Transfer fees and transfer windows?

Should RU follow the football route?

Fees: Whilst still under contract, should both buying and selling sides agree separately and privately a transfer payment (maybe they do already, but I'm not aware of them).

Academy-developed should be tied to the club (by written contract between player and club) for three years from after the the player has made five 1st team appearances in a season. Again a transfer fee can be negotiated.

Of course the selling club may waive any fee (a free transfer).

Transfer windows : Open March - May for transfers to be effective from June 1st.

Transfer fees already exist, clubs not wishing to sell players can force opposition clubs to buy out their contracts. This happened most recently with Ben Morgan and Gloucester paying off the last year of his contract in order to facilitate his move from the Scarlets.

Fees can be waived, Dan Hipkiss's move to Bath should have included a pay out for the final year of his contract but Tigers waived that in order to facilitate the move and free up some of the salary cap.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Transfer fees already exist, clubs not wishing to sell players can force opposition clubs to buy out their contracts. This happened most recently with Ben Morgan and Gloucester paying off the last year of his contract in order to facilitate his move from the Scarlets.

Fees can be waived, Dan Hipkiss's move to Bath should have included a pay out for the final year of his contract but Tigers waived that in order to facilitate the move and free up some of the salary cap.

Fair enough Sam,
I'll concede that.

But what about

Academy-developed should be tied to the club (by written contract between player and club) for three years from after the player has made five 1st team appearances in a season. Again a transfer fee can be negotiated.

Of course the selling club may waive any fee (a free transfer).

and

Transfer windows : Open March - May for transfers to be effective from June 1st.

?

The thing I don't like about the current system is that it is often known half way through the season that a player will be moving. They may not be fully committed as they know they're leaving, or they could come up against their future employers, often in important games. I know the players are professionals and this shouldn't strictly affect them but it must play on everybody's mind a bit.

For example, at Gloucester this season, there was a genuine feeling that a major contributing factor to the end of season slump was the much publicised culling of senior players (as well as the obvious Redpath disturbance) and their attitude as a result.

This view tends to support your idea of a transfer window. But does a window allow enough time for planning and squad building?

For example what would happen to the promoted side were the window to close on 31st May, as you suggest? Hypothetically, if both clubs in the championship final could be promoted this year, they wouldn't know the outcome until after the second leg of the final, leaving no time to recruit before the window shut.

I don’t see who would benefit from the academy player being tied to the club for 3 years after they make 5 appearances. What if they’re not good enough to make those 5 appearances? For instance, Niall Morris has only made 8 appearances for Leinster, 4 of them were starts, it was decided that it would be best for him, Leinster and Leicester if he signed for the Tigers. He would not benefit from staying here so why would he be tied into doing so for another 3 years…?

Transfer fees and windows should stick to football in my opinion.

Transfer fees is all about money, loyalty just goes out of the window.

It's fine for it to be used occasionally in some cases but let's hope it doesn't become the norm.

Mickado wrote:I don’t see who would benefit from the academy player being tied to the club for 3 years after they make 5 appearances. What if they’re not good enough to make those 5 appearances? For instance, Niall Morris has only made 8 appearances for Leinster, 4 of them were starts, it was decided that it would be best for him, Leinster and Leicester if he signed for the Tigers. He would not benefit from staying here so why would he be tied into doing so for another 3 years…?

Free transfer Mick.

For example, at Gloucester this season, there was a genuine feeling that a major contributing factor to the end of season slump was the much publicised culling of senior players (as well as the obvious Redpath disturbance) and their attitude as a result

Possibly Gloucester should have kept a tighter leash on the public details then. It's always going to be tough on squad that chose not to renew player contracts because the players are going to know about it when coming towards the end of the season there's no deal on the table.

Academy-developed should be tied to the club (by written contract between player and club) for three years from after the player has made five 1st team appearances in a season. Again a transfer fee can be negotiated.

Why would an academy player sign up to that? It massively restricts their movement if they are only played irregularly and want to move in order to get more rugby. I understand the concern about teams producing young talent only to see it leave but there is the flip side of the coin when it comes to players basically being held by the club as squad cover when moves to smaller clubs and more regular rugby would be preferable.

Mickado I don't think Portnoy is suggesting a definite unbreakable 3 year contract, whereby player and club are tied together unconditionally, are you Portnoy? I read that suggestion as more of a caveat to stop clubs poaching other academies. So continuing your Niall Morris example, Leicester couldn't just come in and swipe him from under Leinster's noses without paying a predetermined 'transfer fee' (or development fee, if you prefer), unless Leinster were happy with him leaving in which case they could waive the fee.

Portnoy wrote:

Mickado wrote:I don’t see who would benefit from the academy player being tied to the club for 3 years after they make 5 appearances. What if they’re not good enough to make those 5 appearances? For instance, Niall Morris has only made 8 appearances for Leinster, 4 of them were starts, it was decided that it would be best for him, Leinster and Leicester if he signed for the Tigers. He would not benefit from staying here so why would he be tied into doing so for another 3 years…?

Free transfer Mick.

Ah ok. I getcha.

Most players coming out of the academies will be offered a contract of 1,2 or 3 years, depending how much the club thinks they can add. I don't see the difference between an academy player and any other, they're all on contracts, be they academy or first team.

jeffwinger wrote:The thing I don't like about the current system is that it is often known half way through the season that a player will be moving. They may not be fully committed as they know they're leaving, or they could come up against their future employers, often in important games. I know the players are professionals and this shouldn't strictly affect them but it must play on everybody's mind a bit.

For example, at Gloucester this season, there was a genuine feeling that a major contributing factor to the end of season slump was the much publicised culling of senior players (as well as the obvious Redpath disturbance) and their attitude as a result.

This view tends to support your idea of a transfer window. But does a window allow enough time for planning and squad building?

For example what would happen to the promoted side were the window to close on 31st May, as you suggest? Hypothetically, if both clubs in the championship final could be promoted this year, they wouldn't know the outcome until after the second leg of the final, leaving no time to recruit before the window shut.

A 1st June transfer would allow a new player three months to acclimatise before the next season.

Always, if a player has announced an intention to move (e.g. 36), then that remains a professional/coaching/selling-club problem. No difference as is.

I think Portnoy is thinking of the sort of deals that saw Gray the former England under 20s 8 and captain break into the Newcastle first team at 20 and then reject the Newcastle deal straight away and sign for LI who offered him a better financial deal. Newcastle brought him through and invested all the time and energy into him only for him to turn his back on them as soon as they were ready to offer him a long term deal. Compensation in that sort of case would be understandable but the level at which it would be set would be open to interpretation.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

For example, at Gloucester this season, there was a genuine feeling that a major contributing factor to the end of season slump was the much publicised culling of senior players (as well as the obvious Redpath disturbance) and their attitude as a result

Possibly Gloucester should have kept a tighter leash on the public details then. It's always going to be tough on squad that chose not to renew player contracts because the players are going to know about it when coming towards the end of the season there's no deal on the table.

Gloucester's current tactic with regards to announcing signings is to wait for a bad result then announce it the following week to try and appease the supporters. e.g. Ben Morgan's signing was announced 2 days after being thrashed at Welford Road, even though he had actually signed a few weeks previously.

Even if they were to keep it all under wraps, the fans know what is going on and the players were obviously aware themselves. If this sort of stuff was kept til after the season finished, no one would have the problem.

formerly known as Sam wrote:I think Portnoy is thinking of the sort of deals that saw Gray the former England under 20s 8 and captain break into the Newcastle first team at 20 and then reject the Newcastle deal straight away and sign for LI who offered him a better financial deal. Newcastle brought him through and invested all the time and energy into him only for him to turn his back on them as soon as they were ready to offer him a long term deal. Compensation in that sort of case would be understandable but the level at which it would be set would be open to interpretation.

Exactly Sam. If a club has spent time and effort to identify and develop potential talent, and walks away early in his career, then the home(academy) club should be able to recover a proportion of their investment outlay