Jump to content

Potential Players Strike


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

The criticism came about because they had only played something like 3 games when he said it IIRC. As Harry Stottle said they then replaced a lot of the squad bringing in almost a full team just ahead of the qualifiers. Even so they still only stayed up by winning the MPG.

We won our first 2 matches so doubt he said it then.  That season we narrowly lost at home to saints at home picked up loads of injuries and that was the season done until the middle 8s.

Up the Trin

Link to comment
Share on other sites


14 minutes ago, WakefieldCityLoyal said:

We won our first 2 matches so doubt he said it then.  That season we narrowly lost at home to saints at home picked up loads of injuries and that was the season done until the middle 8s.

Up the Trin

I am recalling the timing from memory but it was very early in the season as I remember him getting criticised at the time for throwing in the towel when avoiding the bottom 4 was clearly still achievable. That season kicked off at the end of the first week in Feb and (according to Wikipedia) he was sacked by Trinity on 19th May. At the point he was sacked a BBC article (James Webster: Wakefield coach unsure about future) on 18th May 2015 stated Trinity had lost 12 of their last 13 competitive fixtures at that stage. So I would imagine many of your better results that year came after his tenure. I remember it more for the stick he got at the time for 1. saying it publicly and 2. doing so so early in the campaign. I wasn't meaning to have a dig at your club so sorry if that's how it came across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wiganermike said:

The criticism came about because they had only played something like 3 games when he said it IIRC. As Harry Stottle said they then replaced a lot of the squad bringing in almost a full team just ahead of the qualifiers. Even so they still only stayed up by winning the MPG.

12 of the 17 that turned out against Bradford  in the £million game were in the Wakefield squad at the start of the 2015 season.   Tim Smith would have been included but was left out following his drunken escapade. 

The main players released  were McShane, Paea and Collis, all replaced with supposedly weaker players but bigger hearts (Tupou, Moore and Mullally).  

Webster out and Brian Smith in was a good move too.

  • Like 2

This world was never meant for one as beautiful as me.
 
 
Wakefield Trinity RLFC
2012 - 2014 "The wasted years"

2013, 2014 & 2015 Official Magic Weekend "Whipping Boys"

2017 - The year the dream disappeared under Grix's left foot.

2018 - The FinniChezz Bromance 

2019 - The Return of the Prodigal Son

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wollo Wollo Wayoo said:

12 of the 17 that turned out against Bradford  in the £million game were in the Wakefield squad at the start of the 2015 season.   Tim Smith would have been included but was left out following his drunken escapade. 

The main players released  were McShane, Paea and Collis, all replaced with supposedly weaker players but bigger hearts (Tupou, Moore and Mullally).  

Webster out and Brian Smith in was a good move too.

Wakefield did bring in a clutch of new players ahead of the qualifiers, that said they were not the only ones to do so. Clubs heading into the qualifiers completing squad overhauls was the reason that the player registration deadline was altered. Agreed about Brian Smith, a very good coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope any player that strikes is shown the door as quickly as possible and no club ever offers them another contract.

Simply greedy and shortsighted. 

If they strike they run the risk of taking clubs down, potentially SL.This is not about the wealthy directors or the players but the huge team of normal salaried people each club has as well as all the connected trades.

They'll all need a second career so nevermind it is a short career, poor blokes etc they, like the rest of us have to, must get real with what is happening.

If they don't like it, retire and get a normal job which will certainly pay much less than the temporarily reduced contract. Geez Wakefield cannot afford paint for the steps pre Covid, just wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

I hope any player that strikes is shown the door as quickly as possible and no club ever offers them another contract.

Simply greedy and shortsighted. 

If they strike they run the risk of taking clubs down, potentially SL.This is not about the wealthy directors or the players but the huge team of normal salaried people each club has as well as all the connected trades.

They'll all need a second career so nevermind it is a short career, poor blokes etc they, like the rest of us have to, must get real with what is happening.

If they don't like it, retire and get a normal job which will certainly pay much less than the temporarily reduced contract. Geez Wakefield cannot afford paint for the steps pre Covid, just wrong.

Interesting opinion for a fan of a sport that was literally created so that players could be paid a decent wage for their efforts.

  • Like 5

"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."

Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Players already make sacrifices to have a professional Rugby career, as young teenagers many of them will spurn the chances of apprenticeships or career courses in far more stable and lucrative employment. That’s their decision, they know they could make more money as an accountant, roofer, builder etc.

In these unprecedented circumstances everyone has made a salary sacrifice, I don’t know of a single player who hasn’t been realistic about helping his club and the sport in general by taking a cut in pay.

At Wakefield the players already put up with not having the best of things, the things that players at most other clubs can take for granted. Of course they know about most of these things when they sign so they get it, Wakefield’s not a glamour club!

If they’re being asked to take deeper cuts than players at other clubs then I can understand their unease. If Player A is taking less of a cut than Player B while Player C isn’t being asked to take a cut at all then I can see why they’re angry.

Im not surprised that this is happening under Carter

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OMEGA said:

Players already make sacrifices to have a professional Rugby career, as young teenagers many of them will spurn the chances of apprenticeships or career courses in far more stable and lucrative employment. That’s their decision, they know they could make more money as an accountant, roofer, builder etc.

 

Can't speak for Wakefield but many clubs these days have skills training programmes for their players. At Saints all the youngsters coming through their system are enrolled into college and all the senior players who didn't have that available to them as young players are offered training paid for by the club. Players like LMS who are coming to the end of their careers already have another profession to fall back on, in his case as a plumber.

St.Helens - The Home of Rugby Champions

Saints Men's team - Triple Champions & Double Winners ; Saints Women's team - Treble Winners ; Thatto Heath - National Conference Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Can't speak for Wakefield but many clubs these days have skills training programmes for their players. At Saints all the youngsters coming through their system are enrolled into college and all the senior players who didn't have that available to them as young players are offered training paid for by the club. Players like LMS who are coming to the end of their careers already have another profession to fall back on, in his case as a plumber.

In the case of 1st & 2nd year Academy the clubs receive a payment of around £3,500 to £4,000 per year from the College or Education department for every player who undertakes a course, The problem is that Academy players need to be available for training so Clubs push players to take the same courses which allows them to all be available for training at the same time. So the actual courses available to the younger players is very limited and often pushes smarter lads into courses that are well below their potential.

3rd year Academy players are then faced with a choice of continuing their studies at University or accepting an often derisory salary to sign a pro contract and continuing to chase the dream.

Ill give you one example: 

A young lad I know, a halfback and a good prospect was offered £7,000pa to sign a Super League first team squad contract. He had been holding off an offer of an apprenticeship for 12 months but finally decided to leave the game and become an apprentice roofer on £28,000 a year rising to almost £40,000 after his apprenticeship was over.

Now he decided to leave Rugby but many stay and forgo a better career that pays better and offers a lifetime of employment rather than 15+ years.

Most of the senior players, and it’s by no means the majority, do something of their own volition albeit encouraged by the club. 

My overall point is that players make many career and financial sacrifices chasing their dream of making it as a pro Rugby League Player. Even those that make it and retire at 30+ won’t have the earning capacity that they could have had without Rugby League. Often they’ll end up doing low paid manual work, nothing wrong in that I’ve done it most of my life, but it’s a result of playing the game we love. Their choice I know but a sacrifice all the same.

So back to the point in question, in these trying times if a club is asking you to take a pay cut after a player has already given up so much, I can understand their frustrations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WakefieldCityLoyal said:

Apprentice roofer 28k? 

Apprentice might be too strict a word, he was working as a roofer and learning some specialist skills on the job. This was about 5 years ago and I can tell you he’s definitely earning the sort of money suggested

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WakefieldCityLoyal said:

Apprentice roofer 28k? 

 

2 hours ago, Tre Cool said:

I can believe that, it's a well paid job.

DMR Roofing Academy (Wigan) offers minimum wage rate ("some employers may offer more") within their advert for Roofing Apprenticeship

 

1 hour ago, Scubby said:

Plenty of nights on the tiles at that sort of salary

Plenty of days on the tiles to earn it too!

This world was never meant for one as beautiful as me.
 
 
Wakefield Trinity RLFC
2012 - 2014 "The wasted years"

2013, 2014 & 2015 Official Magic Weekend "Whipping Boys"

2017 - The year the dream disappeared under Grix's left foot.

2018 - The FinniChezz Bromance 

2019 - The Return of the Prodigal Son

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, nadera78 said:

Interesting opinion for a fan of a sport that was literally created so that players could be paid a decent wage 

None of us know the finer points of the strike action however it would be fair to assume no club is rubbing their hands together at the prospect of fleecing the players.

The world is heading for a depression not a recession. The reality of a moderate pay reduction, in the context of average pro SL wages, still leaves the players extremely well positioned compared to the average man on the street. Put the violins away.

Whilst no man wants to take a pay cut as typically we all cut our cloth accordingly, the stark reality of the world we're in should immediately remove any rational arguments they pitch.

It is simply wrong to hold others to ransom for your own personal greed  especially when it could effect thousands of others and not just yourself.

Yes they have a contract. How much will it be worth when they hold their hand out to the official receiver! Nothing.

They are not being wronged or cheated, this is something we are all in together. Should these clubs let some admin staff, cleaners, ground staff etc go so these moaning idiots can get their contracted 'decent wage', get real.

I'm sorry it's tripe. Try being an employer and responsible for keeping hundreds of people's families fed and you'll soon lose any sympathy for the top earners complaints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

None of us know the finer points of the strike action however it would be fair to assume no club is rubbing their hands together at the prospect of fleecing the players.

The world is heading for a depression not a recession. The reality of a moderate pay reduction, in the context of average pro SL wages, still leaves the players extremely well positioned compared to the average man on the street. Put the violins away.

Whilst no man wants to take a pay cut as typically we all cut our cloth accordingly, the stark reality of the world we're in should immediately remove any rational arguments they pitch.

It is simply wrong to hold others to ransom for your own personal greed  especially when it could effect thousands of others and not just yourself.

Yes they have a contract. How much will it be worth when they hold their hand out to the official receiver! Nothing.

They are not being wronged or cheated, this is something we are all in together. Should these clubs let some admin staff, cleaners, ground staff etc go so these moaning idiots can get their contracted 'decent wage', get real.

I'm sorry it's tripe. Try being an employer and responsible for keeping hundreds of people's families fed and you'll soon lose any sympathy for the top earners complaints.

The impression I've got is that the top earners are holding out for the bottom earners because they have bigger sway in the club. Rather than selling their poorer team mates out.

Bear in mind one of the clubs told a top 25 player only a few weeks ago that his pittance of a wage was "enough" despite him having to take on a second job in lockdown. In this case its 1870s ownership beliefs meets 1970s trade unionism. This is also the same "professional club" which is basic in so many other ways that players at other clubs take for granted. Perhaps the players have had enough of being treated like workhorses.

These aren't very professional organisations sadly and it is being exposed now.

Edited by Tommygilf
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

None of us know the finer points of the strike action however it would be fair to assume no club is rubbing their hands together at the prospect of fleecing the players.

The world is heading for a depression not a recession. The reality of a moderate pay reduction, in the context of average pro SL wages, still leaves the players extremely well positioned compared to the average man on the street. Put the violins away.

Whilst no man wants to take a pay cut as typically we all cut our cloth accordingly, the stark reality of the world we're in should immediately remove any rational arguments they pitch.

It is simply wrong to hold others to ransom for your own personal greed  especially when it could effect thousands of others and not just yourself.

Yes they have a contract. How much will it be worth when they hold their hand out to the official receiver! Nothing.

They are not being wronged or cheated, this is something we are all in together. Should these clubs let some admin staff, cleaners, ground staff etc go so these moaning idiots can get their contracted 'decent wage', get real.

I'm sorry it's tripe. Try being an employer and responsible for keeping hundreds of people's families fed and you'll soon lose any sympathy for the top earners complaints.

It's interesting you paint the clubs as poor victims having to cut their cloths accordingly, but players as being greedy. It is clear which side you have come down on. 

I expect all players are well aware there will be impacts, it doesn't mean that they should just accept whatever the clubs offer. 

I find your post bizarre, particularly as you say without knowing the detail. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

None of us know the finer points of the strike action however it would be fair to assume no club is rubbing their hands together at the prospect of fleecing the players.

The world is heading for a depression not a recession. The reality of a moderate pay reduction, in the context of average pro SL wages, still leaves the players extremely well positioned compared to the average man on the street. Put the violins away.

Whilst no man wants to take a pay cut as typically we all cut our cloth accordingly, the stark reality of the world we're in should immediately remove any rational arguments they pitch.

It is simply wrong to hold others to ransom for your own personal greed  especially when it could effect thousands of others and not just yourself.

Yes they have a contract. How much will it be worth when they hold their hand out to the official receiver! Nothing.

They are not being wronged or cheated, this is something we are all in together. Should these clubs let some admin staff, cleaners, ground staff etc go so these moaning idiots can get their contracted 'decent wage', get real.

I'm sorry it's tripe. Try being an employer and responsible for keeping hundreds of people's families fed and you'll soon lose any sympathy for the top earners complaints.

There's a few things to take issue with here. 

Firstly, the playing talent has already shouldered more than enough of the burden of the game's poor commercial performance. The salary cap is more £1m less in real terms than it was in 2000. Whichever way you look at it, that's an appalling level of wage regression and the blame for that lies solely with those sat in the club boardrooms - not the players so yes, the players are being "wronged" and "cheated".  The clubs have already had far more than their pound of flesh out of the players, and now they seemingly want the rest of the carcass. 

And unlike the rest of us, who are free to test our value on the open market, the players have that ability supressed by a cabal of owners that is deliberately colluding to supress their earning potential. This is not a situation that you can apply the divide and conquer "we're in this together" tactic because the rules do not apply - the club owners are "in it together" to keep player renumeration low. 

Portraying these players as "greedy" is also out of line. You have no idea what financial circumstances these players are faced with. 

As for the "man in the street" comment, give me a break. We're not crabs in a bucket here. We shouldn't resent one group of people for doing well or for looking after themselves when others are struggling. RL players are skilled individuals, there will likely remain a demand for their skills when this is over and they shouldn't be apologetic about wanting to be paid for those skills. 

No player has flat-out refused any form of pay cut - as clubs (including Wakefield) were very happy publically champion. But clearly the players at some club believe that a line has been crossed - a line that they feel means that are unfairly carrying a disproportionate share of the issue. 

Personally, I'd like to see the players union being somewhat more hard line - accepting wage reductions for a fixed period, on a condition that the clubs reform the salary cap so that, at the very least, it keeps pace with RPI. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Personally, I'd like to see the players union being somewhat more hard line - accepting wage reductions for a fixed period, on a condition that the clubs reform the salary cap so that, at the very least, it keeps pace with RPI. 

Thats all very well Micheal, but as things presently stand how many clubs could afford to keep pace with the RPI,  and if in "real" terms the SC of 2000 had kept in line and scaled up to todays value there would not be 12 clubs in SL today probably about 4 or 5. The clubs simply cannot pay what they are not generating,

I expect you to start throwing your marketing strategies into the discussion now, but that will have to be applied and produce the nessacary results before you start handing out wage rises.

Edited by Harry Stottle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Thats all very well Micheal, but as things presently stand how many clubs could afford to keep pace with the RPI,  and if in "real" terms the SC of 2000 had kept in line and scaled up to todays value there would not be 12 clubs in SL today probably about 4 or 5. The clubs simply cannot pay what they are not generating,

I expect you to start throwing your marketing strategies into the discussion now, but that will have to be applied and produce the nessacary results before you start handing out wage rises.

The question to be tackled is why the clubs are generating so little that they can't afford to (in some cases) even pay up to a salary cap that is £1m less than it should be. How many other seemingly elite pro sports have seen such a level of regression? 

The issue is completely down to decisions in the boardroom and the players have been unfairly left to carry the can, both in terms of an increased workload and a real-terms wage cut year after year. 

You can scoff all you want about "marketing strategies", but do you genuinely believe that how the clubs and sport as a whole portray and sell themselves to new audiences, sponsors and media isn't part of the picture? 

This is 20 years worth of chickens coming home to roost. The entire Super League board has been set up to ensure that it's very hard for poorly clubs to fail, to limit the personal contribution of certain individuals and to ensure that the players are the ones who pay the price. I would completely support the players union saying that they'd had enough of playing such a rigged game.

If Michael Carter's club (or anyone elses) can't grow to at least keep place with inflation, who's fault is that, why should every other club be forced to run at the pace of his in an attempt to maintain a pretence of competitiveness and why, above all else, should it be the players who have to pay for his inablity to grow the club?

We like to talk about the "rugby league family" - what sort of family puts the people through the sort of carp that we put our players through? 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The question to be tackled is why the clubs are generating so little that they can't afford to (in some cases) even pay up to a salary cap that is £1m less than it should be. How many other seemingly elite pro sports have seen such a level of regression? 

The issue is completely down to decisions in the boardroom and the players have been unfairly left to carry the can, both in terms of an increased workload and a real-terms wage cut year after year. 

You can scoff all you want about "marketing strategies", but do you genuinely believe that how the clubs and sport as a whole portray and sell themselves to new audiences, sponsors and media isn't part of the picture? 

This is 20 years worth of chickens coming home to roost. The entire Super League board has been set up to ensure that it's very hard for poorly clubs to fail, to limit the personal contribution of certain individuals and to ensure that the players are the ones who pay the price. I would completely support the players union saying that they'd had enough of playing such a rigged game.

If Michael Carter's club (or anyone elses) can't grow to at least keep place with inflation, who's fault is that, why should every other club be forced to run at the pace of his in an attempt to maintain a pretence of competitiveness and why, above all else, should it be the players who have to pay for his inablity to grow the club?

We like to talk about the "rugby league family" - what sort of family puts the people through the sort of carp that we put our players through? 

Again I am not disagreeing with anything that you say, and it was not intentionally meant to be a scoff about marketing, FWIW I will predict that the wings of Mother SL will fold round those 'poorly' clubs even moreso come a new TV contract and close off the route from and to the Championship ensuring they do not fail. As long as the body of SL consists of one club one vote in effect voting on a conflict of interest you are quite correct things will never change.

Now can Gareth Carvell do for the RL player's of today what Jimmy Hill did for the footballer's of the early 1960's and those who followed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Again I am not disagreeing with anything that you say, and it was not intentionally meant to be a scoff about marketing, FWIW I will predict that the wings of Mother SL will fold round those 'poorly' clubs even moreso come a new TV contract and close off the route from and to the Championship ensuring they do not fail. As long as the body of SL consists of one club one vote in effect voting on a conflict of interest you are quite correct things will never change.

Now can Gareth Carvell do for the RL player's of today what Jimmy Hill did for the footballer's of the early 1960's and those who followed?

I certainly hope that Carvell can be a positive influence on the sport. 

I completely agree on the point about the voting structure, and it really does need to be reformed. The idea that the clubs have 12/13ths of the vote (the 13th being Elstone if I recall?) is a nonsense. 

I've personally suggested splitting the SL board (assuming SL is completely independent of the RFL) into something like:

45% of the vote lies with the clubs.

20% - Elstone / Independent SL executive.

20% - Players union.

10% - England team management / elite player performance management.

5% - Broadcast and sponsorship representatives. 

That's clearly a 'fag packet' calculation and there are probably flaws / better ways of doing things, but it is essentially about ensuring that the self-interest of a small amount of individuals doesn't have an excessive amount of sway over the direction of SL, to the detrement of other key stakeholders - namely the players, the England team, sponsors and media. If, under such a model, a 50%+1 vote is needed to force a change, every vote has to have the agreement of more than one party so it forces a focus on issues that the sport has neglected for so long. 

Now, that idea clearly assumes an entirely independent SL so it doesn't do much for the clubs on the outside looking in, but it's just one idea. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I certainly hope that Carvell can be a positive influence on the sport. 

I completely agree on the point about the voting structure, and it really does need to be reformed. The idea that the clubs have 12/13ths of the vote (the 13th being Elstone if I recall?) is a nonsense. 

I've personally suggested splitting the SL board (assuming SL is completely independent of the RFL) into something like:

45% of the vote lies with the clubs.

20% - Elstone / Independent SL executive.

20% - Players union.

10% - England team management / elite player performance management.

5% - Broadcast and sponsorship representatives. 

That's clearly a 'fag packet' calculation and there are probably flaws / better ways of doing things, but it is essentially about ensuring that the self-interest of a small amount of individuals doesn't have an excessive amount of sway over the direction of SL, to the detrement of other key stakeholders - namely the players, the England team, sponsors and media. If, under such a model, a 50%+1 vote is needed to force a change, every vote has to have the agreement of more than one party so it forces a focus on issues that the sport has neglected for so long. 

Now, that idea clearly assumes an entirely independent SL so it doesn't do much for the clubs on the outside looking in, but it's just one idea. 

Hi Michael 

I would prefer the Independent SL exec option, Elstone strings in my opinion are being tugged by his SL paymasters, but to proportion such a voting scheme as you suggest, will err have to be sanctioned by the one club one vote method as it stands today on any SL matter, do you envisage the clubs will allow overall control to be taken away from them? I think some clubs would see that as signing their own warrent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...