Bugger!! Forgot about them!!

Watched Dewsbury Vs Leigh yesterday,young prop for Leigh looked promising,Ryan Duffy.

Well this is exactly it isn't it. There's absolutely no point in an 1873 initiative if the players that are earmarked as potential stars are allowed to go.

Its a bit of a catch 22.
Technically 1873 is about bringing the talent through the ranks as i understand it.
Once they're in and around the first team its a club thing.
This is why we need to spend at the club £100 STs wont secure the future of our up and coming talented first teamers sadly.

That's how I understand it too - 1873 is about identifying and nurturing young talent; once the talent has been established, agents and other clubs come into the equation and we're no longer at the head of the negotiating table.

We certainly need to do better than we've done, but we'll never be able to keep them all.

Not really - when he gets to that age then he becomes the responsibilty of the first team - but why waste the money developing them if we are not serious about retaining them.

I do not want to hear excuses about how 'we tried, but someone came in with a tremendous offer' - he has been through our ranks and we have had long enough to assess him and come out with the right answer.

As a comparison - we offered Reece Lynne (who Hull were happy to let go) a 3 year deal, despite limited first team experience. I see no difference here, and Annakin is home trained, so go and give him a min 2 year extension.

I really do see this as being another key moment in our clubs development - and regrettably, most of the others in days gone by have gone wrong! If we genuinely have a 10 year plan, this is what should be in it!

Well said TRB.

Its bang on the money and will show if we have moved forward or not.

Well the rules have changed this year and if we haven't offered him a contract by 1st May then he is free to talk to other clubs so we best get a shift on.

It is a pleasure to watch Annakin play, good hands, runs in hard and full of ethusiasm. Not sure on position but one to keep. Second best player on Friday but that was only to Lomax. Just hope the boo boys haven't ruined it for him with wanting more foreign players in depth. Lets keep him and lets try and be more positive behind our team before the pressure starts to get to them.
Hope to see cowling and goulding soon.

I agree, but in all this money is usually the key/deciding factor.
You could argue that even if we weren't the best financial deal on the table the fact that a player has come through the ranks would buy you a bit of loyalty too.
In the end if we try our best to keep a player, and by that I mean stretch if we have to without over stretching and try our very best, but fail to hold onto players then that is just the nature of the game.
It's not nice but its a fact, and until we get 5000 ST holders at full price and selling BV/NM outwe aren't going to be anywhere close to the Leeds, Wigans, Warringtons etc of this world.
I have a Westwoodesque feeling about this one, but the financial stability of the club is paramount.
One mans excuses are another mans reasons I suppose and it is gut wrenching and makes you think "what's the point" I agree.

How will it? that's a very simplistic view.
Other financial constraints will have an effect and without knowing them all its difficult to call.
Hopefully we will keep him, but other offers from here and abroad may well tempt him and we may have little option.
I'm sure Bradford and STs would have loved to have kept Burgess and Graham, them leaving weren't a sign if anything other than players wanting to play in Aus and market forces.

Absolutely.

I dont see too many folk clamouring for overseas signings.
For every one that performs (like Smith), we get 2 that dont (Hickey and to a lesser extent Southern - who had other issues, rather than just on the field)
In an ideal world we'd have a classy homegrown squad with a couple of marqe overseas signinggs.
However, the reality is that we are a smaller club working on a tight budget and whatever we all think of lads like Annakin, if one of the big boys comes knocking we cant compete, not just in terms of wages but, the lure of success, which at this point in Wakefields history, we cant offer.

It is indeed a dleicate balance - the point I am making is that the advantage always lies with the home club - in that you have the first chance to sign them. In Annakins case some of us have been baying for his introduction - having confidence that he would not disappoint. Many have said he is/was too small, yet we have argued that his heart is so big it will see him through. If, due to our 'dallying' we end up in a straight street-fight as who pays most wins, then we have blown any advantage we may have had.

As for the 5,000 - if we don't show that we can keep hold of our own - again - then we will never make the 5,000 - it would certainly cut the legs from under my own enthusiasm. The top clubs invest in, and retain, the best talent at their clubs - and we are not exactly over-flowing with numbers coming through with now just Annakin, Cowling, Walshaw, Trout and Wildie left from the Championship side and of those, there are question marks over how many will make it - so much for the golden generation!

Simple solution (in text at least) - get him signed up quick!

Not for me it isn't, for years i've watched youngsters disappear from this club for one reason or another and my love for the club and the game hang on watching Wakey youngsters come through at this club.

The day we don't have any local players in a Trin side is the day i walk away.

I know many reasons affect signing players on and you can't keep them all but its got to stop.