Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 4:39 pm  

vastman wrote:

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.

Out of interest what do you think would be a fair salary offer (this time) for a “gloriously talented Murphy”?

Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 4:48 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.

from what I heard it wasn’t an improved offer it was less that they signed up for bloody joke disgrace

Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 4:49 pm  

cosmicat wrote:

from what I heard it wasn’t an improved offer it was less that they signed up for bloody joke disgrace

Who told you?

[PopTart]

Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 4:55 pm  

cosmicat wrote:

from what I heard it wasn’t an improved offer it was less that they signed up for bloody joke disgrace

That doesn't follow the rules so I'd say that isn't true.
Are you trying to troll again?

Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 5:04 pm  

vastman wrote:

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.

It’s clearly you who has no idea how Academy, Scholarship and the related programmes they include are funded!

Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 5:06 pm  

cosmicat wrote:

from what I heard it wasn’t an improved offer it was less that they signed up for bloody joke disgrace

To activate the remittance clause they HAD to offer the players an improved contract.

If they offered reduced terms then they would be free agents so I would question the reliability of your information, or even better just do a bit of research yourself before jumping to conclusions to slate the club.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 5:18 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

It’s clearly you who has no idea how Academy, Scholarship and the related programmes they include are funded!

Well clearly he seems to know more about the funding than you seem to do, I haven't a clue personally so I can't comment on it, I don't know exactly how much of what he says is exactly true but other people seem to agree with him, you on the other hand despite your constant refusal to agree with him like a couple more on here who now incidentally have suddenly gone quiet offer no credible proof of what you say, your best reply was it's immoral and having got blown out of the water with that argument you have now decided to fudge the debate with some things that are difficult at best to prove, perhaps you could provide a link.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 5:25 pm  

vastman wrote:

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.

You really do draw some completely ridiculous conclusions just because someone doesn’t agree with you or is critical of the clubs actions on a certain subject. In your eagerness to claim some imaginary high ground you make yourself look silly

So we have 30 players in the Academy squad and taking your estimation of £30k to £40k per player we have invested around £1,000,000 (that’s 1£Million) in them!
You are way way off, the investment which comes directly from the club isn’t a fraction of that

We have 40 players in the Scholarship how much do you reckon we’ve got in them?
I’ll give you a clue by using one example
Scholarship physio will be on around £7k to £8k per season to work 3 nights for around 38 weeks a week and cover 8 games
40 Scholarship players = around £200 per player per season x 2 seasons of Scholarship.
Scouts & Scholarship Coaches are volunteers with the exception of the Head Scholarship Coach who’ll be on £3k expenses divided by 40 that’s £75 per season per Scholarship player x 2 seasons
So after 40% of their Youth Programme inclusion at £550 we’re a long long way from £30k to £40k per player

Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 5:27 pm  

jonh wrote:

To activate the remittance clause they HAD to offer the players an improved contract.

If they offered reduced terms then they would be free agents so I would question the reliability of your information, or even better just do a bit of research yourself before jumping to conclusions to slate the club.

James batchelor was offered a reduced deal that’s why he walked another local player turned he’s back the club

Re: Shaw and Croft : Thu Dec 08, 2022 5:28 pm  

chissitt wrote:

Well clearly he seems to know more about the funding than you seem to do, I haven't a clue personally so I can't comment on it, I don't know exactly how much of what he says is exactly true but other people seem to agree with him, you on the other hand despite your constant refusal to agree with him like a couple more on here who now incidentally have suddenly gone quiet offer no credible proof of what you say, your best reply was it's immoral and having got blown out of the water with that argument you have now decided to fudge the debate with some things that are difficult at best to prove, perhaps you could provide a link.

What the hell are you on about, blown out of the water by who, saying what?
If you’re referring to Vastman stupid estimation then you’re as daft as he is
I can pretty much give you the full costings of the Youth system if that what you want

I’ll add this
I can praise the club for stabilising the finances
I can praise the club for assembling what looks like a decent squad
I can praise the club for the ground refurbishment
But, if I disagree with the club on the principle or morality of holding back 2 kids who want to leave I must have an agenda against the club, that’s pathetic!