Transfer fee on junior players could be the way forward
Roar Rookie By CoreyRosser, 19 May 2012 CoreyRosser is a Roar Rookie
Related coverage
Since its inception in 2008, the National Youth Competition has been a winner on all levels for the NRL. The concept has created an environment where young players can grow and push their claims for a career in rugby league.
Meanwhile it also has provided an exciting and meaningful curtain raiser for television and live audiences.
After four seasons, whereby countless players has passed through the system to sit among the game’s elite, it is time for the NRL to implement a strategy which discourages clubs from poaching rival teams’ junior players. The plan must thus encourage clubs to instead foster their own talent.
Let’s use the example of the New Zealand Warriors, the club that has been most successful at under-20s level to date, with two premierships and 18 players progressing through to the Toyota Cup system and into their first-grade side.
In addition to these players, several Warriors juniors have gone on to play NRL football with other clubs.
Nafe Seluini (Penrith Panthers), Constantine Mika (Newcastle Knights and Hull KR in the UK Super League) and most recently Neccrom Areaiiti (South Sydney Rabbitohs) all went through the Warriors system, only to leave for other clubs after playing a single game of first grade for their hometown team.
Sure, it’s great that these players have gone on to make a career in league, regardless of where that is.
But how is it right that a club invests countless hours and dollars preparing a player for life in the NRL, only for a rival club to poach them just as they are ready to make the step up?
In this situation the NRL needs to step in to ensure that smaller-market clubs, such as the Warriors, Canberra Raiders and Cronulla Sharks are not robbed of their best juniors by larger, more prestigious clubs without some form of compensation.
My proposal is a transfer-fee system, similar to that which has been successfully implemented in professional football for years.
This would be attached to rookie players, who choose to leave their junior club for another before playing first grade.
With the upcoming television deal expected to significantly top up the bank accounts of all 16 clubs, the option is financially feasible.
It only needs to apply to juniors registered with the Toyota Cup competition, who have not played first grade; as soon as they make the NRL the fee disappears.
The amount could either be set at the start of the year by the club or negotiated if and when a rival club comes knocking for the player, regardless of whether or not they are still under contract.
The concept simply means that a club’s best junior players will come at an expensive cost to would-be poachers.
This may sound to some like yet another overseas concept which has no place in our game and it is not without its faults.
But how long until the next Daly Cherry Evans, Matt Gillett or Josh Dugan are stolen away from their junior club prematurely?
A transfer fee could just be the answer to ensuring that the NRL remains a fair and evenly contested competition, where clubs prefer to develop their own players, rather than pinching them from somewhere else.
May 19th 2012 @ 7:01am
Gaz said | May 19th 2012 @ 7:01am | Report comment
Corey, what a good idea. The clubs producing the players of the future need protection. Your idea is a good one because those clubs that invest money, time and effort into their juniors gain no reward when the vulture clubs come knocking on the youngsters managers door. Gallop however is more interested in seeing 22-24 score lines and appears to turn a blind eye to those clubs who are in fact assuring the NRLs future. You will also get the ‘restraint of trade’ argument but all in all it could work.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
May 19th 2012 @ 8:19am
peeeko said | May 19th 2012 @ 8:19am | Report comment
I see your point but smaller market clubs are already protected by the salary cap. The other issue is that who effectively owns the junior, eg is minicello a wests or roosters junior. Who do Players from country areas belong to? I think clubs with big junior bases like my club the dragons are already advantaged, it’s just bad luck that we lose some of their players to other clubs. This rule would also increase the advantage that the broncos have. Also a new team from a non rugby league state eg Perth or Adelaide would be disadvantaged. The players you mentioned fom the warriors are barely first graders. Also I don’t know if I would describe the warriors as a smaller market club.
May 19th 2012 @ 8:27am
B.A Sports said | May 19th 2012 @ 8:27am | Report comment
It would be an interesting thing to pursue however the transfer fee would have to be a flat fee no matter which player or club. The reason, “Restraint of trade”. For examplethe Warriors have a huge forward Likiliki. They may think he is the next big ball playing forward and thier most valuable junior and set a transfer fee that is so high, no club will be willing to pay it. Likiliki’s choice of clubs is basically being restricted as a result.
May 19th 2012 @ 8:31am
Adz said | May 19th 2012 @ 8:31am | Report comment
This is a great idea. I think this train of thought has been around for a while in some circles. I seem to remember people calling for a transfer fee to be paid when a club has developed a player from their junior days, however the proposed fee would be paid regardless of whether they had played first grade. While I can’t see that happening I think Corey’s idea has some merit. My only suggestion would be that the fee shouldn’t be cancelled after they play one game. This may lead to coaches not blooding 20′s players in the nrl if they don’t see them as a long term option because they would lose their fee when the player leaves. I personally think that the fee should be disappear once the player is part of the 25 man 1st grade squad. It would have been nice for the broncs to get some reward for developing Tariq Sims, even though he would have excelled wherever he was. Not that I’m complaining as our first grade squad is already benefitting enormously from past 20′s players.
Anyway this idea has got my vote.
May 19th 2012 @ 12:23pm
peeeko said | May 19th 2012 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Was sims a dragons product or a broncos?
May 19th 2012 @ 11:19pm
Queensland's Game Is Rugby League said | May 19th 2012 @ 11:19pm | Report comment
I think Ashton started off at the Dragons. Tariq played U-20s for the Broncos.
May 19th 2012 @ 11:20am
Bearfax said | May 19th 2012 @ 11:20am | Report comment
I can live with that but it depends on how young the player is who warrants a transfer fee.
Are you going to demand a transfer fee for a player at 15 for example. I can well understand that if a club has invested money into the development of a player, that they should receive some form of remuneration for that development. Therefore players in the late teens, perhaps from 17 on could be considered. But when it comes to the younger agse those clubs have not invested much if anything significant into a kid at 16 or younger. Most of those kids play for local teams that run on a shoestring. Why then should the major league team have any claim on them just because they live in the area. We dispensed with the residential restrictions fifty years ago and even then it didnt apply to ungraded juniors. I agree that at Toyota Cup level, you’re beginning to get into serious payment and development of players and maybe there’s a place for remuneration. So the rule would therefore apply to players once they have been graded into Toyota Cup. There is a caveat here though for players who then are in later years dropped from grade. The transfer payment would then not be valid because the team can no longer accommodate them. Otherwise you may lose a good player from League who will then go eleswhere.
But if that is the case then why shouldnt it also to apply to all local juniors in a team. If a club has brought players through their ranks and they are now playing first grade, shouldnt the same rule apply. Once a player has left the club in which he was developped though, transfer fees are no longer valid because they have become free agents. To further the suggestion, I would also suggest that a local junior who has stayed with a club and been graded for …lets say 8 years, that their contract can be increased by 50%without interferring with the salary cap. This would allow clubs to hold onto favourite sons.
May 19th 2012 @ 11:24am
code 13 said | May 19th 2012 @ 11:24am | Report comment
It’s a really smart idea. It encourages all clubs to look at their own backyards first and foremost.
The only thing I’d ad though is that it should go to a secondary player group cap (i.e. a cap for reserves & under 20s) that way the money stays in player development rather than goes elsewhere in the club system. This means for every player they lose they get some money to find a player to replace them.
May 19th 2012 @ 11:26am
Ian Whitchurch said | May 19th 2012 @ 11:26am | Report comment
I support the idea, except I’d do it with cap room rather than dollars as such.
As a side point, one of the hidden advantages the News Corp subsiduary Brisbane Broncos Ltd ACN 009 570 030 (ASX Code BBL) has been given is that payments to juniors is not under the cap, so they can use their monopoly position in a big market to spend on youth development, sign a lot of kids and then bring the best of them onto the cap.
I’d regularise this situation by introducing a youth list of 25 players, with it’s own youth cap of, say $1m.
May 19th 2012 @ 1:16pm
Gaz said | May 19th 2012 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Ian I’m pleased to see you have associated this thread about junior development with the Broncos. You then however go on to promote them as a well run business listed on the stock exchange and have an advantage because they have a monopoly. I am unsure what your point is. I gather you don’t believe they have a given right to secure all Brisbane youngsters that are playing rugby league, or are you?
May 19th 2012 @ 2:31pm
Ian Whitchurch said | May 19th 2012 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
Gaz,
Brisbane Bronco’s arent a well-run club at all, considering their monopoly status in one of rugby league’s two good cities – I’d be expecting membership, crowds and sponsorship at least as good as Richmond’s, for example.
Their efforts in strangling other Brisbane clubs, on the other hand, is to be admired.
May 19th 2012 @ 3:34pm
Gaz said | May 19th 2012 @ 3:34pm | Report comment
Give us break Ian the Tigers have been around since 1886 you’d expect them to have a tad few more members. The fact that they almost folded in 1990 due to financial problems isn’t any indication of a well run club either.
The Broncos reached a membership of 25,000 last week a record for them so at least they are heading in the right direction.
May 19th 2012 @ 3:53pm
Norm said | May 19th 2012 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
Port Adelaide has more members than the Broncos……..Why do NRL clubs have such low membership? As soon as I turned 18 I joined my SANFL club. This was just to be a member of my club & vote at it’s AGM. it didn’t include a season’s ticket – unheard of in those days, altho I believe the VFL had them as part of their club memberships as far back as the 60′s. You can still see the painted signs for the season ticket gates at Collingwood & Sth Melbourne. Aussie Rules has a different culture, going back to the 19th century..
May 19th 2012 @ 4:30pm
Queensland's Game Is Rugby League said | May 19th 2012 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
Broncos didn’t start selling memberships until the mid-2000s. Aussie ruels clubs have been selling memberships for decades.
TheBroncos have increased their membership base each year. Last year it was 16,000. This year it has reached 25,000. Give them a few more years and they’ll probably have over 35,000. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had 50,000 members within the next 10 to 20 years.
May 19th 2012 @ 4:36pm
Gaz said | May 19th 2012 @ 4:36pm | Report comment
Norm,
Ian mentioned Richmond who have been around since the 1800s and they currently have a membership around 40,000 with a 10 year average of around 35,000 at games. Relatively the Broncos aren’t all that far behind.
May 19th 2012 @ 4:49pm
The Cattery said | May 19th 2012 @ 4:49pm | Report comment
But Ian is right that the Broncos have had a dream run for over 20 years now.
May 19th 2012 @ 6:33pm
Ian Whitchurch said | May 19th 2012 @ 6:33pm | Report comment
In the last ten seasons, Richmond have gone to as many AFL final series as the Newtown Jets have.
And Im well aware the Jets dont even play in the AFL … but they’ve still played in as many finals as Ninthmond.
Never the less, as one of nine Melbourne sides in the AFL, they have still out-drawn the Brisbane Broncos, who have Brisbane all to themselves.
I know Queenslanders love their League … but the unanswered question of rugby league is why cant Brisbane get them to games ?
May 19th 2012 @ 11:17pm
Queensland's Game Is Rugby League said | May 19th 2012 @ 11:17pm | Report comment
“I know Queenslanders love their League … but the unanswered question of rugby league is why cant Brisbane get them to games ?”
Not all rugby league fans from the Greater Brisbane area are keen on the Broncos. The Broncos’ introduction to the NSWRL hammered the final nail into the BRL’s coffin. It’s hard to long-term BRL fans to forget.
Ticket prices for the Broncos are very high. Few families up here can justify forking over $200 or more just to see one game. They were raised to believe that’s a rip off.Aussie rules fans tend to view it differently. I think as time goes by you’ll see more people up here come around to Melbournians’ way of thinking (regarding match attendance).
Public transport can be a factor. Free transport is offered to people who have bought a ticket, but the buses don’t cover every area of the B.C.C. In that event, you have to drive to one of the Park ‘n’ Rides at the major bus stations or pay busfare to get to one of the bus stations. Brisbane’s public transport is among the most expensive in the world.
Queuing up at Lang Park to get into and out of the ground is a pain. Especially if your seat is located on one of the top decks and there’s a 40,000-plus crowd.
The Queensland Cup draws alright crowds. I’d estimate that over 1,000, possibly 2,000, regularly turn up to see the Wynnun-Manly Seagulls at Kougari Oval. Redcliffe always draws a good crowd. So does Easts.
May 19th 2012 @ 11:55am
Jeff McGinn said | May 19th 2012 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Any club losing any player, should be recompensed for the loss of any player off contract and deemed to be required at the club for the next season.
A club should not be able to wave a big cheque in front of a players manager to attract an off contract player to join them, If they do, a similar amount , let’s say an amount equal to the first 12 months salary for that player should go into the sellers (Bad word, but lost for another one!) bank account..
Instead of systems used world wide in the movement of players, Rugby League could be proactive and have a televised EBay auction on ‘off contract players’ at the end of each season.. auction would be two pronged package. players salary and transfer fee.. In the words of the ad “Id like to see that”!
May 19th 2012 @ 12:01pm
Mushi said | May 19th 2012 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
Why? People aren’t the property of their clubs.
May 19th 2012 @ 12:05pm
Ian Whitchurch said | May 19th 2012 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
Jeff,
If the player was “required”, then why didnt they sign him to a contract extension ? Maybe because they only wanted him if he was cheap ?
What you are describing is the old baseball “reserve clause”, which will be seen as restraint of trade in any court in the land.
May 19th 2012 @ 3:44pm
Jeff McGinn said | May 19th 2012 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
Ian, sometimes a club can gain a players services from another just by giving him a salary that is too high to match… this is not “Etting him on the cheap”, this is “Keeping within the tight constraints of a silly salary cap system, that seems to aafect some but not all clubs!.
I say again the clubs should be rewarded for their work with a player!. Too easy to sit back and pick the bones out of clubs that have good recruitment and junior development!.. IMO if a club puts in the effort in developing a player, they should get some reward when he walks away for MORE MONEY!..
May 20th 2012 @ 9:16am
Mushi said | May 20th 2012 @ 9:16am | Report comment
Why they are the only employer in the land who runs the risk of developing young talent and having em leave…oh that’s right every business runs that risk from the corner store to BHP. What you are suggesting is the antithesis of a free society.
Teams already get rewarded for junior development by having cheaper players, more information on players, first opportunity to negotiate, the ability to install the club culture within them and, if all those major advantages are a little too much to process, in general the ability to retain at a lower cost.
As you yourself said they leave for MORE money meaning their current club has the opportunity to at the very least retain them for the same amount as anyone else. Generally however most players, just like people, can be retained for less due to culture, love of the status quo and certainty (this has been shown across all industries, yes there are players which will be exceptions but you should be aware of them by the time negotiations come around)
Now in a salary cap constrained environment is it an advantage to be able to pay players LESS money? If so drop the persecuted junior development line as it doesn’t align with your rationale
May 19th 2012 @ 12:59pm
Gaz said | May 19th 2012 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
As far as equitable recompense, a reimbursement of costs to date plus a fee equivalent to the players current value should do it.
May 20th 2012 @ 9:30am
Mushi said | May 20th 2012 @ 9:30am | Report comment
That isn’t equitable recompense as the club has derived value from the player and the club generates more value from having a bigger populations of developing players.
Does the club compensate players who don’t turn out but have lost multiple years of their life? Hell no. Why not? Because it is assumed that the 16 year old boy was fully aware and informed. But of course the multiple middle aged men charged with administration didn’t commit resources to development without considering the return under the current environment.
Then the club should be forced to pay the player the gap between his production and his minimum contract. Play all the games as a starter then give the lad 200 to 300k per season he has already played when he departs.
How many of you guys have employers that demand compensation for on the job training? I can get if you enter into an agreement for further study but our legal system would eviscerate an employer for claiming experience and on the job training
The premise behind this is that you employer owns you and your future potential. Dangerous precedent
I’ll guarantee you that the equitable recompense goes in the clubs favour otherwise they wouldn’t pour money into junior pipelines.
May 20th 2012 @ 12:09pm
Gaz said | May 20th 2012 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Mushi,
With all due respect I think you may have missed the point. The desired result is to have ALL clubs involved in junior development and share the load equally in taking the game forward by developing their own players rather than sitting back and reaping the rewards of those doing the right thing. If these clubs refuse to shoulder the load then they should be made accountable and pay for not putting in. Take a minute to consider the turmoil if clubs such as the Warriors, Penrith and Broncos were to throw their junior development out the window and decided to join the vulture clubs and buy their players “ready made”. Granted their may be other ways but in my opinion Cory’s is a good one.
May 20th 2012 @ 12:51pm
Bearfax said | May 20th 2012 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
Of course the problem with the ideal of recompense for developing juniors and the reality is of course the inequity that exists between clubs availability of junior players in their area and this is why I would suggest it only applied to a limited number of contracted Toyota Cup and above players in a club.
As I mentioned clubs dont have that much involvement with junior teams in their area and I again reiterate why should a club have precedence over a young 14 or 15 years old, just because he lives in the area and happens to be playing with an often token payment junior club from the major league club in the area.
As I mentioned residential restrictions went out over 50 years ago and if a young player is picked up by a club from another area who isnt contracted, then that’s fair. So if a dozen young 15 year olds are offered to participate in another area than where they live, so be it. The local club only has rights I believe when it offers contracts to a player at Toyota Cup level and then invests bigger time and resourses on that kid.
And perhaps there should be a junior salary cap on the juniors being contracted. Sydney City for example would not survive if it had to rely on local juniors. Why should a Brisbane or Parramatta have rights to all the local kids, just because of an accident of population size. They are already advantaged that they probably will scoop up the cream of that area anyway. hardly an equitable arrangement.
May 20th 2012 @ 2:44pm
Gaz said | May 20th 2012 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
Exactly, only talking in regard to contracted players that have been developed to NRL standard. After all,generally, the clubs wanting ready made players are not interested in any player of less experience. Look, the fact of the matter is without players there is no NRL and without junior development there are no players. There has to be a system in place where clubs are encouraged, enticed or even forced to be a part of junior development. Either that or they pay the piper.
May 20th 2012 @ 8:07pm
Bearfax said | May 20th 2012 @ 8:07pm | Report comment
Quite right Gaz. And the only way you get get clubs more interested in development is to first create a more equitable distribution of potential players. A Sydey City cant compete with a Brisbane, when one side struggles to get enough juniors to form a junior competition while another has a glut. Some would selfishly say tough bickies, but if you want a competition to work, have clubs that are financially viable and satisfy your supporters, you must ensure all clubs have an equal chance at a cut of the pie. Without that you would end up with two or three clubs playing in the competition because the rest cant compete….hardly a competition to look forward to.
May 20th 2012 @ 10:45pm
Mushi said | May 20th 2012 @ 10:45pm | Report comment
Well it is still completely contrary to how our society functions but putting that to one side…
It staggers me that people can’t see juniors are an advantage not some drain shouldered out of pure charity by those clubs. You get a material advantage by having access to better young talent more often.
Clubs typically don’t lack junior stocks due to choice look at your vulture clubs and you’ll see teams with fewer juniors available to turn into nrl players.
So essentially you want to double tax all those teams.
May 21st 2012 @ 5:24am
Bearfax said | May 21st 2012 @ 5:24am | Report comment
Well Mushi, that comment would be justified in a world where treasures were equally divided. Brisbane has access to juniors coming out of a population close to one and a half million, not to mention vast areas of country Queensland including Toowoomba etc. Its a growth area. A club like Sydney City (and for the record I’m not a Roosters supporter) has a land locked population of perhaps one or two hundred thousand people and proportionately a much older generation. How is a club with as little as a tenth to a fifteenth the population, and a population that would have fewer young people proportionately, compete with the likes of a Brisbane in developping juniors. Truth is many of the smaller clubs treat their juniors better than the bigger clubs because they realise their value. The vultures are often those clubs living in glut. That’s why so many of their good players are tempted away.
May 19th 2012 @ 1:28pm
Adz said | May 19th 2012 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
I think once a player signs their first contract of significant value (i.e. $55,000 which is minimum wage for the toyota cup) then that is considered their first club and upon leaving this club will receive the fee. The fee would have to be either preset in line with something like Gaz said or decided upon by an independent party i.e. ARLC. Personally I like Gaz’s system as if it was decided on potential then clubs would end up crying foul over players who end up being early/late bloomers. Salary cap concessions are another area that should definitely be considered in regards to this issue in my opinion anyway. Similar to the marquee player concession already in place.
@peeeko – Sims won t/cup player of the year at Brisbane in 2010. Played there for 3 years.
May 19th 2012 @ 3:09pm
Hanzo said | May 19th 2012 @ 3:09pm | Report comment
Ian you lost me at “regularise”….
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
May 19th 2012 @ 4:28pm
MFB1991 said | May 19th 2012 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
He loses me at Ian………..