligible to play for their new country ..." Here's a question: for what country did Becky Hammon play for in the 2008 Olympics? The answer is here:

NY Times Citizenship Flexibility

Think about a quote from that article:

Quote

Imagine a world where the best athletes are able to compete

Think about Fantoni-Nunes. See some correlation now?

[mike777]

\
again what is the goal....fuzzy goal...fuzzy rules.....


no post states a clear goal....

[NickRW]

 Cyberyeti, on 2010-December-19, 05:05, said:

Completely irrelevant, not NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE events.

Spain won the world cup, how many players Spanish ? Now putting aside the "are Catalans/Basques Spanish" argument basically all of them. Barring injury, they might have had one Brazilian in their side (Marcos Senna came to Spain in 2002, got citizenship in 2006 and played for Spain from that point, but missed out on the final squad).

Haven't you destroyed your own argument? If Marcos Senna could have and probably would have played for Spain on the basis of achieved citizenship and not on coutry of birth, what is the difference between him and some Norwegians etc having citizenship in Monaco?

Is Bridge inherently different to Football in this respect? Of course not. Is it money? Well maybe. Have they whored themselves to some Mr Got Bucks originally from Switzerland who has also taken to basing himself in Monaco? One can say so. But what was Marcos Senna's motive in moving to Spain - altruism? Ha!

Is it because no other teams have sponsors and the game is really totally an amateur game? Obviously not.

I think some of you would be arguing a whole lot differently if your name was Helgemo or Nunes and you'd been offered this deal! A lot of you might be arguing differently if you live in Monaco yourselves.

Is it really because a whole bunch of people from the US and Italy and Norway fear a strong competitor that they want to make illegal? Sounds more like it to me. I suggest some people on this forum are simply afraid and got a case of sour grapes.

Nick