I find it hard to believe that in this day and age an organisation like the S.J.F.A, which is over seen by the S.F.A, can still get away with retaining ( as they put it ) players after their contracts have expired. The junior game has changed a great deal over the past few years and is now far more professional than in previous times. Players have been rightfully paying tax now for the last couple of seasons which makes them employees and the clubs employers. In normal employee employer relationships when your contract expires your free to do as you please, just like the senior players.
I play in the east super league and have been frustrated by this illegal rule for years and have asked Tom Johnston why this illegal rule still stands and he said it only stands because nobody has ever challenged it. He also said that he was quite sure if it were to be challenged it would be scrapped. I think it is high time we as players stood up against this rule, and over the course of the season I fully intend to take steps towards getting the rule scrapped for the start of next season 09/10.
I know a lot of junior players read this site from all the different leagues and would be interested in your opinion on this matter and whether or not, when you are needed, will you be willing to put your name to my campaign.

Go right ahead, there's plenty of Solicitors in the phone book.

I've already had legal advice and the lawyer I spoke to was also appalled that clubs are able to recieve compensation for out of contract players. 'Stone age', I think the words he used.
As your a club man burnie we all know what side of the fence you will be on.

Like most of the rules in Junior football, and probably Scottish football in general!

I'll leave it to Cmontheloknow... is there some sort of arcane historical reason why rule stands in junior football?

Wow, big at making assumptions arent you?

If you've consulted a Solicitor, then why aren't you doing anything about it? it should be easy enough, or would you rather just moan on an internet messageboard? "Retiontionstinks" registers and his first post is about...........retention.....I've heard players moan about this rule for years but guess what, none get off their arses and do anything about it

Personally, I think clubs should be compensated if they have developed a player from a young age (as in senior football), otherwise the big clubs come along and pick them off for nothing. Other than that, the rule needs to go.

I would be very surprised if there were any junior players out there that wasn't keen on supporting such a campaign. Don't think the clubs will be to keen though. Although if the clubs have their house in order it shouldn't make a huge difference anyway.
Good luck to you anyway as I've always thought it was wrong that the bosman rule doesn't apply to the juniors.

Probably because when this rule goes so does any kind of money in Junior Football
who will pay players knowing they will just b*gger off at the first chance of a better club

And there is no retention rule nowadays anyway
its a compensation deal that clubs agreed 2 years ago at the SJFA AGM

All the scrapping of the rule will mean is the likes of Irvine Meadow and Bathgate will
be untouchable in the transfer market and all the other clubs and even big guns like
Whitburn and Linlithgow will not stand a chance as they know players will be able to walk to
the aforementioned two plus any other with a sugar daddy

Try the medical section.

Obviously clubs would need to look at what they paid players but it wouldn't be a large adjustment and as for the compensation deal the clubs agreed, thats the problem the clubs are the ones driving to keep this rule so they are calling the shots.
And regards to the big clubs snapping up all the out of contract players, well they do that anyway.

The answer is to sign players on longer contracts.

I dont think it's right that we operate differently from senior football, if a player is out of contract then that should be it, they can leave, although as I say there should still remain a compensation element if a player is under a certain age.

My personal opinion is that Junior football should be completely amateur, too much money flows into players back pockets as it is. When the retention rule goes it will only get worse.

Whitburn and Linlithgow(big guns?) will still get players by the same methods as they always did before surely.
Junior clubs are like anybody in life, they only feel aggrieved when they can't get their own way.

I've been boring the arse off everyone I speak to on this subject for the past 10 years. The retention rule was illegal and the SFA quite rightly told the SJFA to dump it.We had the chance to go the full hog towards freedom of contract but the clubs who had the most to lose voted to implement this half baked "compensation" scheme which is also illegal in the eyes of SFA and UEFA.
Why should any club be able to hold a player who is out of contract to ransom and why 40x their weekly wage, what basis was used to calculate that:- the number of weeks in a season. Now we all know that players aren't always paid what their contract says but the clubs are allowed to claim that amount in compensation anyway (for ease of administration and appeal???).
Likewise if a player goes abroad or signs for a senior team then returns to the Juniors years later cant sign until this ludicrous compensation is paid is farcical.
The compensation rule isn't working anyway as most clubs are trying to "negotiate" fees and are in the main unwilling to pay out the full monty.
I am with a club who would probably lose out initially if this rule was abolished, however in the long term it would mean we would be able to sign better players because more money would be available for wages instead of going into the coffers of another club in transfer (sorry, compensation fees).
I know there are clubs who only survive because of transfer fees but is that a solid base for long term survival?

The rule is a joke and is abused by Junior clubs, also the compensation rule doesn't fix anything as the mininium release fee is set at £300 so for someone like myself in the lower leagues I got little chose but to stay with the junior club i'm at, go amatuer or pay out my own pocket. I played with a second division club for 8 season, missed most of last season due injury and family commitments took no money from the club, got the chance to step into coaching at Newmains a club barely surviving and was retained, if I wasted my time and effort challanging this it would be a waste of time as compensation is set at a mininium. I'm now paying the club money to be released even although I out of pocket on my time at the club. Some lower league teams actually use these rules to put players out of the game, in short anyone challenging this rule has my full backing

Agree 1000000000000000000% that its absolutely ridiculous - beyond that in fact - that retention still applies in the Junior game (and indeed for players of any age. What is so magical about 24?) and that clubs must pay "compensation" for a player who is out of contract and in strict legal terms has no remaining obligations to his previous club. So why does it still work?
Lets take a player who leaves (lets call them) club 1 to play for (with great originality) club 2. But club 2 - with the player's agreement - says its not coming up with the "compensation" money and club 1 can go and get lost. What happens then? Well, I would guess that said player gets suspended by the SJFA on the motion of club 1, and club 2 gets into all kinds of bother with SJFA if it goes ahead and plays him anyway. What happens next? Hopefully, club 2 and the player appeal to the SFA (as ultimate arbiters of the game here) and they tell the SJFA to join the rest of the world in the 21st century. Of course there is the possibility that both club and player decide to take the SJFA to court - where as retentionstinks' solicitor would almost certainly advise, they will murder the SJFA who will be able to point only to their regulations which the Court will decide are illegal before handing down judgement against them.
So, why has it not happened? Well, I dont see a big queue of players wanting to be the matryr who takes this stand. Look at what his case did for Bosman's career. He wasnt that much of a player beforehand, but considerably less afterwards. His wife left him and he ended up sleeping in his parent's garage (I have always wondered why they couldnt let him use the front room couch, but there you go). OK his name is now legend, but it was poison for his playing career. In fact, its quite ironic that the case of (George) Eastham v Newcastle United in 1963 (more than 30 years before Bosman) at the High Court in London made clear that at the end of his contract a player should be free to leave, but the union (the PFA) dropped the ball and the Football League persuaded them to accept a "compensation" scheme. If the PFA had stuck to the Eastham judgement, this whole rotten system would have collapsed years ago as many countries copied (with some adaptation) the English system. Jean-Marc Bosman would just be another third rate Belgian player - who knows he might even have ended up playing for one of the OF!
So, "Wanted - one brave player who will take on the might of the SJFA". In legal terms - complete push over. In practical terms - and lets remember that this is a game that cant even organize a fixture list (you know what I mean by a fixture list - Boys Clubs leagues have them!) because "the clubs wont vote for it" - it could be a bit more difficult and a lot more painful.
Personally, I would boot Mr Ronaldo all the way to Madrid for his ridiculous "slave" statement - how can anyone getting somewhere between £100k - £150k A WEEK and last year signed a five year contract with Man U, say they are slaves? But, ironically, players in our Junior game, not only dont get anything like the money that he gets, but at the end of their contract they cant just walk away if they chose to do so - which he can.
Its about time we joined the rest of the world.

......and there you have an issue, the money isn't kept within the game, it goes straight into the back pockets of players who will demand more and more money to sign.

Retention was something that existed in the Senior game too I think, though has long since expired.

What we have in the Juniors just now I personally don't have a major issue with, but I'm not a player. Yes, as Santheman says, the clubs were told to ditch retention, but all that happened was a modification of the rule to expiry of contract.

What we have now is that any player is free to sign for another (without his previous club's permission which was the major rule change) club but that new club has 21 days to cough up the compensation within the £300-£3000 bracket, which is largely based on what the player earned the previous season. The SJFA have got to come down hard upon clubs that don't play ball - after all retention is only an agreement between the 165 Junior clubs.

Or else they can do as Burnie Fan suggests, and stay Amateur. Amateur players cannot be retained.

I think everyone concedes that retention will not last forever but it will take a brave player to challenge it. Unless it's the SPFA united, I can't see too many willing to stand up on this one.

If players demanded more and more money then I personally would tell them to fcuk off and go somewhere else and find it, because there would be plenty of players free from the clutches of the clubs who would be more than happy to take whats on the table.
The clubs with money can only sign so many players at the end of the day. Supposed to be 25 but another rule that is abused right left and centre!!
Just think what clubs could do in terms of improving their infrastucture with even 50% of what they currently splash out on compensation and the improvement there could be in their squads with the other 50% available for better wages.

How is it abused Sandy? Clubs cannot have more than 25 players registered, though a further 20 can be singed on youth contracts.

I don't know of any sides that had more than 25 players last season.

Surely this infridges on the players human rights or something, as a 1 year contract should be for one year. If you sign a contract for work purposes you expect your employer to honour the basic conditions of entitlement, so why should Junior clubs not be held with the same accountability. How many junior clubs really develop young players and if this is the reason compensation is required then a age limit should be set. There are loads of horror storys of clubs putting players out of game basically due to greed some pro don't even get £300 pounds so why is this set as limit. There are currently somewhere in the region of 700-800 players retained for this season, got fed up counting through the book, some these guys will need to go a play amatuer football instead of pushing them at their highest level(junior). At the end of day most players sign in good faith that if they do alright by the club, the club will do alright by them. Particular in the lower leagues this rule is a nonsense because we get paid very little, do it for our own enjoyment and if were injured the clubs are quite happy to leave you be if they have suitable cover but come they mid-june the always remember to send a retainment letter

Jamie, I know of 2 clubs who had more than 25 registered players,primarily due to injuries at the end of the season and the need to go out and sign a load of Amateurs for cover especially for the Central League Cup!!!!!!!.

worst offenders or highest numbers of players retained Girvan 22 players, Glenafton 21, Lesmahagow 22, Oakley 21, when your retained can clubs offer less than the previous year or do they need to match your previous contract. It just I've heard recently that Stonehouse offered their players a penny a week just so they were retained not sure if this is true or rumour but sounds likely from my experiences in Junior football.

Don't read too much into the list as some clubs list all their players including Amateurs just to be on the safe side and some of the players on there will have re-signed for the club. The actual number of true retained players is likely to be much less.
Technically a club must offer the same as the previous year but if they can prove that their financial position has altered dramatically (eg loss of major sponsor) then they can get away with offering a reduced amount as again "technically" the clubs can say that figure is open to negotiation

I think your wrong for a change, I can see a lot willing to stand up to this one.

Unfortunately though, there are problems taking legal action. To be able to raise this subject in court you have to be able to raise a case against the S.J.F.A and the only way you can do this is with the support of a club and as it's the clubs who want the 'compensation scheme' can't see many volunteers there.

So it might well be down to player power at the end of the day but hey, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

WATCH THIS SPACE.

Sorry, dont agree that the support of a club is needed. Bosman raised his case without the support of any club concerning teh demand of Liege for compensation if went to play for FC Dunkirk.
And, I very much disagree with cmontheloknow when he says "The SJFA have got to come down hard upon clubs that don't play ball - after all retention is only an agreement between the 165 Junior clubs."The rules that Bosman (and Eastham) defeated were "an agreement" between the Belgian (and English) clubs.
For the avoidance of doubt, i have no problem with holding a player to a contract that he has freely entered into. He SHOULD do so. But at the end of that contract he should be free to go. For instance if a player signs a new contract because he knows that no other club will pay the compensation required to allow him to do so, can we really say that this new contract has been "freeely" entered into. I would say not.

All I was saying is that retention only exists because the SJFA clubs want it to - if the clubs don't play by its rules it collapses.

As my lawyer explained, the reason you need a clubs assistance is because if another junior club didn't want to sign you then the retention rule would be irrelevant. Apparently you cant just go to court on your own and say that you cant ply your trade because of this rule. Trust me if it was as easy as that I would already of done it.

and all i am saying is that that doesnt make it legal. Nothing more than an "agreement between the clubs", as you said. You also said that "The SJFA have got to come down hard upon clubs that don't play ball " That doesnt sound as if you are the disinterested spectator you suggest with "if the clubs don't play by its rules it collapses"

I would suggest you seek another legal opinion. For instance, you decide you wont sign another contract with club 1. You are approached by club 2 who offer you a deal, but there is disagreement about the "compensation" and the deal falls apart. That would be enough - basically its what happened with Bosman (call 1 Liege and 2 Dunkirk).
Alternatively - and I would concede this would be more difficult - bring a case on the basis that the compensation rule is a restraint of trade. For instance, you might argue that other clubs WOULD offer you a better deal, other than for the compensation clause.
I am not saying your lawyer is wrong - but perhaps a wee bit unimaginative.

We're going round in circles here. What do you mean by a disinterested spectator? Retention cannot work if the clubs don't stick to the agreement.

Bosman applies to any player going from a Junior club to a Senior club. HOWEVER, when it's Junior to Junior, ALL Junior clubs have agreed among themselves to maintain a retention system whereby out of contract players can move on to any club they wish, though the new club has 21 days to pay compensation, set out in their contract, of between £300 and £3000.

If a Junior club signs someone, knowing their value to another Junior club as it is in the contract, but then weazel out on the deal or try to change the amount they have to pay, then they are not playing by the rules they themselves as a club have agreed to. If that happens, the SJFA has to deal with that club.

We had the head of FIFA waffling on this weekend about the validity of contracts and almost urging one player to break his, so is anything legal? Retention does go against Bosman and as was pointed out earlier, the SJFA were told to ditch it, and while that did not happen the new system does hand players back a bit of power, provided they find a new club willing to reimburse the wages they received the previous season. Before, players couldn't move until an unset fee was paid. Now the player can sign for who he likes once he's out of contract. It's a step in the right direction and as the OP suggests, a challenge in court could sink it.

Few clubs are likely to want to be the first to propose ditching it though. There have been rumours in the past, but it's come to nothing.

In the short term there's a simple solution. If a player is worried about being retained, if possible sign an Amateur registration. Amateurs cannot be retained.

I'm guessing that's because you aren't technically self-employed.

Good luck with whatever way you choose to take it.

"Bosman applies to any player going from a Junior club to a Senior club. HOWEVER, when it's Junior to Junior, ALL Junior clubs have agreed among themselves to maintain a retention system whereby out of contract players can move on to any club they wish, though the new club has 21 days to pay compensation, set out in their contract, of between £300 and £3000." Yes that has no legal standing whatsover - as you say its only an agreement enforced by the agreement of the Junior clubs. They have decided among themselves to administer their affairs in a way that could not be enforced in law. In short they are acting illegally by requiring compensation.

"If a Junior club signs someone, knowing their value to another Junior club as it is in the contract, but then weazel out on the deal or try to change the amount they have to pay, then they are not playing by the rules they themselves as a club have agreed to. If that happens, the SJFA has to deal with that club." True as well, but what the SJFA would be doing would be to enforce against that club a rule that has no standing in law. Another way of looking at this would be to say that the club decided to pay no compensation as no compensation can be demanded in law (only in terms of the legally unenforceable compensation regs at the SJFA). Not quite as pejorative as "weazel out" imo.

"We had the head of FIFA waffling on this weekend about the validity of contracts and almost urging one player to break his, so is anything legal? Retention does go against Bosman and as was pointed out earlier, the SJFA were told to ditch it, and while that did not happen the new system does hand players back a bit of power, provided they find a new club willing to reimburse the wages they received the previous season. Before, players couldn't move until an unset fee was paid. Now the player can sign for who he likes once he's out of contract. It's a step in the right direction and as the OP suggests, a challenge in court could sink it. " I will not even attempt to defend Blatter, or Ronaldo. I cant even imagine what the old twerp was thinking about when he said this. Have a look at this when you have a minute (well more like 10) http://www.uefa.com/multimediafiles/downlo...91_download.pdf. This was written by the head of Legal Affairs at UEFA, and it gives me a good laugh every time I read it. I'll settle for one highlight here "As regards (1) it seems likely that in most cases "sporting activity" will be deemed to fall under the Treaty. It certainly appears that all professional sports will be caught. Indeed, it may even be that amateur sport is covered (not so long ago the Commission threatened to take the Spanish Government to court because of alleged discrimination regarding access to amateur sports events in Spain)" Well that's a shocker isnt it? Someone alleges that they have been discriminated against in a sporting event - and only an amateur one at that, and we've got lawyers crawling all over it, when sport wants to deal with it by itself. Disgraceful. You see this is the problem that sport - and football is just an example - thinks it can go on its merry way on its own, without the law intervening. As Bosman (and others that you will see referenced in the pdf) should have amply demonstrated to them, this is no longer the case. The law will intervene in sporting disputes if asked/required to do so. The Chambers case in Athletics (judgement due on Wednesday) is just another example. Sport - generally, and not only football - needs to learn that, accept it and work out how to deal with it. As you can see from the pdf, Mr Infantino (good name for the way he goes on, I think) hasnt got there yet. His paper is an excellent example of a man who behaves like a ostrich!

"Few clubs are likely to want to be the first to propose ditching it though. There have been rumours in the past, but it's come to nothing. " Yes, that's true and I wonder why. For sure there are some people - like the guy from Bathgate on this thread - who want the clubs to retain their power over players even after their contracts are over. Some maybe make a few bob out of it and want it to stay for financial reasons. I think its probable there are some clubs who will take the view that I do, that this is medieval (I wont say "slavery", that's the talk of an overmighty football player who wants his backside kicked, good and hard) and that the rule should be dropped. Most probably just go along with it. How the numbers divide I dont know. But perhaps the problem is that change in the junior game is always difficult - for instance the occassional move for a fixture list, which comes to nothing. My impression of the junior game is that there is an unwillingness to suggest change - any change - because the guys at the top dont like change (being able to make up fixtures as you go along does create a basis for disadvantaging those you dont like - and its not just me that thinks this.) They prefer things to go along as they are. But in any event, as I have tried to argue, this rule might not be voted out. It might not be something that the clubs will have to decide on. Most things like this arent decided this way. The rule is more likely to be found to be illegal and unenforceable in the game.

Lastly, "What do you mean by a disinterested spectator? Retention cannot work if the clubs don't stick to the agreement. " What I mean is that you attempt to give the impression of someone who takes no side on this, who takes the view that this is how it is. But some of your asides - and "weazel out" is just ONE example - suggest to me that the compensation rule is one that you would positively endorse. That's what I mean.

We've been here before though - a player from the Ayrshire Juniors apparently went to the European parliament with this, and there was also the case of a Larkhall player going abroad a few years back - maybe Sandy can remember what that was all about?



No, but football authorities often exist parallel to the law. Look at what happened with Arthurlie and John McKendrick. And going back to Expiry of Contract, the clubs agreed to it and thus have to play along.



Fixture lists are viewed as unworkable. It was tried apparently around 15 years ago and was an utter disaster. However, I believe they can be done and if I can be bothered, I'm going to run a mock West Region fixture list over the 2008-09 season at the NLS website. That will provide irrefutable evidence that it can be done.



My first comment in this thread was:



so I think I nailed my colours to the mast regarding my views on Retention then. I never claimed to be impartial at all.

What I will continue to say is that the clubs themselves agreed to the 'Expiry of Contract' rule and if one doesn't play ball then the SJFA have to act accordingly. The rulebook states "...if in the opinion of the Management Committee attempts are made to avoid or evade the payment of full compensation, the Management Committee shall require such club to pay to the former club such sum as the Management Committee may consider just."

[quote name='cmontheloknow' date='Jul 14 2008, 10:52' post='2607095']
We've been here before though - a player from the Ayrshire Juniors apparently went to the European parliament with this, and there was also the case of a Larkhall player going abroad a few years back - maybe Sandy can remember what that was all about?



Jamie,
It was actually one of your players so u can work it out for yourself without naming names on here.
Essentially he emigrated to NZ and tried to sign for a club there but couldn't get international clearance from the SFA because we were quite rightly looking for a transfer fee.
The club involved and the player appealed to the Status Committee in UEFA who decided that he was in fact Amateur status and that he was free to play for whoever he liked.
But because we had him on our retention list when he eventually came back to the UK we got a transfer fee for him.
There were a lot more ins and outs (the file was about 3ins thick)but essentially thats what happened in a nutshell

The Parliament is the wrong place to go to. It would have to be European Court of Justice - but you cant get there till you have exhausted the domestic legal process - ie Scottish system and then the House of Lords in London - or its sent there by a domestic court for "guidance" where there is uncertainty. For instance, Bosman's case got there via the Belgian Court of First Instance, which sought a legal opinion from ECJ. But, in any event, as an organization subsidiary to the SFA, Gordon Smith ought to be telling the SJFA to get their "house in order". One can only wonder why he doesnt.
I look forward to your proof of the feasibility of a fixture list which, I think is much needed. People I know who are not involved with the Junior game can hardly believe that there isnt one already.
Your points that "No, but football authorities often exist parallel to the law. Look at what happened with Arthurlie and John McKendrick. And going back to Expiry of Contract, the clubs agreed to it and thus have to play along. " just dont stand up. Taking them in reverse order, yes to some extent they have agreed to "play along" - but not far enough. They still stand outside the law - and indeed practice in other areas of the professional game (eg SFL and SPL). But you are right that they have existed in parallel the law. My point is - and Bosman was one example and the Chambers decision will be another - that the law isnt going to allow that freedom to sports organizations any longer. So your last point that "if one (club) doesn't play ball then the SJFA have to act accordingly. The rulebook states "...if in the opinion of the Management Committee attempts are made to avoid or evade the payment of full compensation, the Management Committee shall require such club to pay to the former club such sum as the Management Committee may consider just." is wrong in law. It may be "right" in terms of football rules and regulations, but that's not the point. These rules and regulations dont stand in splendid isolation any more - they arent right because the football authorities at whatever level say so (no matter the blustering of muppets like Blatter). The law can and will intervene in the future as we have seen in the past, and will no doubt witness in the future.
Lastly, I read your point that you are not impartial - I think that was what I was saying

Yeah I couldn't remember which of the two players it was as there were two that left Larkhall to go to NZ. Thanks for the details. It rang a bell somewhere! I remember which one it was.

We'll see what happens, but meantime the clubs are unlikely to be the ones to stop it. When the decision to remove the rule completely is made, the clubs will follow the new guidance.

Clubs right now both spend and receive compensation. A few clubs will use that money to pay the wagebill as they will not be spending it on fees, relying on picking up Amateurs and getting them onto pro deals. Others will have a balance.

So, clubs will have to move to a new financial model which doesnt rely on restricting the opportunities available to their players. I dont think that's a bad thing.
I hope they do (cant see they will have any alternative), but it wont be before time. I agree with you that its unlikely to be a club that will do this. Much more likely to be a player - as in Bosman or Eastham before him.

Yeah, they'll have to, but I think it will mean the smaller clubs will suffer most. My own club does not rely on transfer income but there are others who do.

As I've already said though, players do have some power here. They're not obliged to sign a Professional contract.

Opportunities for players are not that restricted either. They can sign for whoever they like - provided their new club can reimburse the money the old club had spent on them the previous season. The only proviso is that the new club has 21 days after signing to pay up. And when the club cannot afford them, they are permitted in the West Region play as an unsigned trialist. There were people who did that throughout the entirety of last season.

Yes players can sign as amateurs but in these circumstances it's still the clubs that are the winners after all they receive your services free of change ( - expenses ).

Why should clubs be reimbursed for the money they pay players. Players wages should simply be a business expense, an overhead. I run my own business and have a high staff turnover and i'll tell you what if I could claim compensation from their new employers i'd have more money than Willie Hill.
I wish you would stop contradicting yourself, how can a player sign for whoever they like, they can only sign for teams that, 1: are prepared to pay the compensation requested by x-club and 2: if they can actually afford to pay the requested compensation by x-club and with the financial constraints of many clubs this limits your choices greatly. So come on mate you can dress it up however you like players futures are controlled by the clubs. Come on mate I know your more intelligent than that.
Finally would I not be right in saying that trialist can only play league games, hardly a desirable option.

Ah yes, the "smaller clubs". This is one that always gets rolled out at levels in the game when this is debated. What does "smaller club" actually mean? Does it not mean, in most cases, a club that fewer go to watch, with few fans and so with less money. Sometimes they strike it lucky, sign a"talented boy" and look to sell him on to a "bigger club",and that keeps them going for a bit. But lets look at this in a bit more detail.
First of all, often it is a matter of luck that they find a young player with talent. Often all the club does is give him the games and the opportunity to learn the game. Clubs talk about development costs, but especially at the Junior level, these are unlikely to be considerable. So what the "smaller club" is being compensated for is the matter of good fortune they had in siging the boy. One might call this a "finder's fee" - except this is a human being we are talking about, not a wallet or a set of car keys.
Secondly, as you point out, some clubs depend on this money. Why? Should they not - as any well run club run will - depend on the support of their fans + other commercial ventures. Put directly, does the compensation scheme not prop up some clubs that should simply be allowed to fade away and just die? Clubs whose time will have come and gone. Clubs have gone to the wall before and will do so in the future. Yes, its sad, but should they be propped up by restricting the rights of players, most of whom will have relatively short periods the game.
I'll leave it that, retentionstinks has made most of the other points that I would have made, particularly in relation to your fiction that players can sign for whoever they like. The compensation fee must put some clubs off a player who is out of contract and should be free to sign. Of course the wage he might be looking for might put them off as well - but that IS a decision for the player to take, which is how it should be.

What I meant was that under the old system the player could go nowhere until a random fee was paid - and that did put players out the game. Now clubs can do nothing to stop players leaving, if the player can find a club who can meet the transparent and non-debatable asking price.

Thought it would come down to that, money.

How about taking less in signing-on fees and wages, making your compensation fee more affordable to other clubs?

If it wasn't for the unpaid volunteers who keep many clubs running, you would have even less choice of where to move to for the next signing on fee.

So now rather than a random (negotiated?) price its a non-debatable (defined?) price. Well yes, I suppose that's a step forward - though a very small one. It still leaves the player to find another club that will pay the compensation fee, if he wants to move club.
Moreover, this fee is related to the player's wages over a season, is it not? Could this not seriously disadvantage older players, who, in the "twilight of their career" (sorry that's a bit cliched, but I cant think of another way of putting it just now) cant command the same wage as they did the previous season. Lets suppose that I have been getting paid £100/ week but that I am getting on a bit now, and the club only offer me £70/week to resign. I can find another club (say in West ) that will pay me £80 - but they would have to pay compensation based on £100/ week, which is £30 week more than my current club value me at. The parallels between this and Bosman are really scary.
Bosman was offered a new contract by Liege that was per week much less than he had been paid. Not unnaturally he wasnt happy about this and set about looking for another club. The Belgian system at this time used an equation to value players (it took in things like age, wage level, international caps and so on) so it was transparent and non-debatable, like the Junior system. But what the system did was to use the wages of the old contract as part of this valuation, so Bosman's value was determined on the basis of a wage Liege were no longer prepared to pay him. It seems that the system you are defending is similar (even if simpler).

Burnie_man, I think the thing you forget here is that "volunteers" are self defining - they are doing whatever they do as volunteers. For players its a job of work. They arent volunteers - they are doing it for the money. As much as we can expect from a professional player is that he gives it his best shot every week. Lets face it, how many players play for the team that they support?
Where you might be right is that if players take too much money out the game, then at best its going to contract. Even the English Premiership is having to put limits on its spending on player wages. There was a guy on Radio 5 last night, saying that the problem that Liverpool have in signing new players is that by the time the present squad are paid there isnt that much left in the player budget to make new signings.

Have you even been involved in running a Junior club?

"Smaller clubs" like my own, put a lot of time , money and effort into developing our own players, as do a few other clubs at our level, as we simply cannot compete with the financial demands of signing experienced Junior pro players.

Even clubs who do not have youth systems in place, put in the time and effort in scouting youth/amateur games to find players and uncover that future talent. We give them the opportunity to cut their teeth in the game that they may not get with bigger clubs, which in turn helps develop their own game and attract interest from bigger clubs.

Clubs that do that deserve some form of compensation when that player decides not to sign a new contract as a bigger club has offered them a move, compensation money that can be re-invested into the youth system.



No club I know of relies on transfer fees as no club knows when the they will uncover the next player that will be good enough to win a move to a bigger club/higher league. No club budgets based on future possible transfer fees. However, I know of clubs, my own included, who have went through sticky financial periods and have been able to sell on a player which has kept the club running, in your world I assume you would be happy to have seen us fold rather than take the fee?



Freedom of contract, as I have already said, should be brought in, however if a club has taken a player directly from youth football they deserve a compensation fee - as do the youth club whom the Junior side signed them from. That rule stands in Senior football and is enshrined in FIFA law I believe.

We have players on professional and amatuer contracts, do the amateur players give any less becuase they get paid expenses only? Neither is it a job of work for those on pro contracts, it's a hobby/past time just like the amateur players. At Junior level there's little difference.

Players are as responsible as the clubs for the contracts they sign. Whether the contracts are 'legal' or not, both parties give them some amount of lip service when they are signed

Scenario 1) Mr A has cracking first season earning £X. Mr A uses this to ask for £X+Y. Club B agrees. Mr A then goes on to have a shite following season. Club B says you're not worth £X+Y, we'll put you back to £X. Mr A declines. Who is responsible for the compensation level (given that both know the rules)?

Scenario 2) Mr C comes on a big whack highly recommended. However, after a couple of indifferent performances Mr C is consigned to the bench in favour of a player in a bit of form. Mr C spits the dummy and just sods off never to be seen again. Who is responsible for the compensation level (given that both know the rules)?

If a club doesn't offer matching terms, the player cannot be retained.

That fecks my scenario 1) up

What can happen though is that the player agrees to reduced terms in order to stay. I should rephrase what I said - if matching terms aren't offered and the player refuses, he cannot be retained.