Joined: Oct 04 2008 Posts: 21040 Location: wakefield
cosmicat wrote:Mc won't pay! our young stars are just walking away, before croft got his deal in Australia I heard he was going back on the building site that's how bad mc s offer was!!!
Phew. Thank goodness you are here to explain things.
A dog is not considered a good dog because he is a good barker. A man is not considered a good man because he is a good talker - Buddha
cosmicat wrote:Mc won't pay! our young stars are just walking away, before croft got his deal in Australia I heard he was going back on the building site that's how bad mc s offer was!!!
Well it may or may not have been a poor offer but it was improvement on his last deal, he hardly walked away the club put the money somewhere else.
cosmicat wrote:Mc won't pay! our young stars are just walking away, before croft got his deal in Australia I heard he was going back on the building site that's how bad mc s offer was!!!
Yes because we can compete with an offer from NRL side Sydney Roosters.
The Shaw and Croft offers were an increase but as yet their potential hasn’t been realised.
If the deals not done yet there could still be negotiating room, I’m sure the club will offer the best deal they can do for a talent like Murphy. He is the best young winger in the league.
vastman wrote:Nothing to do with Trinity much as you'd love it to be, it's the rules of the RFL.
The Croft/Shaw issue was that the agent, refused two deals. He did so, from what I've learned from two sources now, by convincing the lads that other clubs would be interested, hence the idea put on here that Wigan were after Shaw, they clearly weren't. Hence both players have now had to play in France and Australia because they can't go anywhere in the UK, unless someone pays the compensation and nobody wants to and never did. I believe Trinity are quite flexible on the compensation, but we still deserve some and thems is the rules.
Murphy, if the story is true, has already refused our offer and negotiated a deal, in principle at least, and thus at the end of his contract being a free agent he can go to Australia if he wants. Australian clubs do not pay compensation for Academy players.
So Murphy and his agent have followed the rules and made a decision - Croft and Shaw are basically doing time until they are free agents again - meaning their SL careers should they have one are at least a season behind. Murphy if this is correct has done it to the book, it just happens that his decision means we get nothing, had he gone to Saints we would. However all the compensation in the world wouldn't make him joining another SL team palatable imo so that's why most sane fans are happier with this outcome, though keeping him would be far better.
Croft/Shaw - agent acted poorly, now they are stuffed
Murphy - agent acted correctly, he's possibly in clover
They could be the same agent for all I know but this time he's wised up, but I doubt it is.
Were they also out of contract but because of their ages we were due compensation if they signed for another English club. The same will apply to Murphy he was offered a new contract based on your information, his agent turned it down. Like the other two we would be due compensation but because he is going to the NRL we are not but to retain his registration I guess we must continue to pay his contract until he is 22 I believe. The two situations are exactly the same, because maybe no SL club wanted to pay us the compensation for Murphy so his agent has come up with the same way to pressure the club to release his registration at the end of his current contract. I am not questioning a supporter’s feelings which I doubt forms part of any negotiations but your assumption that one agent is a parasite but the other is not. I know this is currently hypothetical but I was not the one who felt that both cases were handled differently.
PopTart wrote:Firstly, no transfer has happened yet, so you don't know any details, but the dev contract deals with RFL member clubs. So Roosters would have to pay to break his contract, but to take him once contract ended is just a new contract negotiation. No development agreement in place. If he's on a 2 year contract then no point retaining the clause as it will be over by the time he goes somewhere he that would need to pay.
I guess in theory, Sts could get Roosters to sign him on 2 year contract, pushing us to release him from his dev contract and then Sts do a deal with Roosters to release him from contract.
Simple question were the two players Croft and Shaw out of contract. If the oracle is correct they turned down new deals which they can do. The contract for Murphy expires at the end of this season and he has turned down a new one therefore what is the difference. In the case of all of them the agents have circumvented the system meaning we continue to pay them or they become free agents and can return to England like you say could be the case for Murphy.
Joined: Jan 24 2007 Posts: 6297 Location: Over there
Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:Were they also out of contract but because of their ages we were due compensation if they signed for another English club. The same will apply to Murphy he was offered a new contract based on your information, his agent turned it down. Like the other two we would be due compensation but because he is going to the NRL we are not but to retain his registration I guess we must continue to pay his contract until he is 22 I believe. The two situations are exactly the same, because maybe no SL club wanted to pay us the compensation for Murphy so his agent has come up with the same way to pressure the club to release his registration at the end of his current contract. I am not questioning a supporter’s feelings which I doubt forms part of any negotiations but your assumption that one agent is a parasite but the other is not. I know this is currently hypothetical but I was not the one who felt that both cases were handled differently.
It's quite common for Aussie clubs to sign players for the year after next. Stephen Crichton has signed for the Bulldogs for 2024 onwards, for example. I would have thought it was more to do with how they do things down there than how it was done up here.
For this season, we have a great winger.
EVENTUALLY, WE'LL WIN SOMETHING, ,MAYBE, IF I'M STILL ALIVE THEN
Joined: Oct 04 2008 Posts: 21040 Location: wakefield
Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:Simple question were the two players Croft and Shaw out of contract. If the oracle is correct they turned down new deals which they can do. The contract for Murphy expires at the end of this season and he has turned down a new one therefore what is the difference. In the case of all of them the agents have circumvented the system meaning we continue to pay them or they become free agents and can return to England like you say could be the case for Murphy.
There is no difference. ......apart from where they are going.
A dog is not considered a good dog because he is a good barker. A man is not considered a good man because he is a good talker - Buddha
Joined: Oct 11 2004 Posts: 5320 Location: Orange street
I am not sure of the full facts around this one. However Murphy is not the first and will not be the last young talented player to go to The NRL. This is obviously a loophole in the system and SL needs alter the rules in order to stop our youth systems getting exploited without fair compensation.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
