: Wed May 20, 2009 3:32 pm  

ostick is only part time because he goes university ( a prop with a education what's the world coming to) so for a part time player at the most he can only really ask for at the most is about 10k to 15k a season in our division. ostick emerged as a first regular this season, but does not mean he will have a great season next season, so to hold the club to ransom is stupid. where does someone that young get an agent from, i bet it's the agent holding out for a bigger payday for himself by inventing the saints rumour.

: Wed May 20, 2009 3:38 pm  

Deary, deary me.

Talk about over-reaction and conspiracy theories.

I dont know what he was offered, what he wanted or where he is going but the club quite firmly taking a stance like this seems like a pre-cursor to him being linked publically elsewhere.

He is part time and in the last year of university if I recall rightly.

As such the deals that the younger players (Grady, Simm, Mullally) took on along with college probably arent suitable for him.

Il be shocked if were offering him great money. He is still fairly unproven at this level but there is enough promise there to see him get a spot outside of the 20/25 (or whatever it is..nowadays) with a SL club.

I dont see any reason for anymosity towards him and at the end of the day he has to do a job in the first team to attract any attention from elsewhere.

In fact, he still hasnt signed on elsewhere so there all hope aint gone for him staying on at Widnes.

: Wed May 20, 2009 3:41 pm  

-VIKINGMAN- wrote:

Looks like the following for Gateshead (well what i would go with)

Dodd
Flynn
Varkulis
Grady
Penny
Thackeray
Webster
Ostick
Smith
Gannon
Doran
Simm
Banister


Pickersgill
Kavanagh
Duffy
Hartley

Injured/unfit

Tyrer
Wildbore
Kohe Love
Fletcher
Morrison
Yates
Gaskell

Not a chance Grady will be bak at centre I wouldnt have thought.

The club have firmly nailed their colours to the mast by consistently playing him in the backrow for the reserves so I cant see him shifting back to centre for the first time in a while and stepping up to first team level.

Shame for Shane really because I think the changes in deciding his best position have held him back slightly over the last few years.

Hartley at centre or possibly Dean Thompson as an outside bet to make his debut. Maybe bit too early again.

: Wed May 20, 2009 4:19 pm  

My fault i forgot about Patto

: Wed May 20, 2009 4:22 pm  

VforViking wrote:

ostick has been great for us this season and will get better but i don't think he is super league standard yet and he should stay till we get super league or till he reaches that standard.

The ungrateful get.

So ungrateful that when the club wanted to release him last year , he had to point out he still had a year left on his contract. Loyalty is a two way thing . Its still possible that Ostick will agree terms with the club.

The Vicar

: Wed May 20, 2009 4:28 pm  

We don't have all the details of what's been offered or what MO has asked for. There are many aspects to a contract, not all financial. There are also a lot of other issues to be considered both by both parties; the salary cap, 3 year licences, parity with other players, and interest from other clubs, to name but a few.

The thing I find strange, is the club announcing it. I can only assume that something is likely to happen and they want to ensure the fans are in the picture. Maybe he's about to be dropped, sold or loaned out?

The new licence system and low salary cap in the Championship was always going to make it difficult for clubs to produce and hang on to talented youngsters, but this is the position we are put in by the RFL. They demand we bring through youngsters, but make it difficult for us to retain those same youngsters once they get past 21 and require a higher rate of pay. We are seeing the first stage of championship clubs becoming the feeder clubs for SL sides. It would certainly end up being more cost effective to bring in loan players from local SL clubs than running academies and then loosing the talented youngsters you bring through anyway.

Our only hope is that we can qualify to bid for a 2012 licence and be successful in that bid. If we are not, then we'll be stuck in a league of feeder clubs for as long as the licence system is in place.

: Wed May 20, 2009 9:27 pm  

Pepe wrote:

We don't have all the details of what's been offered or what MO has asked for. There are many aspects to a contract, not all financial. There are also a lot of other issues to be considered both by both parties; the salary cap, 3 year licences, parity with other players, and interest from other clubs, to name but a few.

The thing I find strange, is the club announcing it. I can only assume that something is likely to happen and they want to ensure the fans are in the picture. Maybe he's about to be dropped, sold or loaned out?

The new licence system and low salary cap in the Championship was always going to make it difficult for clubs to produce and hang on to talented youngsters, but this is the position we are put in by the RFL. They demand we bring through youngsters, but make it difficult for us to retain those same youngsters once they get past 21 and require a higher rate of pay. We are seeing the first stage of championship clubs becoming the feeder clubs for SL sides. It would certainly end up being more cost effective to bring in loan players from local SL clubs than running academies and then loosing the talented youngsters you bring through anyway.

Our only hope is that we can qualify to bid for a 2012 licence and be successful in that bid. If we are not, then we'll be stuck in a league of feeder clubs for as long as the licence system is in place.

So why don`t the clubs do something about it then ,when they go for the freebie away days with the RFL why don`t they propose that all youngsters brought through a club then start playing for the first team are exempt from the salary cap.That way there is an incentive for clubs to bring through the youngsters and if you build up a nucleous of lads like that in the team you will have more money available in the cap to pay for good players as well.At the moment there is no reward for a club to run acadamy sides as they just get taken by Sooper Dooopers.

: Wed May 20, 2009 10:33 pm  

Almost impossible to make your own junior development pay off at this level no matter what you do

If they are good they will go , if they are not and you tie them to long term contracts they cost

The only way would be for the RFL to somehow put in a payment structure based on matches played that the SL clubs have to pay if they take on Championship produced juniors

And they are going to do that arent they

: Thu May 21, 2009 1:20 am  

The Vicar of Widnes wrote:

So ungrateful that when the club wanted to release him last year , he had to point out he still had a year left on his contract. Loyalty is a two way thing . Its still possible that Ostick will agree terms with the club.

The Vicar

fair point. But that was because McCormack never gave him and other young players a chance.

: Thu May 21, 2009 9:35 am  

johnny freeman fan club wrote:

So why don`t the clubs do something about it then ,when they go for the freebie away days with the RFL why don`t they propose that all youngsters brought through a club then start playing for the first team are exempt from the salary cap.That way there is an incentive for clubs to bring through the youngsters and if you build up a nucleous of lads like that in the team you will have more money available in the cap to pay for good players as well.At the moment there is no reward for a club to run acadamy sides as they just get taken by Sooper Dooopers.

A number of clubs have actually suggested this to the RFL.