Josh rourke

[redditchbulldog]

If they have sl release clause in contract which lots will , not a lot club can do and we won't only ones its happened to 

[phildog]

Those clauses usually apply nearer season's end when a contract is nearly up. When a player has just been signed and the contract is stretching before him he is a player of that club and a fee should be due.  That's nothing to do with standing in his way, it's financial sense considering our oft-trumpetted situation.

[nineoil]

11 hours ago, phildog said:

  Why are we not more successful instead of struggles becoming more serious annually? 

It is all down to money - we do not have any money because of our small crowds so we are easy to "pick off" .

For years Batley has been a well run club  on a shoestring but the reality is that a lot of clubs in our Division can outbid us because their gates are better or have a Sugar Daddy . Unless we can double our gates ( or find a sugar daddy ) then the problem is going to remain . The problem is exacerbated by the fact that Super League clubs can grab any of our decent players for free - the deck is stacked against non-SL clubs for sure !!

The reality is that the more we struggle to sign and keep decent players the more likely it is that gates will decrease further which in turn reduces income which in turn means we have less money to sign players !!! 

It's a vicious circle and very worrying .

The best we can hope for is that we continue to punch above our financial weight

[LINNERS]

54 minutes ago, nineoil said:

For years Batley has been a well run club  on a shoestring 

The best we can hope for is that we continue to punch above our financial weight

Aye we've been doing the same thing 'for years' and it has worked out pretty well upto now, so let's have a little faith. 

[toffeedog]

What's point in contracts if you can leave before season even starts or during the season absolute joke.  

[phildog]

AND Redditch....we clearly are the only ones it happens to....who else in recent memory?

[DOGFATHER]

1 hour ago, phildog said:

AND Redditch....we clearly are the only ones it happens to....who else in recent memory?

Luke Gale last season. There was something funny with the Tee Ritson signing at Saints, he was on loan from Barrow initially, but then signed permanently at Saints. I've a feeling Leeds did it with Briscoe at Featherstone a couple of seasons back too. Tyler Dupree went from Widnes to Salford is another, without really thinking about it...

Edited December 9, 2023 by DOGFATHER

[Piggy's mate]

52 minutes ago, toffeedog said:

What's point in contracts if you can leave before season even starts or during the season absolute joke.  

Yeah, I think he should be forced to play for Batley rather than join a full-time SL club... 

 

[georgeb1]

5 hours ago, toffeedog said:

What's point in contracts if you can leave before season even starts or during the season absolute joke.  

same with any job 

[Batley Bob]

18 hours ago, phildog said:

AND Redditch....we clearly are the only ones it happens to....who else in recent memory?

Most recent ,Fev , Chris hankinson to salford

[Keep The Faith]

1 hour ago, Batley Bob said:

Most recent ,Fev , Chris hankinson to salford

He wasn’t signed for 2024 

[Rene_Artois]

Think Pauli Pauli had not long since signed a new contract with York before signing for Doncaster 

[Johnny Ringo]

On 09/12/2023 at 16:10, DOGFATHER said:

Luke Gale last season. There was something funny with the Tee Ritson signing at Saints, he was on loan from Barrow initially, but then signed permanently at Saints. I've a feeling Leeds did it with Briscoe at Featherstone a couple of seasons back too. Tyler Dupree went from Widnes to Salford is another, without really thinking about it...

What was funny about it? St Helens wanted him on loan trial from Barrow for a season, he was under contract but had a SL buy out clause, St Helens bought out the remainder of his contract. All above board. 

Edited December 16, 2023 by Johnny Ringo

[bromleybulldog]

11 hours ago, Johnny Ringo said:

What was funny about it? St Helens wanted him on loan trial from Barrow for a season, he was under contract but had a SL buy out clause, St Helens bought out the remainder of his contract. All above board. 

Exactly. StHelens bought out the remainder of his contract. We apparently have contracts with Super League release clauses in them that allow the player to leave without any compensation to the club at all. Batley 0 Agents 1.

I fully support contracts which allow players to leave for a SL team, but if the player is under contract then compensation must be included in the contract. No wonder Kevin is rethinking how we contract players in future. We have been either naive or inept. 

[Keep The Faith]

The bosman rule killed off rugby league 

Batley in 1992 paid 8 grand for Jimmy Irvine to join us from Halifax - Bernard manning helped the club raise the funds 

[toffeedog]

Well we will know if he a decent player or not if he breaks into there first team or not . Surely we had a clause saying if loaned out we get first refusal just like the 2 that went to castleford 

[Keep The Faith]

4 hours ago, toffeedog said:

Well we will know if he a decent player or not if he breaks into there first team or not . Surely we had a clause saying if loaned out we get first refusal just like the 2 that went to castleford 

No chance he’ll be on loan anywhere and who says we are getting them 2 back?

[bromleybulldog]

Featherstone have just issued a club statement regarding the transfer of Ben Reynolds to HKR and have confirmed that a significant fee has been agreed. We really dropped the ball re Josh Rourke. We should also have received a 'significant transfer fee' . The two transfer scenarios are virtually identical but we clearly didn't have the right clauses in our contract.

[Batley Bob]

Kevin could have put out a statement like that , but is it true

If its a fee , why the secrecy

Edited February 23 by Batley Bob

[bromleybulldog]

10 minutes ago, Batley Bob said:

Kevin could have put out a statement like that , but is it true

If its a fee , why the secrecy

I think Kevin already answered, stating that our contracts didn't cover this. We just had a clause stating that if  SL club came along, we would release him . Featherstone clearly much sharper and smarter than us.

[Bill H]

38 minutes ago, bromleybulldog said:

I think Kevin already answered, stating that our contracts didn't cover this. We just had a clause stating that if  SL club came along, we would release him . Featherstone clearly much sharper and smarter than us.

That might be a tad unfair Bromley.  If agents/players are looking for a SL get out clause in the deal then it may have been the only way for us to have competed for some players. 

[Piggy's mate]

Waste of brass imo

[bromleybulldog]

1 hour ago, Bill H said:

That might be a tad unfair Bromley.  If agents/players are looking for a SL get out clause in the deal then it may have been the only way for us to have competed for some players. 

Don't disagree with the SL get out clause, but having signed the player, if he then signs for someone else we should have been due a transfer fee.

[Bill H]

I don't think any of the supporters are happy with the situation Bromley but any club that bucks the trend may struggle to attract ambitious and talented young players.  Players agents no doubt like and benefit from the system.  It's very disappointing when players are signed or re signed and disappear from the club even before a game is played but I suppose that it would take a 'gentlemans' agreement between the Championship clubs to stop the practice.  It would be nice to see some financial compensation mandated from above but I can't see it happening.

Edited February 24 by Bill H

[The Phantom Horseman]

20 hours ago, bromleybulldog said:

Featherstone have just issued a club statement regarding the transfer of Ben Reynolds to HKR and have confirmed that a significant fee has been agreed. We really dropped the ball re Josh Rourke. We should also have received a 'significant transfer fee' . The two transfer scenarios are virtually identical but we clearly didn't have the right clauses in our contract.

You can't say that you know the two scenarios are virtually identical unless you know what the contracts were. I don't think it's going out on a limb to suggest that Reynolds' salary at Fev would have been a fair chunk more than Rourke's, and it's surely a lot easier to insist on a contract that doesn't have a SL getout clasue if you're paying a player enough, say, to mean that he doesn't need to work outside RL.