Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:12 pm  

The suggestion has been that at least one of them was tapped up by another club, but that that club didn't want to pay any kind of fee.

The player was told by "someone", to let their contract run out and not angle for a new deal. The parasite club could then pick them up for free.

Wakefield had foreseen this move and made a modest improved offer to protect their asset.

I have no way of knowing whether this is the accurate scenario, but something smells fishy.

Either way, it gives us something to talk about in the closed season.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:24 pm  

dboy wrote:

The suggestion has been that at least one of them was tapped up by another club, but that that club didn't want to pay any kind of fee.

The player was told by "someone", to let their contract run out and not angle for a new deal. The parasite club could then pick them up for free.

Wakefield had foreseen this move and made a modest improved offer to protect their asset.

I have no way of knowing whether this is the accurate scenario, but something smells fishy.

Either way, it gives us something to talk about in the closed season.

I'd rather hope we only offered a deal due to genuinely wanting to keep the player as opposed just to make sure we got a fee for them.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:01 pm  

vastman wrote:

This is exactly whats happened.

However before people start the endless moralising/saviour complex nonsense lets be right about this.

It has cost the club the best part of 30-40k a player to allow these two young lads to pursue their dreams. That money one way or another comes from YOU, the fan.

Players don't have to have agents and they certainly don't have to do what they say. The fact that Croft in particular was supported through an injury by the clubs suggests to me that loyalty is a bit of a one way street,

Even if the club hold out for compensation, it won't pay anything like back the investment WE have made.We are a business first, not a dream factory, that's fine for the 80 minutes of a game but for the rest of the time it's pure economics.

You can believe me or not, but as far as I'm led to believe by various sources both were offered deals, then improved deals and both via their agents refused. The reason they can't get a gig now is because they want too much money, nothing to do with compensation, and nobody it appears would bite then or now and now everybody is spent up including us.

The reason they are in limbo is because our offer is no longer there as far as I'm aware, it's gone on other youngsters. I suspect we would waive the comp on both players with maybe one club exception, problem is I don't think anyone has the budget left to splash out on these two very unproven players, with or without compensation to us.

Sadly I suspect it's part time championship for Croft. Shaw, might cobble a deal together to allow him to stay in our reserves, but on this bit I am purely speculating.

What's truly and appallingly cynical about this is that IMO the agent has clearly fed this story to the press, in an attempt to gain a sympathy vote, and thus cover up his own ineptitude. I sincerely hope this bloke either learns quickly or has a very short career, before he ruins the careers of any more players.

One final thing to all the TRINITY ARE EVIL TO YOUNGSTERS brigade. The money allocated for Shaw and Croft has now gone to two other youngsters who were happy with the terms on offer. So the promotion of youth in percentage terms to the first team remains exactly the same.

PB, I'll PM you his name.

What complete and utter fantasy!

Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:09 pm  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

I'd rather hope we only offered a deal due to genuinely wanting to keep the player as opposed just to make sure we got a fee for them.

Why would we do that?

It's far more simple. We offered them what we thought they were worth. Last tear we offered Ruan a deal which he rejected and wasn't offered an increase, but crucially then asked to be released and duly was.Young Ollie was offered no deal I believe and was simply released, neither required compensation from the clubs they went to.

Croft and Shaw were offered deals and were then offered enhanced deals after rejecting the first offer. Crucially here the agent as far as I'm aware refused to come back with a firm yes or no on the second offer. In the end the club had no choice but to release the players, but because of how it was done, the club is due compensation, end of.

We didn't make the rules and we didn't cause the situation and above all we did want to retain both players, but only at the price we valued them at, what's wrong with that is my question.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:22 pm  

vastman wrote:

Why would we do that?

It's far more simple. We offered them what we thought they were worth. Last tear we offered Ruan a deal which he rejected and wasn't offered an increase, but crucially then asked to be released and duly was.Young Ollie was offered no deal I believe and was simply released, neither required compensation from the clubs they went to.

Croft and Shaw were offered deals and were then offered enhanced deals after rejecting the first offer. Crucially here the agent as far as I'm aware refused to come back with a firm yes or no on the second offer. In the end the club had no choice but to release the players, but because of how it was done, the club is due compensation, end of.

We didn't make the rules and we didn't cause the situation and above all we did want to retain both players, but only at the price we valued them at, what's wrong with that is my question.

If the player wasnt wanted then I see little point in offering a deal just to get a fee, it woukd makes us as bad as the agent, pursuing club. On the other hand if we genuinely wanted them then it's fair to request a fee.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:23 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

What complete and utter fantasy!

Then you clearly have no idea how a business works.

Apart from the obvious which are the wages paid over the last two years to both player, every player takes a percentage of the clubs fixed costs.

If the squad has 30 players then every player takes 1/30th of those cost in accountancy terms, obviously in real life it varies from player to player but budgets are formed using only numbers. Coaches wages, physios, medical, heating/lighting/water costs for changing facilities, travel, even Doris the tea lady. They all come from the same budget, there isn't a separate one for other costs, it's not free. Take two away and have a squad of 28 and that's probably what you'd save over two years, basic accountancy.

Croft alone will probably have received 200 hours of physio for his injury, at a generous cost of say £20 P/H that alone is £4000. The initial costs may be covered by insurance but the recovery won't. It all adds up, it's all part of the equation. Even the camps we run to spot these kids at aged 12 or 13, the schools visits, coaching seminars, they all come with a cost attached at a young age, nothing as I say is free.

So to say each player has cost us 30 - 40k to get this far is probably an understatement.

People need to leave fantasy land and think a bit harder, whether you like it or not this is a capitalist society and that is how they work. Same amount of money that goes in must come out, any more and we go into debt.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:30 pm  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

If the player wasnt wanted then I see little point in offering a deal just to get a fee, it woukd makes us as bad as the agent, pursuing club. On the other hand if we genuinely wanted them then it's fair to request a fee.

As I said in my post/posts, we did want them and made more than one offer.

They were wanted but were not in the must keep at all costs category. We are right on this one, and IMO there is no debate, it's cut and dried.

Not aimed at you but its funny how certain posters, usual suspects, are getting all solidarity with the lads on this one, yet a year ago were up in arms because we let Ruan go for nowt! Its blatant club bashing by people with an agenda imo, it's a none story started by an agent to cover up his cock up and the gullible have bitten.

It will be sorted in due time, and with the current clubs reputation for fairness and honesty it will almost certainly end up with us taking a hit because despite detesting this particular dirty agent, we value the two young lads future. It needs to run it's course now.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:35 pm  

vastman wrote:

Then it really shows you for what you are.

You clearly have no idea how a business works, it's all victims with you.

Apart from the obvious which are the wages paid over the last two years to both player, every player takes a percentage of the clubs fixed costs.

If the squad has 30 players then every player takes 1/30th of those cost, Coaches wages, physios, medical, heating/lighting/water costs for changing facilities, travel, even Doris the tea lady. They all come from the same budget, there isn't a separate one for other costs, it's not free. Take two away and have a squad of 28 and that's probably what you'd save over two years, basic accountancy.

Croft alone will probably have received 100 hours of physio for his injury, at a generous cost of say £20 P/H that alone is £2000. It all adds up, it's all part of the equation. Even the camps we run to spot these kids at aged 12 or 13, they all come with a cost attached, nothing is free.

So to say each player has cost us 30 - 40k to get this far is probably an understatement.

People need to leave fantasy land and think a bit harder, whether you like it or not this is a capitalist society and that is how they work. Same amount of money that goes in must come out, any more and we go into debt.

Has Doris come back from Cas then?
Anyway, like I said they had been offered an improved contract and decided - with or without "advice" to reject it and hang on for a better offer or another club coming in for them - then that's down to the advice they've received - not the fault to the club.
I have been involved with "advising" players and its down to them to decide.
Having seen some contracts that get offered, I am not surprised that some do turn them down.
But that's the chance the player - and the player alone takes.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:43 pm  

BarnsleyGull wrote:

Has Doris come back from Cas then?
Anyway, like I said they had been offered an improved contract and decided - with or without "advice" to reject it and hang on for a better offer or another club coming in for them - then that's down to the advice they've received - not the fault to the club.
I have been involved with "advising" players and its down to them to decide.
Having seen some contracts that get offered, I am not surprised that some do turn them down.
But that's the chance the player - and the player alone takes.

Her tea was rubbish anyway

In a way yes but in a bigger way no. You can't in many ways compare it to a wage offer as you are about to be paid in advance for something you may or may not achieve. It's unique in that respect, in a way it's more like a grant at this age, than a wage, that comes later.

So unless you are gloriously talented like Murphy and prove that very quickly, it's going to. be a long slog with the rewards coming later. But in a way is it all that different from most vocational jobs, and it is a vocation, you have to really want to do it.

So yes, relatively speaking they are at the low end of the scale for that age, but they also give the lads an opportunity the rest of us can only dream of.

If you can't survive on a basic wage at 20 - 21 to pursue a dream in a cash poor sport, then maybe RL isn't for you. I recon most of the young lads get that, but some are get their heads turned by people with selfish motives.

[PopTart]

Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 4:22 pm  

I kinda disagree on one bit.
It's not just paying for potential. Croft played 1st team and was earning his wage as a player not a developing kid.