No examples is still no examples because if it was so positive then it must surely have occurred many times in the past.
With regards Corey Hall did we apply the same when he left for Wigan or was there something different.

The RFL have a compensation scheme in place that rewards community clubs when players they hold the initial registration sign a professional contract, there are further payments made based on appearances, this includes championship and league 1 appearences.

On the situation of paying a player £15k for a first team contract, you'd be surprised how many 17-21 year olds on wakeys books are currently paid this amount, and in the past when the level was lower, and on all these facts I have personal experience on, one of the reasons I rarely post on here now, no longer a season ticket holder and even though I was a season ticket holder last season, only used it twice, I no longer volunteer to help the club in any form and am no longer a part of the pDRL and LDSL team set up, despite being pretty instrumental in helping both teams get up and running and coached/played in both teams.

It seems the obvious answer is for whoever want the two ought to pay up. It seems Trinity wanted to retain the pair, the offer was rejected, presummebly because there was outside interest. Whoever they are, they're the bad guys in this.

Feel free to lodge a Freedom of Information request to the RFL.

They'll decline it of course, as these are private contractual matters.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove.

When they happen, they are private (in this case it's an agent feeding the press - make of that what you will).

Also, you could argue that, if it isn't happening, the rule is working in preventing young players being poached by parasite clubs.

You've got me there squire, no I cannot provide examples of this scenario at other clubs, that's probably due to no other clubs fans' being interested in they're boards dealings with financial matters, and only applies to our club because of people like you trying to portray our BOD in a bad light. HTH.

L.ike yourself I don't have a clue what the directors intentions are regarding these two players, but I can hazard a guess that whatever it is it will have the clubs interest at heart and not simply to make a point, clearly you are also clueless otherwise you wouldn't be waiting for a reply from me

The rule is not a problem the fact is that unless you can provide an example we are the only club who have applied it. I don’t need to provide any other examples of this scenario it is for you and Chissitt to do so because you don’t think it reflects badly on the club.
We apparently are quite happy to spend money we don’t have on two players to make some point which the rest of the league don’t feel the need to reciprocate.

No one has said the club are going to do this at all.
You are taking a one sided article and trying to make it a fact.
I'm pretty sure MC will not waste money.

Sorry but what don't you understand in that the club offered increased contracts in accordance with the rules. The players have rejected the tes the date has passed and they are now out of contract. The rules state not the club rules but the sports rules that in this situation the club must pay the players however if a club comes along they can sign them however there is compensation to be paid it's that simple. It's not about the ethics of it it's the rules of the game.

I can assure you that for every player that attends and graduates college Trinity get an annual kickback that covers their wage

To me, rules are rules.
They were made a contract offer and rejected it.
Don't see a problem with that....

No, now you are being cute with your words.

It's an absolute fact that Wakefield College do not pay any money to any player.

They do pay an amount per player directly to the club. It's up to the club what they do with that money.

Whether you could argue it's the "same" money that the club pays to the players is moot.

Not when it’s exactly the same money and only those going to college get that amount.
I’m not guessing here, I know from multiple experiences that this is definitely what happens.

The point is though, when the clubs claiming to have put huge amounts of investment into developing players therefore they can justifiably claim compensation it’s not exactly true. As I said earlier The RFL fund the majority of the Academy and the College money takes up a fair amount of the cost too. So holding back 2 players and claiming compensation because they won’t sign a low value contract becomes immoral IMO

You corrected my post and stated that Wakefield College paid the Trinity Academy players. They do not.

Nor is education is free (it's just "free" to the user).

I think we also looked after Croft through a season-long injury(?).

Yes and gave him the opportunity after to find some form back in the first team.

I don't really know why people are getting so upset about this.
The rules been in place for quite a while
No one at the club has said we wouldn't negotiate or waive the fee
No club has said they would sign them but won't because of the fee.