Jeff : NEQ player caps

It's about time that that Jeff clubs should place

1. NEQ players in nominated squads should be limited (to say, ten).
2. NEQ nominated23s should be limited (to say six).

This plan clearly would have to be factored in over a few seasons.

The Jeff should not reflect the footy Premiership imo.

I am a fan of limiting the number of non-qulified, and the qualifying through residency, players allowed to be within squad (be in in England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Italy etc). By doing so it does force teams into looking at how they run accademies, and how they give the chances to younger players. And in theory it does give the national side a far better chance of building strength in depth. Another plus side is that it cuts down on the number of overseas players who seem to be coming over to make a quick buck when tey notice their chances of getting international rugby in the SH are unlikely.

However, I do wonder if there are enough decent/high quality English qualified players to keep the Jeff sides competitive if there were to be a NEQ limit. It would also probably put a rather large permium on the heads of the good/high quality players too, which would make operating within the Salary cap rather difficult.

London Irish were founded on the premise of 100% NEQ (or 2/3 of their constituent clubs were). That they choose not to do so doesn't alter their heritage. Why should they be compelled to deny that heritage for the perceived benefit of .... actually, what would benefit?

Portnoy wrote:It's about time that that Jeff clubs should place

1. NEQ players in nominated squads should be limited (to say, ten).
2. NEQ nominated23s should be limited (to say six).

This plan clearly would have to be factored in over a few seasons.

The Jeff should not reflect the footy Premiership imo.

I agree that the AP should limit the number of NEQ players.

In my view, this is already hampering the development of young English talent coming though, of which there undoubtedly is (given England's huge population)

This might limit the need for the use of foreign players in England's 1st 15 and promote young talent within the ERFU.

I would not limit the number of NEQ.

I would instead reward teams with EQ players.

If payments from RFU reflected:

a) Number of players in EPS/Saxons
b) Number of EQ players in matchday squads
c) Number of players come through the academy


And if the Salary Cap was then cut - but could move up based on these payments, there would still be room for buying in good NEQs but less incentive to promote SH journeymen over locally produced talent.

A few years ago this would have been a great idea, currently I don't see the need. The financial muscle of France and Japan, even Ireland actually, has meant that the number of foreign players is falling and more English players are getting opportunities. Comparing the AP experience in the England under 20 squad to the likes of Ireland shows the English players are far more experienced.

The RFU are now offering financial incentives to include young players in the AP squads which means clubs can claim an extra £260k a season just by giving game time to academy players (which most do anyway). This has all meant we are seeing a good crop of young talent coming through.

I wonder how a poll of Jeff fans would decide as to whether their primacy of interest is is fundamentally club or country Sam.

LondonTiger wrote:I would not limit the number of NEQ.

I would instead reward teams with EQ players.

If payments from RFU reflected:

a) Number of players in EPS/Saxons
b) Number of EQ players in matchday squads
c) Number of players come through the academy


And if the Salary Cap was then cut - but could move up based on these payments, there would still be room for buying in good NEQs but less incentive to promote SH journeymen over locally produced talent.

LT, completely agree, I'd prefer to see an approach which rewards teams rather than one which penalises teams. But I would not want to see such a change in isolation - all issues, including for example the 'P' share farce, need to be sorted out between the clubs, the RFU and the PRL

I wonder how a poll of Jeff fans would decide as to whether their primacy of interest is is fundamentally club or country Sam.

Good question. Personally I like to see the clubs and country kept seperate. Clubs should not be run for the benefit of England and nor should international recognition be seen as an inconvenience (like it is in football). I don't think NEQ regulations should be brought in to help boost England's international chances but I think clubs should be encouraged to utilise their academies and keep a local aspect in their squads otherwise I fear the mercenary approach (players have no affiliation for the club they represent and so follow the cash) that has taken over in football will contaminate rugby and that would be a shame.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

I wonder how a poll of Jeff fans would decide as to whether their primacy of interest is is fundamentally club or country Sam.

Good question. Personally I like to see the clubs and country kept seperate. Clubs should not be run for the benefit of England and nor should international recognition be seen as an inconvenience (like it is in football). I don't think NEQ regulations should be brought in to help boost England's international chances but I think clubs should be encouraged to utilise their academies and keep a local aspect in their squads otherwise I fear the mercenary approach (players have no affiliation for the club they represent and so follow the cash) that has taken over in football will contaminate rugby and that would be a shame.

Sam - isn't that happening already? I would say that probably more players have played for three teams when then they are in their late twenties than have stuck to just one.

LondonTiger wrote:I would not limit the number of NEQ.

I would instead reward teams with EQ players.

If payments from RFU reflected:

a) Number of players in EPS/Saxons
b) Number of EQ players in matchday squads
c) Number of players come through the academy


And if the Salary Cap was then cut - but could move up based on these payments, there would still be room for buying in good NEQs but less incentive to promote SH journeymen over locally produced talent.

Absolutely spot on!

The simple truth is that it would be extremely difficult to limit the number of NEQ players due to labour laws and international agreements. You would only need one club to challenge this in court and the whole thing would collapse. This isn't a criticism, but you would fully expect Sarries to challenge any ruling. With a wealthy SA backer they want to have some SA representation and due to the agreement in place between the UK & SA you can't limit numbers.

Therefore, the only soolution to this is to reward rather than punish exactly as LT says. Teams can have all the NEQ they like, but they won't receive any reward for it. This may not effect a team likes Sarries, but it would deter the vast bulk from going down that line.

There's always been movement in rugby and with the world getting closer in terms of transport and links there will be more options to players. Having said that the reduction in big name foreign signings entering the AP has meant there is more opportunity for young English players at clubs now and so we are seeing more English players playing week in week out then we did a few years ago. The salary cap encourages movement as clubs struggle to keep the squads balanced but you only have to look at the options available to Lancaster now and compare them to the options Johnno had when he took over to see that the English player pool is bigger, younger and more developed.

HongKongCherry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I would not limit the number of NEQ.

I would instead reward teams with EQ players.

If payments from RFU reflected:

a) Number of players in EPS/Saxons
b) Number of EQ players in matchday squads
c) Number of players come through the academy


And if the Salary Cap was then cut - but could move up based on these payments, there would still be room for buying in good NEQs but less incentive to promote SH journeymen over locally produced talent.

Absolutely spot on!

The simple truth is that it would be extremely difficult to limit the number of NEQ players due to labour laws and international agreements. You would only need one club to challenge this in court and the whole thing would collapse. This isn't a criticism, but you would fully expect Sarries to challenge any ruling. With a wealthy SA backer they want to have some SA representation and due to the agreement in place between the UK & SA you can't limit numbers.

Therefore, the only soolution to this is to reward rather than punish exactly as LT says. Teams can have all the NEQ they like, but they won't receive any reward for it. This may not effect a team likes Sarries, but it would deter the vast bulk from going down that line.

From which labour laws are Jeff sides liable that the IRFU are not?

Portnoy - I think that the ties between the IRFU and the provences (and the WRU and the regions) are a bit tighter than the RFU and the clubs. You'll prbably find that the wording of the agreements don't technically ban more than X amount of NIQ/NWQ but say that all funding will be pulled if the numbers go above X amount. I think it is like signing a player and asking them to stop playing international, its technically not allowed, but there are ways of wording it that doesn't actually amke it illegal.

From which labour laws are Jeff sides liable that the IRFU are not?

I believe the IRFU have a gentlemans agreement with the provinces and that the hefty hand outs given to the Irish provinces and the central contracts used to help keep the key Irish players in the country are conditional on the agreement being kept. The RFU simply don't have the required power to instill any such agreement with the PRL unless the PRL decided they wanted to and even then I doubt the RFU could afford it.

A 'gentlemen's agreement' doth not a statute make. Illegal market manipulation it doth.

Not if both sides accept it and neither seeks to challenge it

Portnoy wrote:A 'gentlemen's agreement' doth not a statute make. Illegal market manipulation it doth.

It doesn't. The wording of things is very important, and if the agreement doesn't 'forbid' the signing of NIQ, but say that extra funding will be reduced, then it is prefectly legal. And to be honest not too different from the 'reward' system people have mentioned on here.

Portnoy wrote:

From which labour laws are Jeff sides liable that the IRFU are not?

None. I think Sam answers the question pretty well. The big difference is we don't have central contracts and we have a couple of owners who are wealthy enough to not give a whotsit about any bonus payment. THe simple truth is having a quota of NEQ cannot be enforced, it can only be encouraged.

So there are no reasons i principle why the PRL can't agree new NEQ caps.

Irish central contracts are a red herring. That is just IQ players in the interests of the national side.

Which Jeff clubs would benefit from a weak England side?

Personally I've always been in favour of English central contracts.

Irish central contracts are a red herring. That is just IQ players in the interests of the national side

They help the provinces keep hold of players they cannot actually afford. For instance BOD is paid a fair but not particularly large salary by Leinster and then the probably match it. BOD therefore gets paid pretty close to French money but stays in Ireland. Now if one of the provinces fell out with the IRFU then the IRFU would probably indicate to those centrally contracted players that only a move to another province would see them given a new central contract and so the Irish strength of that province would fall. Coupled with the loss off funding the club would struggle to maintain a team of the quality they had previously.

IF the PRL can get ALL 12 clubs to agree then it could happen.

Portnoy wrote:So there are no reasons i principle why the PRL can't agree new NEQ caps.

None at all, but as soon as it was challenged it would fall down. Would the backer of Sarries want to be told they could only have a few SA in the side? Highly unlikely. He is also more than welathy enough to p155 the legal money up the wall to ensure it doesn't stand.

IF the PRL can get ALL 12 clubs to agree then it could happen

I think 75% is usually the voting majority needed for the PRL to pass a change in the rules. The salary cap was raised despite LI, Newcastle and Wasps opposing it.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

IF the PRL can get ALL 12 clubs to agree then it could happen

I think 75% is usually the voting majority needed for the PRL to pass a change in the rules. The salary cap was raised despite LI, Newcastle and Wasps opposing it.

Yeah but as already stated, by you, it needs to be unanimous otherwise it would open up legal avenues.

Personally I have never believed in the effectiveness of just wielding a stick.

"So nat'ralists observe, a flea
Hath smaller fleas that on him prey,
And these have smaller fleas that bite 'em,
And so proceed ad infinitum."

I thought teams already were rewarded financially by the RFU for the number of EQ players in matchday squads.

My understanding is that you have to hit an average of 14 per matchday 23 across the season to be eligible for the payments.

LondonTiger wrote:I would not limit the number of NEQ.

I would instead reward teams with EQ players.

If payments from RFU reflected:

a) Number of players in EPS/Saxons
b) Number of EQ players in matchday squads
c) Number of players come through the academy


And if the Salary Cap was then cut - but could move up based on these payments, there would still be room for buying in good NEQs but less incentive to promote SH journeymen over locally produced talent.

LT, IIRC each of these measures is already in place to some extent:

a) The clubs receive payments from the RFU for EPS and Saxons players, but the PRL has collectively voted to pool them and share them out more-or-less evenly (an example of sacrificing individual club gain for the collective good, as it helps to maintain a viable competition)
b) I believe that for the last couple of years there has been a commitment by the clubs to increase the number of EQPs in their matchday squads, with a moderate increase in the salary cap
c) There is also now a £40k (?) increase in the salary cap for players coming through your Academy onto full contracts.

I haven't been able to find the articles (sorry, limited time), but (b) and (c) have been cited a few times as the reason that EQP levels are increasing. Of course the whole thing is muddied by the fact that, for instance, several of Sarries' Saffas have become born-again Englishmen through residency, and the combination of EU law (including Kolpak) and the fact that the RFU doesn't directly control or fund the clubs makes it very hard to apply caps on the level of non-EQPs.

In the long run, I don't think the supply of EQPs will be an issue. The more strategically minded clubs have realised that academies are critical to their long-term success. It's apparently more costly to retain an academy player over their whole career (not sure quite why, but I've heard it from more than one DoR), but if there's a definite way you want your team to play, then in terms of building a cohesive squad and being able to develop some squad rotation it has some definite advantages. The clubs are gradually tweaking the rules to make it easier to hang on to academy players (see (c)).

Ozzy3213 wrote:I thought teams already were rewarded financially by the RFU for the number of EQ players in matchday squads.

My understanding is that you have to hit an average of 14 per matchday 23 across the season to be eligible for the payments.

No chance of a link about that is there Oz?

So many factoids get chucked into debates.

And 14/23 (60%) over a season sounds more than a little limp-wristed. And manipulable.

Still that gives an average of nine foreign players out of 23 an EQ cash reward.

I'll try to find a link for you later Portnoy. I am sure I saw something about it on The Craic recently as there was a discussion about us bumping up our EQ quota as our last few games have been dead rubbers.

As I recall there was only one team under the 14, and from memory it was Sale Sharks. Will try to find it later for you.

From the Sharks unoffy:

Premiership Rugby warned steps will be taken to protect the integrity of the competition amid speculation that Sale may field a weakened team at home to Harlequins on Saturday.

While the Sharks will not officially reveal their line-up to face the league leaders until midday today, sources have indicated they intend to pick a matchday 23 entirely made up of England-qualified players.
Sale would therefore secure a sum of around £80,000 from the RFU as part of the EQP (English qualified players) scheme designed to encourage home-grown talent.

You have been warned: Powell looks set to be rested
The Sharks have had such a resurgence this season that they are all but assured of a place in the Heineken Cup.

Bath are the only club ahead of them in the Aviva Premiership table who could finish sixth, but they face an on-song Leicester at Welford Road, so the bonus-point win they need surely will elude them.

Gifts Quins home advantage at Sarries expense?

It's a shame Sale have decided to throw in the towel before the match even starts.

Pretty pathetic actually.

This is not the Low Value Cup.

Sale Sharks: 15.Rob Miller, 14.Tom Brady, 13.Will Addison, 12.Luther Burrell, 11.Mark Cueto, 10.Tommy Bell, 9.Scott Mathie, 1.Lee Imiolek, 2.Marc Jones, 3.Henry Thomas, 4.Kearnan Myall, 5.Tom Holmes, 6.Will Bordill, 7.David Seymour (capt.), 8.Mark Easter.

Replacements: 16.Tommy Taylor, 17. Ross Harrison, 18.Joe Ward, 19.Billy Emerson, 20.Jordan Davies, 21.Will Cliff, 22.Iain Thornley, 23.Charlie Amesbury.

Just for anyone who's wondering, that's the team that they are throwing the towel in with.

Just looking at the other side of the coin for one minute, the advantage of having overseas players in the premiership is that it supports the growth of the international game. PLayers from the Pacific islands, North American, eastern europe and the like don't have professional leagues. The Jeff gives the top players from these countries one of the very few possibilities of playing club rugby week in week out at a high level. They can then take these skills back to their home country and hopefully improve them in the long term.

I'm not convinced its a valid arguement for not supporting home grown talent and strong academies. But its worth considering that the gloabal game cannot grow when all the major professional leagues are moving towards protectionism.

Found the stats


Quote:
Re: Team for this weekend - your thoughts
Posted by: Jon_r43 (IP Logged)
Date: 02 May, 2012 08:02

Rugby paper page 22

EQP's in match day squads.

Quins 19.42
Glaws 17.33
Worcs 16.73
Chiefs 16.55
Bath 15.75
Sarries15.23
Saints 15.10
Falcons 15
Irish 14.73
Tiggers 14.08
Wasps 14.08
Sale 13.33

Target for funding is 14 per game so Sale may not get funded and Wasps and Tiggers need to be a bit careful this week!


This is where I got the information from Portnoy. Source appears to have been The Rugby Paper.

Islingtonv2 wrote:Just looking at the other side of the coin for one minute, the advantage of having overseas players in the premiership is that it supports the growth of the international game. PLayers from the Pacific islands, North American, eastern europe and the like don't have professional leagues. The Jeff gives the top players from these countries one of the very few possibilities of playing club rugby week in week out at a high level. They can then take these skills back to their home country and hopefully improve them in the long term.

I'm not convinced its a valid arguement for not supporting home grown talent and strong academies. But its worth considering that the gloabal game cannot grow when all the major professional leagues are moving towards protectionism.

Clearly sounds like a footy Premiership argument. Which I sort of anticipated by posting this: https://www.606v2.com/t28647-club-before-country-or-country-before-club-a-simple-question

Ozzy3213 wrote:Found the stats


Quote:
Re: Team for this weekend - your thoughts
Posted by: Jon_r43 (IP Logged)
Date: 02 May, 2012 08:02

Rugby paper page 22

EQP's in match day squads.

Quins 19.42
Glaws 17.33
Worcs 16.73
Chiefs 16.55
Bath 15.75
Sarries15.23
Saints 15.10
Falcons 15
Irish 14.73
Tiggers 14.08
Wasps 14.08
Sale 13.33

Target for funding is 14 per game so Sale may not get funded and Wasps and Tiggers need to be a bit careful this week!


This is where I got the information from Portnoy. Source appears to have been The Rugby Paper.

So every side bar Sale cops eighty grand for fielding on average nine foreigners in their squad.
That is self condemnatory and disgraceful.

And provides even more grist to the mill of the argument of separating the Jeff from the IWs.

Target for funding is 14 per game so Sale may not get funded and Wasps and Tiggers need to be a bit careful this week!

Apparently not so much of a concern for Tigers as they have only included 13 in their squad for the game vs Bath. Of course the injuries to Kitchener, Slater and Croft have influenced this but hey ho if they were that fussed Smith could have come on to the bench instead of Hamilton.

Careful, Sam - next thing Portnoy will be reproducing these stats for games during IWs and games outside of IWs!

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote: Careful, Sam - next thing Portnoy will be reproducing these stats for games during IWs and games outside of IWs!

I won't As.

Just the raw data to digest.

Sometime after tomorrow's results results get recorded.

The plain affect on international call-ups on the Jeff should produce enough food for thought without producing the after-eights alongside the entree.

Portnoy wrote:

Islingtonv2 wrote:Just looking at the other side of the coin for one minute, the advantage of having overseas players in the premiership is that it supports the growth of the international game. PLayers from the Pacific islands, North American, eastern europe and the like don't have professional leagues. The Jeff gives the top players from these countries one of the very few possibilities of playing club rugby week in week out at a high level. They can then take these skills back to their home country and hopefully improve them in the long term.

I'm not convinced its a valid arguement for not supporting home grown talent and strong academies. But its worth considering that the gloabal game cannot grow when all the major professional leagues are moving towards protectionism.

Clearly sounds like a footy Premiership argument. Which I sort of anticipated by posting this: https://www.606v2.com/t28647-club-before-country-or-country-before-club-a-simple-question

So strong clubs and strong international game or weak clubs and strong england.....not a straight forward decision for me. Being of a right wing free markets inclination i'd probably have to go for the former option, let the young english players fight for their place in a squad rather than dishing them out without incentive to improve.

Apologies if i've gone off on a tangent or posted on the incorrect thread btw.....

It's worrying when I agree with Portnoy but yes I think there should be more EQ players and young guns getting game time.

Though there is a big difference between average English players and talented foreigners. I prefer the latter.

Portnoy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote: Careful, Sam - next thing Portnoy will be reproducing these stats for games during IWs and games outside of IWs!

I won't As.

Just the raw data to digest.

Sometime after tomorrow's results results get recorded.

The plain affect on international call-ups on the Jeff should produce enough food for thought without producing the after-eights alongside the entree.

But I don't want to miss out on the cheese course!

The soup has already been served As.

The main course is coming soon.

In my experience it's normally only the women who can't resist looking at the sweet trolley before the main meal has been served.

My eyes have not left the cheese board!

There was an article in Sud Ouest recently discussing the impact of the French quotas. One was that the cost of hiring foreign players had fallen. Unless foreigners are exceptional they are finding harder to find work in France while the cost of French qualified players has gone up. This must have an impact on the amount of players going to work in France and will have a knock on effect on the cost of salaries across Europe. So there should be far more English players looking for work for less money in England soon.

Portnoy wrote:
So every side bar Sale cops eighty grand for fielding on average nine foreigners in their squad.
That is self condemnatory and disgraceful.

And provides even more grist to the mill of the argument of separating the Jeff from the IWs.

Nonsense. On average over the course of the season 187 EQed players have been available each week. Given these players will change I'd imagine in excess of 250 EQed players will have gotten game time in the AP. There are plenty of EQed players in the Championship too. How many EQed players do you think the England coaches need to choose from? Even a big international squad is only 40 strong.

As Sam pointed out, there have never been more young English players getting game time - looking at the first team experience of the u20 squads tells you a lot.

Also I think there is some sort of restriction on the number of non-EQed players AP sides are allowed to have, although I don't think all countries are covered.

Also, Portnoy, the average number of foreigners fielded is a bit less than nine. The median is abot 7.5 and the arithmetic mean is just over 7, which is still high but means that up to 24 more EQPs are getting game time each week.

Here's an interesting stat for someone to calculate. Average age of the squad divided by average number of EQPs, as a measure of how many young English players are coming through. For Quins, it's somewhere around 1.2 I think - most of the squad are young and English.