Club Rugby Transfers and the Need for Compensation

For many of you, I'd assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you are not fans of the game of oval ball football. Its reputation as a money-dominated, prima-donna filled sport has an undeniable basis in truth. Cristiano Ronaldo, currently the world's most expensive player both in wages and transfer fee (£80m in 2009), fits into both categories. This summer alone has seen a 26 year old Uruguayan be sold for £55m, and another, in the form of Luis Suarez, may follow him for a similar figure. The last ten years has seen the emergence of the mega-agent, able to agitate their player into a move in order to gain a multi-million pound fee for their services; and the mega-owner, as clubs are sold on the promise of glory to become another billionaires' accessory which, for every unsustainable success, has seen many more administrators, bankruptcies and liquidations.

  Association football has been professional for well over a century. The first transfers occurred after 1885, when players were officially registered with their clubs and the Football Association. Fees soon followed, as it was clear that the club losing a player could demand them. Thus, they were compensated, and this meant the clubs with the most money and appeal were not able to create a monopoly, with the selling club able to reinvest this fee either in higher wages for players, better facilities to improve the club, or to sign a replacement player.

  The notion of compensation for a club losing their talent, especially one nurtured and improved from a youth academy or a similarly early age, is a simple one. Yet it is one that is only now being seen in the burgeoning professionalism of Rugby Union. It has been common for players to only look for pastures new when in the final year of their contract; indeed, most clubs do not entertain talks of contract renewal for their players until they are in this situation. Yet we have also seen players 'released' early from these contracts, with no compensation but for a reduction of the wage bill.

  The Scarlets were recently lambasted by the WRU in the press for their desire to see their most prized asset, George North, be sold rather than run down his contract. Thus he has joined Northampton Saints, almost against his will, with the Scarlets receiving a fee of £250,000. The fee for the young star of world Rugby is a pittance when compared with Southampton's recent acquisition of Victor Wanyama from Celtic for a fee of £12.5m. Wanyama is similarly young, at 21 years old, but having played in Belgium and the Scottish Premier League, is totally unproven on a big stage. There is obvious disparity in the influence and role of money in both sports, but such disparity in fees, where the £100m barrier is surely less than a decade from being broken in football, surely begs the question of whether clubs should begin to demand a lot more from the loss of their playing talent, whether international superstar or solid league player.

  There is the issue of the corruptive influence of money. Sepp Blatter, the President of FIFA, the football equivalent of the iRB with far more power, is currently doing to his best to fix the debacle of the 2022 World Cup. The delegates of each country were, as is customary, "swayed" by Qatar's bid. Qatar is a state where homosexuality and consumption of alcohol is illegal; this does not necessarily strike one as a prime location for an international football tournament. When you consider Qatari temperatures regularly exceed 40 degrees Celsius in the Summer, this does not appear to be a well considered nomination for a competition that occurs in June and July. Yet who can say that ELV for the legal collapse of the maul did not come from an influential power, even if money were not involved. There may be those who query the void between the professional, multi-millionaire players, and the fans and amateur enthusiasts. Yet who amongst their club's second XV's can honestly say they relate to the uber-professional, gym-honed and constantly probed and tested athletes who represent our countries and professional clubs? Rugby cannot have it both ways. It is professional, and just like football there will always remain the dedicated many who pull on their kit well into their 40's and 50's on a rainy winter's day, or who coach the children who may one day go on to earn a living as a sportsman or woman, regardless of the state of their sport at the very highest level.

  The current modus operandi of Rugby in relation to the transfer of players is, in part, a football one; that of the Bosman ruling, where a player is allowed to talk to other clubs and leave at the end of their contract to join another without their present employer blocking or demanding a transfer fee. We also have a disparity between the abilities of clubs to pay the wages their talent may believe they ought to earn; Dan Carter became the world's best paid player in 2008 when Perpignan paid him an annual salary of £500,000, far greater than the centrally contracted New Zealand franchises could offer. In contemporary terms, perhaps this is most pertinent for the Welsh regions, and the British and Irish sides in general, as they see the rise of 14 and more sides who have entrenched benefits when it comes to the acquisition and retention of players. Whilst the Irish sides have funding from their Union to aid player retention, and the Welsh have had a token gesture from the WRU to do this too, the clubs in the French Top 14 operate under a €10m (£8.6m) salary cap, the English Premiership under a £4.5m salary cap, and the Welsh regions of the PRO12 under a £3.5m salary cap. We are therefore operating in a pseudo-Capitalist format whereby the clubs with the most money can demand and offer a greater professional standard and living standard via a wage and, arguably, lifestyle, in order to attract talent. Yet the club that supplies this talent, and often is involved in its development from an early age, is not compensated.

  This affects not merely the Northern Hemisphere, but the Southern Hemisphere, too. So far, the SANZAR nations have been sufficiently endowed with an abundance of talent that the lure of Northern money has not dented their ability to dominate the world game on the international stage. Although it is admirable that New Zealand and Australia are able to take a stand and not select players playing outside the Super 15 competition, we are already seeing South Africa unable, or reluctant, to do likewise. Regardless of the impact on the national side that occurs with an elite player drain (in football, Holland, France, Brazil, and Argentina operate successfully with most or all of their best players abroad, as do Fiji, Samoa and Tonga in Rugby), there is little benefit for South Africa to lose Bryan Habana to French club rugby. In the next twenty years, are we certain that the SANZAR nations will continue to be able to survive such a drain? Their influence and power stands them in good stead, whereas players from countries like Argentina, the Pacific Islands, and Canada, where the iRB really ought to be looking to improve the game as more than a 10-12 elite nation sport, would continue to seek overseas employment with no benefit for the clubs where they learnt their trade; therefore no benefit to the young players who follow in their wake who would prosper from improved training conditions provided by a transfer fee.

  Perhaps the most pressing issue, however, is not the loss of players looking to earn one last payoff, such as Lee Byrne, Jerry Collins, Bakkies Botha, or Matt Giteau, but players in their prime, or worse, at a young age. Welsh rugby, alongside the loss of James Hook, Paul James, Luke Charteris and others, has also recently seen the likes of Steve Shingler go to London Irish for a salary he could not have received at the Scarlets, and his return to Wales saw Owen Williams move to Leicester for, one can only assume, similar reasons. Owen Williams is, for all intents and purposes, an equivalent of the aforementioned Wanyama; not proven on the big league stage and not necessarily a future international star, but with much promise and talent. This is reflected in monetary terms in soccer, perhaps grossly so, but not for rugby.

  One of the issues may well be the clubs themselves. Whilst Football clubs are often one hundred and twenty years old or more, and have academies where young boys and girls play from ages 8 or 9. Rugby does not have that traditional pull or power; regions and franchises are in their infancy and cannot categorically state that they have 'nurtured' a player if he is signed from a feeder club on a development contract when 18. There is still a sense of fracture between these two bodies in the consciousness of all people involved with rugby, especially the fans, and so it is a somewhat difficult task to plead a moral case for compensation on the basis of development. Yet that does not mean it is futile. Recently, young English goalkeeper Jack Butland was bought for £3.5m; only six months previously, Julio Cesar, widely considered one of the best goalkeepers in the world, was bought by QPR, a newly promoted Premiership team, for an undiscolsed, but believed to be nominal, fee. The difference between the two is age; the former is 21, the latter is 32. Transfer fees should reflect potential, as well as current ability and potential length of employment. For someone like Jamie Roberts, at 26 years old and in his prime, Racing Metro would be expected to pay a substantial fee. For someone like Rodney So'oialo, currently linked to the Blues and Scarlets, at 34 years of age he would command a minor fee if any, even with his ex-All Black pedigree. For potential, like Owen Williams, it would be a higher fee and necessarily include sell-on fees, as is common in football; if Leicester were to sell him on in a few years' time for far greater than they bought him, though they would be entitled to profit from his development, it would be necessary for the original team to also profit as they lost out on his realised potential which Leicester would now be profiting from in selling him.

  An issue occurs when we consider the amateur heritage. Many players will play amateur rugby until quite late in their development. Not all future professional rugby players can come through an academy system; there are not enough places nor is it the way rugby operates. And whilst it might be nice to believe that we should maintain as much of the ethics of amateurism as possible, this is an issue which may cripple the club game. Whilst it's actually one of the best things about elite Rugby that the international game, and the World Cup, is the pinnacle of the sport (where in football the European Cup and Premier League are both a better spectacle and often a higher standard to the Football World Cup), this should not demand that we disallow clubs the opportunity to expand their financial clout through transfer fees; with the Top 14's almost 'Fantasy Rugby' like acquisition of players, it isn't inconceivable that the same fate that has occurred in football were to transpire in Rugby, too, without anything being done to attempt to redress the balance. One large transfer fee, say for James Hook or Jamie Roberts, could guarantee the retention of AWJ, Adam Jones, and Eli Walker, and Sam Waburton, Leigh Halfpenny, and Rhys Patchell respectively. The iRB is reluctant to interfere with salary caps, and I believe it's right not to do so. Each Union and league ought to be independent to decide such things, but there must be a way to avoid to monopoly of talent in a minority of clubs in one league, as currently seems to be the case.



I'm not sure of the logistics of this, nor indeed how prevalent transfers are in Rugby. Ideally this is just a very long way of starting a discussion from fans of the respective clubs, both those benefiting from players seeking greater wages and better competition, and those suffering from it.

IMSHO there isn't the money in rugby for transfer fees. Also IIRC it is EU law that after a contract is up the employer can not claim compensation(transfer fee),as most rugby contracts seem to be for 2/3 years there is less need to buy out a contract

Good post there, miaow.


One way around it would be to make young players sign contracts going into academies that makes them give the club about 5% of their wages for the rest of their career. The club invests money making them the players they are so its a fair call. A percentage of that money too would be to compensate their schools and local club(s) etc.


At the end of the day I don't think its going to happen. It doesn't happen in soccer where they earn mega bucks and compared to them rugby players don't earn much.


What we see nowadays are some super wealthy clubs starting to form throughout Europe. You have about 6 French teams leading the charge here. The top 14 is the greatest danger to European rugby. Its now the richest league and every deal is bigger than the last. Theres no sign of the money flowing into the French game slowing down.

Teams invest in players for their own benefit not the players'. They'd be quick enough to drop them if they become injured or loss form, etc.

What people seem to want is to have the players beholden to a team without that team being beholden to the player.

If you want a transfer fee, give the players long contracts

If a player moves before their contract is up, the club gets a fee. Otherwise the player is a free agent. As HoT says, if you want players to stay - offer them longer contracts.

I think we'll see smaller teams gamble in future by offering longer contracts to their most talented players.

The difference between soccer and rugby as mentioned is that soccer layers either by the club's or players choice they do not want to fulfil the contract. As with North the club had to be compensated, North could have chosen to stay but better wages was his reward.

When soccer players have fulfilled their contract they may get a signing on bonus if sort after. I don't think it happens in rugby yet but i'm sure it will.

In soccer clubs of the young player get compensated when the player makes a money move. If adam jones was to move Os would get some but so would his under 14 team.

My first employer paid me rubbish wages to compensate them for training me. Clubs are no different. North was on rubbish wages because the club is compensating themselves on the players lack of skills and experience.

I doubt transfers will ever reach the level in rugby that football has reached, partly because they're not starting from the same place. There's a whole history, heritage ad industry geared around transfer fees and many junior clubs rely on the tranfer fees to fund themselves. That could only really have arisen in a pre-Bosman environment - which rugby doesn't have. It also relies on longer-term contracts than are typical in rugby and a hierarchy of clubs to trade players.

That last point is really the crux of the issue. Rugby is an embryonic professional sport and most countries can't support a large number of teams. The answer to that in most cases has been salary caps, but these are geared to the economics of the domestic league (they help to ensure that poorer clubs can remain competitive with richer ones).

Cross-border differences remain. That's the real issue. Welsh rugby is not generating enough money relative to other markets to be able to compete for its own players. Without reversing Bosman (which would have major implications for all European employment law - your own employer might be able to stop you leaving for a better job), you couldn't enforce transfer fees like that.

The best medium term bet for the WRU (and SRU) might be to throw its lot in with the PRL and French as far as European club rugby is concerned, and negotiate as much as it can for TV rights. In the longer term, the only real option is to grow attendances. Ironically, a format that involves qualification for the European competitions might help there, too, if it makes more Rabo games meaningful.

profitius wrote:Good post there, miaow.


One way around it would be to make young players sign contracts going into academies that makes them give the club about 5% of their wages for the rest of their career. The club invests money making them the players they are so its a fair call. A percentage of that money too would be to compensate their schools and local club(s) etc.


At the end of the day I don't think its going to happen. It doesn't happen in soccer where they earn mega bucks and compared to them rugby players don't earn much.


What we see nowadays are some super wealthy clubs starting to form throughout Europe. You have about 6 French teams leading the charge here. The top 14 is the greatest danger to European rugby. Its now the richest league and every deal is bigger than the last. Theres no sign of the money flowing into the French game slowing down.

I don't think a player ever stops developing though and there's times when a player comes through the academy to then move on to another club and develop far quicker. I agree there should be some form of compensation to encourage clubs to improve their academies.

I have been saying this for a very long time.If a player has come through the academy of the said club then the club who are getting this player should pay some sort of compensation to the club who have invested money into putting him where he is today, a perfect example is the youn outside half Owen Williams from the Scarlets, Leicester are going to have one hell of a player on their hands with him next season, the Scarlets brought him through their academy at their expence, he gets his U20's cap and know Leicester are going to recieve the fruits of Scarlets hard labour, and what have they paid to get this ? Nowt. This needs looking at ASAP otherwise clubs could just fluttering their moneybags eyelashes at players they want and there is nothing the owning club can do about it.

LordDowlais Scarlets lost Owen Williams because he was not given enough game time.

A lot of moves are down to that/ not being treated correctly.

It's important to all players to get game time obviously!

Why should Scarlets be rewarded if they lose a player due to their own failings?

Rhys Gill moved to Saracens because of the lack of gametime at Cardiff.

A player should be allowed freedom of movement to continue their development.

Perhaps Owen Williams feels he can develop more as a player at a larger club like Leicester where they have a rich tradition of improving players.

If clubs want transfer fees all they have to do is offer longer contracts. IIRC most contracrs appear to be 2/3 years so not long for a player/club have to wait for a move. If the contracts were longer & a player wanted to move a Transfer fee would have to be paid

The only way to get compensation (or should we say cash in) on a player heading to another club is to either;
a) build in a clause in their first youth contract for a portion of future rugby earnings; or,
b) commit to that player with a longer term contract.

If we are saying that a player is only as good as he purely as a result of the academy he went to as opposed to natural talent or the players inner drive to improve as a player, then the academy when taking in a kid should be able to negotiate a clause like that into the kid's contract.

If they want to protect their investment in players, then they can easily commit more to that player at an earlier stage.  But the risk is you commit ten years of a contract to a player who then gets injured often but you still have to pay that committed wage.  Irish, Scottish and Welsh sides are too risk averse (and I'm happy that they are) to make such a move.

The other piece that gets built into transfers in soccer is the off field commercial impact of major signings.  Neymar goes to Barcelona and they recoup how much of that cost by selling jerseys worldwide. Beckham has just been a jersey printing exercise for the last how many years.  This doesn't happen as much at all in rugby.

I also find the logic that by losing developed players a club would get rid of their academy strange.

There are only so many academies.  If you get rid of one (or two, or half), that means you have more clubs going after less potential players coming from academies which means those players become more scarce (and then more valuable).

When a player is still on an academy contract (on pennies), they can still be pulled into the first team to play.  That gives you probably the best value player you have in your team on a cost/output perspective.

Also, if you have a great academy, there is also a better chance that one of those players will accept slightly less money to stay with your club rather than go somewhere else if you have correctly developed a club ethos and sense of loyalty.  How much of a gap can you afford to underpay before someone thinks you're taking advantage is a different story.

beshocked wrote:LordDowlais Scarlets lost Owen Williams because he was not given enough game time.

A lot of moves are down to that/ not being treated correctly.

It's important to all players to get game time obviously!

Why should Scarlets be rewarded if they lose a player due to their own failings?

Rhys Gill moved to Saracens because of the lack of gametime at Cardiff.

A player should be allowed freedom of movement to continue their development.

Perhaps Owen Williams feels he can develop more as a player at a larger club like Leicester where they have a rich tradition of improving players.

Beshocked, this particular move had a lot of cloak and daggers about it, Owen Williams said nothing to the club about lack of game time, the Scarlets did not even know he was negotiating with Leicester, do you think he would get more game time at Leicester ? I don't think he will, if he was worried about not getting enough games at the Scarlets he should have said something, but he didn't, the Scarlets invested heavily into Owen Williams who in my opinion is one of the best up and comming Welsh 10's on the circuit at the moment, and what return have they got from it, none.

LordDowlais why were their cloak and daggers? Why would he not speak to his club openly and honestly?

Who were Scarlets playing instead?

Why did he leave in your opinion? Did Scarlets not offer him enough? Was he disatisfied?

True there's no guarantee he'll get more gametime but he'll feel he can make himself no 2 behind Flood and if Flood picks up an injury he'll be in the driving seat. Plus Flood will probably still be in contention for England.

The cloak and daggers were because his agent negotiated with Leicester without the Scarlets knowing anything about it until he announced that he would be joining Leicester at the end of the season, the Scarlets did not even have the chance to counter Leicesters offer, because they knew absolutley nothing about it there was nothing they could do about it, as far as they were concerned everything was fine and they would look at starting negotiations at the end of the season.

LordDowlais my point is that Owen Williams probably wanted to leave. Surely if he didn't he would have heard Scarlets' offer?

Why would he go behind Scarlets back unless he was unhappy?

It's not the first incident of negiotations being done quietly behind close doors and won't be the last.

it is unfair on Scarlets but if the player wants to go......

It's annoying I agree but the player should be able to choose what they want to do even if you disagree with their decision.

Plus remember Scarlets took the £250,000 for North off Saints. I doubt they are upset about that.

beshocked wrote:LordDowlais my point is that Owen Williams probably wanted to leave. Surely if he didn't he would have heard Scarlets' offer?

Why would he go behind Scarlets back unless he was unhappy?

It's not the first incident of negiotations being done quietly behind close doors and won't be the last.

it is unfair on Scarlets but if the player wants to go......

It's annoying I agree but the player should be able to choose what they want to do even if you disagree with their decision.

Plus remember Scarlets took the £250,000 for North off Saints. I doubt they are upset about that.

I agree with you a player should be allowed/choose to play for who they want, but lets take a look at things with a bit of perspective, who were the two countries in the last u20 world cup final ? You guessed it Wales and England, there were some very stellar stand out players there from both countries, you can bet your bottom dollar that there were other clubs sniffing around watching these young men playing in that world cup, now if another club comes along and offers a few more quid than what he is currently getting to leave at the end of his contract then all the hard work that has been put in by the academies would be for nothing as another club is getting the benefits from them, this is what I am against , surely something must be given to the academy or club that has nurtured his talent, if the player was of an older age, say about 25 then there is no problem because he might have given something back to the club region but taking them when they are still kids is daylight robbery. For the record, I bet the Scarlets would have rather kept hold of George North than have the money.

Scarlets could have kept hold of North but took the money.

What sort of compensation are you asking for?

You might get a situation when Player A is at a club/academy but wants to move.

Did you know for example Steffon Armitage used to be in the Saracens academy then moved onto London Irish? Tom Casson currently at Quins used to be in the Saracens academy too.


Where's the line you draw?

My team like others have been on the receiving end but also beneficiary. Swings and roundabouts I say.

For all you know Leicester might develop Williams into a great fly half. He comes back to Wales in 2/3 years a far complete player.

beshocked wrote:Scarlets could have kept hold of North but took the money.

What sort of compensation are you asking for?

You might get a situation when Player A is at a club/academy but wants to move.

Did you know for example Steffon Armitage used to be in the Saracens academy then moved onto London Irish? Tom Casson currently at Quins used to be in the Saracens academy too.


Where's the line you draw?

My team like others have been on the receiving end but also beneficiary. Swings and roundabouts I say.

For all you know Leicester might develop Williams into a great fly half. He comes back to Wales in 2/3 years a far complete player.

But the Scarlets have already invested into putting him where he is today. Surley there should be some sort of ERC/IRB pannel that could sort out some sort of compo for the loss of these players, I can bet that it will not be too long before the rich French clubs come and take some of these players before they get a chance to play for the club that first gave them the chance, then you could get into the whole residency debacle, because if another nation takes a young player at the age of 18-21 without any caps then by the time they are 21-25 years of age they could play for the country that poached them from a young age. This is all a can of worms that seriously needs looking at.

It affects everyone. We lost JJ because we couldn't make as good a deal as Sarries, but why should Sarries have to compensate us because we couldn't offer the same things? If Scarlets had prioritised keeping North or Williams I guarantee they would have kept them

Chequeredjersey actually James Johnston originally came from our academy (he spent a spell there) so he's basically coming home. I agree with your sentiment though.  

Though you could argue it's Quins development that has made James Johnston the player he is.

Where do you draw the line?

LordDowlais wrote:I have been saying this for a very long time.If a player has come through the academy of the said club then the club who are getting this player should pay some sort of compensation to the club who have invested money into putting him where he is today, a perfect example is the youn outside half Owen Williams from the Scarlets, Leicester are going to have one hell of a player on their hands with him next season, the Scarlets brought him through their academy at their expence, he gets his U20's cap and know Leicester are going to recieve the fruits of Scarlets hard labour, and what have they paid to get this ? Nowt. This needs looking at ASAP otherwise clubs could just fluttering their moneybags eyelashes at players they want and there is nothing the owning club can do about it.

Do Scarlets pay compensation to the Academy players they have who don't make it as professional players?

Unfortunately for you, LordDowlais, this trips into the realms of employment law and my understanding is that there is little-to-nothing that the IRB could do about it. (The ERC has even less of a say, given that it's a commercial entity set up to administer a competition).

I don't see it as a can of worms. Careers in rugby are short and players should be entitled to maximise their career opportunities and earnings. They will always have to balance game time against facilities, coaching, training, income against the chance to play for their country. New Zealand lost Nick Evans because he decided that earning a decent wage in England was better than an uncertain international career behind Dan Carter. Quins kept him because they agreed to reduce his game time (presumably so he could prolong his career). Other players face similar choices.

Scarlets had the opportunity to offer Williams a new contract. If they did, then his lack of response should have tipped them he was looking elsewhere. If they didn't, then they were daft or arrogant or both. For a player to leave an academy setup as you describe suggests there's something wrong with the setup (or that the player never really wanted to be there).

It is possible to hang on to academy players, but it's often a quid-pro-quo. Quins have prioritised developing and holding onto their academy players over buying in new talent. We have lost some good players to injury, and some squad players to better opportunities but only two top players to other clubs (Strettle and Johnston, both to Sarries). That's happened because Quins have gone out of their way to support the players and commit to them. The result is that players want to stay; Ugo Monye has turned down big money from French teams, and Olly Kohn did the same (though has sadly now retired through injury - what did Gatland do to him while Wales had him?) - those are the ones I know for definite but I am sure that other players have had similar offers but chosen to stay.

Life is compromise. Sometimes to choose one thing you have to preclude another option.

[quote="Notch"]

LordDowlais wrote:I have been saying this for a very long time.If a player has come through the academy of the said club then the club who are getting this player should pay some sort of compensation to the club who have invested money into putting him where he is today, a perfect example is the youn outside half Owen Williams from the Scarlets, Leicester are going to have one hell of a player on their hands with him next season, the Scarlets brought him through their academy at their expence, he gets his U20's cap and know Leicester are going to recieve the fruits of Scarlets hard labour, and what have they paid to get this ? Nowt. This needs looking at ASAP otherwise clubs could just fluttering their moneybags eyelashes at players they want and there is nothing the owning club can do about it.

Do Scarlets pay compensation to the Academy players they have who don't make it as professional players?[/quote]

Why should they ? They have given them enough whilst trying to make them professional.

Poorfour wrote:Unfortunately for you, LordDowlais, this trips into the realms of employment law and my understanding is that there is little-to-nothing that the IRB could do about it. (The ERC has even less of a say, given that it's a commercial entity set up to administer a competition).

I don't see it as a can of worms. Careers in rugby are short and players should be entitled to maximise their career opportunities and earnings. They will always have to balance game time against facilities, coaching, training, income against the chance to play for their country. New Zealand lost Nick Evans because he decided that earning a decent wage in England was better than an uncertain international career behind Dan Carter. Quins kept him because they agreed to reduce his game time (presumably so he could prolong his career). Other players face similar choices.

Scarlets had the opportunity to offer Williams a new contract. If they did, then his lack of response should have tipped them he was looking elsewhere. If they didn't, then they were daft or arrogant or both. For a player to leave an academy setup as you describe suggests there's something wrong with the setup (or that the player never really wanted to be there).

It is possible to hang on to academy players, but it's often a quid-pro-quo. Quins have prioritised developing and holding onto their academy players over buying in new talent. We have lost some good players to injury, and some squad players to better opportunities but only two top players to other clubs (Strettle and Johnston, both to Sarries). That's happened because Quins have gone out of their way to support the players and commit to them. The result is that players want to stay; Ugo Monye has turned down big money from French teams, and Olly Kohn did the same (though has sadly now retired through injury - what did Gatland do to him while Wales had him?) - those are the ones I know for definite but I am sure that other players have had similar offers but chosen to stay.

No they didn't, by the time it came around he had already signed for Leicester, the Scarlets knew sweet f.a about anything going on between Owen and Leicester, it was all done on the quiet between his agent and Leicester.

And whilst that probably w\wasn't the best way for those parties to conduct business, there must have been a reason that he chose to do that

Nobody forced Williams to sign he chose to. The agent only does what the client wants.If he was happy at Scarlets surley he would have said something to them about him talking to someone else?

broadland, don't underestimate the power of agents. I'd imagine he would have taken the advice that keeping his mouth shut would be in his benefit whilst the Leicester deal was still on the table; if the deal fell through, he would still be a Scarlets player, and wouldn't want to deal with a coaching structure that knew he was looking elsewhere when only a few games into his career there. That hardly strikes you, as a coach, as the behaviour of someone you can rely on and who is willing to sacrifice and work as a squad member for the team.

Long and the short of it, Leicester offered more money to him, as London Irish did to Shingler. Which is fine, Leicester, as one of the great, if not the greatest, English clubs, presumably are in a far better financial situation than the Scarlets, even before the salary cap, so they're able to offer a promising youngster more than a Welsh region is. With the salary cap issue aside, if one club is offering you more money than another, as a player in a career which has a shelf life of barely over a decade and which could end with one injury, it's understandable to look for as much money as possible. In fact that's a principle true to most, if not all, lines of work. In Owen Williams' case, he's likely to go from 2nd choice at the Scarlets in his position, to 3rd at Leicester, competing for 2nd, which is, one can only presume, worth the money to him.

The notion of a club having a percentage of a player's future earnings is a ridiculous one. But clearly, if a player is still in contract to a club, they should be bought out of this contract by the buying club, and thus the selling club is compensated. Of course the fees will likely be minimal to start with, as was the case in football: if North, with one year left on his contract, commands a £250,000 fee, can we presume that fees will be along the lines of the salary iteslf? So, as the average Aviva salary is around £80,000, perhaps that is where prices would be per player? However, given that North is one of the best players in his position, and only 20 years of age, I would presume it would be far less, dictated also by the fact clubs simply do not have a lot of money, nor are they budgeted for such expenditure.

It's merely the culture of rugby people are contending with. Football contracts are regularly 3, 4 or 5 years long at the top, yet often players only last two seasons at a club before moving on. The leagues Rugby should be looking at is the lower football leagues for comparison; salaries are akin to Rabo/Aviva rugby players, and although there are obviously far more clubs so players move around a lot more, contracts are between one and three seasons, and though many free transfers and loans occur, for many clubs, selling their better players for a fee is the only way they survive or improve.

The main issue, from a Welsh club perspective, is that Luke Charteris, Lee Byrne, James Hook, Huw Bennett, Jamie Roberts, Dan Lydiate, Gethin Jenkins, Mike Phillips and Aled Brew have all left to join French clubs, with George North, Craig Mitchell and Paul James leaving for England. Only one club has announced they received a transfer fee. Perhaps there were unpublished fees paid, and I'm sure, without any concrete evidence, that this has occurred a fair few times over the last few years, but such a loss of talent, of different ages and abilities, with no compensation for the clubs they left, is clearly wrong. One way around an issue such as the Owen Williams move would be for clubs to stop their culture of not talking to players about contract renewal/improvement during their final year, often finalising the deal in the February/March of the year it is to expire. If done the Summer before, this allows players who refuse a contract renewal to be sold instead of merely leaving, or to simply run down the final year of their contract. Clubs would be wary, therefore, of letting their best players approach this final year without a renewal all but signed for fear of having them for one final year before losing them for free. I really think this is something that will, if it occurs, only happen sparingly at first; the majority of club players will most likely still see out their contracts before leaving with no transfer fee, but, with time, this will likely change.

I fail to see the opposition to transfer fees in principle, however, and the argument that "there isn't enough money in rugby" or "this isn't how rugby works" is flawed in that Rugby is in its embryonic stages of professionalism; better to get in right now for all the stakeholders, than having to strike a deal in 10-15 years time when the French league has all but obliterated the rest of the club scene in Europe.

Miaow, it's not a question of culture, it's a question of the size of the game. Transfer fees persist in football partly because pre-Bosman it was more or less the only way to acquire a player from another club, and the industry around that is self-perpetuating because there are a lot of vested interests... but mainly they persist because there are bigger clubs willing to pay for players.

I don't have the stats, but I would be willing to bet that lower league clubs don't make a great deal of money from transfer fees to their peers. The lifeblood for these clubs is players trading up to the big leagues.

In rugby, most unions manage about one and a half professional leagues, if that. The gradient between the top clubs and the bottom isn't that great. At the moment we have a bit of a distortion in that the French clubs are allowed a higher salary cap. I am not sure it's sustainable but even if it were, I don't think transfer fees would make much difference. The pool of players to target is small (unlike in football) and more importantly, the value available to any one club is pretty small too.

How many players does a club like Scarlets lose a season? What's that worth in fees? The commercial value of a single rugby player - outside of a handful of those who transcend the game like Wilkinson and Carter - is measured in the hundreds of thousands, not the millions. That might make a small difference to a club's finances but it's not going to bridge a £4m gap between salary caps.

Pre-bosman once you signed for a club you took what you were offered unless another club paid a fee. Bosmans contract was up, they didn't want him, weren't paying him but held the rights for him to play football which they wanted paid. How is that fair.

Every club know how long each player has left at their club.  You can't expect a young player not to worry about his future.

Recently Zebo and others got an extension on their contract at Munster so as not to lose them.

Once a person has fulfilled their side of the contract which is doing what the coaches ask they are free to leave.  Should players who go to the lower leagues also have to compansate for these better players.  Clubs are conpensated by paying the academy players peanuts and treating them poorly.

If Munster got a player off Leinster should we compensate them for having players that are use to a winning mentallity.  Should irish teams compensate Prem teams for teaching our front rows to scrumage.  Where do you think people stop getting training/learning from the club that needs to be refunded.

And to top it off should the player have to pay their final club money or free time as they are leaving them and give them nothing.  I firgure that BOD must have to compensate Leinster rugby €1m atleast for all the money and time they invested in him.  Either that or he should have to train people for free for ten years till he pays his debt.

Do what you ask, get what you agreeded, sign a new deal where ever it maybe.

ALL what I am saying is, some clubs are very poor, they rely on their academies to keep them competitive, some clubs/regions cannot afford top quality players so they try and develope them themselves. Now, lets look at it like this, certain clubs are very good at producing young tallent that come on to be international standard, one team that spring to mind in this is Newcastle, they have produced some mighty fine players over the years only to keep loosing them and struggle at the bottom of the league, even get relagated, now if teams like this, who are known for producing quality youngsters are getting their players poached all the time, how on earth are they expected to get anywhere when a rich club flutters their eyelashes at them ? If teams like Newcastle had some sort of compo for the players they have lost over the years they could have replaced the players they lost with half decent replacements, but we all know how the Newcastle story ended up dont we.

LordDowlais wrote:ALL what I am saying is, some clubs are very poor, they rely on their academies to keep them competitive, some clubs/regions cannot afford top quality players so they try and develope them themselves. Now, lets look at it like this, certain clubs are very good at producing young tallent that come on to be international standard, one team that spring to mind in this is Newcastle, they have produced some mighty fine players over the years only to keep loosing them and struggle at the bottom of the league, even get relagated, now if teams like this, who are known for producing quality youngsters are getting their players poached all the time, how on earth are they expected to get anywhere when a rich club flutters their eyelashes at them ? If teams like Newcastle had some sort of compo for the players they have lost over the years they could have replaced the players they lost with half decent replacements, but we all know how the Newcastle story ended up dont we.

I could be wrong but weren't newcastle one of the clubs pushing for them to go professional and didn't they buy up all around them st the start.

Brendan wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:ALL what I am saying is, some clubs are very poor, they rely on their academies to keep them competitive, some clubs/regions cannot afford top quality players so they try and develope them themselves. Now, lets look at it like this, certain clubs are very good at producing young tallent that come on to be international standard, one team that spring to mind in this is Newcastle, they have produced some mighty fine players over the years only to keep loosing them and struggle at the bottom of the league, even get relagated, now if teams like this, who are known for producing quality youngsters are getting their players poached all the time, how on earth are they expected to get anywhere when a rich club flutters their eyelashes at them ? If teams like Newcastle had some sort of compo for the players they have lost over the years they could have replaced the players they lost with half decent replacements, but we all know how the Newcastle story ended up dont we.

I could be wrong but weren't newcastle one of the clubs pushing for them to go professional and didn't they buy up all around them st the start.

Well indeed, Newcastle were the original sugar daddy club and possibly the first fully professional one, it could be argued that they 'bought' the league and that there has been a lack of forward planning ever since (possibly until now).

That's not entirely true, though - Newcastle have developed a lot of good players who've gone on to be poached by other clubs (Mat Tait and Toby Flood are the most prominent examples).

But even so, would enforcing transfer fees really have made a difference? George North's transfer fee was only £250k, and that for a player who was - for all that he's young - already an established international. Let's imagine that within the context of employment law you could enforce a transfer fee (which is by no means certain). Absolute top whack might be 3 x salary, and top salary for anyone who's not a Wilkinson or a Carter is going to be about £200k. A club with a really good academy might produce 2 players a year who could go for that sort of money, so that would be £1m.

That's helpful, but it's not going to be enough to make a difference in the long term. It's less than 1/4 of the gap between English and French salary caps. It might be the difference between what LI or Falcons spend on their squad salaries and what Tigers or Sarries do - but to use it that way you'd have to be sure of getting those transfer fees year in, year out - not something you can rely on.

The pool of players, clubs and money just ain't big enough for a football-like system to emerge in rugby. Poorer clubs would be far better to focus on increasing attendances and other revenue, and so being in a position to invest in retaining their academy graduates.

Poorfour wrote:That's not entirely true, though - Newcastle have developed a lot of good players who've gone on to be poached by other clubs (Mat Tait and Toby Flood are the most prominent examples).

But even so, would enforcing transfer fees really have made a difference? George North's transfer fee was only £250k, and that for a player who was - for all that he's young - already an established international. Let's imagine that within the context of employment law you could enforce a transfer fee (which is by no means certain). Absolute top whack might be 3 x salary, and top salary for anyone who's not a Wilkinson or a Carter is going to be about £200k. A club with a really good academy might produce 2 players a year who could go for that sort of money, so that would be £1m.

That's helpful, but it's not going to be enough to make a difference in the long term. It's less than 1/4 of the gap between English and French salary caps. It might be the difference between what LI or Falcons spend on their squad salaries and what Tigers or Sarries do - but to use it that way you'd have to be sure of getting those transfer fees year in, year out - not something you can rely on.

The pool of players, clubs and money just ain't big enough for a football-like system to emerge in rugby. Poorer clubs would be far better to focus on increasing attendances and other revenue, and so being in a position to invest in retaining their academy graduates.

Didn't Jamie Noon come from Newcastle as well or was he from Sale ?

The bulls in SA have lost the following players for next season

Juandre Kruger (current bok)
Jacques Potgeiter (current bok)
Dewald Potgeiter (former bok)
Chilliboy Ralephelle (current bok)
Jano Vermaak (current bok)
Morne Steyn (current bok)
Zane Kirchner (current bok)
Wynand Olivier (current bok)

I don't care who you are... when you lose 8 first team test internationals from your side in a season without major purchases you won't be able to replace quality with quality. As contracts have ended they get nothing for these players.Their prior investment has been lost.

fa0019 wrote:The bulls in SA have lost the following players for next season

Juandre Kruger (current bok)
Jacques Potgeiter (current bok)
Dewald Potgeiter (former bok)
Chilliboy Ralephelle (current bok)
Jano Vermaak (current bok)
Morne Steyn (current bok)
Zane Kirchner (current bok)
Wynand Olivier (current bok)

I don't care who you are... when you lose 8 first team test internationals from your side in a season without major purchases you won't be able to replace quality with quality. As contracts have ended they get nothing for these players.Their prior investment has been lost.

+1. 

Poorfour wrote:In rugby, most unions manage about one and a half professional leagues, if that. The gradient between the top clubs and the bottom isn't that great. At the moment we have a bit of a distortion in that the French clubs are allowed a higher salary cap.

I'd say that's my main issue. It's the fact that England alone has a four tier professional league system with 20 odd teams in each, with a vast spectrum of quality from the top to the bottom, where Rugby can barely sustain one league per country (Scotland and Italy have two pro teams, Ireland and Wales four). If the the rank below, the Premiership level, were to become professional rather than semi-pro, then there may be an argument for it, but there simply aren't enough playing numbers or demand to warrant that, yet.

That said, it still doesn't deal with the French issue, and whilst it may be nice to believe each Home Union should make it as attractive and as beneficial as possible to play your club Rugby in your own nation, it's pretty fanciful to expect players to stay when they can double or triple their salary and live in France whilst playing against some of the best players in the world, and despite the token £1m gesture from the WRU and other attempts to reverse this trend, it all feels a little bit like redecoration on the deck of the Titanic. The FFR and Top 14 should see the benefit in limiting the gross expenditure of their teams, not least for the sake of the national team; the wooden spoon in 2013 should have been enough to shake them into action. But I doubt that will happen; you don't go from securing the best players in the world back to fiscal prudence merely so that a few academy boys might eventually play for France. There's too many vested interests and too great a demand for immediate and absolute success. To continue the football comparison, the Premier League has has 15 years of buying the world's top talent, and despite accepting the England team is suffering in part due to this, nothing happens, because money and success talks, and the money and success is with the league its top clubs.

So, the other Unions and clubs of those losing the players should act in their best interests, which is to try and soften the blow of losing players they do not want to lose.

fa0019 wrote:I don't care who you are... when you lose 8 first team test internationals from your side in a season without major purchases you won't be able to replace quality with quality. As contracts have ended they get nothing for these players.Their prior investment has been lost.

Exactly. Despite using football as an analogous comparison, it's obviously not an immediately viable system in Rugby. Yet this is still an issue severely affecting many clubs in many countries, from the very best to some of the emerging or poorer nations, which needs a resolution.

what is the incentive to build an academy if you can bring in out of contract players with no cost?

In rugby most players run down their contracts, at any age.

Clubs can't be sure who will make it, who won't so they give contracts to many of their promising players in the hope one or two will come good out of a bunch. This costs a lot of money and investment.

A club who has no academy has no attributed costs and they can concentrate on buying sure things.

It happens with SA too, Natal has a very small rugby base.... near all their players come from outside Natal, they shop mainly in the Western & Eastern Cape around players aged 18yrs old..... players who have come through the WP ranks and who WP have spent signigificant amounts on.

fa0019 wrote:what is the incentive to build an academy if you can bring in out of contract players with no cost?

In rugby most players run down their contracts, at any age.

If fees were brought in, this would probably become a thing of the past, at least for the best players. Whilst it is only right that a player is free to go wherever they choose once they have fulfilled their contract with a club, for no fee, players would likely be rewarded with contracts, perhaps on a yearly rolling basis the Summer before it is to expire for your average clubmen, so that running down a contract and leaving the club with no compensation becomes rarer. Players could either demand or request a move if still in contract, which then opens the market to a bidding war; if a club thinks it is beneficial to keep the player, they still can, losing him for nothing at the end of the contract. Or they can accept the compensation and lose his services x years earlier than anticipated.

Longer contracts would likely be given to players, and this in turn would probably increase transfer fees, knowing that the 'selling' club did not have to sell immediately or lose the player for free in the near future if the player still had two to three years left on their contract. Ultimately, however, it would probably decrease the amount of poaching that has occurred over the last few years, so that clubs or regions, many of which are still in their infancy in terms of a professionally structured club, can plan in the medium term on the basis of having Leigh Halfpenny, Sam Warburton, Jamie Roberts etc., or at the very least the monetary compensation that their loss would bring.

fa0019 wrote:The bulls in SA have lost the following players for next season

Juandre Kruger (current bok)
Jacques Potgeiter (current bok)
Dewald Potgeiter (former bok)
Chilliboy Ralephelle (current bok)
Jano Vermaak (current bok)
Morne Steyn (current bok)
Zane Kirchner (current bok)
Wynand Olivier (current bok)

I don't care who you are... when you lose 8 first team test internationals from your side in a season without major purchases you won't be able to replace quality with quality. As contracts have ended they get nothing for these players.Their prior investment has been lost.

And they knew that when they were trying to keep hold of their players. The main problem is that not all Leagues are playing by the same rules but French rugby will lose out on their current methods if they continue

I think 5 are going to France, 2 to Japan and 1 to Saracens.

When you look at SA closer we see the following losses to Europe and Japan from other SA clubs.

WP

Dewaldt Duvenage
Don Armand
Andries Bekker
Bryan Habana
Joe Pietersen
Gerhard van den Heever

Sharks

Louis Ludik
Riaan Viljoen


Cheetahs

Robert Ebersohn

I think countries can lose a bunch of players each season but near 20 is a big ask.... and over half are springboks, most who still have test careers.

The more worrying thing for me though is the fact a club from a certain country could poach a young promising uncapped 18 year old and by the time he reaches his prime he would be elidgable to play for the country he is in at that time, I think France have or are going to cap some young Fijians aren't/haven't they.

fa0019 wrote:I think 5 are going to France, 2 to Japan and 1 to Saracens.

When you look at SA closer we see the following losses to Europe and Japan from other SA clubs.

WP

Dewaldt Duvenage
Don Armand
Andries Bekker
Bryan Habana
Joe Pietersen
Gerhard van den Heever

Sharks

Louis Ludik
Riaan Viljoen


Cheetahs

Robert Ebersohn

I think countries can lose a bunch of players each season but near 20 is a big ask.... and over half are springboks, most who still have test careers.

you have missed JP pietersen and JC van Rensburg as well.