Compensation for Signing Other teams Academy Products.

Is there any compensation for players who have come through the academy of a team then signed up by another?

I ask as the Falcons look set to lose YET ANOTHER academy product in Alex Gray to Leicester. That follows Brooks, Young, Flood, Woods, Parling etc etc.

Now older players may be different but surely there is some kind of compensation from Leicester if they take the likes of Young and Gray.

And if not...do you think there should be? Otherwise whats the point in the Falcons spending all this time developing youngsters to just have them leave as soon as some big team snaps their fingers.
Where is the incentive to produce players.

In football, where transfer fees are common, if you sign an out-of-contract player under 24 who has rejected a contract offer of at least equal terms to what he is currently on, you will have to pay compensation set by a tribunal.

Could this work in Rugby?

If I remember correctly, there'll be a form of benefit to holding on to your academy players in the future, in terms of excluding them from the salary cap - this may help a club like Falcons which does appear to have a good academy system. I'd have to think about compensation a bit harder tho, tbh, cos that sounds like we're starting down the path of a transfer system a la roundball

I absolutely agree but what level of compensation should there be?

Newcastle are Leicester's feeder club unfortunately.

I agree im not looking for a transfer system to come in...i just think when it comes to the younger players there should be a reward for the time taken and effort put in.

The falcons have a very strong academy...certainly one of the best in England...but we seem to get no benefits from it whatsoever, either from players staying and playing or reimbursments for the money and time invested initially.

Think it does need to be looked at. We are not a big club so will never keep hold of the top players like Young, Gray , etc. so surely we should reap some reward.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I agree im not looking for a transfer system to come in...i just think when it comes to the younger players there should be a reward for the time taken and effort put in.

The falcons have a very strong academy...certainly one of the best in England...but we seem to get no benefits from it whatsoever, either from players staying and playing or reimbursments for the money and time invested initially.

Think it does need to be looked at. We are not a big club so will never keep hold of the top players like Young, Gray , etc. so surely we should reap some reward.

GF, here's a thought - if academy players are removed from the salary cap, there will be more money to offer either more or higher quality players, which in turn will hopefully lead to better results, which might encourage more academy players to stick around, etc. - too far fetched?

Thing is, I think it is an issue for all three Northern clubs. If you look at the number of quality players developed up North who are now playing in the Midlands and the South, it is astounding.

I’ve read that there are going to be closer links between Leeds, Sale and Newcastle in the future. Perhaps they’ll be stronger through unity and be able to challenge some of this.

On a gut level it makes me angry and resentful watching other clubs reap the rewards of what Newcastle have spent time, money and effort developing. A situation not helped by some arrogant Leicester fans referring to us as their developmental side.

But, at the end of the day the other clubs are simply being opportunists. Nobody is forcing these players to leave, we need to make the Northern clubs an attractive option to play for. But how do we do that if several generations of homegrown players have already left? It's a chicken and egg situation as far as I can see.

GF,

but until the Falcons get some success, the young guns are going to leave. How are we going to get the success - well we are not exactly awash with cash, and until the fans start coming through the turnstiles and supporting the side we are always going to be 'poor'.

It's a bit of a vicious cycle, if we were getting regular Heineken cup qualification the likes of Micky Young et al would stay and we would have a pretty nifty team.

I think we need a change in the coaching team, what we have are ok, they don't have an excess of hard bitten experienced talent to work with, so I'm not expecting top five finish, bit sick of relegation dog fights mind you. We need somebody with that bit extra. Gandalf, Harry Potter or Dean Richards are three that spring to mind.

The Silver Lining in that black snow filled cloud that's blowing in from the North Sea is that we do get to see a lot of that young talent coming through at Newcastle as we've got nobody else to put on the pitch.

I mean to say, who would you rather watch, a team like Leicester, chock full of talent with the bench full of internationals, who can often stifle young talent, or us with what we've got.


Pretty stupid question wasn't it?

As

That's one thing I've suggested before, however I don't think Newcastle spend to the cap. They don't have the budget to spend above the level of the salary cap, so having more salary allowance would be of no benefit.

GF

I wasn't talking about bringing in transfer fees, just suggesting that if a player is 24 or under and still wanted by his club, then his club would have to be compensated if he signed a contract elsewhere.

Even as a Tigers fan I'd like to see something done - either in payment for players under x many years of age or through building an even greater advantage into the salary cap for players from the club's own academy (reduce the cap by a million but exclude 50% of academy players wages for as long as they stay at the club, perhaps)

robbo277 wrote:As

That's one thing I've suggested before, however I don't think Newcastle spend to the cap. They don't have the budget to spend above the level of the salary cap, so having more salary allowance would be of no benefit.

GF

I wasn't talking about bringing in transfer fees, just suggesting that if a player is 24 or under and still wanted by his club, then his club would have to be compensated if he signed a contract elsewhere.

Robbo,

I appreciate its a difficult one....just very frustrating.

We need to bring the standard of the team up i agree, which in turn will be a better chance of keeping these talented kids....but it wont happen over night...and how many more players will go elsewhere.

TrailApe, Im fedup of relegation dogfights aswell

’m not sure a transfer fee would work when you factor in the options available to a young player. Newcastle players only sign contracts for 1-2 years, three if we are really lucky. AT the end of it they are effectively a free agent. Within a PRL agreement we could probably enforce payment. But what if this forced a player to look abroad? How could we get a club in France to pay compensation for a free agent?

With the best will in the world, if a player is going to leave the club I’d rather see him stay in England. I’d hate to think to think of the AP losing young talent abroad.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I appreciate its a difficult one....just very frustrating.

We need to bring the standard of the team up i agree, which in turn will be a better chance of keeping these talented kids....but it wont happen over night...and how many more players will go elsewhere.

TrailApe, Im fedup of relegation dogfights aswell

I think it sticks in the craw so much because it gets you think about the team we could have had... I genuinely think we'd be challenging for Premiership playoffs if we could have kept a team together.

I agree totally Cumbrian....we would be right up there.

Then you would get the Tigers fans complaining how we 'bought' success.

Cumbrian wrote:’m not sure a transfer fee would work when you factor in the options available to a young player. Newcastle players only sign contracts for 1-2 years, three if we are really lucky. AT the end of it they are effectively a free agent. Within a PRL agreement we could probably enforce payment. But what if this forced a player to look abroad? How could we get a club in France to pay compensation for a free agent?

With the best will in the world, if a player is going to leave the club I’d rather see him stay in England. I’d hate to think to think of the AP losing young talent abroad.

Football seems to manage it though - if a player under 24 rejects a new contract in favour of moving somewhere else then the club receives compensation even though he is out of contract. Ring up the SH lot and get them onboard and I'm sure the Scots etc would be happy with it, so it shouldn't be too hard to shove that through the IRB if that is what it needs

just a suggestion here. English clubs get cash for producing players for the national team dont they? Maybe the money should be split between the club whose academy they attended and the club there playing for when they get capped.

tecphobe wrote:just a suggestion here. English clubs get cash for producing players for the national team dont they? Maybe the money should be split between the club whose academy they attended and the club there playing for when they get capped.

Interesting idea. However given that PRC tweak clubs' TV money so that those getting less from the RFU get a top-up to make up the difference (as I understand it) it's a moot point

Kiwireddevil wrote:

tecphobe wrote:just a suggestion here. English clubs get cash for producing players for the national team dont they? Maybe the money should be split between the club whose academy they attended and the club there playing for when they get capped.

Interesting idea. However given that PRC tweak clubs' TV money so that those getting less from the RFU get a top-up to make up the difference (as I understand it) it's a moot point

. That i could never understand it goes totally against what the union are trying to acheive, which is probably the PRC's point. Tho to be fair the english internal politics structure makes the south african look sane and sensible especially when you can here the laughter west of the severn

robbo277 wrote:In football, where transfer fees are common, if you sign an out-of-contract player under 24 who has rejected a contract offer of at least equal terms to what he is currently on, you will have to pay compensation set by a tribunal.

Could this work in Rugby?

I think that's EU law not just football mate. It was part of the Bosman Ruling.


Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman (1995) C-415/93 (known as the "Bosman ruling"[1]) is a 1995 European Court of Justice decision concerning freedom of movement for workers, freedom of association, and direct effect of article 39[2] (formerly 48) of the EC Treaty. The case was an important decision on the free movement of labour and had a profound effect on the transfers of football players within the EU. The case banned restrictions of foreign EU members within the national leagues and allowed professional football players in the European Union (EU) to move freely to another club at the end of their term of contract with their present team.
The ruling was made in a consolidation of three separate legal cases, all involving Belgian player Jean-Marc Bosman:

Facts
Bosman was a player in the Belgian First Division in Belgium whose contract had expired in 1990. He wanted to change teams and move to Dunkerque, a French team. However, Dunkerque did not offer his Belgian club RFC Liège enough of a transfer fee, so Liège refused to let him go.
In the meantime, Bosman's wages were reduced as he was no longer a first-team player. He took his case to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and sued for restraint of trade citing FIFA's rules regarding football, specifically Article 17.

Judgment
On 15 December 1995 the court ruled that the system, as it was constituted, placed a restriction on the free movement of workers and was prohibited by Article 39(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 45 (1) of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union). Bosman and all other EU football players were given the right to a free transfer at the end of their contracts, with the provision that they were transferring from a club within one EU Association to a club within another EU Association.

Significance
Prior to the Bosman ruling, professional clubs in parts of Europe (but not, for example, in Spain and France) were able to prevent players from joining another club even if their contracts had expired. In the United Kingdom, Transfer Tribunals had been in place since 1981 to resolve disputes over fees between clubs when transferring players at the end of their contracts. In addition to this, players can sign a pre-contract with another club for a free transfer if the players' contract with their existing club has six months or less remaining. The Bosman ruling can be compared to the Seitz decision in Major League Baseball, which led to the elimination of the reserve clause and the advent of free agency in North American baseball.
The Bosman ruling also prohibited domestic football leagues in EU member states, and also UEFA, from imposing quotas on foreign players to the extent that they discriminated against nationals of EU states. At that time, many leagues placed quotas restricting the number of non-nationals allowed on member teams. Also, UEFA had a rule that prohibited teams in its competitions, namely the Champions League, Cup Winners' Cup and UEFA Cup, from naming more than three "foreign" players in their matchday squads. After the ruling, quotas could still be imposed, but could only be used to restrict the number of non-EU players on each team.
On 21 April 2005, UEFA 52 member federations unanimously approved a rule designed to increase the number of locally trained players. The measure is an attempt to reverse some of the effects of the Bosman ruling.

Players
Since the ruling came into effect in all of the EU in 1995, several notable players in European football have benefited from the ruling.[3] In 1996, Edgar Davids became Europe's first elite club Bosman transferred player, when he moved from Ajax Amsterdam to AC Milan. In 1999, Steve McManaman became the most lucrative transfer at the time in British football, as "Britain’s first high-profile Bosman departure",[4] when he moved from Liverpool to Real Madrid and the deal resulted in McManaman once becoming the highest paid British player in history, for the years 1999 through 2001.[5] Since then, notable players have become brand names and seized the ruling to command and negotiate deals according to their market value when their contracts expired.

Clubs
The ruling is notable because clubs are deemed as unable to gain anything with players becoming commodities, even though clubs argued they trained the players and groomed them from youth levels. Many believe the Bosman ruling coincided directly with the heralding a new era of financial gains in football a decade later, in the 2000s, and in 2005, UEFA declared that they were seeking to repair these aspects of the ruling, because it was believed to be the cause of the increasing rich-poor gap between elite and smaller clubs.[6]

Effect on other sports
The Bosman ruling was considered and distinguished in Lehtonen (2000), a similar case which involved a deadline imposed by FIBA after which basketball teams could not include players who had played for another team in the same season, where it was found that such a restriction was lawful.

AlynDavies wrote:I think that's EU law not just football mate. It was part of the Bosman Ruling.


Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman (1995) C-415/93 (known as the "Bosman ruling"[1]) is a 1995 European Court of Justice decision concerning freedom of movement for workers, freedom of association, and direct effect of article 39[2] (formerly 48) of the EC Treaty. The case was an important decision on the free movement of labour and had a profound effect on the transfers of football players within the EU. The case banned restrictions of foreign EU members within the national leagues and allowed professional football players in the European Union (EU) to move freely to another club at the end of their term of contract with their present team.
The ruling was made in a consolidation of three separate legal cases, all involving Belgian player Jean-Marc Bosman:

Facts
Bosman was a player in the Belgian First Division in Belgium whose contract had expired in 1990. He wanted to change teams and move to Dunkerque, a French team. However, Dunkerque did not offer his Belgian club RFC Liège enough of a transfer fee, so Liège refused to let him go.
In the meantime, Bosman's wages were reduced as he was no longer a first-team player. He took his case to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and sued for restraint of trade citing FIFA's rules regarding football, specifically Article 17.

Judgment
On 15 December 1995 the court ruled that the system, as it was constituted, placed a restriction on the free movement of workers and was prohibited by Article 39(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 45 (1) of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union). Bosman and all other EU football players were given the right to a free transfer at the end of their contracts, with the provision that they were transferring from a club within one EU Association to a club within another EU Association.

Significance
Prior to the Bosman ruling, professional clubs in parts of Europe (but not, for example, in Spain and France) were able to prevent players from joining another club even if their contracts had expired. In the United Kingdom, Transfer Tribunals had been in place since 1981 to resolve disputes over fees between clubs when transferring players at the end of their contracts. In addition to this, players can sign a pre-contract with another club for a free transfer if the players' contract with their existing club has six months or less remaining. The Bosman ruling can be compared to the Seitz decision in Major League Baseball, which led to the elimination of the reserve clause and the advent of free agency in North American baseball.
The Bosman ruling also prohibited domestic football leagues in EU member states, and also UEFA, from imposing quotas on foreign players to the extent that they discriminated against nationals of EU states. At that time, many leagues placed quotas restricting the number of non-nationals allowed on member teams. Also, UEFA had a rule that prohibited teams in its competitions, namely the Champions League, Cup Winners' Cup and UEFA Cup, from naming more than three "foreign" players in their matchday squads. After the ruling, quotas could still be imposed, but could only be used to restrict the number of non-EU players on each team.
On 21 April 2005, UEFA 52 member federations unanimously approved a rule designed to increase the number of locally trained players. The measure is an attempt to reverse some of the effects of the Bosman ruling.

Players
Since the ruling came into effect in all of the EU in 1995, several notable players in European football have benefited from the ruling.[3] In 1996, Edgar Davids became Europe's first elite club Bosman transferred player, when he moved from Ajax Amsterdam to AC Milan. In 1999, Steve McManaman became the most lucrative transfer at the time in British football, as "Britain’s first high-profile Bosman departure",[4] when he moved from Liverpool to Real Madrid and the deal resulted in McManaman once becoming the highest paid British player in history, for the years 1999 through 2001.[5] Since then, notable players have become brand names and seized the ruling to command and negotiate deals according to their market value when their contracts expired.

Clubs
The ruling is notable because clubs are deemed as unable to gain anything with players becoming commodities, even though clubs argued they trained the players and groomed them from youth levels. Many believe the Bosman ruling coincided directly with the heralding a new era of financial gains in football a decade later, in the 2000s, and in 2005, UEFA declared that they were seeking to repair these aspects of the ruling, because it was believed to be the cause of the increasing rich-poor gap between elite and smaller clubs.[6]

Effect on other sports
The Bosman ruling was considered and distinguished in Lehtonen (2000), a similar case which involved a deadline imposed by FIBA after which basketball teams could not include players who had played for another team in the same season, where it was found that such a restriction was lawful.

Just one question - where in there does it say that clubs get compensation for players under 24?

I think it was a later agreement between the European Commission and FIFA, that would probably not actually stand up to a legal challenge

snoopster wrote:Just one question - where in there does it say that clubs get compensation for players under 24?

I think it was a later agreement between the European Commission and FIFA, that would probably not actually stand up to a legal challenge

It doesn't on that post, however I assume it's part of the rules to cover the cost of developing a player etc.