Player Poaching & Transfer Ethics

by **George Carlin** Sun Jan 08, 2017 7:41 am

First topic message reminder :

Not sure if this was picked up by other news outlets but I think that the issues in this piece are worth a more general discussion.

Townsend has been in the game a while now and is usually understated and measured, so he must have lost his sh!t somewhat to speak about this publicly:

Furious Gregor Townsend blasts clubs circling Finn Russell
DUNCAN SMITH
The Scotsman, 6 January 2017

Glasgow Warriors coach Gregor Townsend issued a “hands-off” warning in the strongest possible terms yesterday after reports that his star stand-off Finn Russell has attracted the interest of a number of clubs despite having a year and a half on his contract. Townsend expressed disappointment that at least four teams – understood to be Bath, Gloucester, Toulon and Scotland coach Vern Cotter’s next destination Montpellier – are believed to have been circling following a string of sensational performances by Russell this season. Townsend called for the sport’s governing body to crack down on behaviour he believes to be contrary to the “morality” of rugby. “If clubs are speaking to our players when they have still got 18 months of contract left it is not right,” he said. “If what has been said is correct and four clubs are interested then World Rugby has to do something about it.” The global “regulation 4” regarding player contact does not specify any time restraint, though domestic leagues can instigate their own understanding between member clubs, but stresses that contact should be made through proper channels – in this case the SRU. Townsend continued: “There have been a number of developments in the game, where before there was much more understanding, comprehension, morality in terms of not speaking to players until they got to the last year of their contract, six months in the case of the Aviva Premiership.”

Townsend revealed that Racing 92 had approached Leone Nakarawa on the day of their Champions Cup game last  season when he still had more than a year left on his deal. Ultimately the Fijian lock was allowed to join the Parisian side for a fee. “Now this is not right. If one of our players is being spoken to about clubs when they clearly have 18 months of their contract left it is clearly not right,” added the coach. “We want to retain our players. Finn will be a Glasgow player for the next season and a half. He is contracted here. “World Rugby need to start dealing with this. You go to the club and ask ‘is this player in contract?’, ‘is it the last few months?’ ‘Is it another year?’ You don’t speak to the individual. I can only go on what is being speculated in the media if this is happening. If it is it is wrong.” The strength of Townsend’s words made clear that this was more than media speculation, of course, and he did admit that he had spoken to Russell, who returns to the Warriors’ starting line-up for tonight’s Guinness Pro12 match against Cardiff Blues at Scotstoun, about the situation, but said: “I would prefer to keep that conversation in house.

“He is aware he is contracted here and it is up to us to get the best out of him when he is still at the club and contribute to the club doing well which is what he is doing. “We have seen improvement and there is a lot more improvement to come.” If a club was to come and make a proper approach Townsend insisted that they would be firmly told that “he is not available”. Russell was already regarded as a highly promising young talent but his stock has rocketed in recent months with sparkling displays for club and country, specifically the double-header against Racing 92 in which he outclassed the great Dan Carter. Townsend, of course, takes over as Scotland coach at the end of the season and agreed that Russell’s nationality made him a different case from Nakarawa.

“Obviously, the Scotland perspective is massively important. You get managed and rested appropriately,” he said. “Leone left for Racing. We allowed him to leave but that situation was wrong as well. A player being approached the day of the game by the opposition in a Champions Cup game in the hotel before we played that team, and then the coaching staff speaking to that player after we play them is wrong. “Clubs will do it to destabilise situations for that player. But we made the decision that Leone can leave. “For Finn and any other number of players who have got 18 months to go on a contract, and we are dealing with Finn, he will be a Glasgow player for that period.”

Taking our wendyball sisters as a basis for comparison, under existing rules between FIFA and the FA (for clubs playing in England), if another club wants to procure the services of a player that is registered with another club they must speak directly with that club and not to the player or his agent. The individual player and the agent who represents him will only be brought in for discussions with the potential purchasing club once the two clubs have agreed on a fee. Failure to do so means fines all round and agents can have their licenses revoked.

Is that what we need here?

by marty2086 Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:44 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
No, the player isn't throwing his toys out of the pram. If someone has offered to double his wages straight away, and he wants to take them up on the offer. He should be allowed to do so. Just like you or I.

Except its not the same thing picard

I don't know about you but I haven't legally committed myself to my job for a set period of time or received a likely signing fee for signing said contract as is a usual perk in professional sports

RugbyFan100 wrote:
However, this wouldnt be a concern if clubs with wealthy owners like Toulon, Racing and Bath weren't throwing their money around and waited until the contract had expired.

1) It's not just those clubs.
2) Why should a club be prohibited from using their cash that they've done well to generate? What incentive is there to turn a profit if you are not allowed to put it back into the business on player recruitment?

This is a professional sport, yet some people are seemingly keen to ensure it remains amatuer.

Who is turning a profit from those 3? And if Im not mistaken Racing are relying on Lorzenetti to prop them up currently

by True Raven Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:50 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
True Raven wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
Riskysports wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:Why is a transfer fee "underhand?" If a club wants to buy the remaining time of a contract then it's their right to isn't it? I'm not sure how you can outlaw something that is completely legal and above board like that. If p[layer and buying club both want it to happen then it should be allowed to happen.

But the should go to the club, not sneak around talking to the player behind the clubs back

I don't see it makes a difference really. Once the offer comes in, the club are duty bound to let the player know - otherwise there could be all sorts of restraint of trade issues if the club are not letting the player achieve his market rate / salary.

If the club say "no" they could likely end up with an unhappy player anyway.

So because a player throws his toys out of the pram, that gives him the right to leave a contract he signed. They are not forced to sign contracts, they choose to do so and so players should honor them.

No, the player isn't throwing his toys out of the pram. If someone has offered to double his wages straight away, and he wants to take them up on the offer. He should be allowed to do so. Just like you or I.

However, this wouldnt be a concern if clubs with wealthy owners like Toulon, Racing and Bath weren't throwing their money around and waited until the contract had expired.

1) It's not just those clubs.
2) Why should a club be prohibited from using their cash that they've done well to generate? What incentive is there to turn a profit if you are not allowed to put it back into the business on player recruitment?

This is a professional sport, yet some people are seemingly keen to ensure it remains amatuer.

You mean money introduced by their owners rather than generated themselves.

They can use their wealth to offer players out of contract nice big salaries but shouldnt go around trying to intice those players currently in the middle of a contract.

With your theory about clubs being able to flaunt their wealth, why have a salary cap at all then?

Clubs (saracens and bath aside) repsect the salary cap rules so should respect rules of a pleyers contract

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:59 pm

True Raven wrote:

You mean money introduced by their owners rather than generated themselves.

No. Toulon make a profit for a starter. As I said, other clubs have done it but the focus is on the big nasty 3 as usual.

They can use their wealth to offer players out of contract nice big salaries but shouldnt go around trying to intice those players currently in the middle of a contract.

Why? Why do you want the law of the land to not apply in rugby?

With your theory about clubs being able to flaunt their wealth, why have a salary cap at all then?

Well to ensure that playing budgets are being met. This additional fee doesn't go to the player remember.

Clubs (saracens and bath aside) repsect the salary cap rules so should respect rules of a pleyers contract

They are respecting the rules of a players contract. If they weren't they'd be doing something against the law.

They're just offering the player another contract. I can guarantee that most people on this board have moved jobs for more money at some point. That involves resigning from their current job. Why should rugby players be different?

by marty2086 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:02 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
True Raven wrote:

They can use their wealth to offer players out of contract nice big salaries but shouldnt go around trying to intice those players currently in the middle of a contract.

Why? Why do you want the law of the land to not apply in rugby?

You are the one wanting clubs to not respect the law, do you know why transfer fees exist in football? Because if you sign a contract you are legally obliged to honour it, to get out of it one club compensates another

by True Raven Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:06 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
True Raven wrote:

You mean money introduced by their owners rather than generated themselves.

No. Toulon make a profit for a starter. As I said, other clubs have done it but the focus is on the big nasty 3 as usual.

They can use their wealth to offer players out of contract nice big salaries but shouldnt go around trying to intice those players currently in the middle of a contract.

Why? Why do you want the law of the land to not apply in rugby?

I used those clubs as they were the one linked with Finn Russell, which is why this post was started. Its no coincidence that these are the clubs with wealthy owners who feel they can do what the hell they want

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:10 pm

True Raven wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
True Raven wrote:

You mean money introduced by their owners rather than generated themselves.

No. Toulon make a profit for a starter. As I said, other clubs have done it but the focus is on the big nasty 3 as usual.

They can use their wealth to offer players out of contract nice big salaries but shouldnt go around trying to intice those players currently in the middle of a contract.

Why? Why do you want the law of the land to not apply in rugby?

I used those clubs as they were the one linked with Finn Russell, which is why this post was started. Its no coincidence that these are the clubs with wealthy owners who feel they can do what the hell they want

They are not "doing what the hell they want". They are doing what is required to obtain the services of the employee they wish to employ. And it is not against any law.

By the way, if the club that the player plays for currently objects so much, they can always waive the transfer fee.

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:10 pm

marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
True Raven wrote:

They can use their wealth to offer players out of contract nice big salaries but shouldnt go around trying to intice those players currently in the middle of a contract.

Why? Why do you want the law of the land to not apply in rugby?

You are the one wanting clubs to not respect the law, do you know why transfer fees exist in football? Because if you sign a contract you are legally obliged to honour it, to get out of it one club compensates another

So no laws are broken when this occurs, correct?

by marty2086 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:11 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
True Raven wrote:

They can use their wealth to offer players out of contract nice big salaries but shouldnt go around trying to intice those players currently in the middle of a contract.

Why? Why do you want the law of the land to not apply in rugby?

You are the one wanting clubs to not respect the law, do you know why transfer fees exist in football? Because if you sign a contract you are legally obliged to honour it, to get out of it one club compensates another

So no laws are broken when this occurs, correct?

If its done right yes

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:14 pm

marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
True Raven wrote:

They can use their wealth to offer players out of contract nice big salaries but shouldnt go around trying to intice those players currently in the middle of a contract.

Why? Why do you want the law of the land to not apply in rugby?

You are the one wanting clubs to not respect the law, do you know why transfer fees exist in football? Because if you sign a contract you are legally obliged to honour it, to get out of it one club compensates another

So no laws are broken when this occurs, correct?

If its done right yes

Not much they can do about it then. I would suggest that everybody tries to increase their income in line with the other clubs that are doing it so they can pursue the players they wish to sign.

Professional sport.

by marty2086 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:16 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
True Raven wrote:

They can use their wealth to offer players out of contract nice big salaries but shouldnt go around trying to intice those players currently in the middle of a contract.

Why? Why do you want the law of the land to not apply in rugby?

You are the one wanting clubs to not respect the law, do you know why transfer fees exist in football? Because if you sign a contract you are legally obliged to honour it, to get out of it one club compensates another

So no laws are broken when this occurs, correct?

If its done right yes

Not much they can do about it then. I would suggest that everybody tries to increase their income in line with the other clubs that are doing it so they can pursue the players they wish to sign.

Professional sport.

No actually you just aren't getting it

Both clubs have to be in agreement, you can't just come in and say we are signing one of your players here's £100k

If a player signs a contract they are bound by it, if a club ones to sign a player they have to adequately compensate his club or wait until his contract expires as is done in most cases in rugby

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:19 pm

marty2086 wrote:

No actually you just aren't getting it

Both clubs have to be in agreement, you can't just come in and say we are signing one of your players here's £100k

If a player signs a contract they are bound by it, if a club ones to sign a player they have to adequately compensate his club or wait until his contract expires as is done in most cases in rugby

Ah. My tongue was in my cheek when I joked about waiving the fee. I thought that would have been obvious sorry.

by marty2086 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:26 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

No actually you just aren't getting it

Both clubs have to be in agreement, you can't just come in and say we are signing one of your players here's £100k

If a player signs a contract they are bound by it, if a club ones to sign a player they have to adequately compensate his club or wait until his contract expires as is done in most cases in rugby

Ah. My tongue was in my cheek when I joked about waiving the fee. I thought that would have been obvious sorry.

Well since you didn't mention anything about waiving a fee it would make it difficult to get the joke Erm

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:28 pm

marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

No actually you just aren't getting it

Both clubs have to be in agreement, you can't just come in and say we are signing one of your players here's £100k

If a player signs a contract they are bound by it, if a club ones to sign a player they have to adequately compensate his club or wait until his contract expires as is done in most cases in rugby

Ah. My tongue was in my cheek when I joked about waiving the fee. I thought that would have been obvious sorry.

Well since you didn't mention anything about waiving a fee it would make it difficult to get the joke

Well I did if you look up ^

by marty2086 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:30 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

No actually you just aren't getting it

Both clubs have to be in agreement, you can't just come in and say we are signing one of your players here's £100k

If a player signs a contract they are bound by it, if a club ones to sign a player they have to adequately compensate his club or wait until his contract expires as is done in most cases in rugby

Ah. My tongue was in my cheek when I joked about waiving the fee. I thought that would have been obvious sorry.

Well since you didn't mention anything about waiving a fee it would make it difficult to get the joke

Well I did if you look up ^

And that was a reply to someone else Rolling Eyes

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:30 pm

Is there a point you want to make?

by marty2086 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:33 pm

Yeah, why talk about a tongue in cheek comment posted in response to something completely different?

Maybe to cover you failure to grasp the issue?

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:33 pm

marty2086 wrote:Yeah, why talk about a tongue in cheek comment posted in response to something completely different?

Maybe to cover you failure to grasp the issue?

What haven't I grasped?

by marty2086 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:34 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Yeah, why talk about a tongue in cheek comment posted in response to something completely different?

Maybe to cover you failure to grasp the issue?

What haven't I grasped?

You mean other than the legality of a contract?

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:35 pm

marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Yeah, why talk about a tongue in cheek comment posted in response to something completely different?

Maybe to cover you failure to grasp the issue?

What haven't I grasped?

You mean other than the legality of a contract?

I think I've grasped that.

by marty2086 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:36 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Yeah, why talk about a tongue in cheek comment posted in response to something completely different?

Maybe to cover you failure to grasp the issue?

What haven't I grasped?

You mean other than the legality of a contract?

I think I've grasped that.

Really?

RugbyFan100 wrote:No, the player isn't throwing his toys out of the pram. If someone has offered to double his wages straight away, and he wants to take them up on the offer. He should be allowed to do so. Just like you or I.

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:37 pm

marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Yeah, why talk about a tongue in cheek comment posted in response to something completely different?

Maybe to cover you failure to grasp the issue?

What haven't I grasped?

You mean other than the legality of a contract?

I think I've grasped that.

Really?

RugbyFan100 wrote:No, the player isn't throwing his toys out of the pram. If someone has offered to double his wages straight away, and he wants to take them up on the offer. He should be allowed to do so. Just like you or I.

What is incorrect about that?

by marty2086 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:40 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Yeah, why talk about a tongue in cheek comment posted in response to something completely different?

Maybe to cover you failure to grasp the issue?

What haven't I grasped?

You mean other than the legality of a contract?

I think I've grasped that.

Really?

RugbyFan100 wrote:No, the player isn't throwing his toys out of the pram. If someone has offered to double his wages straight away, and he wants to take them up on the offer. He should be allowed to do so. Just like you or I.

What is incorrect about that?

Already been explained

marty2086 wrote:Except its not the same thing

I don't know about you but I haven't legally committed myself to my job for a set period of time or received a likely signing fee for signing said contract as is a usual perk in professional sports

You sign a contract for 1/2/3/4 years you are bound for that period

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:42 pm

marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Yeah, why talk about a tongue in cheek comment posted in response to something completely different?

Maybe to cover you failure to grasp the issue?

What haven't I grasped?

You mean other than the legality of a contract?

I think I've grasped that.

Really?

RugbyFan100 wrote:No, the player isn't throwing his toys out of the pram. If someone has offered to double his wages straight away, and he wants to take them up on the offer. He should be allowed to do so. Just like you or I.

What is incorrect about that?

Already been explained

marty2086 wrote:Except its not the same thing

I don't know about you but I haven't legally committed myself to my job for a set period of time or received a likely signing fee for signing said contract as is a usual perk in professional sports

You sign a contract for 1/2/3/4 years you are bound for that period

Erm I've signed one. and have just given 3 months notice that I will break it because I am moving jobs. It happens all the time Marty.

It's common business practice. I really don't know what planet you're on.

by marty2086 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:48 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Yeah, why talk about a tongue in cheek comment posted in response to something completely different?

Maybe to cover you failure to grasp the issue?

What haven't I grasped?

You mean other than the legality of a contract?

I think I've grasped that.

Really?

RugbyFan100 wrote:No, the player isn't throwing his toys out of the pram. If someone has offered to double his wages straight away, and he wants to take them up on the offer. He should be allowed to do so. Just like you or I.

What is incorrect about that?

Already been explained

marty2086 wrote:Except its not the same thing

I don't know about you but I haven't legally committed myself to my job for a set period of time or received a likely signing fee for signing said contract as is a usual perk in professional sports

You sign a contract for 1/2/3/4 years you are bound for that period

Erm I've signed one. and have just given 3 months notice that I will break it because I am moving jobs. It happens all the time Marty.

It's common business practice. I really don't know what planet you're on.

I am on the planet of having qualifications covering these areas and one that says that breaking your notice period is a breach of contract and legally your employer could choose to take legal action, just because they choose to not follow that avenue doesn't mean you've not broken your contract. That's only down to the fact that they have taken a business decision that your value to the company isn't high enough to bother with it due to the time spent dealing with it.

A player who is worth millions to a club and seen as a key part of a clubs future success? That's worth pursuing, so yes you don't grasp it

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:52 pm

You seem very angry. Thankfully I live in the real world where this will continue to happen. Because it's common practice and doesn't break any laws.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

by marty2086 Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:57 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:You seem very angry. Thankfully I live in the real world where this will continue to happen. Because it's common practice and doesn't break any laws.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

More annoyed, stupidity tends to do that to me

Because something is common practise doesn't mean laws aren't broken. Ever driven over the speed limit? That's both common practise and breaking the law, just because you don't get pursued for it doesn't mean a law isn't broken

That's the case with breach of contract

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:05 pm

marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:You seem very angry. Thankfully I live in the real world where this will continue to happen. Because it's common practice and doesn't break any laws.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

More annoyed, stupidity tends to do that to me

Because something is common practise doesn't mean laws aren't broken. Ever driven over the speed limit? That's both common practise and breaking the law, just because you don't get pursued for it doesn't mean a law isn't broken

That's the case with breach of contract

You'll also know that contracts can be mutually terminated for a number of reasons

by No 7&1/2 Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:27 pm

Sportinhg contracs generally don't have a 3 month notice periodd.

by marty2086 Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:50 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:You seem very angry. Thankfully I live in the real world where this will continue to happen. Because it's common practice and doesn't break any laws.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

More annoyed, stupidity tends to do that to me

Because something is common practise doesn't mean laws aren't broken. Ever driven over the speed limit? That's both common practise and breaking the law, just because you don't get pursued for it doesn't mean a law isn't broken

That's the case with breach of contract
You'll also know that contracts can be mutually terminated for a number of reasons

Yes they can but whats that got to do with players being poached?

Seems you are trying to create a smokescreen because you were wrong

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:29 pm

marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:You seem very angry. Thankfully I live in the real world where this will continue to happen. Because it's common practice and doesn't break any laws.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

More annoyed, stupidity tends to do that to me

Because something is common practise doesn't mean laws aren't broken. Ever driven over the speed limit? That's both common practise and breaking the law, just because you don't get pursued for it doesn't mean a law isn't broken

That's the case with breach of contract
You'll also know that contracts can be mutually terminated for a number of reasons

Yes they can but whats that got to do with players being poached?

Seems you are trying to create a smokescreen because you were wrong

We'll if you say I'm wrong then I guess I'm wrong. You're the expert.

The mutual termination shows contracts are broken all the time. There is no breach of contract in the situation we are discussing. Hence why there's nothing wrong with doing it.

Seems to me like some fans are just jealous of the spending power of other richer clubs. That's all this is. It's happenned for a good few years now.

by marty2086 Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:35 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:You seem very angry. Thankfully I live in the real world where this will continue to happen. Because it's common practice and doesn't break any laws.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

More annoyed, stupidity tends to do that to me

Because something is common practise doesn't mean laws aren't broken. Ever driven over the speed limit? That's both common practise and breaking the law, just because you don't get pursued for it doesn't mean a law isn't broken

That's the case with breach of contract
You'll also know that contracts can be mutually terminated for a number of reasons

Yes they can but whats that got to do with players being poached?

Seems you are trying to create a smokescreen because you were wrong

We'll if you say I'm wrong then I guess I'm wrong. You're the expert.

The mutual termination shows contracts are broken all the time. There is no breach of contract in the situation we are discussing. Hence why there's nothing wrong with doing it.

Seems to me like some fans are just jealous of the spending power of other richer clubs. That's all this is. It's happenned for a good few years now.

No...mutual termination is the termination of the contract not the breaking of it theres a difference

Theres no jealousy of clubs wealth, I follow a club that can match the sums paid by some of the biggest clubs what I do have a problem with is those who can't follow the rules or break the law.

It just seems what is going on is too complex for you, you end up resorting to logic akin to well they stuck their hand in the fire

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:56 pm

marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:You seem very angry. Thankfully I live in the real world where this will continue to happen. Because it's common practice and doesn't break any laws.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

More annoyed, stupidity tends to do that to me

Because something is common practise doesn't mean laws aren't broken. Ever driven over the speed limit? That's both common practise and breaking the law, just because you don't get pursued for it doesn't mean a law isn't broken

That's the case with breach of contract
You'll also know that contracts can be mutually terminated for a number of reasons

Yes they can but whats that got to do with players being poached?

Seems you are trying to create a smokescreen because you were wrong

We'll if you say I'm wrong then I guess I'm wrong. You're the expert.

The mutual termination shows contracts are broken all the time. There is no breach of contract in the situation we are discussing. Hence why there's nothing wrong with doing it.

Seems to me like some fans are just jealous of the spending power of other richer clubs. That's all this is. It's happenned for a good few years now.

No...mutual termination is the termination of the contract not the breaking of it theres a difference

Theres no jealousy of clubs wealth, I follow a club that can match the sums paid by some of the biggest clubs what I do have a problem with is those who can't follow the rules or break the law.

It just seems what is going on is too complex for you, you end up resorting to logic akin to well they stuck their hand in the fire

I expect you're correct again. It is too complex for me.

Which clubs have broken the law by doing this? Which players have been in breach of their contracts?

by marty2086 Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:40 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:You seem very angry. Thankfully I live in the real world where this will continue to happen. Because it's common practice and doesn't break any laws.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

More annoyed, stupidity tends to do that to me

Because something is common practise doesn't mean laws aren't broken. Ever driven over the speed limit? That's both common practise and breaking the law, just because you don't get pursued for it doesn't mean a law isn't broken

That's the case with breach of contract
You'll also know that contracts can be mutually terminated for a number of reasons

Yes they can but whats that got to do with players being poached?

Seems you are trying to create a smokescreen because you were wrong

We'll if you say I'm wrong then I guess I'm wrong. You're the expert.

The mutual termination shows contracts are broken all the time. There is no breach of contract in the situation we are discussing. Hence why there's nothing wrong with doing it.

Seems to me like some fans are just jealous of the spending power of other richer clubs. That's all this is. It's happenned for a good few years now.

No...mutual termination is the termination of the contract not the breaking of it theres a difference

Theres no jealousy of clubs wealth, I follow a club that can match the sums paid by some of the biggest clubs what I do have a problem with is those who can't follow the rules or break the law.

It just seems what is going on is too complex for you, you end up resorting to logic akin to well they stuck their hand in the fire

I expect you're correct again. It is too complex for me.

Which clubs have broken the law by doing this? Which players have been in breach of their contracts?

Toulon and Sonny Bill Williams
Sale and Denny Solomona
Also potentially Goosen and Montpellier/Gloucester

You may want to read up on Iestyn Harris and his stint in Union, he signed a 4 year deal with Cardiff but left after 3 because of a clause in the contract. On leaving Cardiff he signed for Bradford but had signed a contract with Leeds on leaving them that they would have first refusal on him and as such they weren't to compensation and costs from Harris and Bradford

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:34 pm

All those players were bought out of their contracts early, by other clubs? Well I didn't know that. Thanks. How much did Sale pay Solomana' s club?

by marty2086 Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:35 pm

So your just a troll or really dumb? Thanks for clarifying

by Welly Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:19 am

True Raven wrote:We have the same situation with Sam Underhill. English clubs and French clubs have zero respect for any other teams and try to bully them with their finances.

In the case of Underhill though, they can p!ss off cos he said he doesn't want to leave so should respect the player and his club/region

Also yes, it should be against the rules to approach a player still in his contract. I remember Chelsea got fined for tapping up Ashley cole, maybe world rugby needs to fine these clubs with rich owners who just through their money around

And just like that it seems that Bath have brought Underhill out of his contract for 150k

by Recwatcher16 Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:18 am

Underhill was wasting his development time sat on the Ospreys bench and would bet Eddie Jones has told him he needs 20 caps plus for inclusion in the 2019 RWC squad.. He can live in Bath and complete his studies in Cardiff which is pretty much the same distance as Swansea.

Just for the record, Blackadder has confirmed that no one from the club has spoken to Finn Russell, or any other FH for that matter. Pure media speculation.

by marty2086 Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:03 am

Recwatcher16 wrote:
Just for the record, Blackadder has confirmed that no one from the club has spoken to Finn Russell, or any other FH for that matter. Pure media speculation.

Have they spoken to his agent though?

by RugbyFan100 Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:30 am

Welly wrote:
True Raven wrote:We have the same situation with Sam Underhill. English clubs and French clubs have zero respect for any other teams and try to bully them with their finances.

In the case of Underhill though, they can p!ss off cos he said he doesn't want to leave so should respect the player and his club/region

Also yes, it should be against the rules to approach a player still in his contract. I remember Chelsea got fined for tapping up Ashley cole, maybe world rugby needs to fine these clubs with rich owners who just through their money around

And just like that it seems that Bath have brought Underhill out of his contract for 150k

If Underhill wants to go then it's a good deal. Ospreys would surely have £150k than an unhappy player ?

by True Raven Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:04 am

Recwatcher16 wrote:Underhill was wasting his development time sat on the Ospreys bench and would bet Eddie Jones has told him he needs 20 caps plus for inclusion in the 2019 RWC squad.. He can live in Bath and complete his studies in Cardiff which is pretty much the same distance as Swansea.

Just for the record, Blackadder has confirmed that no one from the club has spoken to Finn Russell, or any other FH for that matter. Pure media speculation.

Lol hes been injured most of the season and has only recently been eased back in to the team ready to take over from Tips in February. It was at the Ospreys where he developed his talent in the first place. If Bath had a decent youth set up maybe you could have had him for free last year instead of now paying £150,000 to the O's and £200,000 a year to him!

by True Raven Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:06 am

RugbyFan100 wrote:
Welly wrote:
True Raven wrote:We have the same situation with Sam Underhill. English clubs and French clubs have zero respect for any other teams and try to bully them with their finances.

In the case of Underhill though, they can p!ss off cos he said he doesn't want to leave so should respect the player and his club/region

Also yes, it should be against the rules to approach a player still in his contract. I remember Chelsea got fined for tapping up Ashley cole, maybe world rugby needs to fine these clubs with rich owners who just through their money around

And just like that it seems that Bath have brought Underhill out of his contract for 150k

If Underhill wants to go then it's a good deal. Ospreys would surely have £150k than an unhappy player ?

HIs hands have been tied because hes been told to play for England he has to play in England (pathetic really as he came to Wales for his education and would have been lost to the professional game had it not been for Ospreys). Not a massive shock to see its Bath who have paid the fee.

by No 7&1/2 Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:16 am

Pathetic? There to help the prem really and similar to what Wales do.

by True Raven Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:19 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Pathetic? There to help the prem really and similar to what Wales do.

Not similar to what Wales do at all. Ross Moriarty played for Wales whilst being at Gloucester, Thomas Young at Wasps has been mentioned of a call up. So nothing like what Wales do.

by RugbyFan100 Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:20 am

True Raven wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
Welly wrote:
True Raven wrote:We have the same situation with Sam Underhill. English clubs and French clubs have zero respect for any other teams and try to bully them with their finances.

In the case of Underhill though, they can p!ss off cos he said he doesn't want to leave so should respect the player and his club/region

Also yes, it should be against the rules to approach a player still in his contract. I remember Chelsea got fined for tapping up Ashley cole, maybe world rugby needs to fine these clubs with rich owners who just through their money around

And just like that it seems that Bath have brought Underhill out of his contract for 150k

If Underhill wants to go then it's a good deal. Ospreys would surely have £150k than an unhappy player ?

HIs hands have been tied because hes been told to play for England he has to play in England (pathetic really as he came to Wales for his education and would have been lost to the professional game had it not been for Ospreys). Not a massive shock to see its Bath who have paid the fee.

He has to play in England. He's English. They want to get him in the setup, so have bought out his contract. It has happenned before to Welsh teams and will no doubt happen again.

The RFU should be commended for their approach to England based players. I don't see what's so "pathetic" about it.,

by No 7&1/2 Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:21 am

Nothing like Wales then. Sorry thought you had limits on picking players who move out of Wales and had in the past debates on who could be picked. I e got the wrong end of the stick.

by marty2086 Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:22 am

True Raven wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Pathetic? There to help the prem really and similar to what Wales do.

Not similar to what Wales do at all. Ross Moriarty played for Wales whilst being at Gloucester, Thomas Young at Wasps has been mentioned of a call up. So nothing like what Wales do.

That's because they wee at their clubs when the new rule was brought in but its not carte blanche, Priestland missed out on selection because he wasn't playing in Wales so its something like it

by True Raven Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:24 am

He came here to study and refusing to pick him for England unless he plays in England is pathetic despite as mentioned none of you would have heard of him had it not been for the Ospreys

by No 7&1/2 Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:25 am

There to help the prem. Well done Ospreys for selflessly picking a good player.

by True Raven Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:26 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Nothing like Wales then. Sorry thought you had limits on picking players who move out of Wales and had in the past debates on who could be picked. I e got the wrong end of the stick.

Yet players playing in England are still eligible to play for Wales so as i said not a similar situation as England are refusing to pick any players outisde of England

by No 7&1/2 Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:26 am

So there's no rule or limit at all Raven?

by Sponsored content