Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:46 pm  

vastman wrote:

Whats game time got to do with anything?

It's about money, they were offered a deal and didn't accept it, absolutely nothing to do with game time.

A coach puts a value on a player and the club then has to find the cash, those two players were given a value by Mash and they didn't agree. His job depends on who he signs so he cant be emotional even though he was the man who signed them as youngsters. He will have offered then the most he could but just like Chester and Poching he is yet to find the magic money tree. Do you know where it is?

Finally should you be willing to show some patience and not pre judge, you will soon see that the money earmarked for Croft and Shaw has now been used to promote two more youngsters. How do you know they won't be far better?

In fact I'd hazard a guess that one is Ollie Pratt, and no offence to Croft, Pratt is in a different class.

As I see it these rules were brought in to protect clubs from having their pockets picked; very noble & worthwhile. It appears that the unintended consequence though is to potentially force young players to accept a contract beneath their value/worth or face being forced out of the game. This isn’t good at the best of times & with the player pool shrinking every year is just plain silly - anyone else remember pre-bosman? I just can’t see this standing up in Court, whether the player(s) can afford to challenge it is a different matter.
I’ve every sympathy with Wakefield, but I just don’t think it’s a good look for them, not any club to effectively say to young players: sign the deal or go find another sport to play. It would certainly make me re-evaluate as a parent to a rugby playing kid.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:07 pm  

steadygetyerboots-on wrote:

As I see it these rules were brought in to protect clubs from having their pockets picked; very noble & worthwhile. It appears that the unintended consequence though is to potentially force young players to accept a contract beneath their value/worth or face being forced out of the game. This isn’t good at the best of times & with the player pool shrinking every year is just plain silly - anyone else remember pre-bosman? I just can’t see this standing up in Court, whether the player(s) can afford to challenge it is a different matter.
I’ve every sympathy with Wakefield, but I just don’t think it’s a good look for them, not any club to effectively say to young players: sign the deal or go find another sport to play. It would certainly make me re-evaluate as a parent to a rugby playing kid.

Yes but who decides that worth, this is the crux and the point I've been making. I suspect they have been given duff advise and over-valued themselves, This I would say is backed up by the lack of apparent offers as let's be honest the comp amounts are not huge.

What this whole story stinks of to me is an Agent who's cocked up and is now feeding the story into the media to gain a sympathy angle, and it's working and thats pure cynical manipulation imo.

On your last point I utterly disagree, that's wanting your cake and eating it. SL is a business not a charitable foundation. When clubs sign youngster they are offering them a chance to pursue their dream, not a promise. No club, certainly in the last 30 years has ever sat a kid down and said we guarantee you a future in the game on a wage that will suit you from the start. Thirty years ago we went full time and with that came huge benefits for some, but for others massive disappointments, that is the very nature of professional sport, every sport not just RL, so there is nothing to re-evaluate IMHO. It's nothing to do with how it looks, it's how it is and pretending otherwise only gives false hope.

Also I'm not sure you can just pick and chose a sport, being good at RL doesn't mean you'd be just as good at football, certainly wasn't the case for me.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:13 pm  

vastman wrote:

Yes but who decides that worth, this is the crux and the point I've been making. I suspect they have been given duff advise and over-valued themselves, This I would say is backed up by the lack of apparent offers as let's be honest the comp amounts are not huge.

What this whole story stinks of to me is an Agent who's cocked up and is now feeding the story into the media to gain a sympathy angle, and it's working and thats pure cynical manipulation imo.

On your last point I utterly disagree, that's wanting your cake and eating it. SL is a business not a charitable foundation. When clubs sign youngster they are offering them a chance to pursue their dream, not a promise. No club, certainly in the last 30 years has ever sat a kid down and said we guarantee you a future in the game on a wage that will suit you from the start. Thirty years ago we went full time and with that came huge benefits for some, but for others massive disappointments, that is the very nature of professional sport, every sport not just RL, so there is nothing to re-evaluate IMHO. It's nothing to do with how it looks, it's how it is and pretending otherwise only gives false hope.

Also I'm not sure you can just pick and chose a sport, being good at RL doesn't mean you'd be just as good at football, certainly wasn't the case for me.

That’s the problem there can be no offer to either player because to sign either would mean compensation being paid to Wakefield. It is only your opinion they overvalued themselves maybe we undervalued them. We now face either paying their contracts for the next 24 months for Croft and 48 months for Shaw or foregoing the compensation to allow them to be free agents.
If you know another way please enlighten us.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:21 pm  

vastman wrote:

Whats game time got to do with anything?

It's about money, they were offered a deal and didn't accept it, absolutely nothing to do with game time.

A coach puts a value on a player and the club then has to find the cash, those two players were given a value by Mash and they didn't agree. His job depends on who he signs so he cant be emotional even though he was the man who signed them as youngsters. He will have offered then the most he could but just like Chester and Poching he is yet to find the magic money tree. Do you know where it is? Well I tell you this Croft signed keighlly before the end season also before mash and he’s another one Murphy has one season then he’s gone game time us important especially when you’ve been injured all season more bull from vastman we’re just a feeder club

Finally should you be willing to show some patience and not pre judge, you will soon see that the money earmarked for Croft and Shaw has now been used to promote two more youngsters. How do you know they won't be far better?

In fact I'd hazard a guess that one is Ollie Pratt, and no offence to Croft, Pratt is in a different class.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:33 pm  

I wonder which agent (s) represents these two. I just think there could be more to this than we believe. I know Carter can be a tight miserable sod at times and for that reason I really cant see him being happy to continue to pay these two and get nothing in return. Surely he would just cut his losses and release them as free agents.

I may be miles out here, but I am wondering if he believes they have had better offers from other clubs and said club (s) were hoping we would let them go and without enforcing a fee. However we were not falling for that and holding out.

Like I said speculation on my part, but whatever the outcome whoever is representing them has a lot to answer also for allowing them to get into this mess.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:40 pm  

Disappointing re Shaw… thought he looked the real deal…

But we move on!

Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:52 pm  

cosmicat wrote:

Disappointed again two good players just needed game time poor from trinity

Do you think that either player is better than what we have ?
It's a tough business, really tough, especially on younger players but, IF they are good enough, they will find another club and maybe, they will prove Trinity wrong.
Bottom line is that we cant keep hold of every player but, good luck to both of them in whatever comes next.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:12 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Do you think that either player is better than what we have ?
It's a tough business, really tough, especially on younger players but, IF they are good enough, they will find another club and maybe, they will prove Trinity wrong.
Bottom line is that we cant keep hold of every player but, good luck to both of them in whatever comes next.

Bloody hell we can’t keep our best winger no not Tom !!

Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:18 pm  

Carter has never come across as the type of person to shaft anyone. We're only getting one side of the story, think I'll wait for the club's version of events before being critical.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:25 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Do you think that either player is better than what we have ?
It's a tough business, really tough, especially on younger players but, IF they are good enough, they will find another club and maybe, they will prove Trinity wrong.
Bottom line is that we cant keep hold of every player but, good luck to both of them in whatever comes next.

The thing that stops them finding another club is the protections given to the parent club to ensure they are rewarded for the time taken in training etc. This can equate to several thousand pounds (consider it a transfer fee). The downside is that for us to basically stop them we have to pay them their contracts until they reach a certain age (even if out of contract).
We could I suppose waive the transfer fee thereby making them free agents to sign elsewhere and frees us having to continue to pay them.