[i[/i]

[i

Obviously the big danger is getting into a downward spiral. The attendances last season were very disappointing and I'm guessing the club was down tens of thousands regarding expected income. So the 2024 prices get hiked but this will do more harm than good imo as more fans will drift away and pick and choose. I also get the feeling the current BOD may be wondering "Why do we bother" when they seem to be p*ssing against the wind.

I don't agree that [i"this is as clear cut as it comes"[/i on the reasoning that there is no precedent to base that on.

There has never been a Super League club that has been relegated who have tried to sign a contracted player from the Championship who is still under contract.

And even if it is ruled that[i "Wakefield were officially a SL club until the season finishes[/i "

As posted before [iThe RFL's supplement clause bank, clause 10.4 states."[/i

One point of the dispute moves away from [i "Wakefield were officially a SL club until the season finishes."[/i and on to.

Reaching an agreement for your [irelease and transfer to such Super League club.[/i

With that in mind it could be argued that irrespective of when the offer was was made ( which offer must have been at least the amount recorded in the contract for it to be triggered ) and Wakefield's SL status at that time.

By the time the negotiations have been agreed upon either by the clubs or by tribunal Wakefield won't be a Super League club, Walmsley won't be being transferred to a Super League club and he won't be playing for a Super League when his contract starts with them so Wakefield don't meet the requirements of that part of release clause.

Who can say for certainty what the outcome will be and I'm not going to comment on Walmsley's part in all of this until it gets resolved.

With the breakdown that you give, its really clear that Fax won't win this case if that is what they are pinning their hopes on. The wording really is clear as day if that is the exact wording(for all we know it could be slightly differen't). I don't believe this to be the situation though as I believe Wakey are trying to get him on the cheap but if this goes to tribunal under the above assumptions don't be surprised if Wakey or Walmsley try and pull the Fax breaking his contract card in not honoring the terms of his contract. Risky game that Fax are playing if that is the case and I hope they have taken some outside advice because it could be worse than first feared.

Okay it’s all as clear as day that Fax will lose Walmsley to Wakefield for nothing and because they had the audacity not to instantly agree to this they will somehow come out of it worse off and get less than nothing.

I am not sure I am quite understanding the Walmsley situation, but trust someone can clarify

- If it is decided that for the purpose of this transfer, Wakefield are classed as SL club, then wouldn't that trigger the "clause" and the fee set out in that should be paid?
- If they are classed as a championship club, then they can't trigger the clause. As he is under contract with us then if they want him, presume we can demand they compensate us with a fee or there is no deal?
- Or is the issue here that there is no fee payable if the SL Clause is triggered?

Answering in order of the questions.
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. No.

New incoming at 5pm, Davies perhaps?

Davies already signed for Bradford. Announced earlier today.

No one here knows the answers to your questions.

People like to come on this board and give 'concrete' answers and act like they know things... They do not.

We can guess but will have to wait and see.

I meant one of the other Davies, still 2 to go at according to the rumours and I did say it would get confusing.

Gareth Widdop or Connor Davies at 5pm imo. Widdop = we've got some cash. Davies = we're skint