International Transfer Market

The IRB's "investigation" into an international transfer market is a great idea.

This would radically change the balance of power in world rugby.

This is exactly why it will fail. There is simply no way the RFU will back this proposal, being such a massive net importer of talent.

As usual they will circle the wagons and have the home nations vote it into irrelevance. Just like the ELVs.

TheGreyGhost wrote:The IRB's "investigation" into an international transfer market is a great idea.

This would radically change the balance of power in world rugby.

This is exactly why it will fail. There is simply no way the RFU will back this proposal, being such a massive net importer of talent.

As usual they will circle the wagons and have the home nations vote it into irrelevance. Just like the ELVs.

More likely it will fail because of the EU - a system wouldn't be enforceable between EU countries as it would be restraint of trade... but you keep blaming in on the Evil RFU.

What, balance of power to or from the importer nation?

You have a link to an article or statement?

It wont happen no sports body can over ride EU law if it wants to operate within it's borders.
I know the NZRFU aren't happy with the amount of talent they lose, but any player over 24 can move freely to work within the EU. Finally the clubs are pretty much independant of the Unions these days in France, Wales, Scotland and England so it gives the Unions a great "get out of jail card" anyway.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/irb/news/article.cfm?o_id=398&objectid=10733151

The RFU aren't a "mass importer", the Premier Rugby Clubs are. The RFU would surely be for this ruling, as they are trying to keep English players playing in England. However, there is EU law to look at. I know Australia and New Zealand have trade agreements, so I don't think they could enforce transfer fees from players crossing the Tasman. A lot of South Africans make it over to County Cricket on the Kolpak ruling, so there is a good chance that this rule could come in and not do all that much.

The article itself basically admits there is no chance of this happening. I don't think England are short of English qualified players in the domestic game (for instance, the top 4 from last season will all have an English player as first choice 10 this season). France is a different matter, and no doubt they will move to change things at some point.

I'd also have thought that the fact you can make a good living in the NH may encourage some NZ players to embark on a professional career in the first place. If this proposal were workable then the expected average salary of an NZ player would decline, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. Indeed I'd expect talented young NZ players to move to Europe at a younger age to get around the proposal.

What exactly are the details behind it. I can't see how it affects the EU Restraint of Trade. It costs millions of pounds to buy players in football they manage without breaching any laws.

Don't see it as a good idea myself regardless.

Okay, does anyone actually have a link to this? And are we going to be capable of discussing this in a sensible, even-headed way?

I can't find any information about this on the IRB website, am I missing something?

red_stag wrote:What exactly are the details behind it. I can't see how it affects the EU Restraint of Trade. It costs millions of pounds to buy players in football they manage without breaching any laws.

Unless their contracts and they are over 24 are up in which case it costs nothing - under 24 goes to a tribunal if their contracts are up and the transfer fee is based on compensating for the cost of developing the player through their youth system. Given rugby players almost always see out their contracts before they move or are bought out of them, the football transfer system pretty much already exists in rugby - I assume the article is talking about sides having to pay for players, even when they are out of contract, which is what the Bosman ruling made illegal.

Notch - Robbo227's reply has the link to it, it was from a New Zealand newspaper

Bad idea. To be honest, the current system we have is better. Players have a contract; they fulfill that contract or negotiate with the club/province they've joined for an early release. If they wish to move on to a new challenge at the end of their contract, it's their prerogative.

It's honest, in other words.

If this happens all you will have is agents trying to create big-money moves so they can get a big payday. Clubs will look to sell on players a year before their contract expires to make a profit.

It will also benefit the English and French more than anyone else. This will not stop the player drain from SH nations. This will leave SH teams with a decision to make; do we let our star All Black leave now for x large amount of money? Or do we let him leave in a year for nothing?

Notch wrote:Okay, does anyone actually have a link to this? And are we going to be capable of discussing this in a sensible, even-headed way?

I can't find any information about this on the IRB website, am I missing something?

It's old news Notch. This has been rumbling on a long time.

If you read the IRB regulations below you can clearly see clubs are supposed to pay Unions or clubs compensation for any player taken from a different country.
The fact they don't pay any compensation proves that the IRB rules aren't enforceable in Europe.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/32/42332_pdf.pdf

4.7.2 In recognition of the investment made by Unions, Rugby Bodies or Clubs
(as the case may be) in the training and/or development of Players, when:

(b) a Non-Contract Player enters into a written agreement for the first
time with a Union, Rugby Body or Club outside his Home Union, his
Home Union (or Rugby Body or Club in membership of his Home
Union as the case may be) shall be entitled to compensation for his
training and/or development; and

(c) a Non-Contract Player moves outside his Home Union and retains his
status as a Non-Contract Player, then, subject to Regulation 4.8.3, the
Player’s Home Union (or Rugby Body or Club in membership of his
Home Union, as the case may be) shall have no claim to
compensation.

"The fact they don't pay any compensation proves that the IRB rules aren't enforceable in Europe."

It doesn't actually prove anything.

TheGreyGhost wrote: There is simply no way the RFU will back this proposal, being such a massive net importer of talent. As usual they will circle the wagons and have the home nations vote it into irrelevance. Just like the ELVs.

Myth.

When did the RFU last manage to circle the wagons to get the home nations to vote the same way? It doesn't happen that often.

Scotland and France were pro for trialling the ELVs - in case you've forgotten.

What's good for England and RFU isn't always good for Celtic nations....

One could just as easily argue that the Big 5 vote together or jam it up for others.....

TheGreyGhost wrote:"The fact they don't pay any compensation proves that the IRB rules aren't enforceable in Europe."

It doesn't actually prove anything.

Of course it does its there in black and white that if a player leaves his host union the union are entitled to compensation. When was the last time you heard of a French or English club paying compensation for a player?