Re: Walmsley : Thu Oct 19, 2023 6:30 pm  

Wakefield are not bothered about the clause as they won't be planning to pay much of a fee if any. By approaching Halifax they found out that they could trigger a clause that could release him, by doing that they have also found out the players intentions and the past couple of weeks and more than likely the next couple of weeks until their SL status expires will be spent by them trying to unsettle him in the hope that he asks for a release, afterall he has already expressed this desire publicly which is perfect for Wakefield. Fax are now in a tricky situation as they know Wakefield have no intention of paying the amount stated in his contract but they also know they have a player who is wanting to leave and maybe tempted to accept a much lesser fee rather than go down a messy tribunal route which historically does not favor clubs in our position.

Very scummy what Wakefield have done but also very smart and there isn't usually a happy ending for the selling team at this point.

Re: Walmsley : Thu Oct 19, 2023 7:53 pm  

Seen that Wakefield now favourites to sign Mcgilvray - don't know how many wingers they want but gave me a bit of hope they might be looking elsewhere. Off course they may want both!

Re: Walmsley : Thu Oct 19, 2023 10:39 pm  

Matthew Shaw has spoken to Fax, Walmsley and Wakefield and in the linked article at the beginning of this thread this is what he says and it's clearly all about the release clause.

And with the amount of the transfer fee inserted on the original documents Wakefield have triggered it, that part is not in dispute, Fax are disputing their right to do so based on the interpretation of their current Super League status.

Quote: "But Walmsley is under contract and while Wakefield had activated a release clause in his contract, Halifax have contested the interpretation of the clause, resulting in no agreement being reached at this stage.

As per the RFL's supplement clause bank, clause 10.4 states: "If you receive an approach from a Super League Club, the Club agrees to enter into negotiations with the Super League Club (on your behalf) in good faith with a view to reaching an agreement for your release and transfer to such Super League Club and the Club agrees that it will release you provided that the transfer fee is at least [insert amount]." End quote.

Re: Walmsley : Fri Oct 20, 2023 7:04 am  

Wakefield are a SL club until their SL status expires official regardless of confirmation of their relegation, I am not quite sure what Fax can be disputing. At this point if Wakefield wanted to pay the release clause they would have signed him but the simple fact is they think they can get him for next to nothing. I don't really trust what Shaw writes when it comes to Fax as they are reluctant to speak to him because of what they see as numerous breaches of trust so I hope what he has wrote isn't true otherwise it looks like Fax have been blindsided by Wakefields actual intentions.

Re: Walmsley : Fri Oct 20, 2023 8:45 am  

So Matt Shaw is making it all up and he's spoke to no one but if what he says is true then Fax have been screwed anyway!

Wakefield are a club who have been relegated but are still in Super League so they can activate a release clause that they have no intention of honouring and are just stalling for a couple of weeks until their not a Super League club and can get him for nothing.

Fax aren't disputing anything and their making no attempt to keep hold of a contracted player who has been one of the most prolific try scorers in the division for a number of years and are prepared to let him go to a rival club for next to nothing, I mean why would they wouldn't they!

And if it goes to a tribunal Fax are sure to lose.

So thanks Wombat, who can we get to replace him?

Re: Walmsley : Fri Oct 20, 2023 3:42 pm  

I think with some people thinking that Wakefield were still not classed as a SL club only last week suggests that some people do not fully understand the situation. It'll all come out in the wash as they say.

Re: Walmsley : Fri Oct 20, 2023 5:42 pm  

It's really quite simple and in many ways the exact opposite of what some people think they understand about it.

And anyone who states they had ever even heard of the RFL's supplement clause bank, clause 10.4 and understands the interpretation of it and how it applies in the current context of Fax, Walmsley and Wakefield well all I can say is, how, when to my knowledge it's never happened in these circumstances before!

Both clubs are in negotiations, Wombat is awaiting the outcome and Matt Shaw is accurately reporting the situation.

Fax have Walmsley signed for another 12 months, he can only be released if a S L club meets the terms, including paying the fee recorded in it, the fee can't be circumvented and still somehow trigger the release.
As a minimum Fax will receive that amount should Walmsley leave.

On seeing the terms that's what Wakefield think they have done.

Fax would prefer to keep him instead of having the money and the only way they can do that is by disputing the interpretation of the clause and have nothing to lose by doing so.

The next move will be down to Wakefield, will they withdraw the offer and look elsewhere, increase the offer or choose to go to tribunal with the current offer, in any case Fax will not be letting Walmsley leave for nothing.

Re: Walmsley : Fri Oct 20, 2023 11:59 pm  

So the question is on miraculously finding out about this release clause and triggering it, why have Wakefield not signed Walmsley yet? Wakefield could have signed him weeks back, there is literally no grey area for the interpretation but as of yet despite wanting to leave Walmsley has yet to sign a contract with them. Wakefield have done the hard work now and the next step will be waiting for Walmsley to put in a transfer request. Why pay a fee when you can unsettle a player and get him to leave for next to nothing. As they say there are non so blind as those who refuse to see.

Probably worth adding that the fee would be around 10-20k that is in the contract and yet Wakefield are stalling on that, I mean come on, its not rocket science, they probably want to pay about 3-5k at most.There is nothing new going on here, this sort of stuff has gone on for decades and I would love for Fax to be on the right side of one but we won't be.

Re: Walmsley : Sat Oct 21, 2023 11:57 am  

Well back to my blind and lack of understanding opinion.

Matt Shaw reported on the release clause being the sticking point and I choose to believe him over posters pure speculation on here, that being the case.

1.) Wakefield can't claim to be a Super League club and trigger the release clause but say they won't pay, the two are bound together and are legally binding, no grey area it's in clear sight written down in black and white.

2.) Without triggering the release clause Wakefield have no basis for signing Walmsley.

3.) And if they haven't triggered it Fax have no reason to be in negotiations with them in the first place and would just tell them to sod off, again it's in black and white, the clause states that negotiations will take place between the two clubs involved IF it's been triggered.

Has it never occoured to anyone that Wakefield's approach coincided with being relegated so maybe they wouldn't have been as interested in Walmsley had they stayed in Super league!!?
Additionally when they did finally decide to make an enquiry because to us he's a valuable player who's under contract Fax naturally don't want him to go to them and are disputing their Super League status, who of us wouldn't do so?

So we now have Wakefield saying they were a Super League club when they made the approach and that's their interpretation.
Fax are saying your not a Super League club now and won't be when Walmsley will be playing for you next season and that's our interpretation.
The grey area is regarding the rules ( who on here honestly knows how they apply in this situation?)
Likewise, who on here can't see that the reason for Fax to dispute them is perfectly understandable.

(Not that it matters but as far as I'm concerned that's my opinion as well, their not a Super League club now and as regards the clause ceased to be when they were confirmed as being relegated, the rest is irrelevant.)

Of course we all know of wheeler back handed dealings in the past but in my opinion this situation is different.

As far as I know there has never been a confirmed relegated Super League club who have triggered a release clause under this rule with this set of circumstances so if this scenario has gone on for decades post who it was and what the outcome was.

Fax and Wakefield are reported to still be in normal negotiation mode, Walmsley himself made reference to this when he said he hoped a deal could be reached or as speculated by an outsider who has actually spoken to no one is the following back handed scummy approach.

Hello Halifax it's Wakefield here, can we sign Walmsley from you for next to nowt, sorry for being a bit late with the request but we've cunningly found out that there is a release clause in his contract and don't want to pay the fee so we thought we'd put it out there, maybe unsettle him a bit, you know how it works can we come maybe have a chat about it.
Yes tomorrow will be fine, see you then, oh hang on could you drive over here so we can screw you some more, you can, great catch you later.

Re: Walmsley : Sat Oct 21, 2023 12:06 pm  

Don't think Wakefield have announced any new signings - not even officially confirmed Powell as coach - presumably all down to the fact that transfer of the club to new owners has still not been completed. I'm sure several transfers including Walmsleys will have been provisionally agreed but can't bee announced until ownership situation resolved.