Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Central Contracts
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BigTen" data-source="post: 101569"><p>I think that clubs should just simply refuse to let players play for their countries - they could have this written into their contracts and give players the choice.</p><p></p><p>Most rugby players would simply refuse to sign that contract and find another club to play for. Those clubs that refused to allow players to play internationals would simply cease to exist as viable clubs and would be replaced by other clubs.</p><p></p><p>It is a huge benefit to a club to have international players playing for it. They bring in more fans, more money, more interest, prestige and also bring a high standard of ability to the team. They knew that when they sign a player who is likely to play for their country that they will be without their services during certain times. They also know that there is also a chance that the player may get injured during their service for their country.</p><p></p><p>I am sure that there could be a scheme in which a country like England could pay compensation for using players (and for when a player gets injured).</p><p></p><p>I have always thought that in the English Premier League there should be a foreigner tax (about 1% of the player's weekly wages for all non-UK players) and this is used as a fund to compensate clubs when a player plays for England. This would ensure that clubs that regulalry develop players for England get rewarded financially (and this would allow them to continue to develop English players) and the clubs that just get non-UK players actually have to pay for it. 1% is a tiny amount but would basically end clubs complaining that their players played too many international games.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BigTen, post: 101569"] I think that clubs should just simply refuse to let players play for their countries - they could have this written into their contracts and give players the choice. Most rugby players would simply refuse to sign that contract and find another club to play for. Those clubs that refused to allow players to play internationals would simply cease to exist as viable clubs and would be replaced by other clubs. It is a huge benefit to a club to have international players playing for it. They bring in more fans, more money, more interest, prestige and also bring a high standard of ability to the team. They knew that when they sign a player who is likely to play for their country that they will be without their services during certain times. They also know that there is also a chance that the player may get injured during their service for their country. I am sure that there could be a scheme in which a country like England could pay compensation for using players (and for when a player gets injured). I have always thought that in the English Premier League there should be a foreigner tax (about 1% of the player's weekly wages for all non-UK players) and this is used as a fund to compensate clubs when a player plays for England. This would ensure that clubs that regulalry develop players for England get rewarded financially (and this would allow them to continue to develop English players) and the clubs that just get non-UK players actually have to pay for it. 1% is a tiny amount but would basically end clubs complaining that their players played too many international games. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Central Contracts
Top