Criggcat wrote:
Amazes people question player commitment
Murphy was out of contract at wakefield. Had an offer to stay at wakefield but chose Sydney.
Who wouldn’t …. NRL minimum wage (significantly more than we could have offered) and the opportunity to test himself in the Roosters environment was too good to miss out on IMO
Saints now have come in offered him a deal at one of the if not the biggest club in SL.
Good luck to him.
That’s the thing though.
Croft and Shaw had a contract offer and did not sign it. They then were unable to take a contract in the UK until after their 23rd? Birthday unless it was with Trinity. They signed for French and Australian clubs. As no club would pay a fee we finally agreed a contract with them as we needed them also.
How is this scenario different to that? If as you say trinity offered a contract then other clubs in uk shouldn’t be able to sign him without paying a fee should they?
I see no difference in the Croft/Shaw/Murphy situations unless it’s been changed or club agreed to relinquish any fees etc.