Eddie's England squad for summer

First topic message reminder :

Hello you lovely lot.

I've very much enjoyed your posts over this six nations. Great stuff.

I don't post much as I'm a bit of a novice (well a lot of really) but I'm always intrigued by your far more experienced wisdom. So:

The summer will bring a chance for Eddie to put more of his stamp on the team; who do you think stays the same and who changes? And who, if any, so you think might be bolters? (I know it's an oxymoron asking about bolters this early, but I'm going to do it anyway)

Top footballers are often on 7 year contracts, just so the transfer fee will be high. With the likes of Wayne Rooney on £300k per week (only the highest and lowest salaries expressed in weekly terms surely) and a long term contract - any transfer fee would be comparable to the value of the contract.

Rugby transfer fees tend to be the same as the value of the remaining contract, and not often needed as the money available in rugby is quite low in comparison to the round ball game.

LondonTiger wrote:Top footballers are often on 7 year contracts, just so the transfer fee will be high. With the likes of Wayne Rooney on £300k per week (only the highest and lowest salaries expressed in weekly terms surely) and a long term contract - any transfer fee would be comparable to the value of the contract.

Rugby transfer fees tend to be the same as the value of the remaining contract, and not often needed as the money available in rugby is quite low in comparison to the round ball game.

in football I don't think thats quite right.

Most top footballers are worth about £25 million for those with up to 2 years of contract left. I don't think these chaps will be on 250k a week. Those guys will be worth a lot lot more... probably closer to £50 million +. Their value it seems is greater than the value of their current contracts on initial inspection. Maybe it runs true the lower you go but not in elite football.

Transfer fees in football are just numbers plucked from the air and represent how much a team is willing to pay and what the 'owners' are willing to take.

admittedly football academies spend more money on players than rugby ones do.

Kids are in football academies from aged what? 8

Whats the youngest age for rugby? 16?

fa0019 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Top footballers are often on 7 year contracts, just so the transfer fee will be high. With the likes of Wayne Rooney on £300k per week (only the highest and lowest salaries expressed in weekly terms surely) and a long term contract - any transfer fee would be comparable to the value of the contract.

Rugby transfer fees tend to be the same as the value of the remaining contract, and not often needed as the money available in rugby is quite low in comparison to the round ball game.

in football I don't think thats quite right.

Most top footballers are worth about £25 million for those with up to 2 years of contract left. I don't think these chaps will be on 250k a week. Those guys will be worth a lot lot more... probably closer to £50 million +. Their value it seems is greater than the value of their current contracts on initial inspection. Maybe it runs true the lower you go but not in elite football.

It's a starting point FA. As 7.5 says though the numbers are usually plucked out of the air - and often the reported number is very different to that actually paid.

LondonTiger wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Top footballers are often on 7 year contracts, just so the transfer fee will be high. With the likes of Wayne Rooney on £300k per week (only the highest and lowest salaries expressed in weekly terms surely) and a long term contract - any transfer fee would be comparable to the value of the contract.

Rugby transfer fees tend to be the same as the value of the remaining contract, and not often needed as the money available in rugby is quite low in comparison to the round ball game.

in football I don't think thats quite right.

Most top footballers are worth about £25 million for those with up to 2 years of contract left. I don't think these chaps will be on 250k a week. Those guys will be worth a lot lot more... probably closer to £50 million +. Their value it seems is greater than the value of their current contracts on initial inspection. Maybe it runs true the lower you go but not in elite football.

It's a starting point FA. As 7.5 says though the numbers are usually plucked out of the air - and often the reported number is very different to that actually paid.

I agree LT but at the moment its a little too weighted to clubs simply being able to poach youngsters from other academies. In SA we're seeing a huge migration to Europe and Japan. They unlike in Europe have kids from aged 12 sometimes in pro setup academies of some sort and do things such as finding them bursaries for top rugby schools. Its hurting the SA game a little and at the moment the drain is simply weighted to those willing to throw funny money at players (relatively speaking) rather than those who make the investment.

I think also it hurts the English game having too many foreigners. In SR nations they have 5-6 teams with literally the whole 23 available for the given clubs national team... playing top level rugby week in week out.

Can we say the same for the English game? In France its a definite problem, few flyhalves starting. Pilisson their disastrous sometimes no.1 is the understudy to Morne Steyn for instance.

It's hard to stop, pro contracts can't be offered until 16 is it? I suppose SA clubs need to tie those youngsters into longer term lucrative contracts. If they haven't got a contract there would be no fee. Again with older players clubs could offer them longer contracts but thats a different risk to the club.

Clubs are incentivised to pick EQ players.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's hard to stop, pro contracts can't be offered until 16 is it? I suppose SA clubs need to tie those youngsters into longer term lucrative contracts. If they haven't got a contract there would be no fee. Again with older players clubs could offer them longer contracts but thats a different risk to the club.

They don't get contracted at that age. First contracts will be similar ages. For instance Handre Pollard played for WP age grade all the way but the Bulls offered him a better pro deal and he took it... even though he'd been in the WP system for years.

So impossible to stop if the players want to move.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Clubs are incentivised to pick EQ players.

All EQ players or those who are just part of the elite squad?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So impossible to stop if the players want to move.

yes.

All.

No 7&1/2 wrote:All.

I just read the threshold was 14/23 average for the season. It doesn't say how much but in 2010 it was £3.5 million split between the 12 clubs for those who qualified and the average was about £16,500 per EQ player.

I think some people put too much emphasis on money when an academy player moves to another club

The majority of reasons are
1) More game time/starting - Lewington, Ford, etc
2) More chance of international selection with bigger club and playing champions cup rugby - Barrow (although technically Leeds I guess), Taylor, etc


I can't think of many reasons off the top of my head of academy players leaving for the money.

Even Bath and London Irish a lot of it happen due to the fallout of Booth getting hissy at Smith coming back as DOR and deciding to move, whilst I'm sure they are being paid a fair amount Booth was also a big lure.

Welly wrote: I think some people put too much emphasis on money when an academy player moves to another club

The majority of reasons are
1) More game time/starting - Lewington, Ford, etc
2) More chance of international selection with bigger club and playing champions cup rugby - Barrow (although technically Leeds I guess), Taylor, etc


I can't think of many reasons off the top of my head of academy players leaving for the money.

Even Bath and London Irish a lot of it happen due to the fallout of Booth getting hissy at Smith coming back as DOR and deciding to move, whilst I'm sure they are being paid a fair amount Booth was also a big lure.

Does motives really matter when clubs put in investments in players only to get nothing back if they move on?

No put then that is the way the cookie crumbles.

Why is it say Saracens, Saints, wasps, Tigers or even exeters fault a player dosnt want to remain at their current club.

If the club don't want that risk of investment then don't do it.

Why should a player suffer for being in a certain clubs academy system?
If Taylor wants to go wasps to increase international ambitions and feels it won't happen at Sale why should Sale get compensation?

Should Newcastle had payed Leeds for Barrow?
And at what point has a player payed the club's investment back?

How do you judge the investment cost?
Could Leicester have told Irish to pay 50k a season for Lewington?
Or even 500k a season for ford?

Welly wrote:No put then that is the way the cookie crumbles.

Why is it say Saracens, Saints, wasps, Tigers or even exeters fault a player dosnt want to remain at their current club.

If the club don't want that risk of investment then don't do it.

Why should a player suffer for being in a certain clubs academy system?
If Taylor wants to go wasps to increase international ambitions and feels it won't happen at Sale why should Sale get compensation?

Should Newcastle had payed Leeds for Barrow?
And at what point has a player payed the club's investment back?

How do you judge the investment cost?
Could Leicester have told Irish to pay 50k a season for Lewington?
Or even 500k a season for ford?

So in football its unfair that clubs protect their investment and players should be free to come and go as they please?

fa0019 wrote:

Welly wrote:No put then that is the way the cookie crumbles.

Why is it say Saracens, Saints, wasps, Tigers or even exeters fault a player dosnt want to remain at their current club.

If the club don't want that risk of investment then don't do it.

Why should a player suffer for being in a certain clubs academy system?
If Taylor wants to go wasps to increase international ambitions and feels it won't happen at Sale why should Sale get compensation?

Should Newcastle had payed Leeds for Barrow?
And at what point has a player payed the club's investment back?

How do you judge the investment cost?
Could Leicester have told Irish to pay 50k a season for Lewington?
Or even 500k a season for ford?

So in football its unfair that clubs protect their investment and players should be free to come and go as they please?

What are you on about? They are both the same.

If a player is out of contract they can move for free.

Clubs don't do transfers in rugby (On the whole) as it makes zero sense financially. Only a handful of teams have the money to buy players out of contract.

There is also compensation system if a club takes a player who is younger than (I want to say 20/21) like Football.

It's that old adage of an employer saying "what if I train my staff and they leave?", with the response of being "what if you don't and they stay?"

If Newcastle, Sale or Irish got annoyed with academy players jumping ship then they could scale back their academy spending, but their products would then be a lot worse and they would be the main person to suffer.

I guess the debate therefore arises as to whether the clubs are "fairly" compensated, and the answer to that will obviously depend on who you ask!

One things the clubs could do is sign their 18 year old academy players on 10 year deals. That way, they ensure they'll get returns for the next 10 years or be able to negotiate a fee for their release. The issue then is a) does the player sign and b) do you accidently sign a dud to a longterm deal. I think in may cases the first problem will be an issue, not many players will be willing to sign 10 year contracts unless the terms are highly favourable to them.

So what can the club do? They can't force their players to stay beyond the contracted term and they can't offer a realistic long-term contract without it getting rejected out of hand.

That's where I think the rules can help clubs with regards to academy prospects. Whether it is paying the first clubs of EPS players (and not current clubs), removing them from a reduced salary cap or putting a levy on the club that signs them, I think something could be done to promote academies (although I concede that clubs shouldn't and probably won't abandon their academies).

In the proposal I raised earlier, someone asked where the money from non-EPS players would go (apologies, can't quote as know much phone). Either RFU or remainder of the PRL clubs to split.

Welly wrote: I think some people put too much emphasis on money when an academy player moves to another club

The majority of reasons are
1) More game time/starting - Lewington, Ford, etc
2) More chance of international selection with bigger club and playing champions cup rugby - Barrow (although technically Leeds I guess), Taylor, etc


I can't think of many reasons off the top of my head of academy players leaving for the money.

Even Bath and London Irish a lot of it happen due to the fallout of Booth getting hissy at Smith coming back as DOR and deciding to move, whilst I'm sure they are being paid a fair amount Booth was also a big lure.

I think it was more Hatley than Booth who was the lure for the young guys who went to Bath, as he was the one who brought them through the academy. I'm sure money played a small part, but it was definitely a combination of factors rather than just the cash on offer which led to the exodus.

If we want to hold on to our academy players then we need to start playing better and not hovering over the relegation zone season after season.

Cant blame talented players for moving on. Im sure most are very loyal to the Falcons and would prefer to stay but they are ambitious.

If we were a mid table side, we'd probably hold on to a few more.

In fairness though...recently we have only really lost Brookes (who has left us twice now so shows what his thoughts are) and McGuigan leaving in the summer.

We've kept a few of our names like Mark Wilson etc.

We also have a new batch of academy lads coming through so we'll see how they go.

The acadamies are part funded by the RFU.

Exeter as a small club have done a great job with theirs, and its been pretty much vital to their success and financial stability.

Some players they have reatined, some moved on, they have bought others in.

Theres still an incentive for them to keep producing a solid turnover.

Tigers used to, and are hurting now because they havnt had the same level of success in bringing through promising youngsters form Academy to established seniors as they did 5 years or so ago.Im pretty sure they would be happy with producing another Tuillagi, Croft, Cole, Crane, Youngs, and Youngs all within a few years.

To say theres no drive to produce quality EQ players through academies is just wrong.

GeordieFalcon wrote:If we want to hold on to our academy players then we need to start playing better and not hovering over the relegation zone season after season.

Cant blame talented players for moving on. Im sure most are very loyal to the Falcons and would prefer to stay but they are ambitious.

If we were a mid table side, we'd probably hold on to a few more.

In fairness though...recently we have only really lost Brookes (who has left us twice now so shows what his thoughts are) and McGuigan leaving in the summer.

We've kept a few of our names like Mark Wilson etc.

We also have a new batch of academy lads coming through so we'll see how they go.

I think Falcons would be fine if only they could get a few of they players playing for England, it doesn't have to be an academy product either just 2 or 3 players in the Saxons and EPS and I think they would have better success.

Just a shame that the most recent Falcon to play for England was prob the one with the least loyalty.

And also not get relegated.

Quins most successful period was when our academy was churning out Browns, robshaws, JTH etc. and then mixed in a bit of international class. NEv, Tiesi etc.
We still have a few good prospects, but perhaps not as many as we originally did.
When Mapletof joined he had the inside knowledge from his time with England age grades and we brought in a lot of youth at that point.

On a side note - what ever happened to JTH? has he retired?

Basically good academies seem to be fundamental to running a Prem side....that doesn't have a sugar daddy.

propdavid_london wrote:Quins most successful period was when our academy was churning out Browns, robshaws, JTH etc. and then mixed in a bit of international class.  NEv, Tiesi etc.
We still have  a few good prospects, but perhaps not as many as we originally did.  
When Mapletof joined he had the inside knowledge from his time with England age grades and we brought in a lot of youth at that point.  

On a side note - what ever happened to JTH? has he retired?

http://www.quins.co.uk/news/jordan-turner-hall-announces-retirement/

cheers - That must have washed over me!
JTH never reached the same standard he was before injury - but when fit and confident he was an excellent direct centre that worked well with Lowe and Tiesi for a number of seasons.
He was a good graduate from the academy.

propdavid london good academies are important to clubs who have a sugar daddy too.

I think Bath are partly suffering because they aren't producing players of their own.

It's the teams who improve players the most who seem to be doing the best IMO.

Of course it's not just production of good players, the coaching is important.

propdavid_london to be honest I think a change in management is good for Quins.

When I watched Saracens vs Quins -tactically I thought Quins are badly in need of a re think.

Coaching is MASSIVE Beshocked.

I might be like a broken down record player but when Jon Wells is doing the vast majority of your coaching....your in trouble....as we are.

propdavid_london wrote:cheers - That must have washed over me!
JTH never reached the same standard he was before injury - but when fit and confident he was an excellent direct centre that worked well with Lowe and Tiesi for a number of seasons.  
He was a good graduate from the academy.

I played age-group rugby with him at Hove, and you could tell he was always destined for the top level. He was a fantastic player and bailed the team out on many occasions!

robbo277 wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:cheers - That must have washed over me!
JTH never reached the same standard he was before injury - but when fit and confident he was an excellent direct centre that worked well with Lowe and Tiesi for a number of seasons.  
He was a good graduate from the academy.

I played age-group rugby with him at Hove, and you could tell he was always destined for the top level. He was a fantastic player and bailed the team out on many occasions!

A friend of mines claim to fame is trying to tackle JTH'l leg.

The score line now reads: JTHs thigh -1 now unconscious tackler - 0

I remember one of the late season games 6-7 years ago, JTH hit the line hard and dragged 4 people nearly 10 metres over to score. Never the same after his injury unfortunately.

anyone hear Eddie on R5L last night? He is certainly mischeivous. The podcast is available in Beeb website.

He stated that the "under-performing" players included "young guys" and "old guys", whilst cheekily suggesting Haskell may want to go to Rio with the 7s for the party.

So anyone, everyone or no one then. I'm going to find these games very interesting, I expect him to move away from the players used in the 6Ns, but then I expected him to go for different players then. Think he should have a look at a few players in the front row and at 8 personally.

He's just keeping them on their toes.

Basically saying - "im not point anyone out...but your all being watched closely so don't let that performance drop...if anything improve it. "

Good management.

A far cry from Lancasters methods.

I think Eddie Jones should consider the following in his squad for the summer:

Matt Mullan - I'm not convinced by Mako Vunipola at the highest level and Mullan strikes me as a good, solid and safe pair of hands. Playing well and worth a look.

Ed Slater - I've long been a big fan of the Leicester man and I think Jones should give serious considering to using either Slater or Launchbury at lock (in partnership with Kruis) and testing Itoje at blindside.

Ben Morgan - not to replace Billy V in the XV, but as an impact sub. He's ideal for that role.

Dan Robson - it seems like Care and Youngs have been battling away for that 9 jersey for a long time, but there's a slickness of service in Robson's game that I really like. I'd like to see him given a chance.

Manu Tuilagi - he must be given an extended chance at 12. I firmly believe he can reach the highest levels in that position if used properly. He's never going to be a second playmaker, but Jones is clever enough to figure that out.

Christian Wade - I'm not a bandwagon supporter and have been calling for Wade well before the 6 try performance. I'm fully aware of his defensive deficiencies, but I honestly don't care. He is the most exciting runner ball in hand that England have produced since Jason Robinson. He needs to be used.

Anthony Watson - his place in the XV is assured, but it's at 15 that I want to see him given a chance. Life is unfair, which is what I'd say to Mike Brown who has done little wrong and an awful lot right, but if England are to reach the very top of international rugby then I believe they need their best and most thrilling attacking talents working together in tandem. A backline including Tuilagi, Joseph, Watson and Wade, with Eddie Jones in charge, is going to do special things.

I have been really impressed with Robson since he's had his extended run after Simpson's misfortune.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I think Eddie Jones should consider the following in his squad for the summer:

Matt Mullan - I'm not convinced by Mako Vunipola at the highest level and Mullan strikes me as a good, solid and safe pair of hands. Playing well and worth a look.

Ed Slater - I've long been a big fan of the Leicester man and I think Jones should give serious considering to using either Slater or Launchbury at lock (in partnership with Kruis) and testing Itoje at blindside.

Ben Morgan - not to replace Billy V in the XV, but as an impact sub. He's ideal for that role.

Dan Robson - it seems like Care and Youngs have been battling away for that 9 jersey for a long time, but there's a slickness of service in Robson's game that I really like. I'd like to see him given a chance.

Manu Tuilagi - he must be given an extended chance at 12. I firmly believe he can reach the highest levels in that position if used properly. He's never going to be a second playmaker, but Jones is clever enough to figure that out.

Christian Wade - I'm not a bandwagon supporter and have been calling for Wade well before the 6 try performance. I'm fully aware of his defensive deficiencies, but I honestly don't care. He is the most exciting runner ball in hand that England have produced since Jason Robinson. He needs to be used.

Anthony Watson - his place in the XV is assured, but it's at 15 that I want to see him given a chance. Life is unfair, which is what I'd say to Mike Brown who has done little wrong and an awful lot right, but if England are to reach the very top of international rugby then I believe they need their best and most thrilling attacking talents working together in tandem. A backline including Tuilagi, Joseph, Watson and Wade, with Eddie Jones in charge, is going to do special things.

Interesting comments


Its an argument worth having but think that Slater should miss this summer as he's still missing too many games and should heal up fully (as possible) first. The problem is that its going to be harder and harder for him to get a look in as time goes on. There is much that has been written about Wade having the same kinds of problems, 6 tries in a game or no.

Also not sure if Ben Morgan is doing enough

I'd agree on Robson, not on Wade.

Think Wade needs more than that game to get serious consideration for Aus. He's not hitting the height after his injury and Ashton will surely have moved ahead of him in the pecking order for the next chance.

I think Ashton should be given another chance. Regards.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Think Wade needs more than that game to get serious consideration for Aus. He's not hitting the height after his injury and Ashton will surely have moved ahead of him in the pecking order for the next chance.

Based on Jones comments yesterday he is thinking of taking 3 or 4 wingers and intimated Wade was behind Nowell, Watson, Roku and Ashton.

I'd have him ahead of Rokoduguni, still don't trust a word Jones says!

Yeah take with a pinch of salt what he says in press meetings etc.

I really like Wade and would like to see him in England squads, to see if Gustard working on his defence can bring that side of his game on. He's definitely our most prodigious attacking talent.

He may be another one better off going on the Saxons tour and seeing how he fairs one step below International level: whether he can remain potent in attack and answer some defensive concerns, and if so perhaps a run in the autumn would be possible.

So Hatley as new scrum coach - good or not?

You've just asked the question I was about to LT

Doesn't seem to be doing much at Bath? Or is that just the players he has?
I do rate Thomas, but on a whole they don't seem to be smashing things off the part which is what I might expect if he was that good a coach everyone seems to be suggesting he is.

Seems an odd call to me?

As mentioned Bath have looked poor with a fair few quality players.

Just out of interest if you could choose any coach out there as your scrum coach, who'd people pick?