It often seems that these things would play out much more amicably if agents weren't in the middle, with the sole interest of leveraging as much money as they can possibly squeeze out of the club; they may claim they are acting in the players best interest, and some may well be, but when their fee is directly impacted by the salary the player gets, it's impossible to believe they are selfless advocates for their client. I have a similar situation with recruitment consultants - when I'm recruiting to a senior role, it's almost impossible now to do it without using one, and they can often sour the process of on-boarding someone by making unreasonable salary demands, or packaging up someone's pay, car allowance, bonus etc, to sound like salary, to get me to up my initial offer - because that's what their fee is based on.

One can't help but wonder if this situation - and most others - would be done and dusted without any conflict, if Chairman and player could sit down and thrash it out like grown-ups, without third party, vested interests being involved.

Does he need to respond? If an offer has a lapse date and that has passed then it is gone. From there either party could have tried to begin negotiations - it doesn't sound like that has happened. It just seems bizarre that there hadn't been a follow up conversation considering that he will have been in training most days etc. Particularly before trying to do the swap deal with Hudds.

Even if the club weren't going to offer an improved deal, surely we'd want some feedback on why players aren't signing a deal that has been offered.

I agree, it must be much easier to get deals done this way.

However its a short career really, I understand that players want/need the best deals possible. Without an agent that knows what other players are earning elsewhere etc it would be hard for a player to truly know their worth.

Indeed - maybe if there was a proper players union, rather than people like John Wilkin tinkering round the edges, they could have played that role?

Indeed. I don't like how some agents operate but without them the power just shifts to the employer and players 'could' be mistreated. It's just an extension of the union principle. Good in many ways, bad when they are not acting for you.

Just read that Rocky as had 2 offers witch was not as much as Wakefield which is Agent turned down ,looks like the club is not the problem more is AGENT

I'm simply highlighting an example of a "seed" that others jump on, miss or selectively quote, expand and use as a vehicle to denigrate the club.

I'm not denigrating the club. I think it is justified to have a bit of concern about the age of players we have signed/are being linked with. Brough, Kopzack, Grix when he signed, Westerman, Atkins, Ferres is rumoured. They may well give us a few good years but they're not long term solutions.

What gets me about agents in RL is that the figures involved are generally so small they simply aren't required. Let's be honest there will be posters on here who earn far more than most players and will never have needed an agent. In football, I get it, a game where some wages being negotiated are bigger than some trade deals!

Any agent who specialises in RL players is really pecking at the crumbs, which suggests to me that they are both not very good and probably very desperate.

They just aren't need for most domestic players as to make any serious cash they absolutely have to exploit to the max.

Funny also that we demand our CEO be tough in negotiations but when they are we cry foul if the player involved is one of their favourites. Not saying this is the case here but it might be.

Also, this is a good debate, enjoying it even if I don't agree with some, pat on the back to all, real debate without being offensive a lesson our politicians could learn from.

Agree completely, I was thinking surely there's no profit to made on the back of a RL contract but I realised... aren't most players represented by ShowMeTheMoneyUK anyway?

Ferres won’t even give us one good game let alone a few good year. If it’s true.

FFS! I'm not saying you are! In your original post you loosely linked getting rid of Hampshire to signing on Ferres. That is the "seed" I am on about. Others will feed it and grow it

Ok so the club made an offer that wasn't taken up by a set date. So Ryan turns up for training and on match days but no further talks take place. It seems strange that the club didn't bring the matter up after all they must have been keen for him to sign.
So because nothing takes place the club make an offer to another player to cover the full back spot if true that would indicate that Rocky not thought of as a half back and Max remains second choice at F/B.

I really hope the Ferres rumour is something EW started in the chippy.