A transfer system for Rugby

An interesting article asking why Rugby doesn't have transfer fees. It's got me thinking and it's surely a case of when not if. Coming from a RL background, the subject of transfers was always around. In my days of Wellington League if you go from one club to another, that club pays a transfer fee. It was also on inter-city transfers etc.

Let's look at the situation with Wellington Rugby at the moment. No less than three experienced props have signed contracts to play overseas leaving the Lions, and possibly the Hurricanes in a bit of a mire. Why can't we expect compensation from the French clubs who have signed Tialata and Schwalger? After all, Wellington (province and clubs) have invested a lot of time and coaching into these players and now another club swoops in and takes that talent. You bring through the next generation (apparently Wgtn ahs a few NZ U21 and younger props coming through) but then sooner or later, especially if they don't find NZ selection, they will take the money on offer overseas.

Transfer fees could actually stem the flow of players leaving the country. The costs of fees will probably drive down the player's wages, which in turn would help the cause to keep that player in say, NZ, SA or Australia. If they go, then the transfer fee goes into developing the next gen players or helping to retain other players.

This could be flawed, no system is perfect but I think it is something that should be looked into.

System proposed:

All transfers of professional players from one country to any other country would be subject to a transfer fee based on relative experience, international experience and national ranking. For players at the bottom end of the market (ITM, Currie Cup - no caps or Super comp experience) 10% of contract value, obviously rising up as you get more experienced and in demand players

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/5035340/Rugbys-transfer-system-hides-aces-value

Isn't it about buying players out of contracts? The player owns his contract in rugby, he is employed by the club not owned by it. Protectionism doesn't work. Try and find an economic solution.

New Zealand Herald raised the same point,at the moment the host SH country has spent money etc developing players.Which then amounts to a free transfer to the NH or Japan.Funds raised by this means could then be fed back into the SH countries .To develop more new players,a sliding scale obviously but a Carter,Mc Caw for example.Would come pretty expensive,and it might mean less cherry picking from the NH .In SH most players are contracted to SANZAR not there clubs/franchises

If you want to do it then you can write it into their contracts, if they give notice you reserve the right to negotiate a compensation package with the buyer. What you'll find is that a percentage come North rather than sign their central contract as the clubs would rather take a punt on a youngster than compensate you.

Looks like I may have been on to something!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10733151

Would you prefer that the NH didnt poach your senior late20s/early30 international player, but, instead took the young promising 0 cap club player because there was less of a transfer fee....an unsustainable system

Also, Transfer fees are only in place for buying out a players contract - when a player is no longer under contract, they are free to do whatever they want, and I dont see how you could inforce a rule that their (now) former club could get a transfer fee when they decide to move abroad.

Wales - think you've got a football system in your head. The proposed system doesn't work like that, it is compensation for developing players, rather than football's asset trades.

As I stated at the top of my article, this system is seen in RL at lower levels in NZ/Aus, teams must pay compensation to other clubs when a player signs on to that club. They don't have to be in contract because it is not about the ownership of the player it is about the development put into that player

I’d support a transfer fee on a local level too. Leicester, Northampton and a collection of other clubs have profited well from the hard work of the Northern team’s academies, who have received little recompense.

Fans of other premiership clubs look at the Northern clubs and criticise the fact that they are down the bottom of the league, but how would their team’s cope if they have been plundered in the way Newcastle and Leeds have been?

The list of names Newcastle have lost in the last 3-4 seasons is well worn as I trot it out every time this issue comes up


Kieran Brookes (Leicester)
Dave Wilson (Bath)
Geoff Parling (Leicester)
Phil Dowson (Northampton)
Ben Woods (Leicester)
Alex Gray (Someone)
Rory Clegg (Harlequins)
Toby Flood (Leicester)
Matthew Tait (Leicester vis Sale)
Rob Miller (Sale)
Lee Dickson (Northampton)


Leeds:

Jordan Crane (Leicester)
Danny Care (Harlequins)
Ryan Glynn (Northampton)
Joe Ford (Northampton)
Scott Armstrong (Northampton)
James Craig (Northampton)
Calum Clarke (Northampton)

Sale

Christian Day (Northampton)
Carl Fearns (Bath)
Ben Foden (Northampton)

You can’t keep a player at a club against their will and if they see a better opportunity elsewhere for them, then good luck to them, but clubs struggling with finances are developing excellent young players for little reward.


I would be happy if clubs were compensated for losing a player under the age of 23 who has spent a significant amount of time in a club’s academy.

I know I sound mercenary but there is nothing more disheartening (as a Newcastle fan) than watching a young lad developed by the club, shine for Newcastle and know that a Leicester/ Northampton fan is watching him as well.

I did it at the back end of last season about Tom Catterick. My friend and I were watching the Falcons, Catterick did a neat little bit of play and my friend immediately turned to me and said ‘How long?’ I automatically replied ‘about two years’. It is a very depressing state of affairs.

As much as New Zealander's may be insulted here but frankly their clueless about European law., and neither can the IRB over ride European law in their dealings. Any player over 24 who Isn't under contract can move freely to other sports employment in Europe, without compensation being paid. the IRB cannot legally enforce a different outcome, if it tries to it will be banned from working within Europe. Any player who is under 24 can move freely provided they havnent been offered a new contract with their club with a percentage based pay rise.
The Bosman rule is part of the legal system and I cant see how they can hope or expect to pass any kind of rule that would go against European international law.
The article that's been posted quotes "major unions", however basically were saying South Africa and New Zealand. Do you really think the European countries would back this? Secondly the European nations always gang up and out vote the 3 Nation teams anyway on most issues. Even when John O'Neill threatened to take Australia out of the World game, and break away, a few years ago when he wanted passive scrums he was basically told by the European teams, "goodbye and good luck".
Secondly Rugby doesn't have the money football does and the only ones who could possibly afford transfer fees would be the French and some English clubs.

Even if it was legal, I don't think there would be sufficient motivation from enough unions to get this through. Sanzar would have to offer something pretty big in return.

Alyn - when did JON threaten to take the Wallabies out of international rugby if we didnt get passive scrums? He's an unusual fella, but I can't remember that one.

Don't clubs pay compensation to buy a player out of a contract if they wish to sign them whilst they are still under contract with a club?

Personally I don't really see the need for a transfer system as at the moment what we have is working. If a player signs a contract with a club everyone knows that they will be staying for the duration of that contract, unless there is a get out clause or a clause allowing them to follow up on offers after a certain period. To me that gives the clubs, players, and fans a degree of certainty about who will be there for the season ahead. At the moment if you look at football a player can sign a new contract and then be at a new club at the start of the next transfer window, which doesn't really give any certainty, and allows the team with the cash to go and sign up whoever they want whenever they want. After all money talks.

Alyn, It's not just kiwis, but all fans. The rule you refer to applies to a large no of countries outside of europe as well (ever wondered why so many kiwi rugby players need a samoan passport, when they already have a NZ one). My understanding is that there is still an opportunity for a transfer system, within the existing legal structure.

In terms of the earlier comments effects on poaching young players, instead of old ones. It already happens, and theres a big drift to Aussie. Kiwis have been going to play rugby professionally in Europe for at least 40 years, I can't see that changing (yes I know rugby has only been "professional" for 16 years).