Super Rugby needs transfer payments

Owen At least the path forward is within the operational rules of the IRB. However, what you are advocating is for SANZAR's national bodies to introduce transfer fees and by its very nature, by-pass this obvious pathway to seek re-dress. Two different subject matters. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps, this is the reason why neither SANZAR body has entertained the idea of transfer fees - because there is a formal pathway within IRB to re-dress any matter of dispensation if and when such bodies decide to pursue this course? It is the perogative of national bodies to pursue. By the tone of your responses above, it doesn't seem like it. But hey, thanks for the heads-up that such an avenue exists for national bodies to consider - it just reinforces arguments against transfer fees which for all intents and purposes, are not really necessary. That is the reality mate....

Chris Jack. For WP. Was a fan favourite. Good bloke. Played very physically.

From memory there was a new Zealand lock that played Currie Cup in SA a few years back, can't remember who though

Just for interest....are there any Aussie players or NZ players playing or have ever moved to play in South Africa?

Very strident. You play on the ROAR as abrasively as Brad Thorne, who poached himself from League to Union. Soon, you will be yellow carded.

hog How are you mate??....I've been waiting for you to join us in this latest tete-a-tete. Yes, I knew you'd havago at SR's ability to survive but I really do believe that NZRU in particular, wouldn't survive if it had to provide financial contracts to young players before those players have proven their rugby playing abilities. IMO, the only way to apply at transfer fee is to demonstrate that an expense has been outlaid onto the player concerned to improve that player's abilities. IMO, NZRU just doesn't have the financial capacity to undertake that pathway. So, without that ability, NZRU cannot then turn around and demand a fee if another entity, wishes to engage that player. Well, I suppose they could try, but it will be treated with contempt and laughter both in and out of a court of law.

Well if Super Rugby dies off then it will at least achieve something positive.!!!!

Owen It's not about being right or not. It's not about being a nation of hypocrites - you raised the subject content and invited all and sundry to agree or disagree with you. I just happen to be a member of the latter group but it doesn't make me correct or a hypocrite. My arguments have been leading to the fact that the SANZAR nations are playing on an uneven playing field and in all probability, that field will never become an even contestable arena....I know that and so do you. But your proposals are based upon subjective observations that SANZAR might stagnate, SR will die, SANZAR kids will have a favourite french or heineken cup team rather than objective considerations where SANZAR and SH rugby is fighting like hell to preserve their own national competitions and integrity against an organization upheld by club owners who would rather buy their trophies rather than grow their own players to win their trophies. There is no free market colonialism involved in this unfortunate situation except what you are advocating IMO, will be the death knell of SH rugby as a whole and the nurseries for NH club rugby, will forever be filled by SH youngsters. If global rugby nations still want to view SH rugby competitions which I believe they do; if global rugby nations still want to imitate how the game is played in these SH rugby competions which I believe they are; if global rugby nations still want to compete and challenge these SH nations on the rugby paddock which I believe they strive for - then SANZAR and its membership of old and new, has a game that everyone wants to watch, to imitate and to beat in the only arena available....and with that, SANZAR will survive to argue another day about its players. For your proposal to succeed in NZ, SA or AU, it will require a seismic shift in player management responsibility from centralised to decentralised management with clubs attaining overall jurisdiction over players rather than the respective national bodies. IMO, NZ rugby would not survive such a shift but according to your observation, NH club rugby will be the new establishment for global rugby overall and that possibility is what sticks in my craw.

Owen Firstly, there is an interesting fact about your post quotes by certain folk involved in the game - that fact is the dates of each post from 2008, 2011 and 2012. No doubts about the credentials of those who have been quoted from a former CEO, current journalist and a former test player. Problem is, what has happened with all these proposals made by highly credentialled and knowledgable rugby folk.....short answer is nothing!! Neither SANZAR nation in their wisdom has demonstrated any intention to look into, consider or propose such an opportunity as you so tenciously advance and the question must be asked....why not?? Forget about the quality of player that may leave and venture north for greener pastures. Let's also forget about the quality of the competition(s) they will leave. We can also forget about the players cost/dollar value they think they're worth if they remain in the SH and let's concentrate on why we think, the SANZAR unions have not proceeded with this transfer fee proposal. My simple answer is because the national unions would be unable to quantify how much such fee is worth since their actual cost expense spent on individual players is indeterminate. Unions are unable to prove that their cost outlay has specifically improved an indivdual's playing ability to such an extent, that the Union could then justify that cost as a transfer fee. However, professional clubs can determine how much of an outlay has been spent upon an individual player from the time of signing on to the time the player moves to another club. Unions and particularly national unions, cannot determine this value because their involvement is limited until probably, the player gains national selection. That places the Unions in a very unenviable position of how to protect its players from leaving to go abroad and ply their wares. Simply put, they can't protect their players unless they start contracting young players from primary school and that for the unions, is just an unrealistic position to consider especially, when your revenues can only go so far. The SANZAR unions will never earn more than what the NH rugby clubs of France and the UK can earn however, with the limited resources they have, they are managing players who have shown an intention to remain in their home competitions. This is probably the best of the worst bunch of opportunities but also probably, the only lasting opportunity for the SH unions to maintain their status for the sake of SH rugby. Last but not least, I think you are forgetting about one key factor which is the life-long dream of every rugby player and that is to gain national selection and play international test rugby. Players of all size and shape from their earliest days of playing rugby, grow up to strive for national selection....they're not silly, because they realise their individual worth increases exponentially if they have national selection on their CV. If not, they are probably the next candidates for the scrap heap because if they didn't cut the mustard back home then its highly probable that they wont cut the mustard overseas and once again, the Unions would have very little to believe they can place a transfer fee on these individuals. You are pushing a barrow up a staircase mate and hitting the bumps at every step....but the reality is, not even earlier pleas by rugby folk have managed to get this argument onto a level playing field simply because the field isn't level in the first place. You overcome that uneveness by utilizing the resources at hand in the best possible fashion available without incurring additional costs fighting off the legal fraternity in contractual battles between players and organizations. I think the Unions are trying their bloody best to play on an uneven playing field and we at least have to give credit where its due otherwise SH rugby will also be on the scrap heap.

Depends on how it's used. There are many restrictions in place. Consider a refusal by the ARU to consider overseas based players for Wallaby squads. So let's suggest that the ARU offers possible selection if the club provides a fee. May as well call it a transfer fee. The player and overseas club does not have to do it, but it may be in the interests of one or the other. These funds then available for top up in the Aussie pool. It's not a total $ solution but may help. And if for instance, Waratahs had to do the same for Potgeiter, I for one would think it worthwhile for both Potgeiter and the Tahs for him to be available for both the Tahs and international rugby. So, a player considers a $ big relocation. Puts in a request to the ARU for a transfer right (and valuation). He can still leave without it. And the ARU might only offer for serious Wallabies to start with. OK, loose ends everywhere. Interesting speculation though.

So you have resorted to posting articles that no one else has bothered to respond to because you refuse to accept that you are wrong. Back on your bike. The only ones who are crying foul are the folk from the NZ and Aus unions who can't compete financially. The Welsh whine because they have put themselves in a situation where they can't compete due to incompetence. The RRW and WRU have no relationship the money has gone to pay off a stadium rather than build the game in the regions. They blame others not themselves. Nothing new.

Players won't sign them and will still walk. Doesn't stop them from playing for the Boks.