: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:17 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

of course it is hair brained to expect Wakefield to have less than 11 overseas players, it crazy to expect them to release some or let some go,

its you who started suggesting we break employment laws, i simply said wakefield could release some overseas players (which they could) they could transfer list some (which the could) and they could make it publicly known that some were considered first team squad members (which they could) none of which would come close to breaking employment laws or come close to constituting constructive dismissal

its fairly simple, but in your desperation to make a case defending a club in its 11th year needing 11 overseas players you missed it, and needed to fall back on idiotic interpretations of employment law

you know as well as i do, if wakefield wanted to get rid of a couple of their overseas contingent, they could very easily

and i know you can grasp that, and i know like most of your fellow wakefield fans you are choosing not to because you know it makes your club look bad

10 actually lol we currently have 9 Get your facts right you tool

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:26 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

of course it is hair brained to expect Wakefield to have less than 11 overseas players, it crazy to expect them to release some or let some go,

its you who started suggesting we break employment laws, i simply said wakefield could release some overseas players (which they could) they could transfer list some (which the could) and they could make it publicly known that some were considered first team squad members (which they could) none of which would come close to breaking employment laws or come close to constituting constructive dismissal

its fairly simple, but in your desperation to make a case defending a club in its 11th year needing 11 overseas players you missed it, and needed to fall back on idiotic interpretations of employment law

you know as well as i do, if wakefield wanted to get rid of a couple of their overseas contingent, they could very easily

and i know you can grasp that, and i know like most of your fellow wakefield fans you are choosing not to because you know it makes your club look bad

OK Take one of your points:

It is made public that an overseas player will not be considered for the first team ,for nothing other than he is overseas,nothing to do with his performance(ie his work),but because the club want to "encourage him to go".He has performed well in the past but now the club want him out,so to do this the club(employer)is engineering a scenario that will lead to the player(employee) being excessively demoted(which happens to be one of the major examples of constructive dismissal.
It also come under targeting particular employees.

Go away do your homework and you will see it would almost certainly constitute constructive dismissal,but im not going to continue to try and educate you.

Like i said - hairbrain schemes with no thought for the implications.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:27 pm  

Uptoncat wrote:

10 actually lol we currently have 9 Get your facts right you tool

well thats something to be proud of i suppose

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:29 pm  

TURFEDOUT wrote:

OK Take one of your points:

It is made public that an overseas player will not be considered for the first team ,for nothing other than he is overseas,nothing to do with his performance(ie his work),but because the club want to "encourage him to go".He has performed well in the past but now the club want him out,so to do this the club(employer)is engineering a scenario that will lead to the player(employee) being excessively demoted(which happens to be one of the major examples of constructive dismissal.
It also come under targeting particular employees.

Go away do your homework and you will see it would almost certainly constitute constructive dismissal,but im not going to continue to try and educate you.

Like i said - hairbrain schemes with no thought for the implications.

yes, you could say this play wont be considered for the first team,

or you could say, this player isnt considered a first team player

like i said its fairly simple, but in your desperation to make a case you needed to fall back on idiotic interpretations of employment law
you know as well as i do, if wakefield wanted to get rid of a couple of their overseas contingent, they could very easily

and i know you can grasp that, and i know like most of your fellow wakefield fans you are choosing not to because you know it makes your club look bad

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:10 pm  

Marsdengiant wrote:

You've had 10 years in SL, develop the players not bring reserve graders half way across the world.

Why is objecting to signing a reserve grader a 'pop' at wakey? Its a fact.

We are developing players in the academy and some look like they could go all the way in super league.


Frank is a player with talent and will be a good signing in the long run. I could understand if it was someone coming to the end of their career who was a reserve grader but Frank is young and will go a long way in the game if he keep up with how he is going IMO

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:35 pm  

Yes and in the past you've also finished bottom of superleague more times than Wakey, signed a number of players from us, our conditioner and our academy coach.

You have been in superleague for a similar period of time to Wakey and your junior development over the period has produced nowhere near the numer of players plying their trade in superleague, yet you have had the benefit of a top class facility and a wealthy backer.

Danril wrote:

Ha ha!

Just for the record, Huddersfield are a team with at least as many and maybe more academy products who've played first grade than Wakefield (Jackson, Raleigh, Crabtree, Cudjoe, Lawrence), have far more promising youngsters (McGilvary, Sampson, Lopag, McNally, Johnson, Barber, Chappell, Worthington and loads more at 15/16 signing up). Have higher attendances and ST holders in 2008 than Wakey and well over 5k season ticket holders for this season. We part own our ground, a ground in which the football team have a zero holding which makes it impossible for us to rent off them.

In short, we're developing. We're getting better and better in all areas of development. Other clubs stagnate and in 3 years they may well be out of SL. Many will shed tears when this happens, although quite a few will be tears of joy!

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:40 pm  

A question for Mardsden Giant..... When the Carney signing fell through why was your club trying to re-sign Brad Drew, surely they should have given the opportunity to a young British player ?

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:43 pm  

Have Wakey not signed players from us? Have Wakey not recruited coaches that have been with us?

It would be interesting to see how many players each club has produced that are in SL now and I suspect that Wakey will have currently more. Expect that to drastically change in the next 5-6 years. It might also be prudent to expect Wakefield to be in the tier below in that timescale too, it will lessen the blow (for you) when it happens.

We're improving all the time in all areas. We have been consistently growing as a club for 5-6 years now so the old lines about mergers, finishing bottom and fans getting in for free are all you have to hold on to. But it's not about us, it's about your club not developing as shown by your over reliance on overseas players. But that doesn't matter to me, you sign who you want. It will matter to the people who decide on franchises though, as will the stadium plans etc etc etc.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:55 pm  

Danril you may well be right, only time will tell. My point was that over a similar length of time to Wakey, despite having the benefits of a top class facility and a wealthy backer your player development has been poor compared to that of Wakey, who in a similar period had 2 years with no SL money and nearly went into a CVA. Consequently, it seems a bit rich that people are having a go at our player development, when a club in a much better position than us to put in place the right structures have failed to do so until recently, and even then half of the most promising young players you have were developed by other clubs.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:56 pm  

Sorry did go into a CVA

Tricky2309 wrote:

Danril you may well be right, only time will tell. My point was that over a similar length of time to Wakey, despite having the benefits of a top class facility and a wealthy backer your player development has been poor compared to that of Wakey, who in a similar period had 2 years with no SL money and nearly went into a CVA. Consequently, it seems a bit rich that people are having a go at our player development, when a club in a much better position than us to put in place the right structures have failed to do so until recently, and even then half of the most promising young players you have were developed by other clubs.