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.

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.

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

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.

Did we offer them a deal?

Clearly we did if the reporting is correct had they been released or no offer made then they would be free agents. Rumour was Wigan were allegedly sniffing around Shaw during the season would it be right if he refused a deal that he could go to Wigan? As an example

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/r ... ss-3942675 Trinity get a poor rating of D and favourites for relegation…

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/r ... ss-3942675 Trinity get a poor rating of D and favourites for relegation…

The club have offered both an improved deal.



They/their agents think they can better elsewhere.



In such a situation, because we have offered deals, we are entitled to compensation - that can be any amount, not necessarily the amount prescribed by the RFL contract rules.



If they end up with no club, it's their/their agents fault.

That’s laughable tbh. Add Taufua who is a signing for this season that came early and I think our recruitment beats Leeds and Cas.



With Taufua and Proctor that’s 400+ nrl games…



Add in Langi who’s been a top 4 SL Centre for 5 years…



I honestly believe the quality of our signings to be good.



My only area I think we need things to click and I have some concern is halfback.



If Gaskell is to be our 6 then I hope we play to a structure and have a strict game plan for him in 2023.



I suppose Smith is also their to stake a claim and compete for the spot.

People see whatever supports their agenda... so there's no point in getting all burred up about it.



the main problem is that people respond to positive messages and negative messages... it gets frustrating that all messaging is front ended with negativity