Making_Splinters wrote:Given your definition, Sussex, I really don't see how this is enforceable as it seems to rely entirely on someone doing a bad job of it.
It seems much simpler to just have a compensation system where clubs who have developed players are rewarded when they move on.
I dont really get the point, Splints.
To tap up a player in a system where transfers arent allowed is hardly useful. No team is going to give away an asset for free just because another team gave them a phone call, so it hardly happens. When a player is out of contract, or coming to the end, its not tapping up. A player or individual is perfectly within their rights to safeguard their future before the end of their contract comes if they havent had another deal agreed. In football, players are allowed to sign for another club within 6 months of a deal coming to an end.
Saying that compensation should be paid to a club that loses a player is a extremely bad policy. Yeah, you safeguard the county, but what of the player? As soon as you introduce a transfer fee for players leaving after their contract expires, you get Bosman. Ie players held against their will because the club they want to leave to cant afford the transfer fee. They end in some playing type of purgatory, trapped in a deal they dont want to be in. Its not far of professional slavery, which is why it was outlawed in the early 90s.
Transfers might work, but arent we just inviting the Surrey's of this world to win the next 20 championships. There are counties that are so desperate for money, Id imagine the bigger clubs would hoard talent, and the death of county cricket as a viable 18 team format would follow soon after. Key to the argument, transfer systems are the exact situation that gives rise to tapping up situations. Of agents begging their client to hand in transfer requests all the time because he gets signing bonuses. It breaks the system further, not fix it.