What is the difference between this player going to the NRL and Croft. The situations appear to be exactly the same because I may be wrong but I don’t think we receive any money from this transfer. I guess we will have to pay to retain his registration should he return but for Croft his agent is a parasite, why?.

Here we go

The answer is blatantly obvious, think about it.

Being offered a gig in the NRL is about as good as it gets for a young player.
Never mind the prestige, salary, climate, experience etc and on this occasion, any half decent employer would allow a person to leave with their blessing.
Although disappointing to lose an excellent young player, you just have to let the lad go and hope thet he fully realises his undoubted potential.
There are no guarantees on the playing side but, for life experience and development, it's the chance of a lifetime.
It will be exciting to see whether he makes it out there and I certainly hope that he does.

Precisely, the point I didn't make clear enough, it seems, is that we have four very good wingers, so let the best two play, whatever combination.

I honestly thought that tackle would alert top Union clubs - the way he not only brought him down but put himself in a position to dominate the tackle that would've allowed him to win the ball either by mauling or via a penalty if the tackled player held on. He's got the skills and attitude to make it to the top in both codes, I'm pleased he didn't go to the dark side.

I for one am delighted he's seized the chance of a lifetime while disappointed that we've lost two superb wingers in successive years.

No please enlighten me because you are usually enthusiastic to show your wealth of knowledge Trinity wise.

whilst i agree with that the obvious does seem fairly self evident, as far as we are aware murphy is going to see out his contract and has even directly approached by a top aussie side, very disappointed but good luck to him.

croft and shaw appear to have been trying to go to other uk clubs without said clubs compensating the club for the money and time they put into developing them, quite rightly the cub stood there ground.

i think the other obvious difference is that murphy is the best winger prospect in the uk game right now, croft looks at best a journey man player and really shaw is literally an unproven academy player

Firstly, no transfer has happened yet, so you don't know any details, but the dev contract deals with RFL member clubs.
So Roosters would have to pay to break his contract, but to take him once contract ended is just a new contract negotiation. No development agreement in place.
If he's on a 2 year contract then no point retaining the clause as it will be over by the time he goes somewhere he that would need to pay.

I guess in theory, Sts could get Roosters to sign him on 2 year contract, pushing us to release him from his dev contract and then Sts do a deal with Roosters to release him from contract.

Nothing to do with Trinity much as you'd love it to be, it's the rules of the RFL.

The Croft/Shaw issue was that the agent, refused two deals. He did so, from what I've learned from two sources now, by convincing the lads that other clubs would be interested, hence the idea put on here that Wigan were after Shaw, they clearly weren't. Hence both players have now had to play in France and Australia because they can't go anywhere in the UK, unless someone pays the compensation and nobody wants to and never did. I believe Trinity are quite flexible on the compensation, but we still deserve some and thems is the rules.

Murphy, if the story is true, has already refused our offer and negotiated a deal, in principle at least, and thus at the end of his contract being a free agent he can go to Australia if he wants. Australian clubs do not pay compensation for Academy players.

So Murphy and his agent have followed the rules and made a decision - Croft and Shaw are basically doing time until they are free agents again - meaning their SL careers should they have one are at least a season behind. Murphy if this is correct has done it to the book, it just happens that his decision means we get nothing, had he gone to Saints we would. However all the compensation in the world wouldn't make him joining another SL team palatable imo so that's why most sane fans are happier with this outcome, though keeping him would be far better.

Croft/Shaw - agent acted poorly, now they are stuffed

Murphy - agent acted correctly, he's possibly in clover

They could be the same agent for all I know but this time he's wised up, but I doubt it is.

Mc won't pay! our young stars are just walking away, before croft got his deal in Australia I heard he was going back on the building site that's how bad mc s offer was!!!

Agree he knows everything everyone....not

Phew. Thank goodness you are here to explain things.

Well it may or may not have been a poor offer but it was improvement on his last deal, he hardly walked away the club put the money somewhere else.

Yes because we can compete with an offer from NRL side Sydney Roosters.

The Shaw and Croft offers were an increase but as yet their potential hasn’t been realised.

If the deals not done yet there could still be negotiating room, I’m sure the club will offer the best deal they can do for a talent like Murphy. He is the best young winger in the league.

Were they also out of contract but because of their ages we were due compensation if they signed for another English club. The same will apply to Murphy he was offered a new contract based on your information, his agent turned it down. Like the other two we would be due compensation but because he is going to the NRL we are not but to retain his registration I guess we must continue to pay his contract until he is 22 I believe.
The two situations are exactly the same, because maybe no SL club wanted to pay us the compensation for Murphy so his agent has come up with the same way to pressure the club to release his registration at the end of his current contract.
I am not questioning a supporter’s feelings which I doubt forms part of any negotiations but your assumption that one agent is a parasite but the other is not.
I know this is currently hypothetical but I was not the one who felt that both cases were handled differently.