A poor comparison, wouldn't it be nice if Carter & Co were in a position financially to compete with such as Leeds.

Principles not cash

Fine sentiments unfortunately principles don't pay the bills.

So we see 2 young players frozen out of the game, you do know that the Academy is largely funded by the RFL with Wakefield College pretty much covering player salaries till they’re 18?
Scholarship Coaches are volunteers and Academy Coaches/HoY double up as 1st team staff

The investment from the club isn’t as great as you’d imagine

Would Leeds be entitled to compensation ?
Broadbent was 22 in November , so wouldnt the compensation rule expiry on 1st Dec?

I don't know fully the investment from this club, and I suspect neither do you.

With regards to the 2 young players frozen out of the game they do have choices as did Kershaw, how they choose to deal with it is up to them, your just arguing a matter of principle apparently, my thoughts on the matter would be to get rid of the agent firstly and think what's best for me and not my agent.

We do have to keep paying them until they reach a certain age which for Croft is one year and Shaw two. The choice is pay them not to play or allow them to leave cut your losses and avoid the bad publicity.

I can assure you that Wakefield College do not pay a penny to any player.

What bad publicity??

Any negativity is to be aimed at the rules of the competition, not any individual club.

We are following the rules.

If a club wants to come in and buy Croft/Shaw, I'm sure Carter will be very realistic in doing a deal.

Until then, we protect our investment.

You don’t think being the only club to stop two young out of contract players from moving on without a transfer looks good. If you know of this scenario being attributed to any other club please let me know because I cannot think of any but my memory is not infallible.

The only bad publicity seems to be coming from certain fans on here determined to show the club in a poor light, the boards interest is towards the club.

I don't think it "looks" like anything more than it is - a club following the rules.

There are clubs chasing Shaw and Croft and they are trying to duck their responsibilities and get players that someone else has spent a lot of time and money developing, on the cheap.

This will all be resolved in due course.

I didn’t even realise this rule existed but following the thread it does seem to make a lot of sense, particularly when some of the clubs in a significantly better position than Wakefield choose not to spend the money on player development.

Can entirely see why any club wouldn’t want to put time money and effort into a player so they can walk away and effectively sign on a free.

Shaw has looked like he might make a decent prop, and if the rumours are to be believed has had some interest from clubs looking to pick him up cheap - so guess if that’s the case it’s time to put up or shut up.

Other side of this it also says to players that the club expects them to honour agreements made

pretty much agree with you on this ,

You think it is a good look therefore I am sure you will be able to provide examples of this scenario at other clubs.
The board interest may be the club but this means we pay for two players, for what to make a point. If it was a good idea I am sure you will be able to provide example and I wait your reply.