Transfer fees & rugby.. should they happen?

After reading BB's post of CJ Stander it got me thinking... should we introduce transfer fees into rugby?

Before, the lure of a Bok/AB cap was good enough to keep every decent player home fighting for the jersey, only those who didn't make the grade tended to come pre career peak i.e. Botha, Flutey, Strauss.

However, CJ Stander move to Munster changes everything. The guy is only 22, he's a future star and starting week in week out for the bulls. He is the best tackler in SA and probably all SR and was/is destined to be a bok. Only mainstays such as Alberts, Burger, Spies, Vermuleun and other nailed on youngster such as Coetzee & Kolisi look like they will challenge him in future for a regular bok jersey.

Munster haven't had to pay anything upfront... they offered him a contract, the bulls could not meet it so they told him he could leave.

All the money they've invested, all the time and training is lost in an instance. They got, what 2 seasons on their investment?

Its not his fault for accepting it. Its a fickle business, players know they're one bad tackle from retirement. Their career is only say 10 years long and they have family to look after.... even at 22 guys in SA often see Europe as a way out in these troubled times.

The worst thing of all, in a few years IRE will have a test player available to choose from. SA will forget about him, they'll have enough cover for now so unless someone gets injured say in the AI tour, he won't get called up. 3 years time he'll think, SA forgot about me, IRE want me, its the RWC, lets take my chance.

Transfer fees should at least protect teams and their investments. SA is a medium wealth country. Even though the bulls pack in 40,000 people to every game, are the most popular side in world rugby (according to their figures), sell millions of shirts and other merchandise items and have won 3 out of the last 5 SR titles they are losing out to a club which fills in on ave. at best 15,000 a game? They are benfitting from circumstance only, of happening to be in a per person wealthier country.

Obviously like football, if a player has no contract he will be free to leave... but still rarely do players leave for free. Transfer fees may be needed to keep checks and balances in the game. Teams in the NH may resort to bringing in cheaper sure hits in SH youngsters rather than train their own players... SH teams will be drained of players and will lose revenue to keep on nuturing these kids.

I wonder if Munster (with the IRFU kept indirectly informed) offered him a more plum contract given he will be available for the IRE test team after residency is secured?

Well I think the IRB should step in, it looks like we can't keep our players on the basis that the money/currncy in Europe is too big a lure.

I have pretty much given up on the idea of fighting against "project players" for whatever purpose these players are contracted.

I guess we need to get used to the fact that soon international teams will be as cosmopolitan as most big cities are these days, the appeal of international rugby will be lost to me however.

I'll just keep enjoying while teams can still be associated by their nationalities and not the wallet sizes of their clubs/unions.

I'd have no problem with transfer fees, but I'm not sure they'd help in this instance.

In football if a player under the age of 24 is offered a contract extension on at least equal terms to his current deal and he rejects, the club signing him have to pay a fee set by a tribunal. That might help.

The one thing, in my opinion, that needs to be strictly regulated is the wage level, otherwise the game becomes unsustainable. Wouldn't have a problem seeing transfer fees or compensation tribunals.

Nah.

Having no transfer fees helps keep players and clubs honest, each party knows when the contract is up, they negotiate a new one or don't, some players stay, others move on.

I'd like a Ferrari, but I can't afford one, other people can, some buy a Ferrari, some buy a Honda, even though they could buy a Ferrari, you can't change economics or consumer choice.

I know clubs invest in players, but players invest in clubs too; it's not as if clubs turn bad players into good ones; the players have to have intrinsic talent in the first instance, and then player and club work together toward a common goal - if not for common reasons...

Roundball is out of control when it comes down to "player values", the clubs tap-up other players and their agents when they shouldn't, and players are pretty much in control of their clubs as a result; players don't get sacked for being a55holes because the clubs would lose too much money on their "value" so said players act like a55holes with impunity.

That's not somewhere I want rugby to go.

biltongbek wrote:Well I think the IRB should step in, it looks like we can't keep our players on the basis that the money/currncy in Europe is too big a lure.

I have pretty much given up on the idea of fighting against "project players" for whatever purpose these players are contracted.

I guess we need to get used to the fact that soon international teams will be as cosmopolitan as most big cities are these days, the appeal of international rugby will be lost to me however.

I'll just keep enjoying while teams can still be associated by their nationalities and not the wallet sizes of their clubs/unions.

Transfer fees are a must ,This is excatly how Arsenal make their money and would not be a bad idea in rugby either. Players capped in the u20s should be not be legible for other countrys NT. it would prevent posts like this that i saw on munsterfan site



!Fantastic, outstanding signing. This is the type of player that should be earmarked for project player. Any BR who is captain of the baby boks & play for the Bulls is a machine. This lad was already called up into the SA squad but didn't play thankfully"

Bullsbok wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Well I think the IRB should step in, it looks like we can't keep our players on the basis that the money/currncy in Europe is too big a lure.

I have pretty much given up on the idea of fighting against "project players" for whatever purpose these players are contracted.

I guess we need to get used to the fact that soon international teams will be as cosmopolitan as most big cities are these days, the appeal of international rugby will be lost to me however.

I'll just keep enjoying while teams can still be associated by their nationalities and not the wallet sizes of their clubs/unions.

Transfer fees are a must ,This is excatly how Arsenal make their money and would not be a bad idea in rugby either. Players capped in the u20s should be not be legible for other countrys NT. it would prevent posts like this that i saw on munsterfan site



!Fantastic, outstanding signing. This is the type of player that should be earmarked for project player. Any BR who is captain of the baby boks & play for the Bulls is a machine. This lad was already called up into the SA squad but didn't play thankfully"

i would be really surprised if he played for ireland...i dont think you have to worrie about that tbh

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Well I think the IRB should step in, it looks like we can't keep our players on the basis that the money/currncy in Europe is too big a lure.

I have pretty much given up on the idea of fighting against "project players" for whatever purpose these players are contracted.

I guess we need to get used to the fact that soon international teams will be as cosmopolitan as most big cities are these days, the appeal of international rugby will be lost to me however.

I'll just keep enjoying while teams can still be associated by their nationalities and not the wallet sizes of their clubs/unions.

Transfer fees are a must ,This is excatly how Arsenal make their money and would not be a bad idea in rugby either. Players capped in the u20s should be not be legible for other countrys NT. it would prevent posts like this that i saw on munsterfan site



!Fantastic, outstanding signing. This is the type of player that should be earmarked for project player. Any BR who is captain of the baby boks & play for the Bulls is a machine. This lad was already called up into the SA squad but didn't play thankfully"

i would be really surprised if he played for ireland...i dont think you have to worrie about that tbh

Thank God for that because he'll definately play for the Boks and i wouldnt be suprised if he captained them 5 years down the line with his impressive junior record and history at the Blue Bulls

fa0019 wrote:I wonder if Munster (with the IRFU kept indirectly informed) offered him a more plum contract given he will be available for the IRE test team after residency is secured?

Munster are not an independent club, they are a branch of IRFU - the recruitment will have been done with the direct involvement of IRFU. Whether he's been recruited as a project player is a moot point, and there's two issues here. One is the perennial compensation for the investment made in the player, the other is the recruitment of players for international representation.

The compensation issue is a tricky one - there needs to be a balance between the player's aspirations and income, and the time and training expended on the player by his teams in his formative years. The project player issue could probably be solved by increasing residency qualification to 5 years, though.

Bullsbok wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Well I think the IRB should step in, it looks like we can't keep our players on the basis that the money/currncy in Europe is too big a lure.

I have pretty much given up on the idea of fighting against "project players" for whatever purpose these players are contracted.

I guess we need to get used to the fact that soon international teams will be as cosmopolitan as most big cities are these days, the appeal of international rugby will be lost to me however.

I'll just keep enjoying while teams can still be associated by their nationalities and not the wallet sizes of their clubs/unions.

Transfer fees are a must ,This is excatly how Arsenal make their money and would not be a bad idea in rugby either. Players capped in the u20s should be not be legible for other countrys NT. it would prevent posts like this that i saw on munsterfan site



!Fantastic, outstanding signing. This is the type of player that should be earmarked for project player. Any BR who is captain of the baby boks & play for the Bulls is a machine. This lad was already called up into the SA squad but didn't play thankfully"

i would be really surprised if he played for ireland...i dont think you have to worrie about that tbh

Thank God for that because he'll definately play for the Boks and i wouldnt be suprised if he captained them 5 years down the line with his impressive junior record and history at the Blue Bulls

ye he'll play for the boks dont worrie unless he has irish parents or something or has some connection with ireland which i doubt he does.

After 3 years in IRE say, SA will begin to look very far away. Unless he gets capped inbetween his Munster contract (could be a breach of contract, not sure) SA will look somewhere else.

Its unlikely he will return to SA to play professionally again.

The only player who has done so is Juandre Kruger but that was completely different. Kruger joined because he was getting no game time at the bulls. He was wasting away playing Currie Cup and Vodacom Cup rugby and needed to play games to develop.

3 years in, a RWC looming and no word from the boks I think a call to the IRE team will look very tempting. Test rugby, larger salaries, playing in the biggest tournament.... who would say no?

If that's the case I think SARFU should ask themselves why a player would migrate several thousand miles to play for another country.

I always wonder why, in situations where players show a desire to play for a country they weren't born in, why it always seems to be the fault of the country they end up playing for.

Personally, I would start asking questions at the door of their home nation, and then follow that up by asking the player himself.

I mean, OK, the Irish could charm the birds out of the feckin trees, but if Stander ends up playing for Ireland, surely the problem there would be between Stander and South African rugby?

I don't see where "Ireland" could be blamed in this hypothetical instance.

PJHolybloke wrote:If that's the case I think SARFU should ask themselves why a player would migrate several thousand miles to play for another country.

I always wonder why, in situations where players show a desire to play for a country they weren't born in, why it always seems to be the fault of the country they end up playing for.

Personally, I would start asking questions at the door of their home nation, and then follow that up by asking the player himself.

I mean, OK, the Irish could charm the birds out of the feckin trees, but if Stander ends up playing for Ireland, surely the problem there would be between Stander and South African rugby?

I don't see where "Ireland" could be blamed in this hypothetical instance.

i dont see whats hard to understand,money. simple and straightforward

Its possible Munster signed him knowing he only wants to stay 2 seasons. Munster would get a good backrow player and Stander would experience rugby in Europe and fill his pockets. A win win situation all round.

The IRFU are introducing more stricter rules on foreign signings starting in the 2013/14 season. That'll help the Irish national team.

Yes it should and I think it will. It's part of the scene for many professional sports. it allows the market to work effectively. Maybe not this year but sometime soon.

Bullsbok wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:If that's the case I think SARFU should ask themselves why a player would migrate several thousand miles to play for another country.

I always wonder why, in situations where players show a desire to play for a country they weren't born in, why it always seems to be the fault of the country they end up playing for.

Personally, I would start asking questions at the door of their home nation, and then follow that up by asking the player himself.

I mean, OK, the Irish could charm the birds out of the feckin trees, but if Stander ends up playing for Ireland, surely the problem there would be between Stander and South African rugby?

I don't see where "Ireland" could be blamed in this hypothetical instance.

i dont see whats hard to understand,money. simple and straightforward

They don't get an awful lot for playing Test rugby though, and when it comes down to the WC I don't suppose there's a massive difference between the top nations in terms of what they pay the players. If a player is going to "change his national allegiance" for a few extra quid, I doubt it would be an argument based purely on numbers - there must be something else contributing, surely?

PJ, for a guy o move to another country which he has never visited or has no family ties to there can only be one reason. No need to search for any other.

After living in a country for a number of years and not having competed in the SA domestic Competitions they know there is little chance of reaching the Springbok squad if the coach has no reference of their performance, it is just easier to stay in the foreign country to represent them. 90% of the time, that is the logic.

Juandre Kruger is the only example I can think of that moved back before being "enticed" to wear another nations jersey.

There are transfer fees in Rugby - if you move before the end of your contract. If you are out of contract you are entitled to look for employment any where you like.

If you introduce the rules you are asking for th eplayers become servants with no control of their own destiny.

Perhaps we should apply this to all walks of life?

The reason is simple... players aren't greedy money grabbers... very few in fact make a decent living here. Salaries are reasonably low...... for instance, Brian Habana, the world cup winning legend lives in the same part of Cape Town as my in laws.
He lives in a nice part but not one dripping in cash. Its certainly not one of the best and most expensive parts of Cape Town thats for sure.

SA is a country of uncertainity unfortunately... no one knows what the next 30 years will be like. We're optimistic but still cautious.

If you get the opportunity to take options whereby you can gaurantee the future of yourself, your family and future generations via financial security and residential visas in Europe you'd be very brave to turn it down.

Players have a short shelf life. Look at Heinrich Brussow. 2 years ago he was the toast of SA rugby... he could command well over 500K GBP/EUR if he came to ENG or FRA.
Now his form is dipped, he's currently perhaps 8th or 9th in the bok backrow list and he'd be lucky to get any contract offers these days from Europe.

There is no certainity that by turning down big contracts now, that you'll get them way off in the future.

No need for transfer fees. Just tighter regulations regarding residency. U20 should rule you out. Bring in that and we are sorted.

make it under 16 and you're on.

blackcanelion wrote:make it under 16 and you're on.

Fine

The problem with tightening any residency laws is that it would probably contravene with European government legislation and therefore be illegal???

Am I incorrect?

It seems to be the same rates for all sports amongst all European countries.

It wouldn't stop teams pinching the best players from other clubs/countries however.

What about if Leinster pinched a kid from the Munster academy? The same issues apply.

There should be some sort of compensation payment if the player has come through the ranks of a paticular side and leaves at a young age, say 21, because all of the hard work put in by that club/region/provence would all be for nothing, also the unions who fund the club/region/provence should have some sort of say in it all as well. I kind of agree with Biltong on his stance with all this but ultimatly it is down to the individual, if he wants more money then it is his right to go, but if other unions are throwing money at people at a young age so that one day they can become a resident of the said union then I think something needs to be done about it. What if some multi millionaire from Wales offered Dan Carter or Richie McCaw a couple of a million quid when they were nineteen/twenty to come and play in wales for five years, then they become Welsh and play for Wales, this is a massive can of worms that needs opening so that poaching is at least controlled.

I would be about 90% sure Stander will never play for Ireland. He has signed a 2 year deal so technically he is not a project player. If he is good enough to play for SA he will. Don't SA still pick Pienaar even though he is up north?

In football if a player under the age of 24 is offered a contract extension on at least equal terms to his current deal and he rejects, the club signing him have to pay a fee set by a tribunal.

Robbo that sort of thing only works within England. If an English club tried to make a Spanish team pay up in a similar way I doubt it would stand up as it would probably contrevene restriction of movement and employment laws within the EU. SA follow many of the same employment laws through the Kolpak agreement.

Personally I think the IRB should just change the residency rules and make it a minimum of 5 years, hence no more project players.

Thomond wrote:I would be about 90% sure Stander will never play for Ireland. He has signed a 2 year deal so technically he is not a project player. If he is good enough to play for SA he will. Don't SA still pick Pienaar even though he is up north?

The stance is not to pick overseas players, but both Jake white and PDV has called backed proven springboks, can't remember any new caps caled from europe though.

He could come back a better player Biltong. HC rugby is a very good test for a backrow, as was S15 rugby. They are different but Stander will learn a lot from his time up here. We need a guy to step up. I'm sure he will.

No doubt he will impress Thomond.

He better, we're paying him good money! I think NH rugby could be a tougher place to learn for a backrow. There seems to be more emphasis on physicality up here as opposed to S15. Except when the SA team play. Jesus those are wars of attrition!

Thomond wrote:He better, we're paying him good money! I think NH rugby could be a tougher place to learn for a backrow. There seems to be more emphasis on physicality up here as opposed to S15. Except when the SA team play. Jesus those are wars of attrition!

That's the way rugby should be mate.

I'm more of a fan of the few phases through the forwards, they don't have to be that big, it helps but speed and athleticism are the big things here, everything done at pace. You wear the opposition out and simply kill them after 20 minutes. That's my coaching philosophy. A few phases in the forwards, whip it out to the backs a few moves and most importantly support runners on the shoulder. It's all about speed, working quick. If you're not a big guy you can make up for it with speed. Of course, this is completely off topic.


Didn't Gloucester pay a fee for Morgan off the Scarlets as he had a year or two on his contract?

I can understand transfer fees from club to club if a player/coach is in contract. I am not a fan of going down this route personally, and would rather see players commit to a club for the length of their contract, and not the system that they have in football where a playr gets his contract renewed and is then for sale a few months later.

But I can't really see how you could do anything like that internationally without admitting that the player will be looking to play for another nation as a mercanery. After all if the ruling is that your don't have a nationality until you are capped (but you have side you are qualified for) then how can a nation get a transfer fee for a player that tehnically isn't theres. For example a lad who is born in England with a Scottish dad and a Welsh mum is qualified for England, Wales and Scotland. If he then plays for Munster and gets capped by Ireland 3 years down the road who gets the Transfer fee?

Thomond wrote:Didn't Gloucester pay a fee for Morgan off the Scarlets as he had a year or two on his contract?

Glaw paid the Scarlets £100k to buy Ben Morgan out of his remaining year on his contract, and also paid £100k to buy Nigel Davies out of his contract too.

Thomond wrote:I'm more of a fan of the few phases through the forwards, they don't have to be that big, it helps but speed and athleticism are the big things here, everything done at pace. You wear the opposition out and simply kill them after 20 minutes. That's my coaching philosophy. A few phases in the forwards, whip it out to the backs a few moves and most importantly support runners on the shoulder. It's all about speed, working quick. If you're not a big guy you can make up for it with speed. Of course, this is completely off topic.


Didn't Gloucester pay a fee for Morgan off the Scarlets as he had a year or two on his contract?

Absolutely, but it is the physical battle I embrace more, be it the backs or the forwards, that scything tackle that makes yoou wince from the sideline, that sniping break cutting through a line at full bore, that driving tackle that puts the opponent on his backside 3 meters behind the contact point.

The hand off, the offload thorguh the tackle, but it has to be high intensity

ScarletSpiderman wrote:I can understand transfer fees from club to club if a player/coach is in contract. I am not a fan of going down this route personally, and would rather see players commit to a club for the length of their contract, and not the system that they have in football where a playr gets his contract renewed and is then for sale a few months later.

But I can't really see how you could do anything like that internationally without admitting that the player will be looking to play for another nation as a mercanery. After all if the ruling is that your don't have a nationality until you are capped (but you have side you are qualified for) then how can a nation get a transfer fee for a player that tehnically isn't theres. For example a lad who is born in England with a Scottish dad and a Welsh mum is qualified for England, Wales and Scotland. If he then plays for Munster and gets capped by Ireland 3 years down the road who gets the Transfer fee?

The club and union who developed him from a young age should get it, unless of course he makes it clear that he will never represent the union he is joining then I suppose just the club should get the fee.

Dowlais - what I was getting at is that the union doesn't really have any claim to the lad as he could is qualified at birth for three different unions.

The club and union who developed him from a young age should get it, unless of course he makes it clear that he will never represent the union he is joining then I suppose just the club should get the fee

LD I have to disagree strongly with this. Defining the 'club' that developed a player is extremely difficult, do you give the cash to the non-pro club where the lad played his junior and colts rugby prior to joining a pro team's academy or to the club whose academy he joined. What do you do if the lad's parents move when he's 17 and he has to move with them and that means a change in academy team? What right does the respective Union have to cash?

Rugby has always allowed a freedom of movement when it comes to players, that shouldn't be taken away for financial gain.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

The club and union who developed him from a young age should get it, unless of course he makes it clear that he will never represent the union he is joining then I suppose just the club should get the fee

LD I have to disagree strongly with this. Defining the 'club' that developed a player is extremely difficult, do you give the cash to the non-pro club where the lad played his junior and colts rugby prior to joining a pro team's academy or to the club whose academy he joined. What do you do if the lad's parents move when he's 17 and he has to move with them and that means a change in academy team? What right does the respective Union have to cash?

Rugby has always allowed a freedom of movement when it comes to players, that shouldn't be taken away for financial gain.

I suppoose it should be as it is now, as soon as they leave the youth setup, so from about the age of 16 onwards the club he playing for gets the "developement rights" so to speak and if he is poached before he is to old to play under twenties rugby then I reckon compo should be paid. Like I said earlier, what is to stop a mega rich benefactor throwing about a million quid at Dan Carter or Richie McCaw when they were still in the under twenties only for them to become the same nationality of the benefactor. Look, each to their own, if an idividual wants to chase the moola then thats their business, but we need a more controlled approach to paoching. Potentialy half of South Africa could be representing any British Isle team otherwise.

LordDowlais wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

The club and union who developed him from a young age should get it, unless of course he makes it clear that he will never represent the union he is joining then I suppose just the club should get the fee

LD I have to disagree strongly with this. Defining the 'club' that developed a player is extremely difficult, do you give the cash to the non-pro club where the lad played his junior and colts rugby prior to joining a pro team's academy or to the club whose academy he joined. What do you do if the lad's parents move when he's 17 and he has to move with them and that means a change in academy team? What right does the respective Union have to cash?

Rugby has always allowed a freedom of movement when it comes to players, that shouldn't be taken away for financial gain.

I suppoose it should be as it is now, as soon as they leave the youth setup, so from about the age of 16 onwards the club he playing for gets the "developement rights" so to speak and if he is poached before he is to old to play under twenties rugby then I reckon compo should be paid. Like I said earlier, what is to stop a mega rich benefactor throwing about a million quid at Dan Carter or Richie McCaw when they were still in the under twenties only for them to become the same nationality of the benefactor. Look, each to their own, if an idividual wants to chase the moola then thats their business, but we need a more controlled approach to paoching. Potentialy half of South Africa could be representing any British Isle team otherwise.

There is a simple answer here. A player like Stander has been developed by more than just the blue bulls, there are schools etc involved as well. The IRB must stipulate that the money must be deposited and managed through a grass roots development program, that way the whole country benefits, not just the club he is leaving.

After all thats where the talent originates from.

If the kid is out of contract, it is up to him to decide where he wants to go.

When the kid started to break into the main team, that should have been when he was signed to a long term contract. Just when he was making his move from kiddy-corner into the senior side, smack a 5 or 6 year contract on the table and put your money right there with it.

Rugby isn't close to being in the same position as soccer yet because of the injury risk. It is rare for a rugby player to be signed for more than 3 years at any time. 2 years seems more the norm. That is because if you go down injured, you still get paid. Rugby keeps its players on shorter contracts in order cut them loose if the unthinkable does happen.


Also, there appears to be a view that he is gone forever now that he is heading to Munster. There was a lad with Munster a while back, think his name was de-villiers or something, from south africa - did he turn his back on the Bok jersey forever? Or that lad ruan pienaar up at Ulster, still with Ulster, saw him on the pitch there against England did I? Or the lad Frans Steyn. It's no longer an option of no return.

De Villiers moved when he was 28 a world cup winner and was at the peak of his game... it was natural for him to make the move then when he was at the top of his earning powers... esp after he won everything in the game.

Its totally different than Stander... uncapped, in barely his first real season.

All those mentioned were seasoned test internationals when they moved.

SA have just lost Sias Ebersohn to the force and AUS also. Offiicially a project player.... same situation but perhaps less potential.

True, but then you could also put a positive spin for Stander that he develops his game in new surroundings. Munster is historically known for getting players to the right team ethos, developing strong packs and have a good chance of competing for silverware. In 2 years time you get the prodigal son storyline.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:True, but then you could also put a positive spin for Stander that he develops his game in new surroundings. Munster is historically known for getting players to the right team ethos, developing strong packs and have a good chance of competing for silverware. In 2 years time you get the prodigal son storyline.

Mate, polishing a diamond that is already cut, makes only a difference on the surface. I don't doubt he will develop further, but that is merely to experience, his talent and potential has been spotted a long time ago, why else do you think he was contracted?

thebandwagonsociety

This isn't a wind up question but do you think he will develop more at Munster playing Rabo and HC compared to playing SR week in week out???

I do agree that players like Pienaar, Steyn, Kruger have all become better players for being in Europe. Percy says it turned his career around.

However I think he will lose a lot from leaving the bulls.... He's only be around a while and would have learnt so much from Spies, Potgeiter, Stegmann, Flip, Kruger, Morne, Wynand etc had he stayed.

There will be a lot of pressure on the guy... big contract, big expectations... no longer the young kid, he will be expected to perform from day 1 and will have no mentors to help him along the way.

NB - the only thing he will learn from Wynand is which hair products to use and which sequin dress goes best with his figure

People seem to be viewing this completely differently to me. It seems a lot of people seem to think the whole purpose of a national union it to generate players for the national side. It's not. It's there to manage the rugby in their region/country/whatever. They have a duty to do just that, it is the whole purpose of the union. The RFU manages the largest amateur system in the world. They don't do this to generate players for England. They do this because it's their job. It includes all players within their sphere (i.e. England and Channel Islands), regardless of whether they're English or not (I imagine a lot of rugby players in England are South African, PI, Welsh, Kiwi, etc in origin). Channel Islands are a reasonable example. They're governed by the RFU but players from their can play for any of the UK nations. I'm glad the RFU haven't demanded they only can play for England just because they develop the players.

On to clubs...I work as a medical physicist in the NHS and they plow quite a lot of money into a training scheme that is one of the best in world. Once qualified you can earn more in private or going abroad. The NHS doesn't own these people just because they trained them, no more than the government owns people because they funded their education. The clubs develop players for themselves not for the players. As long as there is no contract they don't owe anybody anything.

So in summary (if you can't be bother to read the waffle):

1) The union's whole purpose is to manage the rugby within its coverage, including developing players.
2) Clubs develop players for their own selfish [I don't use this word in a harsh way] reasons not for the player.
3) Neither own a player and if there is no contract they can do what them want.

Hammer, there is a distinct difference between representing your nation on the sporting field and representing yourself as a medical doctor, engineer etc.

Obviously those countries that are going to gain talented players to represent their nations will have no qualms or objection to benefitting from the talent of other nations.

Cj stander is not going to play for ireland...he only got a two year deal. There is nothing to worrie about

for now.

fa0019 wrote:thebandwagonsociety

This isn't a wind up question but do you think he will develop more at Munster playing Rabo and HC compared to playing SR week in week out???

I do agree that players like Pienaar, Steyn, Kruger have all become better players for being in Europe. Percy says it turned his career around.

However I think he will lose a lot from leaving the bulls.... He's only be around a while and would have learnt so much from Spies, Potgeiter, Stegmann, Flip, Kruger, Morne, Wynand etc had he stayed.

There will be a lot of pressure on the guy... big contract, big expectations... no longer the young kid, he will be expected to perform from day 1 and will have no mentors to help him along the way.

NB - the only thing he will learn from Wynand is which hair products to use and which sequin dress goes best with his figure

Hes going to be playing plenty of high intensity matches and he'll find himself in pressure situations. The HEC is a competition where teams can't afford to make many mistakes. In the Rabo league there are big matches against the likes of Leinster, Ulster and Ospreys. All the other teams are difficult to beat on their own patch.

Munster have Rob Penney coming in who is a highly thought of coach in NZ. He played in the backrow as did Munster forwards coach, Anthony Foley. Munster also like to play a fast paced game so he won't be able to slacken off.

Well the rumours coming out of Bath are that there will be a significant signing announced shortly, with the recent arrival of Gary Gold, I wouldn't be surprised if the signing is a Saffer.

What have you got in the way of good young centres?