May in; Slater out!

[Clowbeck]

It would appear Jonny May's move has caused quite a stir with regard to the rules surrounding contracts and the breaking thereof:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... rship.html

So much so that the RFU have moved quickly to close off the loophole:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40887419

Interesting and perhaps explains why we havent heard much from May since the move, I'd at least have expected an LTV video for this weekend. Perhaps been told by agent and club to keep a low profile for time being?

[Clowbeck]

It would appear Jonny May's move has caused quite a stir with regard to the rules surrounding contracts and the breaking thereof:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... rship.html

So much so that the RFU have moved quickly to close off the loophole:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40887419

Interesting and perhaps explains why we havent heard much from May since the move, I'd at least have expected an LTV video for this weekend. Perhaps been told by agent and club to keep a low profile for time being?

[mol2]

It's an interesting one for the clubs.
Not sure there is much the clubs can probably do without falling foul of employment law. Presumably this is why the clubs have to pay the one year's salary and not the player.

Even without this clause I suspect there is little the clubs can do if a player wants to end their contract early and resigns. Other than making them work out their notice period, the clubs probably can't do much.

However other clubs, by agreement, may not be permitted to sign them or play them which would have the same effect. I guess Premiership clubs may agree but it might be difficult to get an agreement that goes further into Europe or beyond.

[L Smith]

This doesn't close a loophole; it just makes the compensation variable rather than fixed

[teds]

This doesn't close a loophole; it just makes the compensation variable rather than fixed

Surely it closes a loophole, as it means the current club does not have to release a player even if the price formula is satisfied by the future club?

[L Smith]

This doesn't close a loophole; it just makes the compensation variable rather than fixed

Surely it closes a loophole, as it means the current club does not have to release a player even if the price formula is satisfied by the future club?

Well, it won't stop the activity but it probably makes it more favourable for the club who have the contract with the player

[strawclearer]

It is my experience from the corporate world that the most effective and quickest way to increase your compensation package is.......move. I'm not saying there won't be 'one club' players in future but it's inevitable that those moving as they approach their peak (rather than as they wind down their playing careers) will increase significantly. At only 25, Charles Piutau is a case in point.

[fleabane]

I read a report, which has since disappeared (so may not be true?), that May bought himself out of his contract. We will have to wait until the accounts of each club are published to find out.

[BFG]

On reflection I think May is obviously a very good signing on the face of it but also Gloucester might've just got much more competitive.
A new coach, Ruan Ackermann added on the back row, Moriaty had the summer around Lions test players, Trinder fit, Jason Woodward and Owen Williams added, Rapava Ruskin and now Slater.
I'll be interested to see how Balmain goes assuming he will play alongside bigger hookers.
Also watch out for young Vellacott who I thought was lightning quick in the sevens and had plenty about him.

[FrontRowUnionMember]

Wouldn't even say it's closed - the loophole is still there but the fee becomes negotiable between the two clubs, and falls outside the salary cap.

So if Wasps wanted to buy Maro Itoje out of his Saracens contract and negotiated a fee of £2m then how does that protect clubs? Those with large benefactors will surely benefit as they have readily available cash to spend on such fees.

Exactly so Coops. This opens the door still wider for those with big money.

I disagree to be honest. From what I've read, the loophole was a fixed fee based on the players annual salary, or proposed annual salary, whichever was the greater. So, for example a championship club who churn out youth talent like Leeds with a low(ish) paid young player with potential is ripe for picking off by the likes of Sarries who have money to burn, but only for a set fee that the smaller club cannot reject.
It appears that this rule change now allows clubs to refuse the offer. So Leeds may have this same player that Sarries could have paid a negligible amount for, that now Leeds can refuse, but negotiate a more aggreable larger fee that does suit all parties, if they do desire.
It is giving the power back to the club in control of players contract, a contract which that player happily signed at the time. The club with the contract now no longer lose control, they get to choose whether they release the player or not, and for a fee that they deem acceptable. They are no longer confined to having no choice but to release the player under the contractual loophole.

For example
Previously - Leeds have an England U20 player on £20k per year, currently if Sarries want him, they come in and offer £30k per year contract, so thats the fee Leeds get, they cannot refuse, and have no power on the matter.
Now - Leeds have an England U20 player on £20k per year, currently if Sarries want him, they have to come in and negotiate with Leeds. Leeds may prefer to keep him, and as such refuse. Or, they may feel if the can get Sarries to pay £50-60k they could actually reinvest that in 2 new players that give them better depth/options.

At least that's how I understood it.

[Grimlish]

FRUM all that you say may we'll be accurate about how it will work in those instances. However it remains my view that in closing one 'loophole' the solution will have created a significant range of perverse, unintended or just plain unwelcome incentives. The fact that such release payments now fall outside the salary cap is just as significant as the right to negotiate the fee. Big money just got whole lot stronger.

[FrontRowUnionMember]

I don't discount that, but equally I think clubs are also now protected in terms of having control of whether they do or don't have to release players, and that means that big money clubs cannot just roll in and scoop up players without resistance.
It's a double edged sword. 'Selling' clubs now have more rights and are protected from being ridden roughshod over, however, the way the rules have been changed opens up the opportunity for clubs with sugar daddies to just throw cash around with no accountability within the cap.

[wormus]

I read a report, which has since disappeared (so may not be true?), that May bought himself out of his contract. We will have to wait until the accounts of each club are published to find out.

I'am not sure if this is the article but May approached the Gloucester Club saying he wished to leave -
http://www.premiershiprugby.com/2017-20 ... ting-club/
But there was also a bit on Planetrugby before but this all turned to the contract clause he triggered.

[johnthegriff]

Any agent worth his salt will not let a young player sign a contract for more than two years possibly even one year. It is to be expected that a promising youngster will raise his profile and value during the contract. The contract holder has the option of negotiating to extend a contract at increased terms whilst the player and any poaching club knows they only have to wait to make a fee free signing. I cannot believe any team will wish to retain an unhappy player or that any such player would be able to perform well for a club holding him against his will. Players on top wages will not be transferred for amounts massively in excess of their wages, there is just not enough money in the game to do that and the possibility of injury too great to be sure that such acquisitions will bring success.

[Grimlish]

Players on top wages will not be transferred for amounts massively in excess of their wages, there is just not enough money in the game to do that and the possibility of injury too great to be sure that such acquisitions will bring success.

This change is predominantly about transfer fees not wages. As a result of this change a monied benfactor can pay for buying out a player from their contract where a less monied club will be unable to follow, and the buying club can continue to hold down wages which remain within the cap, so without adding to the revenue risks of the club, should the money run out.

Seems like a perfect solution for those with money to me. A one-off payment without longer term consequences. A big move toward the clubs financed by rich benefactors without needing the revenue base to support additional costs.