One of Munster’s leading women’s hockey clubs is proposing a ‘wilderness period’-style 12-month ban on underage players who move clubs, in a bid to ensure clubs retain their brightest talents.
Cork Church of Ireland’s ladies section have proposed a motion ahead of the Munster Branch AGM outlining their belief that such restrictions should be put in place.
The move is similar in nature to a rule which exists in international hockey, where players wishing to switch allegiences from one country to another must spend three years out of international hockey before playing for their new country.
As incentives go, it has proven successful with few players switching, though Irish hockey has been on the end of two high-profile moves involving Iain Lewers and Mark Gleghorne’s decision to move to Great Britain.
Nonetheless, the proposal from C of I, which would ban the player from all competitive hockey for 12 months, is sure to provoke plenty of debate. It is proposed that such restrictions apply only to boys and girls under the age of 18 which are of a minimum Division Two standard. The full wording of the motion is as f0llows:
Transfer of underage players (boys & girls under 18) from one club to another.
The transfer of underage players between clubs who currently enjoy either, or both, Division One and Division Two status should be restricted as follows: ‘Any underage player who moves club will be restricted from playing competitive hockey for their new club for a minimum of 12 months from the start of the new season.’
The reasons behind this proposal are as follows:
*To protect developing clubs and ensure that they retain players with potential.
*Disencourage underage players to move to other clubs and thus strengthening their home club sides and ultimately Munster Hockey in general.
*Encourage clubs to develop their own players.
*Retaining underage players will reward clubs who have put in the effort to develop these players from an early age.
Meanwhile, the other main motion up for discussion at the AGM comes from Catholic Institute men’s and women’s clubs, and suggests that Munster hockey scrap the system whereby clubs received two points for a score draw.
They are also suggesting that the fixture lists be arranged in such a fashion that clubs would play each other once before Christmas and once after.
37 Replies to “C of I propose restrictions on underage player transfers”
Comments are closed.
Stopping players moving is wrong. The young player may not get on with his or her peer group (so they will not play), may not like the club atmosphere (so they will not play) or may not get on with the coach (so they will not play).
So you are expecting them to sit out the season if they are unhappy (so they are not playing).
If I was a parent of a young player and they did not like what they had experienced or I thought their prospects of development looked healthier at another club I would Demand That They BE Allowed To Change Clubs, again if not allowed to by a rule that is restricting freedom of movement I will be off to the courts for restriction of choice and practice.
What happens if the family move home, the parents change clubs etc.
The player will move on to another sport and be lost to hockey.
Also you are restricting personal choice to play in any club I am sure that this is illegal following the Bosman ruling.
The rules are fine as they are
I really dont see where this proposal has come from. i do not see a huge tranferance of players from club to club. Obviously yes there is also one or two but not on a major scale. We also have now got the IHL as a major competition in Irish club hockey giving club hockey players an additional exposure throughout ireland. Obvious players wishing and having a desire to gain this additional exposure will want to join clubs playing in this league. Also players i have known that have transferred from club to club has been for a variety of reasons – not getting along with team mates, feeling not been given the chance to progress with current club & to play with their friends, training times suited better. Also in many of these cases it was a decision to either give up or move & luckily for the sport they chose to move. I feel if we had huge numbers playing hockey we could be in a position to implement this ruling but current we should be grateful players are playing club hockey.
think it’s a great idea….the hard work of the club developing a player wouldn’t be put to waste on a rival club……
Sounds to me like C of I are just looking to keep a hold of their young players by attempting to enforce this rule!! You can understand where they are coming from but if a player wants to play for a different club then they should be able to with no restrictions in place!
As a former PE teacher I think its a ridiculous proposal. We should be encouraging kids to play hockey full stop and not adding caveats to limit where and when they can play. As metioned above, kids need to be surrounded by their friends and teenage years are hard enough without adding a year on the bench to a child who has decided her hobby would best be practiced elsewhere. Also what about the family who move into or out of an area? Do CI want this child to sit on the bench for a season also as their old club is 30 miles away (for example).
People move, circumstances change and at the end of the day you will lose some players but you will gain some more. CI have some of the best facilities in the province and that is surely a big pull for them – why are they so afraid of losing players?
There is great need for this. Poaching and influencing of younger players has gone on for too long. It will stop certain individuals from using their powers in Munster to poach young girls by promising them first team hockey and promises of interpros if they move clubs.
Great idea. Too much time and money is spent developing and paying for them to be allowed to move so easily with no consequences. Need to protect these young girls from being sold stories to move
If this is really about players being asked to move clubs not about players wanting to move clubs lets make it clear.
This idea is very flawed and should not be allowed to go forward in any shape or form.
But if it is about people in hockey influencing players to chsnge clubs by making promises that is a completely different matter.
What we need is a disciplinary procedure for those who approach and encourage players to leave clubs.
So if a person asks a young player to leave their home club to join another this should result in a ban for that person, but maybe a more effective means to stop it is to fine the club involved.
A transfer proposal form should be filled in and it would also have to be signed by the parents or guardians.
It should give the reasons for the need to change clubs. This would also let the club see why players are leaving and help them address any issues that they may not know about.
Even having a period of a month after the player wants to move is a far better proposal, not a twelve month period, I would suspect that if a period longer than a month is put in place you can wave bye bye to this player.
Transfer form and a month period following form submission, and if any one has been approached rather than done the approaching a fine for the club.
cnt see any of these idea’s working cuz the munster branch never get any decision right.
One word: DISASTER
One entire year is very unfair to stop kids or as the 1st team player above mentions girls from playing. Surely this first team player understands that a year out of hockey would be devastating for the young girls involved.
This is utterly and completely ridiculous. Such a stupid idea of a ban for one year. Would they would they not have proposed that a meeting must be had with the player, their parents and one or two members of the Munster branch to discuss the reasons why they want to move, and than a decision made therefore this ‘so called’ outside influence would be found out and the real reason for transfer will be known.
Surely 1st team player if your out even injured for a short period of time your devastated, or even miss one match. C of I should have come up with something a lot better than banning players from moving. What happened about the happiness of young players. how do you expect a young girl half your age to handle such a cruel and harsh punishment. what if she was being bullied? There are numerous reasons out there that CI seem to have overlooked in this proposal. They fear losing their own players, but have not thought of the emotional well being of the kids that might be suffering in silence like many do nowadays.
C of I need to look at why they need to stop players moving. Is it that over the past three years yonge boys and girls have played at a level too low and when they move club they tend to move up one-two divisions-Orla Cotter for example. C of I currently have a Munster U16 school girl playing on the fifths and otherU 16 in Quins and Institute playing on the 1sts-these clubs are also currently leading CI in the league. Maybe if CI promoted their younger playerts earlier and demoted some of their older 1st players this would not arise. To ban a player because they are not satisfied with thier club systems is completely mad and does nothing to improve the sport.
has anybody taken a look at quins womens section???to say there aren’t many player transfers after looking at the mass movement of young female players in the last year or two is laughable. its common knowledge that young players are without doubt being ‘tapped up’ or encouraged to move clubs. coaching positions at school, inter-provincial and international level are being abused in order to influence talented school girls who either aren’t yet with a club or perhaps hasn’t quite rose through the ranks. the idea makes perfect sense. surely staying with the club who has taken time and effort to help a young player to develop, is owed loyalty from the player until they are 18!!!i mean to say at 16 or 17 that you are being held back or undermined by a coach is ridiculous.every player at that age is still developing physically, and will benefit from playing at whatever level they are selected. Furthermore, C of I has hundreds of girls playing, so i think to say they are just looking out for themselves doesnt make sense. they, of all clubs surely has the least to loose, because of the abudance of players. its smaller clubs who suffer the most!!!!!
im sure its the u-16 interpro player for institute and quins that has them heading the league. surely there’s sense to be had from allowing young girls to command an important figure at a lower level in a team, where they’ll a full game in they best position, rather than sub a few minutes and feel all high and mighty….THEY ARE UNDER SIXTEEN….minutes are more important, than being able to call yourself a first team player!!
As a small addition to the above arguments, this proposal seems to be very discriminatory against players that are not in the top divisions. Are we saying to youngsters who enjoy the game but are not one of the better players that they are not worth as much to the club? You can leave because you are not very good, but your friend can’t because she/he is a better player? I’m pretty sure that everyone pays the same subs regardless of ability, and it is often people from the lower teams who take on the back room roles in clubs.
As C of I member, parent, coach, player:
I would be against this motion – agreeing with the first commenter.
We have all heard the ‘tapping up’ rumours but to date it has apparently been impossible to prove them. In any case I do not think that this proposed rule is the way to go regarding addressing the ‘tapping up’ issue.
As mens registrar:
I do not think that there is a big issue.
Over the last three years, I believe that there have been seven under 18 boys transfers.
Three from small clubs to big clubs.
Three from big clubs to small clubs.
One from small club to small club.
Only one would have been considered a division 1 player at the time of the transfer.
I do not believe that poaching was at play in any.
In reply to anon april 17 11.44, institutes under 16 player Roisin, and Quins under 16 players Antonia and leanne, nearly always start and play full games, not sub for a few minutes, and knowing these three girls, not one of them FEEL ALL HIGH AND MIGHTY because they play on the first team, they play on the first team because they deserve to be there, otherwise their coaches would not put them on. Cope on, such sour grapes
Isn’t the weather lovely!!!
How do we get to a stage where both are men’s and women’s leagues are strong, with 8 strong teams in both leagues, and especially on the men’s side? We are finally getting to a stage where we have 4 strong teams in the women’s league but are still struggling in the men’s league to be competitive, although Bandon, UCC and Institute have made some good strides in recent years.
In the women’s league, we have a couple of clubs who have some great young talent. Clubs like Ashton for example, have some super young players, with more coming up behind and they have developed really well. If they can hold on to those young players for another year or two, then within this period, they can develop the players coming up behind and have 8 or 9 good young strong players and make the league even more competitve. If there is pressure put on them to leave, they will be back to square one, and the club get nothing for all their development work being put in. It’s not enough to say that they get the credit for producing great young players, it’s the big club they move to that gets the credit.
It’s a shame that this has to be proposed but while there is little solid evidence that ”tapping up” of young players happens, everyone knows it does, but parents do not want to come forward for fear that their child will suffer at interpro level. If clubs focussed on getting their own underage right and did not rely on pressurising U18s to join their club, we’d have a much stronger league and better clubs.
It’s sad that people can’t see that mopping up all the talent in the province to one or two clubs has a detrimental effect on provincial hockey at club level – the strong getting stronger and the weak getting weaker. Perhaps a 3 or 4 month restriction might be more effective thus allowing players to move who really want to go? I can see why this has been proposed, it’s just a shame it had to be.
This happens all over the country and Munster can take the lead in stopping it. Perhaps this proposal isn’t the full solution to it, but at least it has generated some good debate on both sides and hopefully will have a positive result for the province.
Disagree with “anon” on April 18, 2010 at 6:44 pm
The weathers not holding up… in fact there was a spot of rain today!!
Ask the kids themselves and let them vote….its their hockey, not ours…let the young people speak!! We had our turn…let them give their response….
CI clearly need to look within:
1. They have the best facilities in Munster if not Ireland.
2. They are developing the players therefore should have first ‘influence’
3. CI is a brand, why is it not working on the Ladies and is on the Fellas?
4. They are/were qualifying for IHL ,so should have the influence there.
Clearly there is a breakdown in the ‘supply chain’ of talent. if you are going to spend the money or club members time in developing talent then you should be benefiting from the rewards. By the way I saw the same thing happening at Monkstown mens for years with all that fantastic talent wandering..
I dont think anyone would begrudge CI to hold onto the top players if they are providing the building blocks with their fantastic schoolgirl development programs for the benefit of all Munster. The question that comes to mind is CI spotting the talent early enough and exposing them to what could be without leaving the club? Schoolgirls are smart and they will look at their slightly older peers… are those 17 year olds getting some first team action… Is CI truly developing their 1st team and thinking of the future? how does CI overcome the UCC effect? How do they ensure those players who head off to college consider coming back?
I suspect there are too many breakdowns earlier in the process and having a vision of success that they actually do control.
Hats off to CI for developing some great players, but changing the rules to restrict trade is not the way forward.
Has anybody considered the young players who are keen to develop their game but sit at number 16, 17, 18, 19 on the panel? What is the point in a club holding young players to a lower division and therefore not developing and possibly losing interest rather than letting them play a division higher with a club that would have space for them on the team.
Also it is a fact of life that people will be approached by other clubs to play with them. It happens in every sport all over the world and will continue. Of course in an ideal world it wouldn’t but as we know very well, we simply don’t live in an ideal world. Possibly a better way to combat the problem would be to do something similar to soccer and have a transfer window and/or possible limit the number of transfers a player can make in a 5 year period rather than benching them for stiving to reach their full potential by whatever means is necessary to play at as high a level as they can.
I really hope the munster branch are not narrow minded enough to pass this motion – it would be a real shame and I fear make Munster the laughing stock of Irish hockey. I feel we shold give the branch more credit than that as these people do not volunteer their free time and work so tirelessly week on week without the best interst of Munster hockey and its development.
Ironic that CofI women submit this proposal when their men have been poaching all round them for the last few yrs…
Just an observation – Quins young players that usually play div 1/2 that are U18 – maybe i am wrong but dont think they have come from other clubs infact they have either come through the Quins system or have just started there club hockey & chose Quins as to where they would like to commence. Same as with Institute have there young players not come through there system to??? One player mentioned above as being a Quins player that had transferred from CI Orla Cotter is in fact an U21 player as far as i am aware so that is irrelevant to this proposed ruling. In fact i find it very difficult to think of any players playing div 1 & 2 that are U18 & have tranferred to a different club – Can anyone think and are able to list more than 3 this year??. Shows that this rule is not at all needed and is a bit silly really. It seems to me that C of I who submitted this do not have any reason to back it up or even highlight how this is an area that needs to be controlled. I agree with some comments if a player is happy & looked after why would they want to leave & if they are unhappy why would any club like a kid to remain unhappy or give up the sport.
Johnson – Who exactly have CofI Mens section poached in the last few years? Clinton Sweetnam signed from Bandon, and soon after Andrew Scannell went the other way. We lost a host of players to UCC last summer – I wouldn’t say they were “poached” obviously – but there is an ongoing “trade” in players which is only natural – I challenge you to name a single player that CofI have “poached” in the last 5 years.
Re: Johnson.
Do you even follow hockey? I think it is the other way around that young players are being poached from C of I. Get your facts right before you come on this running your mouth.
Hayes
Just because no CI underage players have left this year to go elsewhere does not mean that they haven’t done in the past and wont in the future. They along with other young players in Ashton and other clubs continue to received phone calls, text messages and have inappropriate comments make by senior people/coaches in Munster who should know better.
All interaction with underage players by other clubs should be done through the parents. There is nothing in place to protect young girls.
I think the basic idea by CI is no harm but perhaps a shorter period of maybe 3 months. This along with a signed letter from the parents perhaps stating reasons why the young player is leaving so as to address any problems that perhaps the club or Munster need to address.
What the Munster Branch should do is insist on all hockey players Young and Old ,joining CI and doing away with all the other clubs. CI would then be dominant force in Munster. May the force be with you ..Liz & Sarah..
3 months is far to long, the players if unhappy and unable yo play will walk away from the game. It can only be a maximum of about 3 weeks.
As a parent if my child was unhappy with the coaching, the players or the club I would pull my child from that club and EXPECT them to be allowed to play very quickly for another club and not have any time out of the game. If my child or i rated a coach and my child was learning and devolping under their guidence and the coach left a club, if the coach replacing them was not good enough I would immediately want to move the child to the club that the other coach had joined. Its life, even if they have been at a club 10 years you still move, its the same in any walk of life, wehn I trained for my job i did all my training got all my qualifications in one firm, just before I finished I took another job in direct competition to my oold firm, this is no different in my opinion.
This sport is struggling to compete, taking players out of the game for any reason is a recipie for disaster.
I agree a form should be signed by the player and if necessary by the parents, but I would not be sure you can insist on that as if the parent wants them to stay or they are having a conflict and the club get involved in that, what a can of worms that could be opened. The form should have a part that gives the reason for the switch, this may help the club as they could then identify possible reasons for this and other players leaving.
Its more of an audit tool that can be used to identify reasons for playing players joining a club and for leaving a club.
I think the post by anon april 22nd @9.51 has some very valid points relating to this matter and has some very good suggestions. It allows players to switch but puts a bit more formality to it & also would help clubs identify factors that maybe they could look at themselves. Yes for a young player 3 weeks seems like a sufficient time. Very good valid post.
With no back stabbing coments etc in it well done.
CI took back the motion. No vote. But some facts came out like some interpro coach tried to get players to join a club, or they would not be picked to play for munster. The club or the coach was not named. Nobody said that was not true. If that is true, was somebody suspended or made to resign? Whoever it is, that person should be banned from any involvement in the sport. We do not need that type of sleaze in hockey.
Re Cork Coach – understand the individual involved was suspended at the time from involvement in underage squads.
As someone said previously, we don’t want to punish the child involved so would one suggestion be for the new club to pay some form of compensation to the club who developed the player? May not necessarily be a fine – maybe pitchtime, equipment, etc….
So, maybe this did happen. Sensational if your info is right. Don’t name the person but is it known who it is? Did any players move club? Was it this season? How was it discovered? Was there a complaint made? I gather nothing was proved or it would have been reported.
As far as I am aware coach was suspended and no longer involved in any coaching whether it be a personal reason or what. It was reported as far as i am aware hence suspension. No child moved clubs but the child was proud enough of her own home club to say no and report it or tell her parents I believe. It was a small club too i believe. And the fact it was kept hush is good in a way as it would leave a bad name for Munster hockey and the coach is no longer involved in teams supposedly.
This fascinates me. Why should I stay in coaching if my best players go to one club? Not sure that keeping it hush helps hockey. May be better to make an example of somebody. I have always known about poaching players but never something corrupt or so brazen like this. Yesterday I learned who it is. A bit obvious really looking back. Not the person (butter wouldn’t melt) but the club. Its successes look different to me now.
No that coach was not suspended. The person continues to coach at underage level. No need to name names but for those who think action or warnings were given they are wrong.
This person is in place again to coach next season and developing or young players all the time working away making smart comments to young players not playing for the right club…that colour tracksuit doesnt suit you, or you’re very brave to be wearing that to my training, if you were in this club you’d be starting on the firsts…
Disgrace and nothings been done because this person is being pushed forward as the future of Munster hockey coaches
Sorry now but ”WORRIED@@ Either you’ve got the wrong person or you haven’t checked properly. This person whom your talking about is no longer involved in the team they were previously involved in.
And we should all know better not to be spreading such nasty rumors on this website. What if there were young players reading this, which they more than likely are, or even parents of young kids who want to get their kids involved in hockey. Shame on you all. One thing to to have an opinion another to slander and provide false facts/information.
Alan Good does a fantastic job keeping us well informed in Munster hockey. Last thing he needs is someone to come along and sue him for slander from people thinking they know the truth like up above.
If you have worries or questions here’s the email address you use to contact the branch and go about it properly. You may be of a different opinion once you have received the correct facts.
http://www.munsterhockey.com/Council/BranchCouncil.htm
Alan I would advise you to close this link off in case it is upsetting more people than is realised.
You read my mind there ‘re Worried’. I’ve had a few close calls with this stuff before; what many people don’t realise is that not naming someone isn’t enough, often enough facts can be unwittingly provided to narrow it down far enough to identify someone. I don’t know who the individuals being spoken about above are, but I won’t be leaving this thread open to find out.
Can I please remind everyone that allowing anonymous comments are a double-edged sword. Planet Field Hockey had to be shut down over them, while The Hook recently changed to a registration system after comments got out of hand, and the contributions from users instantly dried up.
The comment threads are part of what makes sites like this one interactive and interesting – it’s no coincidence that there’s always a big spike in the hits whenever a debate starts. Unfortunately, if you remove the anonymous element, no-one says anything anymore. So while I won’t be removing the anonymous element anytime soon, could I once again urge people to keep the debates general rather than specific.
Thanks
Alan