There is.

If a new club signs one of them and the two clubs can't agree, there is an RFL mechanism for arbitrating the deal.

Wakey know what the investment in those players is worth and other clubs' may not want to pay the compensation due for it.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... MGQMLhNHVs

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... MGQMLhNHVs

Trust the process.

That’s not a statutory minimum contract at all, if one were in force then Wakefield or any other club in the same situation would have to offer it or let the player go

The compensation due for a player who’s spent 6 years at a club is £54,600 with another £5,000 added if the player signs a contract at a new club worth over £25,000. That means Wakefield could demand almost £60,000 for Croft and if no one wants to pay it he gets locked out of the game, it’s a pathetic situation.

There was a young scrum half at Cas about 5 years ago who had played half back for a number of the England junior teams. At the age of 16 going on 17 he wanted to leave Cas and the Tigers triggered the compensation clause of over £10,000 for any other team who wanted to sign him. He ended up leaving the game and playing RU, how is that right

His name is Callum McLland. He went to Scottish rugby union but 4 months later was signed by Rhinos who then didn't need to pay Cas the compensation . He's now back at Cas

You misunderstand.

Those figures are not mandated. They are the figures implemented in the absence of a deal.

If a club wants Croft/Shaw, they can agree a different figure with Wakey. If they can't agree, the RFL default is triggered.

You say "how can it be right a player is kept out of the game?"

How can it be right that a club invests over many years to develop a player, only to have him move on fee-free (particularly to a parasite club who don't produce their own players)?

Even though you can't keep everyone, and books need to be balanced, it is a shame about this, especially as these are two of our own home grown players.

The bit of game time Shaw had last season, he looked a decent prospect, and towards the end of the season, Croft was improving too.

Hope they can find a club, as we do lose players in this country sometimes, due to other circumstances.

Lewis Murphy may be in the same situation in 12 months time. I suspect a deal will be sorted if this is the case.

No, his surname was Westwood

I don’t misunderstand at all, the club can charge £140 per week for the duration that said player was in their youth set up.

You think that RL can afford to freeze out young talented players
Clubs run Youth set ups, the fact that they might lose a few is just the way it is and they know this before they even start.

I know some of the usual suspects on here would defend the club if they committed mass genocide but there’s is a direct quote in that article that for me paints the club and those doing the deals in a poor light...

[i‘One of us has been offered the minimum value increase on top of the minimum salary’.[/i

Now if Croft is telling the truth then one of them (i’m guessing probably Shaw) was being paid £15,000. He has developed well through full time training and since gone on to play in both the championship on loan and in super league, performing well in the process. We have now offered him £15,001 in the knowledge that he is trapped as other clubs aren’t going to pay the full compensation. It’s holding a gun to their head and trying to get them on the cheap. I’m afraid that doesn’t sit well with me. Yes clubs need some protection but so do the players and that kind of practice is wrong in my opinion.

I read that bit too. I'm assuming it's Shaw. That's a schoolboy salary.

Was told last year that one of the big clubs had made a naughty move for Shaw and the club had found out. Perhaps this is a way of making sure that the club doesn't get away with getting a decent prospect for free.

Assuming this is a possibility I do not think the club would look good if they offered up an increase of £1 per year on a contract, I am not sure this would stand up to any sort of scrutiny and in my opinion would be looked down upon by any sort of Tribunal.

I have no idea what the workings are behind the scene but in such cases surely fairness should be applied otherwise its bordering on restraint.

No, I think that clubs like ours cannot afford to spend time and money developing players for other clubs to steal without recompense.

If they are that "talented", the new club should pay a fair price.