Re: Squad 2024 : Fri Nov 03, 2023 9:11 am  

faxcar wrote:

Wakefield refusing to pay the original fee is not what I have heard and the amount of their last offer and what Fax have asked for isn’t a couple of grand either.

I don’t agree with your thinking on how Fax are going to get screwed over at a tribunal either based on the following reasoning.

1.) You have to be a SL club to trigger the release clause of the contract.
2.) Any club deemed to be in SL must pay at least the amount recorded on the contract.
Both are part of the contract, you can’t have one without the other.

That’s what the rule involved states in black and white and is legally binding on all parties including the clubs and the RFL.

How and why would a rugby league tribunal panel vote against it’s own rules in this setting just to favour Wakefield and screw another club.

The way you have wrote it there would be even worse for Fax as they have broke Walmsley's contract by not accepting an offer from a SL club that matches the release clause. This is as clear cut as it comes and Wakfield were officially a SL club until the season finishes which is at least until the Grand Final but the official date is more than likely to be when the contracts run out on the 31st of October.

It is irrelevant that their relegation had been confirmed unless there is a sub clause in the contract, which there will not be for something as specific as this, the best Fax could hope for in playing that card is some ambiguous wording but again these things like you say are pretty clear cut. I don't expect it to play out like that but if it did Fax have made a huge mistake that will cost the club.

Re: Squad 2024 : Fri Nov 03, 2023 9:19 am  

faxcar wrote:

Also heard that the club with the finances they have are trying to get the balancing act right between being competitive on the field (because they know if we’re not then the crowds will drop) and between trying to make progress on the other IMG pillocks requirements, sorry meant pillars ( because they know if they don’t it’s the no ambition and as is forever scenario.)

Great choices er not, because they can’t do both.

The big question is are they living up to the promises made originally? If they were then our IMG rating for finances would be higher than it is. I don't trust the arguing going on in the Facebook group between current shareholders and current board members as its never that clear cut but the breakdown on the IMG rating is and I am really surprised that more questions have not been asked of it. For the other gradings its going to be pretty hard for us to get more points than we have so in that sense the club is actually in pretty good shape compared to a few others.

Personally I think we take Batley's lead and accept we are not meant to get out of this division with the new system but try we concentrate on where the game is really played which is on the field and look to be consistantly near the top of the table until the rules change again.

Re: Squad 2024 : Fri Nov 03, 2023 9:31 am  

Greg Wrote:


"The big question is are they living up to the promises made originally? If they were then our IMG rating for finances would be higher than it is."

The present board took over in October 2022 and I don`t think that any accounts will have been compiled since they did.
Also i think i read somewhere on here that the IMG finacial basis was based on dates before the new board took over. To say they have not kept to promises is I think unsubstantiated , unless someone knows better.

I too am underwhelmed with the recruits , so far....

UTF

Re: Squad 2024 : Fri Nov 03, 2023 10:31 am  

[quote="Greg Florimos Boots"]The way you have wrote it there would be even worse for Fax as they have broke Walmsley's contract by not accepting an offer from a SL club that matches the release clause.

Firstly.
1.) Simply saying Fax aren't being screwed over by Wakefield trying to offer what is less than in the contract like you have stated several times.
2.) If and when Walmsley goes to Wakefield it won't be for less than what is written in the contract.
3.) Fax haven't broken anything, Walmsley is still registered with the RFL as a Halifax player with 12 months left to run on his contract and have a right to dispute Wakefield's current SL status.
4.) Should that go to a tribunal they will decide on that but if they rule in Wakefield's favour Fax will get the minimum amount that's written in the contract which doesn't equate to Fax being screwed over or being a huge mistake on their part.

Secondly. I'll reply to the following in a separate post.
This is as clear cut as it comes and Wakfield were officially a SL club until the season finishes which is at least until the Grand Final but the official date is more than likely to be when the contracts run out on the 31st of October.

It is irrelevant that their relegation had been confirmed unless there is a sub clause in the contract, which there will not be for something as specific as this, the best Fax could hope for in playing that card is some ambiguous wording but again these things like you say are pretty clear cut. I don't expect it to play out like that but if it did Fax have made a huge mistake that will cost the club.[/quote]

Re: Squad 2024 : Fri Nov 03, 2023 10:56 am  

[quote="Greg Florimos Boots"]The big question is are they living up to the promises made originally? If they were then our IMG rating for finances would be higher than it is. I don't trust the arguing going on in the Facebook group between current shareholders and current board members as its never that clear cut but the breakdown on the IMG rating is and I am really surprised that more questions have not been asked of it. For the other gradings its going to be pretty hard for us to get more points than we have so in that sense the club is actually in pretty good shape compared to a few others.

Personally I think we take Batley's lead and accept we are not meant to get out of this division with the new system but try we concentrate on where the game is really played which is on the field and look to be consistantly near the top of the table until the rules change again.[quote]

The big answer is they've only been here for 12 months and the IMG grading is largely based on the past 3 years which has already been covered in another thread.

With things a bit clearer now regarding IMG how they are moving on is more interesting and the point I was making about the balancing act, will it be all in one direction 50 / 50 or some other weighting and not being able to do everything.

Re: Squad 2024 : Fri Nov 03, 2023 11:18 am  

Obviously the big danger is getting into a downward spiral. The attendances last season were very disappointing and I'm guessing the club was down tens of thousands regarding expected income. So the 2024 prices get hiked but this will do more harm than good imo as more fans will drift away and pick and choose. I also get the feeling the current BOD may be wondering "Why do we bother" when they seem to be p*ssing against the wind.

Re: Squad 2024 : Fri Nov 03, 2023 11:40 am  

Greg Florimos Boots wrote:

This is as clear cut as it comes and Wakefield were officially a SL club until the season finishes which is at least to the Grand Final but the official date is more than likely to be when the contract runs out on the 31st of October.

It is irrelevant that their relegation had been confirmed unless there is a sub clause in the contract, which there will not be for something as specific as this, the best Fax could hope for in playing that card is some ambiguous wording but again these things like you say are pretty clear cut. I don't expect it to play out like that but if it did Fax have made a huge mistake that will cost the club.

I don't agree that "this is as clear cut as it comes" on the reasoning that there is no precedent to base that on.

There has never been a Super League club that has been relegated who have tried to sign a contracted player from the Championship who is still under contract.

And even if it is ruled that "Wakefield were officially a SL club until the season finishes "

As posted before The RFL's supplement clause bank, clause 10.4 states: "If you receive an approach from a Super League Club, the Club agrees to enter into negotiations with the Super League Club (on your behalf) in good faith with a view to reaching an agreement for your release and transfer to such Super League Club and the Club agrees that it will release you provided that the transfer fee is at least [insert amount]."

One point of the dispute moves away from "Wakefield were officially a SL club until the season finishes." and on to.

Reaching an agreement for your release and transfer to such Super League club.

With that in mind it could be argued that irrespective of when the offer was was made ( which offer must have been at least the amount recorded in the contract for it to be triggered ) and Wakefield's SL status at that time.

By the time the negotiations have been agreed upon either by the clubs or by tribunal Wakefield won't be a Super League club, Walmsley won't be being transferred to a Super League club and he won't be playing for a Super League when his contract starts with them so Wakefield don't meet the requirements of that part of release clause.

Who can say for certainty what the outcome will be and I'm not going to comment on Walmsley's part in all of this until it gets resolved.

Re: Squad 2024 : Fri Nov 03, 2023 12:35 pm  

faxcar wrote:

I don't agree that "this is as clear cut as it comes" on the reasoning that there is no precedent to base that on.

There has never been a Super League club that has been relegated who have tried to sign a contracted player from the Championship who is still under contract.

And even if it is ruled that "Wakefield were officially a SL club until the season finishes "

As posted before The RFL's supplement clause bank, clause 10.4 states: "If you receive an approach from a Super League Club, the Club agrees to enter into negotiations with the Super League Club (on your behalf) in good faith with a view to reaching an agreement for your release and transfer to such Super League Club and the Club agrees that it will release you provided that the transfer fee is at least [insert amount]."

One point of the dispute moves away from "Wakefield were officially a SL club until the season finishes." and on to.

Reaching an agreement for your release and transfer to such Super League club.

With that in mind it could be argued that irrespective of when the offer was was made ( which offer must have been at least the amount recorded in the contract for it to be triggered ) and Wakefield's SL status at that time.

By the time the negotiations have been agreed upon either by the clubs or by tribunal Wakefield won't be a Super League club, Walmsley won't be being transferred to a Super League club and he won't be playing for a Super League when his contract starts with them so Wakefield don't meet the requirements of that part of release clause.

Who can say for certainty what the outcome will be and I'm not going to comment on Walmsley's part in all of this until it gets resolved.

With the breakdown that you give, its really clear that Fax won't win this case if that is what they are pinning their hopes on. The wording really is clear as day if that is the exact wording(for all we know it could be slightly differen't). I don't believe this to be the situation though as I believe Wakey are trying to get him on the cheap but if this goes to tribunal under the above assumptions don't be surprised if Wakey or Walmsley try and pull the Fax breaking his contract card in not honoring the terms of his contract. Risky game that Fax are playing if that is the case and I hope they have taken some outside advice because it could be worse than first feared.

Re: Squad 2024 : Fri Nov 03, 2023 1:13 pm  

Okay it’s all as clear as day that Fax will lose Walmsley to Wakefield for nothing and because they had the audacity not to instantly agree to this they will somehow come out of it worse off and get less than nothing.

Re: Squad 2024 : Fri Nov 03, 2023 1:38 pm  

I am not sure I am quite understanding the Walmsley situation, but trust someone can clarify

- If it is decided that for the purpose of this transfer, Wakefield are classed as SL club, then wouldn't that trigger the "clause" and the fee set out in that should be paid?
- If they are classed as a championship club, then they can't trigger the clause. As he is under contract with us then if they want him, presume we can demand they compensate us with a fee or there is no deal?
- Or is the issue here that there is no fee payable if the SL Clause is triggered?