What we see and what the management sees are two different things. Croft looked OK as did Shaw, but I certainly bow to the coach's experience and knowledge of what we don't see in a player.
If either was an outstanding prospect I'd be disappointed but they weren't.
Anyway, maybe they were offered contracts but declined them or thought they were worth more than we were prepared to pay?

Disappointed again two good players just needed game time poor from trinity

Croft has had plenty of game time. That won't suddenly make him better than Hall, Lyne, Langi or Gaskell.

Very sad story, looks like they could be forced out of the game.

No, they forced themselves out, or to be fair as they are basically only kids, they were badly advised.

There are a fair few players at Trinity who are now on pretty decent money whose first contracts were very low indeed, Crowther, Jowitt and Hall off the top of my head, they played the smart game. I know it's a short career but unfortunately the same rules apply as in any other, you start low and build up, unless of course you are freakishly talented, not the case here.

Forcing them out of the game is really bad, but they are not living on the street with the loss of a job.
We are still paying them their current contract for doing nothing.
If they then did get another job, whether scaffolding or RU, it will be quite beneficial for them.

I'd rather both parties agreed a sum that would keep them playing within our budget.
They could be just loaned out to make it cost effective.

You keep saying this but you said earlier you didn't know if we offered them a contract and I assume if you do know, you don't know how much.

So do you know they were offered a contract? Or do you assume they have?

Whats game time got to do with anything?

It's about money, they were offered a deal and didn't accept it, absolutely nothing to do with game time.

A coach puts a value on a player and the club then has to find the cash, those two players were given a value by Mash and they didn't agree. His job depends on who he signs so he cant be emotional even though he was the man who signed them as youngsters. He will have offered then the most he could but just like Chester and Poching he is yet to find the magic money tree. Do you know where it is?

Finally should you be willing to show some patience and not pre judge, you will soon see that the money earmarked for Croft and Shaw has now been used to promote two more youngsters. How do you know they won't be far better?

In fact I'd hazard a guess that one is Ollie Pratt, and no offence to Croft, Pratt is in a different class.

If we hadn't offered them a deal they would have been released as free agents, or that's how I understand it.

So even without any other knowledge I'd say yes they were. But if it helps, then yes they were, I know this to be the case.

What I don't know is the deals, that's private, and it could well have been peanuts as people love to say, but I'd suggest had it been you or I we would probably have gone for it.

As I see it these rules were brought in to protect clubs from having their pockets picked; very noble & worthwhile. It appears that the unintended consequence though is to potentially force young players to accept a contract beneath their value/worth or face being forced out of the game. This isn’t good at the best of times & with the player pool shrinking every year is just plain silly - anyone else remember pre-bosman? I just can’t see this standing up in Court, whether the player(s) can afford to challenge it is a different matter.
I’ve every sympathy with Wakefield, but I just don’t think it’s a good look for them, not any club to effectively say to young players: sign the deal or go find another sport to play. It would certainly make me re-evaluate as a parent to a rugby playing kid.

That’s the problem there can be no offer to either player because to sign either would mean compensation being paid to Wakefield. It is only your opinion they overvalued themselves maybe we undervalued them. We now face either paying their contracts for the next 24 months for Croft and 48 months for Shaw or foregoing the compensation to allow them to be free agents.
If you know another way please enlighten us.

I wonder which agent (s) represents these two. I just think there could be more to this than we believe. I know Carter can be a tight miserable sod at times and for that reason I really cant see him being happy to continue to pay these two and get nothing in return. Surely he would just cut his losses and release them as free agents.

I may be miles out here, but I am wondering if he believes they have had better offers from other clubs and said club (s) were hoping we would let them go and without enforcing a fee. However we were not falling for that and holding out.

Like I said speculation on my part, but whatever the outcome whoever is representing them has a lot to answer also for allowing them to get into this mess.

Disappointing re Shaw… thought he looked the real deal…

But we move on!