Quote: vastman "It probably was his agent, but at 24 years of age he should know the score by now. If there was an offer he should just have taken it. Not many players covered themselves in glory last year and Kershaw was one. He was far from the worst but he still wasn’t in a strong position.
Whatever the truth, it’s to late now imho, there comes a point where neither side is truly committed. Doesn’t help that the lad has history in this regard.'"
Not sure how he has history, if you are referring to him having to step away from the game as he was not earning enough to support himself then I’m not sure that’s fair.
I think us fans see playing professional sport as a privilege, but the reality is it’s a job and it is earned by talent and ability that’s what sets them apart from us in the stands.
Players have lifestyle expectations they need to support just like the rest of us and if the wages offered do not meet those expectations then they move on.
I can’t talk about the new ownership as I don’t know the policy but under the recently departed administration the attitude towards our homegrown players was very much “you are lucky to play for Trinity, this is the deal, sign it.” ….and in most cases it wasn’t in line with their market value or even value to the club.
I’m hopeful this policy is addressed under Matt Ellis.
As I’ve mentioned before I’d have preferred to retain Kersh over signing Jerry and I’m sure we could have got Kersh for less than we are paying Jerry, so looking at it like that it’s an odd one.
Looking at the bigger picture Kersh may have wanted a couple of years where as Jerry being here for 1 year gives us options as we look beyond 2024 as clearly we need to focus on this year but also be planning for our SL return and recruitment too.
Talk of TJ etc returning for 2025 it’s all part of the bigger picture and longer term planning so 1 year for Jerry makes sense from that point of view.
