How did clubs afford to pay transfer fees back in the day?

[Cheshire Setter]

4 hours ago, Futtocks said:

Jean-Marc Bosman, one of the most influential professional sportsmen in history, and barely anyone ever saw him play.

But apparently not smart enough to have the foresight to trademark ‘Bosman Ruling’ for the future

Imagine the royalties?! 

[Cheshire Setter]

4 hours ago, JohnM said:

I recall Norweb as it was then, paid £450k or similar for Wigan to sign Martin Offiah. 

Norweb customers in Widnes must not have been happy when their electricity charges went up a small amount in the susbsequent months after the transfer

[Hemi4561]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

That's absolutely no different from any other walk of life where an employee gets qualified and skilled up then goes elsewhere for more money.

However, I have never understood this idea that clubs spend "tens of thousands" developing a player. They spend money on collectively trying improve all their players. Young players will nearly all improve as they mature, in all senses of the word, as they play more games, possibly against more challenging opponents, etc. This is the natural way of things. I have yet to see any club present any meaningful evidence of massive spending directly attributable to one promising youngster into the next Billy Slater by the time he is in his early twenties. But as in general terms transfer fees are now rare the lack of such evidence either in the days of massive transfers, or now is moot. 

[yipyee]

2 hours ago, Southerner80 said:

The reality is the talent really is with the player, you can't develop someone who Dosent have it. You can't make a player skilled if there isnt the talent. So I don't feel the club merits special treatment because of it tbh. Having access to talented players will improve a clubs prospects while he is there. I also feel no club is spending big Bucks in the UK to bring through players. Sam Tomkins for example barely scraped a 3-4k scholarship at Wigan in his early days for example and he's one of the best talents to come through in the last 15 years. 

Also, the alternative ie the feudal system we had is a bad alternative tbh. It can't work in today's world. In other areas of employment people leave jobs after apprenticeships And the company accepts this. 

Contracts to some degree give a club some level of protection as a player needs to be bought out or agree some way out of it to Leave a club while still under contract. 

Further correct me if I'm wrong however a player under 24 who leaves a club he was brought through out still commands a fee, ala Fages going to Saints in 2015 or 16.

 

My point is that ok kids need the talent in the first place but then there's a lot that goes into converting that to a top level player. This starts at a community club and carries on at an academy SL or other.

It's not just the players wage it's paying the development staff.. tours to Aus the education on nutrition the strength and conditioning sessions and equipment the imposing a professional mindset into the players. 

If we look at retired players now most could practically walk back into a game of RL ( and some do) because they continue to approach life differently to the retired players from yesteryear. 

IMHO community clubs should get a fee once a player signs a FT contract and SL clubs who have a player walk out on them who they developed should also get a fee from the player who could claim it back off their new club?. 

I get your point about apprentices leaving in the normal world however some of these apprentices are treated as cheap labour and there is funding available and tax breaks to employ an apprentice in the first place. 

 

[yipyee]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

That's absolutely no different from any other walk of life where an employee gets qualified and skilled up then goes elsewhere for more money.

It's not though as other walks of life are funded to take on apprentices and they are working from day 1 for practically no money. Some companies wave goodbye to fully qualified staff to take on new apprentices so they don't have to pay them as they just want cheap labour.

The difference is in sport they develop the player to end up in the first team for many years. 

[yipyee]

33 minutes ago, Hemi4561 said:

However, I have never understood this idea that clubs spend "tens of thousands" developing a player. They spend money on collectively trying improve all their players. Young players will nearly all improve as they mature, in all senses of the word, as they play more games, possibly against more challenging opponents, etc. This is the natural way of things. I have yet to see any club present any meaningful evidence of massive spending directly attributable to one promising youngster into the next Billy Slater by the time he is in his early twenties. But as in general terms transfer fees are now rare the lack of such evidence either in the days of massive transfers, or now is moot. 

So there you have it...

Take net spend and divide across amount of youngsters.. 

At most clubs the academy costs will be very high.. obv the money spent is for all players but it's still money spent.

SL ready players don't walk upto an academy and just play a few games against other academy's (at no cost playing in their own kit)  until they are old enough to walk into the first team.

[Damien]

52 minutes ago, yipyee said:

It's not though as other walks of life are funded to take on apprentices and they are working from day 1 for practically no money. Some companies wave goodbye to fully qualified staff to take on new apprentices so they don't have to pay them as they just want cheap labour.

The difference is in sport they develop the player to end up in the first team for many years. 

Course it's the same. In my employment I could do courses worth thousands, gain certification and accreditation and leave and there is nothing my employer could do and they would not receive a penny in compensation. It's pretty common.

[Scubby]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

Course it's the same. In my employment I could do courses worth thousands, gain certification and accreditation and leave and there is nothing my employer could do and they would not receive a penny in compensation. It's pretty common.

Many employers would make you sign an indemnity and then have to pay some (or all) of the training costs back if you did a runner.

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Many employers would make you sign an indemnity and then have to pay some (or all) of the training costs back if you did a runner.

I've never come across one that does that and I don't know any companies that do. They would certainly struggle to attract the best talent with policies like that and people would just go elsewhere. Maybe the field I work in is more progressive than that.

[Scubby]

21 minutes ago, Damien said:

I've never come across one that does that and I don't know any companies that do. They would certainly struggle to attract the best talent with policies like that and people would just go elsewhere. Maybe the field I work in is more progressive than that.

It is quite commonplace in things like accountancy and finance where you are often tied to an employer for a certain period in return for training cost support. If you leave, they can demand it back. Certainly where I am based it is.

[Oxford]

How did clubs afford to pay transfer fees back in the day?

 

You'd have to ask Brian Snape although one answer was they payed players far less.

I think some were on  fiver (if they played) £7 for a win two pints and a packet of 5 Woodbine.

 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Scubby said:

It is quite commonplace in things like accountancy and finance where you are often tied to an employer for a certain period in return for training cost support. If you leave, they can demand it back. Certainly where I am based it is.

I understand that and things like that are usually to become chartered and are written into contracts. They are also completely different than what is essentially on the job training for a Rugby player who is generally being paid peanuts over a number of years and where it can easily be argued that the club has already had the benefit of that training. The player is certainly not indebted forever more to the club and that would be considered a penalty clause and would be  unenforceable in court and could even be found to be a restraint of trade.

[Scubby]

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

I understand that and things like that are usually to become chartered and are written into contracts. They are also completely different than what is essentially on the job training for a Rugby player who is generally being paid peanuts over a number of years and where it can easily be argued that the club has already had the benefit of that training. The player is certainly not indebted forever more to the club and that would be considered a penalty clause and would be  unenforceable in court and could even be found to be a restraint of trade.

I don't disagree, just saying that the practice still exists. For what it is worth, with RL it has to be the rough with the smooth. For example, a club like Featherstone with Paul Newlove, and Bradford with Ellery Hanley, basically signed the player on as a teenager and chucked them straight into the 1st team. They were both scoring tries for fun within a couple of dozen games.

[JonM]

6 hours ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Norweb customers in Widnes must not have been happy when their electricity charges went up a small amount in the susbsequent months after the transfer

Manweb were the local electricity supplier, so no problem  (IIRC, the Rocksavage ICI plant used more electricity than all of Manweb's domestic customers combined. After privatisation, they simply built their own power station.)

 

[Padge]

Some of Wigan's big signings in the 80s and 90s were covered by benefactors (Dave Whelan being one) or sponsors (Norweb in particular), others were covered by directors.

A lot of transfer fees were paid in installments and not just cash up front, also a lot of transfers involved player "swaps", so a big name player would be bought in installments and a couple of other players would move the other way to offset a chunk of the cash value.

 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

15 hours ago, Damien said:

Course it's the same. In my employment I could do courses worth thousands, gain certification and accreditation and leave and there is nothing my employer could do and they would not receive a penny in compensation. It's pretty common.

If the employer is smart they can

If someone does a pricey course (4 figures) then we tie them into 'pay it back if you' leave within two years' thing 

[yipyee]

16 hours ago, Damien said:

Course it's the same. In my employment I could do courses worth thousands, gain certification and accreditation and leave and there is nothing my employer could do and they would not receive a penny in compensation. It's pretty common.

That's different though isn't it as they can easily replace you with an equal replacement within weeks and probably for less salary. Also if you did leave it would be because you were unhappy and not because an agent is telling you to leave.

Also if you need to go one courses then you are probably underqualified and to pay someone who has already been on the courses would command a higher salary

[yipyee]

1 minute ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

If the employer is smart they can

If someone does a pricey course (4 figures) then we tie them into 'pay it back if you' leave within two years' thing 

The same should be in RL if they don't play x amount of 1st team games and the club offers a contract a fee should be owed by the player

[yipyee]

There s actually an incentive to develop players if you get a transfer fee at the end of it.

Why would Oldham etc want to develop players right now

[Damien]

18 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

If the employer is smart they can

If someone does a pricey course (4 figures) then we tie them into 'pay it back if you' leave within two years' thing 

And if a player is signed at 16 and leaves at 20 he has done 4 years. Good luck trying to say in Court that you haven't had the benefit of that training, whether that is Academy or Super League level, and that it isn't a penalty clause and restraint of trade making a player pay anything back. Also good luck trying to nail down what training they have had when players can make their debut's at 18 and 19, and barely any time after signing from an amateur club in some cases, who have often actually done much of the training and development.

[graveyard johnny]

On ‎08‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 09:31, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

...and the transfer fee was almost invariably paid in instalments.

like for danny TICK-le?  al get mi coat!

[fairfolly]

When Bradford Northern signed Deryck Fox from Fev. in 1992 for I believe £100,000 the club asked for 100 supporters,sponsors or whatever to purchase a 10 years season ticket for £1000. I think you were then called a Vice President.I purchased two for my wife and I and it became a real bargain because as you all know S.L. began in 1995 or 6 I forget which so had 7 years of S.L when the prices had risen.Peter Fox was also Deryck Fox,s agent and talked him into coming to Bradford when he was the leader of the midweek team on the 1992 tour to Australia.That is true,I was there when it happened.