Normally when a player hits 30 their value start to diminish but that was not the case when Toulon managed to win a couple of European trophies with some of the world greatest players of the time. 

These players were deemed to old for their countries but not that old for a professional team. 

Toulon had players like 

Carl Hayment, Bakkies Botha, Juan Smith, Johnny Wildonson, Matt Gitaue, Bryan Habana on their books and the time was on fire. Habana was the only exception in that he was still playing international rugby. 

Then came the sharks and managed to persuade Etzebeth and Kolisi to sign on for 5 years even both players have just hit 30. The contract would bring them to 35. 

I think there is a lesson here for us. 

I hate the fact that our unions invest so much money in our youngsters and then some smelly French club comes along and poach them right out of school or just when the seem to be peaking. 

What I like most about it was that in Kolisi case, the French club had to pay two years wages that the Sharks paid for the previous years and getting R17 million back for their trouble. 

That is great news as it opens up the door for another bok to be given an extended contract. 

I almost believe that SA franchises should select a core group of players and give them 5 year contracts. That way, they can thrive at their union and play with ease. 

If a foreign club wants them, then pay the transfer fee. 

I want to see more transfer fees being paid for SA players to our home franchises so that the money can go back into the system and we can nurture the next up and coming player. 

As for Kolisi, he is having a great spell, bit a hit and miss, but we now know that Pepsi Butelezi can now be given a free run to nail down a spot and aim for higher honours. 

But I also understand that rugby has far more injuries and having a player like RG or Johan Goosen can leave a massive hole in your budget. That is the risk though but in return it would be covered over 5 years. Not to mention player insurance etc. 

What's your thoughts, 5 year contracts? If they want the players then the foreign teams have to pay a transfer fee.

I don't mind our youngsters going abroad. For two main reasons: 1. It matures them, as they are taken to a new culture and out of their comfort zone; 2. They are exposed to more professional coaching and conditioning. The vacated space opens up room for more players. It's nations whose leagues are dominated by foreigners who struggle most for depth. 

Picking up from Saffex thread the other day on which players should come back. Here are the players I would ask the unions to sign up based on their home teams

Sharks

1. Am 29 - 5 years
   
2. Esterhuizen 28 - 5y (Bring Back)
3. Etzebeth 31 -  5y (already contracted)
4. Thomas Du Toit 27 - 5 years
5. Ox Nche 27 - 5 Years
6. Fassie 24 - 5 Years
7. Kolisi - Leaving
8. Pepsi 22 - 5 Years

The grading system is a great idea except that it makes no exceptions for the colour of the players skin.

Until merit selection is the top priority in making selections we will continue with Politics in Sport until we have a change in government policy.

Unfortunately.

KC

I think the problem with S A Rugby is that they have rather limited funding and I would rather see that provincial franchises follows the Bulls and Sharks examples.   Ger major private sector companies buy the franchises with conditions allowing for fund allocation fpr conmtracting  of players.

I personally cannot see how S A Rugby could on the whole be privatized - but the franchises and provincial rugby teams can be dealt with in that manner.   I personally think there are real advantages for the franchises and provinces since they would still get subsidized by SARU as well - but the private sector funding  to contract players - no new idea - it is already done in SA.    That is for instance how the contract s with Kolisi and Etzebeth were handled by the Sharks.

I think as the length of the contracts are concerned that should be left to the franchises to decide upon.   The one thing which is real a problem for SARU and that is why SARU would only sign contracts with players that will be allocated to the franchises,   It does not always work out to the benefit of anybody as per example happened in the case of Frans Steyn.   He was in 2-012 contracted by SARU for three years - he played in tests in 2012 - but he had no real top class performances.  He never played for the Springboks in 2013 to 2015 so he was a failed investment that cost SARU a hell of a lot of money.   

So let me state my point of view is -

*     leave the contracting to the Franchises and provincial teams;

*     let the Provinces with money coming from thei majority shareholders to contract players; and let them decide on the length of the contracts.   

*     ensure that proper performance conditions are in the contracts.

I am not sure that the private sector providing the money would be interested in for instance Esterhuizen.   I suspect the reason is that he does not meet requirements when looked at from the computerized player performance program.    Expensive - but used by ALL major raugby playing countries in the world.   The program follows each player in a match and shows up weaknesses that we as spectators miss out on.     The Springbok coaches study the performances by players on both franchise and national level in all matches played.                  

KC

I think the problem with S A Rugby is that they have rather limited funding and I would rather see that provincial franchises follows the Bulls and Sharks examples.   Ger major private sector companies buy the franchises with conditions allowing for fund allocation fpr conmtracting  of players.

I personally cannot see how S A Rugby could on the whole be privatized - but the franchises and provincial rugby teams can be dealt with in that manner.   I personally think there are real advantages for the franchises and provinces since they would still get subsidized by SARU as well - but the private sector funding  to contract players - no new idea - it is already done in SA.    That is for instance how the contract s with Kolisi and Etzebeth were handled by the Sharks.

I think as the length of the contracts are concerned that should be left to the franchises to decide upon.   The one thing which is real a problem for SARU and that is why SARU would only sign contracts with players that will be allocated to the franchises,   It does not always work out to the benefit of anybody as per example happened in the case of Frans Steyn.   He was in 2-012 contracted by SARU for three years - he played in tests in 2012 - but he had no real top class performances.  He never played for the Springboks in 2013 to 2015 so he was a failed investment that cost SARU a hell of a lot of money.   

So let me state my point of view is -

*     leave the contracting to the Franchises and provincial teams;

*     let the Provinces with money coming from thei majority shareholders to contract players; and let them decide on the length of the contracts.   

*     ensure that proper performance conditions are in the contracts.

I am not sure that the private sector providing the money would be interested in for instance Esterhuizen.   I suspect the reason is that he does not meet requirements when looked at from the computerized player performance program.    Expensive - but used by ALL major raugby playing countries in the world.   The program follows each player in a match and shows up weaknesses that we as spectators miss out on.     The Springbok coaches study the performances by players on both franchise and national level in all matches played.                  

Another post that relied on gallopping. So much to be written.