Re: What we currently look like for 2023 : Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:53 am  

Dunkirk Spirit wrote:

Can anyone on here explain what that means. If Trinity have not renewed an expired contract, or is it the club have not improved an existing contract which both players have rejected. It’s impossible to make comments about this without knowing the facts.

The rule states that the club would be due a payment of a nominal amount per week for the time they have been developed in the system for any club coming in for them or any player prior to their 22nd birthday.

If no deal is agreed then a the players will be due payment from the club until they turn 22 in line with their last deal, so basically 1 years wage for Croft 2 for Shaw.

Re: What we currently look like for 2023 : Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:57 am  

Explained better here. https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... 673081.amp

Explained better here. https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... 673081.amp

[PopTart]

Re: What we currently look like for 2023 : Mon Dec 05, 2022 10:09 am  

The rules are there to protect clubs like us. They work fine in most cases.

The only bit no one mentions is, if Croft gets a contract, Wakefield don't have to take the compensation. They could just let it go or do a deal I'm sure.

If we don't want them, why restrict them.

Re: What we currently look like for 2023 : Mon Dec 05, 2022 10:35 am  

PopTart wrote:

The rules are there to protect clubs like us. They work fine in most cases.

The only bit no one mentions is, if Croft gets a contract, Wakefield don't have to take the compensation. They could just let it go or do a deal I'm sure.

If we don't want them, why restrict them.

Croft & Shaw would have to agree to a deal elsewhere also. It may be a case any deal offered by others doesn’t cover their wage demands/expectations so they are happy to work a job in the short term and get paid by Trinity for nothing on top of that day job salary.

Re: What we currently look like for 2023 : Mon Dec 05, 2022 10:53 am  

PopTart wrote:

The rules are there to protect clubs like us. They work fine in most cases.

The only bit no one mentions is, if Croft gets a contract, Wakefield don't have to take the compensation. They could just let it go or do a deal I'm sure.

If we don't want them, why restrict them.

We did want them, but not for as much as they wanted paying.

I have no insider knowledge on this particular story, but having been around the game an age I have seen the scenario before.

Goes something like this...

Offers made by club

Player/AGENT rejects

Perhaps or perhaps not an improved but FINAL offer is made.

Player/AGENT rejects and holds that position.

Club finally get fed up of waiting and promote other youngsters who are more willing to accept terms, as I'm guessing will become apparent as the later squad numbers are revealed. Doesn't matter now whether the player/AGENT is willing to take the offer, the money has been spent elsewhere and there is no longer any cash available. One mans loss is another mans gain.

As for compensation I'm not sure I agree with you, though I'm not sure I don't, I don't know either player or the actual full story. I'd guess in Crofts case we will let it go, with Shaw it depends on who wants him (not that it appears anyone does). I'd seriously doubt we'd let him join say Cas without the compensation.

[PopTart]

Re: What we currently look like for 2023 : Mon Dec 05, 2022 11:47 am  

vastman wrote:

We did want them, but not for as much as they wanted paying.

I have no insider knowledge on this particular story, but having been around the game an age I have seen the scenario before.

Goes something like this...

Offers made by club

Player/AGENT rejects

Perhaps or perhaps not an improved but FINAL offer is made.

Player/AGENT rejects and holds that position.

Club finally get fed up of waiting and promote other youngsters who are more willing to accept terms, as I'm guessing will become apparent as the later squad numbers are revealed. Doesn't matter now whether the player/AGENT is willing to take the offer, the money has been spent elsewhere and there is no longer any cash available. One mans loss is another mans gain.

As for compensation I'm not sure I agree with you, though I'm not sure I don't, I don't know either player or the actual full story. I'd guess in Crofts case we will let it go, with Shaw it depends on who wants him (not that it appears anyone does). I'd seriously doubt we'd let him join say Cas without the compensation.

But if we don't want Shaw, and we are paying money for nothing now, why restrict him getting a job elsewhere?
He's not going to be playing in Cas's first 17.

Re: What we currently look like for 2023 : Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:22 pm  

PopTart wrote:

But if we don't want Shaw, and we are paying money for nothing now, why restrict him getting a job elsewhere?
He's not going to be playing in Cas's first 17.

Then what's the point in the compensation rule?

It's there to compensate us for developing a player should he go to another SL before he's over 21.

Yes it's harsh on the lad, especially if he's been mismanaged by his agent (just my opinion) but from a business point of view it makes sense.

I get your point and as I've always said the youth part of the game is always a but murky.

Also I might be way off the mark, but doesn't the compensation rule only kick in once he's played so many first team games? In which case I'd definitely want some compensation.

Re: What we currently look like for 2023 : Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:27 pm  

Of the two I would have preferred to keep Croft. I know many on here keep singing the praises of Shaw, who may well develop into a decent player, but Croft is only a gnat's chuff away from taking over from Lynn. IMHO

Re: What we currently look like for 2023 : Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:30 pm  

So how often does this happen at other clubs.
Having decided the players are not required I don't think the club should be able to stand in the players way.
Finding young players at any levels becoming very difficult, it's not helping recruitment

Re: What we currently look like for 2023 : Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:38 pm  

lampyboy wrote:

So how often does this happen at other clubs.
Having decided the players are not required I don't think the club should be able to stand in the players way.
Finding young players at any levels becoming very difficult, it's not helping recruitment

But we didn't did we, we offered them both a deal.

You can't give agents the idea that they can basically keep us waiting for ages and ruin our pre-season in the hope that we will let them off the hook and thus make their product easier to sell. This is about making money for one individual, and thats not the player.

It's a two way street, you can't just bend the rules to suit. Fine lines on all these things.

Be interesting to see how we play it but FWIW I can see them both playing in the Reserves in some sort of deal, which may well be their saviour.