Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:37 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

Then there should be a suitable minimum contract amount set by the RFL which must be offered or the compensation clause can’t be activated.

There is.

If a new club signs one of them and the two clubs can't agree, there is an RFL mechanism for arbitrating the deal.

Wakey know what the investment in those players is worth and other clubs' may not want to pay the compensation due for it.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:43 pm  

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... MGQMLhNHVs

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... MGQMLhNHVs

Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:58 pm  

Trust the process.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:39 pm  

dboy wrote:

There is.

If a new club signs one of them and the two clubs can't agree, there is an RFL mechanism for arbitrating the deal.

Wakey know what the investment in those players is worth and other clubs' may not want to pay the compensation due for it.

That’s not a statutory minimum contract at all, if one were in force then Wakefield or any other club in the same situation would have to offer it or let the player go

The compensation due for a player who’s spent 6 years at a club is £54,600 with another £5,000 added if the player signs a contract at a new club worth over £25,000. That means Wakefield could demand almost £60,000 for Croft and if no one wants to pay it he gets locked out of the game, it’s a pathetic situation.

There was a young scrum half at Cas about 5 years ago who had played half back for a number of the England junior teams. At the age of 16 going on 17 he wanted to leave Cas and the Tigers triggered the compensation clause of over £10,000 for any other team who wanted to sign him. He ended up leaving the game and playing RU, how is that right

Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:55 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

That’s not a statutory minimum contract at all, if one were in force then Wakefield or any other club in the same situation would have to offer it or let the player go

The compensation due for a player who’s spent 6 years at a club is £54,600 with another £5,000 added if the player signs a contract at a new club worth over £25,000. That means Wakefield could demand almost £60,000 for Croft and if no one wants to pay it he gets locked out of the game, it’s a pathetic situation.

There was a young scrum half at Cas about 5 years ago who had played half back for a number of the England junior teams. At the age of 16 going on 17 he wanted to leave Cas and the Tigers triggered the compensation clause of over £10,000 for any other team who wanted to sign him. He ended up leaving the game and playing RU, how is that right

His name is Callum McLland. He went to Scottish rugby union but 4 months later was signed by Rhinos who then didn't need to pay Cas the compensation . He's now back at Cas

Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:11 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

That’s not a statutory minimum contract at all, if one were in force then Wakefield or any other club in the same situation would have to offer it or let the player go

The compensation due for a player who’s spent 6 years at a club is £54,600 with another £5,000 added if the player signs a contract at a new club worth over £25,000. That means Wakefield could demand almost £60,000 for Croft and if no one wants to pay it he gets locked out of the game, it’s a pathetic situation.

There was a young scrum half at Cas about 5 years ago who had played half back for a number of the England junior teams. At the age of 16 going on 17 he wanted to leave Cas and the Tigers triggered the compensation clause of over £10,000 for any other team who wanted to sign him. He ended up leaving the game and playing RU, how is that right

You misunderstand.

Those figures are not mandated. They are the figures implemented in the absence of a deal.

If a club wants Croft/Shaw, they can agree a different figure with Wakey. If they can't agree, the RFL default is triggered.

You say "how can it be right a player is kept out of the game?"

How can it be right that a club invests over many years to develop a player, only to have him move on fee-free (particularly to a parasite club who don't produce their own players)?

Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:27 pm  

Even though you can't keep everyone, and books need to be balanced, it is a shame about this, especially as these are two of our own home grown players.

The bit of game time Shaw had last season, he looked a decent prospect, and towards the end of the season, Croft was improving too.

Hope they can find a club, as we do lose players in this country sometimes, due to other circumstances.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:37 pm  

Lewis Murphy may be in the same situation in 12 months time. I suspect a deal will be sorted if this is the case.

Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 10:14 pm  

newgroundb4wakey wrote:

His name is Callum McLland. He went to Scottish rugby union but 4 months later was signed by Rhinos who then didn't need to pay Cas the compensation . He's now back at Cas

No, his surname was Westwood

Re: Shaw and Croft : Mon Dec 05, 2022 10:18 pm  

dboy wrote:

You misunderstand.

Those figures are not mandated. They are the figures implemented in the absence of a deal.

If a club wants Croft/Shaw, they can agree a different figure with Wakey. If they can't agree, the RFL default is triggered.

You say "how can it be right a player is kept out of the game?"

How can it be right that a club invests over many years to develop a player, only to have him move on fee-free (particularly to a parasite club who don't produce their own players)?

I don’t misunderstand at all, the club can charge £140 per week for the duration that said player was in their youth set up.

You think that RL can afford to freeze out young talented players
Clubs run Youth set ups, the fact that they might lose a few is just the way it is and they know this before they even start.