Jeff/England: Windows open and doors slam shut

After the injuries of last weekend, my fag packet calculations mean that:
Three clubs (Sarries (6), Leicester (8) and Quins (6)) will provide 20 (62.5%) players
Six clubs (Northampton (3), Wasps (3), Gloucester (2), London Irish (2), Exeter (1), and Bath (1)) will contribute 12 (37.5%) players
Three clubs (Sale, Worcester and Rhydychen) nowt. Zip. Nada.

As far as I understand, every club will receive an equal share of EPS payments but also receive an individual share of any injuries from the AIs.

Mullan is at Worcester.

The really stupid thing as this is that Sarries, Leicester and Quins will be missing around half their starting 15 for an extra ~7 games a season. But they still have to find their replacements within the same salary cap as everyone else. It was done to discourage a small number of clubs buying up all the best English talent and getting paid for it. Well it certainly does that (and more).

HammerofThunor wrote:Mullan is at Worcester.

The swings and roundabouts can be rearranged Thunor.
You can advise me as to which club to debit in order to credit Worcester, but the EPS playground won't look much different.

Ah, it's one of them 'it's all so unfair at the top' threads again.

Look, you do well in the AP, your players get called up, that's life. You may think it's unfair, it's not. The EPS payments could be structured differently, or the wage cap could be increased if you have more players called up, but all that would ultimately do is create a top tier in the AP that become untouchable as they have all the cash and all the players. That quite frankly would be shoite.

It's the poor what get the pleasure
and the rich what get the blame

This was one of the reasons why Newcastle temporarily decided to use a policy of getting rid of all of our England players...and we were a bottom of the league team. Flood, Tait, Woods etc were all allowed to go after getting a link with the England team.

Ah yes, Geordie, the very players pinched by a bigger club that now boost their England representation - think they should have their EPS payment docked for being thieves

I whole heartedly agree

To be fair...in this case it wasnt poaching by the clubs...it was the players desperate to leave due to a complete lack of ambition.

I don't want to start a Pro 12 V Prem debate, but I believe the pro 12 to be a slighlty fairer League as all teams lose players in international windows (ok smaller teams less players but these players are argueable more important to them).

Would a Cap of 4 English internationals per team help?

Would spread them over teams, but wouldn't really help develop English players.

Its a trickley one to solve, because the best (English players) will gravitate toward the top teams in general, and hence its the top teams that will suffer most during international windows.

Actually the solution is, no club games durning international windows. but how to put this in place?

Fewer clubs would help, Kingshu.
Or transportation to Ireland maybe?

Actually the solution is, no club games durning international windows. but how to put this in place

That is the answer and the solution...no games during the AI's...or move any meaningless club and cup competitions to that period...and all the teams can play their development teams....

And in a number of cases - flood, Tait, Noon - it was Newcastle declining to offer new contracts.

It takes a lot of juggling of resources to compete at the top of the league and provide England players. Leicester have done it since the advent of professionalism - in 15 seasons since 97/98 they have topped the table 8 times and finished second on 4 other occasions. Judicious recruitment of aspiring English players and overseas players has been supplemented by a decent academy. Yes we are mocked nowadays for emplying too many overseas players, yet we are still churning out players to support the England cause.

It will be interesting to see how Quins can adapt to new circumstances. They have done brilliantly to get where they are now with a team containing a high proportion of home produced players. However now they need to ensure they have the depth needed to cover for the 1/3rd of the season when players are absent. They also need to find ways to afford the improved contracts the players they have produced are now worth. The recruitment of Botica is an indication thet COS may have leant something from Tigers


As to allocation of central funds. Well, TV money should always be split equally as should other commercial incomes. The EPS payments should include some level of performance related calculation. The perfomance related element should be split between the club providing the player and the club whose academy developed the players. This could be staggered through all the England squads down to U18.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Ah, it's one of them 'it's all so unfair at the top' threads again.

Look, you do well in the AP, your players get called up, that's life. You may think it's unfair, it's not. The EPS payments could be structured differently, or the wage cap could be increased if you have more players called up, but all that would ultimately do is create a top tier in the AP that become untouchable as they have all the cash and all the players. That quite frankly would be shoite.

It is unfair. It's completely and utterly unfair. Unless you think it's fair to penalize a team that develops England players. Regardless of whether it also stops a couple of clubs buying up players, the other side of it is completely unfair.

We should have a system in place that encourages clubs to develop English players and then helps they hang on to them. Not one that encourages teams to bring in players without EPS prospects and to get rid of English players if you have more than 2 in the EPS.

Players currently miss 13 weeks on International duty during the season (ignoring Summer tours and WC). Add in the premiership (22+2) and current HEC (6+3) that's 46 weeks. International players are also involved for at least 3 weeks during the summer. So that 59 weeks that international players are expected to be available for. Not going to happen. Either we cut games out (never going to happen) or league games will have to be played during internationals (I'm guessing the Celts will be against a HEC during internationals?)

Should be 49 weeks

I agree HoT.

However are International players going to play 59 weeks a year?
If you give them four weeks a year r&r, then that would only leave about a month for club pre-season training.

That would be silly.

Maybe there should be more squad rotation to ensure long-term player welfare? That should even things up a bit

I thought all clubs got EPS money but there was some weighting involved so that there was some advantage to providing England players.

If only clubs could be competitive internationally, have the backup for an average 20% injury list and lose players for higher calls for 4/2d a week.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:Ah, it's one of them 'it's all so unfair at the top' threads again.

Look, you do well in the AP, your players get called up, that's life. You may think it's unfair, it's not. The EPS payments could be structured differently, or the wage cap could be increased if you have more players called up, but all that would ultimately do is create a top tier in the AP that become untouchable as they have all the cash and all the players. That quite frankly would be shoite.

It is unfair. It's completely and utterly unfair. Unless you think it's fair to penalize a team that develops England players. Regardless of whether it also stops a couple of clubs buying up players, the other side of it is completely unfair.

We should have a system in place that encourages clubs to develop English players and then helps they hang on to them. Not one that encourages teams to bring in players without EPS prospects and to get rid of English players if you have more than 2 in the EPS.

Players currently miss 13 weeks on International duty during the season (ignoring Summer tours and WC). Add in the premiership (22+2) and current HEC (6+3) that's 46 weeks. International players are also involved for at least 3 weeks during the summer. So that 59 weeks that international players are expected to be available for. Not going to happen. Either we cut games out (never going to happen) or league games will have to be played during internationals (I'm guessing the Celts will be against a HEC during internationals?)

How are they being penalised? They get the same payout as everyone else. To give them all of the cash because one man has decided that he wants the majority of players from one club would be unfair. How would the smaller clubs ever be able to compete? They wouldn't. You already have the haves and have nots in the league, and the haves are all at the top, regardless of international call ups unfairly* hindering them.

This week Tigers have had Anthony Allen and Ben Youngs released back to them, Saints have had Dowson, Hartley and Lawes sent back (albeit 2 are injured), and Quins have Brown, JTH and Robson released back.

In the world where they get pro rata'd EPS payments, those clubs get a shed load of cash, have a bolstered squad as a result, then get the players released back, while as an example London Irish, with one EPS member (Joseph), get very little cash so can't bolster the squad, but lose 2 players this week as Paice is also called in as cover for Hartley and not released back. I would also argue that given the lack of depth of talent at a club like London Irish losing those 2 hits harder than Tigers being without T.Youngs, Parling and Manu this week.

*I maintain that it's not unfair at all and that is mainly the cry of the top sides who want it all their way and couldn't give a monkeys about the rest of the teams in the Premiership and the Premiership as a whole.

Actually I believe Newcastle and Quins (among others) deserve more cash from the EPS fund because they actually develop players that feature in the various england squads. Bear in mind that this payment is rather small compared to the TV/Commercial payments.

I see the AIs as an opportunity for squad players to get gametime.

It helps with strength in depth allows players to come out of the shadows.

E.g. Leicester will at last utilise wonder kid Ford this season. Kruis might well step into the shoes of Botha at Saracens. The young backrow guys will get more opportunities.Vunipola's shoes might well be filled by Auterac.

Saints will be given the opportunity to blood players at FB,hooker, backrow and lock. Especially the much needed hole at FB.

Ozzy3213 wrote:How are they being penalised?

If you develop your academy. Develop players that perform very well and get called up to England. You then lose those players for an extra 7 weeks on top of the international window. So now you have players that will fairly deserve more money in the club salaries, will be available less of the time they have to be and their replacements have to found within the salary cap. While this is happening the club down the road is playing it smart. They're bringing in SH players they know won't be called up and still getting EPS payouts.

How is that fair? If you think it is we might as well stop the discussion because we'll never agree.

The EPS payments should be used by the clubs to help keep the EPS players at the club. They can't as things stand. There are plenty of better ways of having it so that the EPS stopping individual clubs buying up the English players.

Maybe the RFU or the PRL or both should compensate academies for players that make it to the Jeff for say 1000 playing minutes.

Or a sliding scale compensation payable by buying clubs to realistically compensate the selling club's academy costs.

But at some time the graduates have to be given the right to leave.

I can't see any problem with that.

HoT

Developing players through your academy and being given a financial incentive to do so by the RFU is not the same as splitting the EPS payment to clubs on a per player selected basis. Taking Leicester as an example, in this EPS we have Allen and Flood who are not products of the Leicester academy, but if the total EPS payment was split into 32 and paid per player to clubs, then Tigers would get another 16th of it.

Now, how is that fair, and how does it encourage people to develop through their academies?

You have the situation in this country, where some clubs, for a variety of reasons are a bigger draw for players. Taking Leicester as an example, they have a fine history and tradition and are associated with success, so young English players who are at other clubs will potentially aspire to play for them one day. I am reliably informed on here, that Leicester's ability to entice players is not down to cash and players go there for less money in order to enhance their careers, both in terms of trophies and international recognition.

Why then should they be given more cash? All that will do will to encourage them to pillage other smaller clubs academies further and create a bigger divide between themselves (and the other top clubs) and the rest of the league.

Financial support from the RFU for academies should be completely detatched from the EPS payments, and whether a club gets that sort of assistance to develop players should not be reliant on whether the incumbent head coach selects their players for a particular squad.

I don't believe for one minute that any clubs are 'playing it smart' by not developing their own talent and just bringing in SH journeymen, it's just some clubs are further along the road than others in terms of having an academy that consistently produces top level talent. I am certain that is the aim of every club within the AP, and having the EPS payment split equally 12 ways should help to ensure that each club has an equal opportunity to do this.

Oz, I have said before that maybe there should be one (or two) national academies of excellence maybe linked to Bath and Loughborough Universities where the outstanding talent can gain both rugby and appropriate academic training and qualifications.

Elite squads with elite coaches - and University terms allowing plently of time for re-grounding in their home clubs.

Bath? Bath? Fair spat my breakfast everywhere at that ludicrous suggestion!!

I understand As. Unfortunately the University of is an established centre of excellence. Don't ask me how - I know it makes no sense. A couple or three years I go that some lass won a skeleton bob/tree tray winter gold and she was from there.

Funny old World

Means our academy boys get a chance to shine. It's a pain but we (Quins fans) all knew it was coming this season so no complaints. If England do a Youngs on us and break Robshaw or Care (or Brown if they let him play) then it's a different, far more frustrating, story

Injuries are part of the game though, and those players are equally liklely to pick up knocks playing for Quins as for England. We have it with Corbisiero at the moment, but it has given Max Lahiff the chance to shine at loosehead, and when Corbs comes back, all of a sudden we will have decent depth in that position.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Means our academy boys get a chance to shine. It's a pain but we (Quins fans) all knew it was coming this season so no complaints. If England do a Youngs on us and break Robshaw or Care (or Brown if they let him play) then it's a different, far more frustrating, story

I feel the same with Sarries. Unfortunately England do normally leave the players as broken wrecks when they come back.

Sounds like what is needed is some adjustment to the salary cap that is linked to players in the EPS in addition to the payments. Give those who provide more players a little extra room to have backup.

Ozzy3213 wrote:HoT

Developing players through your academy and being given a financial incentive to do so by the RFU is not the same as splitting the EPS payment to clubs on a per player selected basis. Taking Leicester as an example, in this EPS we have Allen and Flood who are not products of the Leicester academy, but if the total EPS payment was split into 32 and paid per player to clubs, then Tigers would get another 16th of it.

Now, how is that fair, and how does it encourage people to develop through their academies?

I didn't say that was fair. But if Newcastle had been getting compensated for Tait, Flood and Noon they may well have been able to afford to keep them. Instead they offloaded them because they were expecting higher wages AND were missing for parts of the season without any compensation. If you develop English players to the point of getting them in the EPS, the extra wages they'll expect for being international players will be partially provided by the RFU.

You have the situation in this country, where some clubs, for a variety of reasons are a bigger draw for players. Taking Leicester as an example, they have a fine history and tradition and are associated with success, so young English players who are at other clubs will potentially aspire to play for them one day. I am reliably informed on here, that Leicester's ability to entice players is not down to cash and players go there for less money in order to enhance their careers, both in terms of trophies and international recognition.

Why then should they be given more cash? All that will do will to encourage them to pillage other smaller clubs academies further and create a bigger divide between themselves (and the other top clubs) and the rest of the league.

Financial support from the RFU for academies should be completely detatched from the EPS payments, and whether a club gets that sort of assistance to develop players should not be reliant on whether the incumbent head coach selects their players for a particular squad.

I don't believe for one minute that any clubs are 'playing it smart' by not developing their own talent and just bringing in SH journeymen, it's just some clubs are further along the road than others in terms of having an academy that consistently produces top level talent. I am certain that is the aim of every club within the AP, and having the EPS payment split equally 12 ways should help to ensure that each club has an equal opportunity to do this.

I didn't say splitting it per player would be fair. I said the current system is fair. How is it fair that some the EXTRA money for the EXTRA time the EPS players are away from their clubs is given to clubs that may not contribute anything (and may not have any intention of contributing anything) to English rugby? That's not fair.

The only 'fair' way I can think of sharing the money (and fairness is completely subjective) is to give the EPS money for each player based on his time at a club. So, for example, Flood moved to Leicester in the 2008/09 season (lets pretend he did if that wasn't right). The 2008/09 EPS payments go to Newcastle. 2009/10 go 1/3 to Tigers, 2/3 to Newcastle. 2010/11 go 2/3 Tigers, 1/3 Falcons and 2011/12 go to Tigers. Something like that (the split for number of seasons can be whatever, the 3 years is an example). That would give the all the money to a team that developed a player but also allows for the fact other clubs CAN aid in a players development after a time.

Otherwise we could end up with a situation where a small clubs with an excellent academy ends up with half the EPS squad in their ranks. But then they have to find the money to replace them all for 7 extra days on top of the 9 weekends of international window. And part of 'their' EPS allocation goes to the local rivals who have no-one in the EPS and rely on capped non-English players.



Just my opinion but the current set-up is not fair (nor would be a system that allows a handful of clubs to buy up EPS players and get all the money, but I never said it was, it's not an either or situation). The current system favors the majority that don't contribute an equal share of players. Fairness doesn't come into it.