LEWIS AND WOOD

[marklaspalmas]

what if, instead of "transfer fee" it was called " compensation". a fee being paid for coaching tuition, use of training facilities etc. it could even be a universal fee, multiplied by the number of years a player has been at the club. anything would be better than nothing. of course something would have to be worked out for players coming the other way from s/l to the championship, but these would generally be players that the club no longer wanted. my head hurts.

This makes a lot of sense and it was something we debated a lot around the time of Whiting/bailey's departure.

It would be the best & fairest way of doing things.

The Bosman ruling will not change. EU employment laws are not written for the benefit of RL clubs, and tbh I find freedom of contract is a basic human right, though it has royally stuffed Fev Rovers.

A compensation system would be much better, but hey ho, it's never happened.

Of course, flip side of the coin is that we've never had to pay a fee of all those fringe SL players we've signed over the past decade, so it is a bit swings and roundabouts

[DMS]

Sorry, someone may not know about the Bosman rule. Whatever you think of mamagement to my mind the start was this ruling that was the killer. When a player comes to the end of his current contract he is a free agent and can sign for who he likes- and this is the killer- without a transfer fee. In the past we have brought youngsters along and they went then in the old days to bigger clubs. BUT we got a transfer fee and that enabled us to sign other players or give up and coming youngster a contract out of the proceeds. I have been since 1939 and we have never been a rich club. Our succes has beed built on the back of good coaching, up and coming players, and an influx of seasoned veterans of our choice. We can't do that now as the youngsters go without fee and so our mix to enable us to challenge the top clubs has gone. There is a lot wrong with the system but I feel the root of it all lies in this rule. Yes a player should do the best he can for himself in what is a short career but the club that nurtured and discovered him should be compensated at the time of the transfer and also later if the player gets international honours. That is what use to happen and made a better level of playing field. Now it needs, unless they abolish the Bosman rule, a complete rethink.

Sorry jamescolin but i don't agree. When a player comes to the end of his contract why should'nt he become a free agent. When i used to do fixed contract work, at the end of that contract i was free to go where i wanted for my next contract. The company employing me never paid a transfer fee or compensation to my previous employer. Why should a professional sportsman be any different. As Mark said it's an infringement of employment law and a persons civil liberties.

[Robin Evans]

The coal board spent a fortune training me to be an (abjectly shocking) accountant! If I'd left their employ they'd have been seriously hacked off and my notice period would have been dreadful. But there would have been sod all they could have done about it. And i wouldn't have to wait til I was 24!!

I suppose what the Bosman rule did was as DMS has just said. Bring sport in line with the rest of the working public. - why should it be different??

FOOTNOTE:-

The reality is I was such a poor accountant I'm surprised they didn't offer me an incentive to leave!!!

[The Grinder]

The coal board spent a fortune training me to be an (abjectly shocking) accountant! If I'd left their employ they'd have been seriously hacked off and my notice period would have been dreadful. But there would have been sod all they could have done about it. And i wouldn't have to wait til I was 24!!

I suppose what the Bosman rule did was as DMS has just said. Bring sport in line with the rest of the working public. - why should it be different??

FOOTNOTE:-

The reality is I was such a poor accountant I'm surprised they didn't offer me an incentive to leave!!!

First off just to say Robin/DMS (and MLP I suspect) you're quite right the old transfer system was untenable under European law and in reality we have to make the best of what we have. Some companies "try" to install contract clauses something like "you can no be employed by a competitor for a period of 6 or 12 months after leaving your current employer". This is to try and stop people like me taking my knowledge / customer contact info and using to the detriment of the company I currently work for (rather than the training that I have been given). However in reality these clauses are virtually untenable, because they fall foul of the restriction of trade laws, which is where the Bosman rule comes in. The 24 year age limit is a similar type clause, which if seriously challenged I suspect would be difficult to uphold.

However that all said in reality what Colin states is true, IMO the lack of a transfer fee for players has been to the detriment of the smaller clubs (and not just in Rugby League). And if we could find a system that allowed compensation to be paid without falling foul of international employment law that would be good. Though I suspect that it would not be possible to do.

The reality is that as a club we have to find a way of being able to develop youngsters and maximise the benefit of their development. This could be longer contracts for younger players, getting SL sponsorship to develop players (you can argue that dual registration is the start of this - though I don't like it personally, thin end of the wedge and all that), getting external sponsorship to develop players (maybe dual registration with companies outside RL - you can argue that this is true already with part time players, but maybe we could do something more formal), etc.

For me we as a club have only started looking at maximising some of this revenue over the last couple of years, though not being in the know I'm probably wrong. For me it is these forms of funding that will see us progress as a club.

However wrong the Bosman ruling and the way we have been treated by SL is irrelevant at this point in time. We need to look forward and how we can maximise our potential as a club and not just linger and look at the past, which will only stifle us as a club. I see us doing lots of good things, we should concentrate on making them better.

[jamescolin]

Sorry jamescolin but i don't agree. When a player comes to the end of his contract why should'nt he become a free agent. When i used to do fixed contract work, at the end of that contract i was free to go where i wanted for my next contract. The company employing me never paid a transfer fee or compensation to my previous employer. Why should a professional sportsman be any different. As Mark said it's an infringement of employment law and a persons civil liberties.

Sorry DMS. I never said a player should not be a free agent. What I said was that in the past we were compensated for his leaving. Old Rovers idea has merit. But if you think about it industry has never paid compensation (they might pay the employee if head hunting him) so there isn't a parallel there. In the past we did get a fee for the player going and my point is that money is now lost to the clubs. As it helped with new signings it is a big loss.

[DMS]

Sorry DMS. I never said a player should not be a free agent. What I said was that in the past we were compensated for his leaving. Old Rovers idea has merit. But if you think about it industry has never paid compensation (they might pay the employee if head hunting him) so there isn't a parallel there. In the past we did get a fee for the player going and my point is that money is now lost to the clubs. As it helped with new signings it is a big loss.

I acknowledge you never said a player should not be a free agent but in reality under the old system they were not free to take their skills wherever they wished, as normal working people were. This is discrimination, and while i agree the Bosman rule has been detrimental to smaller clubs in particular, discrimination against one part of society is unfair and the EU and British governments rightly put a stop to it.

The practise of sports clubs witholding a players registration until they were paid a transfer fee reduced them to mere chattels. Only wish i had an answer to the problem.

[jamescolin]

I acknowledge you never said a player should not be a free agent but in reality under the old system they were not free to take their skills wherever they wished, as normal working people were. This is discrimination, and while i agree the Bosman rule has been detrimental to smaller clubs in particular, discrimination against one part of society is unfair and the EU and British governments rightly put a stop to it.

The practise of sports clubs witholding a players registration until they were paid a transfer fee reduced them to mere chattels. Only wish i had an answer to the problem.

You see though that industry do get grants for training purposes and irrespective of the players rights if a grant was made to clubs who take a player on to reach a certain standard (i.e. same as industrial training) that would maintain the players rights in law and the same time compensate the training club. If sport is an industry and subject to industrial law then some form of compensation should be coming to the training club. You are right though it is a problem, but there are solutions if the will is there. How about paying the club a sum for taking somebody off the 'job seekers'? The government make Sports Grants as we have seen. A slight extension of that principle could help the smaller clubs. I am fully in favour of the right to work where ever. I have been in order: a miner, a railwayman, a soldier, and a banker and unemployed as I am now (not surprising at 75). You might have a rule saying that if a player has been nurtured and trained by a smaller club then the bigger club should pay a fee to cover that. I know it goes down the line and therefore a Championship club would have to pay an amateur club if they take a player. But it would be fairer than now. No matter which job I had the people who paid me got their moneysworth that can't be said of the initial club in a player's career if hje moves on at an early stage,

[DMS]

You see though that industry do get grants for training purposes and irrespective of the players rights if a grant was made to clubs who take a player on to reach a certain standard (i.e. same as industrial training) that would maintain the players rights in law and the same time compensate the training club. If sport is an industry and subject to industrial law then some form of compensation should be coming to the training club. You are right though it is a problem, but there are solutions if the will is there. How about paying the club a sum for taking somebody off the 'job seekers'? The government make Sports Grants as we have seen. A slight extension of that principle could help the smaller clubs. I am fully in favour of the right to work where ever. I have been in order: a miner, a railwayman, a soldier, and a banker and unemployed as I am now (not surprising at 75). You might have a rule saying that if a player has been nurtured and trained by a smaller club then the bigger club should pay a fee to cover that. I know it goes down the line and therefore a Championship club would have to pay an amateur club if they take a player. But it would be fairer than now. No matter which job I had the people who paid me got their moneysworth that can't be said of the initial club in a player's career if hje moves on at an early stage,

I understand your argument, and it does hurt clubs like ours who invest time and money in young players. Grants or compensation maybe the answer. Reading your last sentence, i think it is unfair on some of the great young players who have done their best for us and then moved on up the rugby leage ladder