I think with some people thinking that Wakefield were still not classed as a SL club only last week suggests that some people do not fully understand the situation. It'll all come out in the wash as they say.

It's really quite simple and in many ways the exact opposite of what some people think they understand about it.

And anyone who states they had ever even heard of the RFL's supplement clause bank, clause 10.4 and understands the interpretation of it and how it applies in the current context of Fax, Walmsley and Wakefield well all I can say is, how, when to my knowledge it's never happened in these circumstances before!

Both clubs are in negotiations, Wombat is awaiting the outcome and Matt Shaw is accurately reporting the situation.

Fax have Walmsley signed for another 12 months, he can only be released if a S L club meets the terms, including paying the fee recorded in it, the fee can't be circumvented and still somehow trigger the release.
As a minimum Fax will receive that amount should Walmsley leave.

On seeing the terms that's what Wakefield think they have done.

Fax would prefer to keep him instead of having the money and the only way they can do that is by disputing the interpretation of the clause and have nothing to lose by doing so.

The next move will be down to Wakefield, will they withdraw the offer and look elsewhere, increase the offer or choose to go to tribunal with the current offer, in any case Fax will not be letting Walmsley leave for nothing.

So the question is on miraculously finding out about this release clause and triggering it, why have Wakefield not signed Walmsley yet? Wakefield could have signed him weeks back, there is literally no grey area for the interpretation but as of yet despite wanting to leave Walmsley has yet to sign a contract with them. Wakefield have done the hard work now and the next step will be waiting for Walmsley to put in a transfer request. Why pay a fee when you can unsettle a player and get him to leave for next to nothing. As they say there are non so blind as those who refuse to see.

Probably worth adding that the fee would be around 10-20k that is in the contract and yet Wakefield are stalling on that, I mean come on, its not rocket science, they probably want to pay about 3-5k at most.There is nothing new going on here, this sort of stuff has gone on for decades and I would love for Fax to be on the right side of one but we won't be.

Well back to my blind and lack of understanding opinion.

Matt Shaw reported on the release clause being the sticking point and I choose to believe him over posters pure speculation on here, that being the case.

1.) Wakefield can't claim to be a Super League club and trigger the release clause but say they won't pay, the two are bound together and are legally binding, no grey area it's in clear sight written down in black and white.

2.) Without triggering the release clause Wakefield have no basis for signing Walmsley.

3.) And if they haven't triggered it Fax have no reason to be in negotiations with them in the first place and would just tell them to sod off, again it's in black and white, the clause states that negotiations will take place between the two clubs involved IF it's been triggered.

Has it never occoured to anyone that Wakefield's approach coincided with being relegated so maybe they wouldn't have been as interested in Walmsley had they stayed in Super league!!?
Additionally when they did finally decide to make an enquiry because to us he's a valuable player who's under contract Fax naturally don't want him to go to them and are disputing their Super League status, who of us wouldn't do so?

So we now have Wakefield saying they were a Super League club when they made the approach and that's their interpretation.
Fax are saying your not a Super League club now and won't be when Walmsley will be playing for you next season and that's our interpretation.
The grey area is regarding the rules ( who on here honestly knows how they apply in this situation?)
Likewise, who on here can't see that the reason for Fax to dispute them is perfectly understandable.

(Not that it matters but as far as I'm concerned that's my opinion as well, their not a Super League club now and as regards the clause ceased to be when they were confirmed as being relegated, the rest is irrelevant.)

Of course we all know of wheeler back handed dealings in the past but in my opinion this situation is different.

As far as I know there has never been a confirmed relegated Super League club who have triggered a release clause under this rule with this set of circumstances so if this scenario has gone on for decades post who it was and what the outcome was.

Fax and Wakefield are reported to still be in normal negotiation mode, Walmsley himself made reference to this when he said he hoped a deal could be reached or as speculated by an outsider who has actually spoken to no one is the following back handed scummy approach.

Hello Halifax it's Wakefield here, can we sign Walmsley from you for next to nowt, sorry for being a bit late with the request but we've cunningly found out that there is a release clause in his contract and don't want to pay the fee so we thought we'd put it out there, maybe unsettle him a bit, you know how it works can we come maybe have a chat about it.
Yes tomorrow will be fine, see you then, oh hang on could you drive over here so we can screw you some more, you can, great catch you later.

Don't think Wakefield have announced any new signings - not even officially confirmed Powell as coach - presumably all down to the fact that transfer of the club to new owners has still not been completed. I'm sure several transfers including Walmsleys will have been provisionally agreed but can't bee announced until ownership situation resolved.

Could be and good points, change of ownership certainly affected our recruitment last year as will a change of coach and for Wakey being relegated no doubt affected retentions / incomings and if Walmsley is going should hear something more on it when he comes back from holiday.

The situation above is as cut and dried as it can be. Wakefield are a SL club until their players SL contracts expire for this season.

I think the only interpretation up for debate is what angle Wakefield are using to achieve their desired goal which is to sign Walmsley for as little money as they can. I do think this is the part where people are getting confused as to what is actually going on, and in my eyes it is very scummy what Wakefield are trying to do and I will say that until proved otherwise, but Wakefield could sign Walmsley today if they liked(presuming end of month contract expiry as mentioned above but the same applies before last weeks Grand Final) as long as firstly, Walmsley agreed personal terms(maybe this is holding it up?), and secondly they were willing to pay the fee that is in Walmsley's contract. The fact that they have yet to announce his signing suggests to me Wakefield don't want to pay that fee and I would go so far to say that they are pretty confident that they can get Walmsley to force a release and they can negotiate a lesser fee with Fax knowing they will not want to keep an unhappy player.

How often will you see a player coming out in the press basically saying he wants to leave and then goes back on that and ends up re-settling at his current team? Another interesting angle is that it may be in Walmsley's best interests to wait a couple of weeks and then London officially become a SL team and could be another possible destination for him and could give him some negotiating power of his own. If I were him that would be my play, this would also be a good thing for Fax as well in regards getting more money for him.

But Walmsley isn’t a Wakefield player so what applies to their current squad can’t be applied to him and my understanding is that the SL season ended on the 14th with the grand final and their players contracts became null and void after they were confirmed relegated and their last game which was before that date, either way it doesn’t change what angle Fax are disputing it from whether their right or not is irrelevant that’s the point you apparently don’t understand.

Concerning that I’m not confused at all, this thread was started with the Matt Shaw link which specifically says what the sticking point is mentioning the exact sub rule that covers it and that is what I am basing all my comments on and my opinion is that out of everybody who has said anything about it I choose to believe him.

If it was something other than that why would he not simply say so?

If you want to say me basing a discussion on the original link equates to not understanding, being blind and he can’t be trusted and you know better and post multiple speculative alternatives with no factual evidence to support it that’s your choice but it’s not mine.

On Wakefield talking to Walmsley again as per the terms of release rule no club can make a direct approach to the player and offer personnel terms, negotiations must take place between the two clubs and once they reach an agreement then the buying club can speak to him, of course if it gets to that stage there won’t be a problem as Walmsley himself said he wants to go full time to have a better chance of getting into SL but if you accept he said that then you must accept what he said about the clubs reaching an agreement in the same interview he can’t sign until that happens or whilst he’s away in Europe.

If you want to speculate and say Wakefield are playing for time it could well back fire if a current SL club comes in and legitimately triggers the release so if they really want him would they take the risk over 10 or 20 grand when they have a millionaire backer?
And it could be Fax playing for time putting the pressure on Wakefield knowing that they can’t get less than what’s already been offered or could even get to keep him.

Likewise if you speculate he can demand a release then as far as I’m concerned it would be demand and be dammed, your our player, your in breech of contract and your going nowhere otherwise you could open up the floodgates for an endless repeat episode in the future with anyone else with all the disruption that could cause.

Stepping away from Matt Shaw and the link I personally think it highly likely Walmsley will end up at Wakefield or somewhere else, Liam Finn admitted it would be hard to keep hold of him but at least for the fee specified in the release clause in my opinion.

PS. I have to edit about 20 times because when using an iPad it writes what it wants or the page fails before finishing .

We know how this goes so I am stepping out. There are a lot of things not correct in the above.

My last attempt based on what we actually do know as fact.

1.) This threads discussion was based on this link. while Wakefield had activated a release clause in his contract."

3.) Halifax have contested the interpretation of the clause, resulting in no agreement being reached at this stage[/i

4.) This was said about the clause. As per the RFL's supplement clause bank, clause 10.4 states"If you receive an approach from a Super League Club, the Club agrees to enter into negotiations with the Super League Club (on your behalf) in good faith with a view to reaching an agreement for your release and transfer to such Super League Club and the Club agrees that it will release you provided that the transfer fee is at least [insert amount]."[/i

5.) This is what Walmsley said. "Discussing the interest, [i"I just want to get myself into a full-time environment, whether that is Wakefield or any Super League team. If a deal happens I'll be blessed and happy. I want to get into a full-time team and push for Super League and I think it's my best chance to make it to Super League. I love Halifax and I've loved my time here, but I did the same to go from Whitehaven to Halifax and I think I've got to do the same now if I want to take another step in my career."[/i

Based on this article it's all crystal clear.

1.) Wakefield have activated the release clause which includes the Fee.
2.) Halifax have contested the terms of the release based on their interpretation of Wakefield's Super League status because they have been relegated.
3.) Walmsley regarding the above hopes a deal can be done between the two clubs so he could get closer to his SL dream and even acknowledged that this could be first going full time with Wakefield to "push for SL" or to any existing SL team.
(Even he doesn't think Wakefield are in Super League at this point in time!!)

Against that you have a poster who having spoken to none of the those involved completely ignores all the above and comes out with multiple unsupported alternatives which have no basis in facts and are purely products of their imagination whilst claiming others lack understanding and are blind.

My opinion is, my conclusions of what is going on are based on the journalist instead of the fantasist.

New Wakefield owners confirmed today, would be very surprised if Walmsley, plus others, aren't now also confirmed within next few days.

Yep, from their side he’s the one who signs the checks so to speak also won’t be the only club who are waiting to see if their one of the 12 chosen ones, or how close they are to see if it’s worth it.

rlhttps://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/lachlan-walmsley-paid-towards-transfer-28236016rl

Well played Wakey. Every trick in the book not to pay up, more fool Walmsley going to an empoyer who clearly can't value him that highly.

Suppose we ought to be glad Lachlan contributed or we may have lost him back to Oz without recompense..embarrassing for their new ‘money consortium’ penny pinching shysters hope it implodes soon and badly,they’ve enjoyed undeserved lofty status for years..

It shows how committed Lachlan is to play full time RL. Not many, if any, players would use their own money for a transfer deal.
He has shown Wakefield what a committed player he is even before putting his boots on for them.