Jump to content

Sun 13th Oct: Ch S/F: Wakefield Trinity v York Knights KO 15:00

League Express
 Share

Who will win?  

74 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?

    • Wakefield Trinity
      49
    • York Knights
      25

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 13/10/24 at 14:30

Recommended Posts

Agbrigg

Agbrigg

Posted
Posted

There is no loop hole to close. Unless you stop clubs signing players from other clubs and stop clubs loaning players out. What Trinity have done is a copy of something that has been going on in reverse for years. Many SL clubs have signed championship players and then allowed them to remain at the club on loan.

 


  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ricky
ricky

I'll be going. It'll be my second game of League, ever. How's that for newby-ism? 😁

The Phantom Horseman
The Phantom Horseman

If Hull were happy to get rid before the transfer deadline, why did Trueman play for Hull FC the day after the transfer deadline? I think I'm right in saying that due to injuries Wakefield played Jowi

north yorks trinity
north yorks trinity

When I saw the thread had grown from 2 pages to 4 since I last looked, I was quite excited that there was a lot of interest in the match, maybe tactics, predictions etc.  I've been on these board

Posted Images

dboy

dboy

Posted
Posted

Trinity signed him before the deadline and loaned him back to Hull, until such a point that Hull's season was complete.

After that point he joined Trinity for rehab and training.

There's no loophole. He's a contracted Trinity player.

Agbrigg

Agbrigg

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

 

It's fairly obvious why Trinity didn't announce this signing on deadline day...

 

Give it a rest, why is it obvious, many clubs sign players long before they are announced. 

The Phantom Horseman

The Phantom Horseman

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

There is no loop hole to close. Unless you stop clubs signing players from other clubs and stop clubs loaning players out. What Trinity have done is a copy of something that has been going on in reverse for years. Many SL clubs have signed championship players and then allowed them to remain at the club on loan.

 

Again, fairly obviously - this relates specifically to deadline day. As Bull Mania said, bring in a rule that says you can't play for your parent club once you have played as a loanee elsewhere after the deadline and the loophole will be closed.

"I won’t engage in a debate because the above is correct and if anything else is stated to the contrary it’s incorrect." 

The Phantom Horseman

The Phantom Horseman

Posted
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

Give it a rest, why is it obvious, many clubs sign players long before they are announced. 

Ok seems like I have to spell it out.
Frday 2nd August (deadline day):
Wakefield "We've signed Jake Trueman!!!
Wakefield fans: "Great news, especially with our current injuries at half back! He'll be making his debut on Sunday, right?"
Wakefield: "Actually no, we've decided to loan him back to Hull for the rest of the regular season..."

It's not rocket science. Hull were not willing to let Trueman go before the season end because they were struggling badly for half backs themselves (Reynolds had gone to Fev by this time and they were having to plug Jack Walker and/or kids from the academy in at half back).

The only way for Wakefield to have Trueman available for the play-offs was to do what happened - Wakefield officially sign him before the deadline with an agreement they were going to loan him back to Hull until the end of the season.

 

Edited by The Phantom Horseman

"I won’t engage in a debate because the above is correct and if anything else is stated to the contrary it’s incorrect." 

Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, dboy said:

Trinity signed him before the deadline and loaned him back to Hull, until such a point that Hull's season was complete.

After that point he joined Trinity for rehab and training.

There's no loophole. He's a contracted Trinity player.

The loophole is your very first sentence mate. Right there. 

I don't know why a few of you feel like you need to defend the club when nobody has said that the club have done anything wrong. 

@GavWilson

dboy

dboy

Posted
Posted

There's no loophole - it's simply the rules.

Both you and Phantom are suggesting Trinity/Hull have done something wrong.

You are both wrong.

I doubt he'll play anyway, but clearly the club are living rent free in many people's heads.

Trinity are massive.

Agbrigg

Agbrigg

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Gav Wilson said:

The loophole is your very first sentence mate. Right there. 

I don't know why a few of you feel like you need to defend the club when nobody has said that the club have done anything wrong. 

Exactly Gav, they have done nothing if so why has Phantom Horsman bothered mentioning it. Even his post above appears nothing more than a jealous snipe at Wakey. The way I read it is , its more a case of it is morally wrong and somehow not fair play which is pathetic.

Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, dboy said:

Both you and Phantom are suggesting Trinity/Hull have done something wrong.

You are both wrong.

 

9 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

I don't know why a few of you feel like you need to defend the club when nobody has said that the club have done anything wrong. 

I am going insane.

  • Haha 1

@GavWilson

dboy

dboy

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

 

I am going insane.

No, you haven't made a big deal of it, apologies.

You are wrong to call it a loophole however - that suggests skulduggery. 

It's the same people complain of the "loophole" of how bans are served - it's not a loophole, it's the rule (and always has been).

The Phantom Horseman

The Phantom Horseman

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, dboy said:

There's no loophole - it's simply the rules.

Both you and Phantom are suggesting Trinity/Hull have done something wrong.

You are both wrong.

 

 

35 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

Exactly Gav, they have done nothing if so why has Phantom Horsman bothered mentioning it. Even his post above appears nothing more than a jealous snipe at Wakey. The way I read it is , its more a case of it is morally wrong and somehow not fair play which is pathetic.

Wait, what? This is beyond delusional. I've literally said twice in my previous posts that Wakefield have done nothing wrong, as has Gav. And as I've said twice it's the rule that I think needs looking at, not anything Wakefield (or Hull) have done.

 

  • Like 1

"I won’t engage in a debate because the above is correct and if anything else is stated to the contrary it’s incorrect." 

dboy

dboy

Posted
Posted

A loophole is a flaw in the rules, an unintended consequence of a weakness in the rules, or a deliberate manipulation of rules for an unfair gain.

This situation is none of those, but I wouldn't care if it was legislated against in future. 

Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, dboy said:

A loophole is a flaw in the rules, an unintended consequence of a weakness in the rules, or a deliberate manipulation of rules for an unfair gain.

This situation is none of those, but I wouldn't care if it was legislated against in future. 

It is, because a Super League player could make his debut for a Championship club in a semi-final. Fair play to Wakefield for being canny enough and having the resources to pull it off.

It's not too dissimilar to when SL clubs signed NRL 'guests' for the play-offs around 2005/6. They did nothing wrong but the loophole was soon closed.

  • Like 1

@GavWilson

dboy

dboy

Posted
Posted (edited)

🤣 It's nothing like signing an NRL guest player!

You've lost the plot.

When they signed him, he wasn't even fit to play.

Trueman is contracted for future seasons as well as this. He's not a guest.

Edited by dboy
The Phantom Horseman

The Phantom Horseman

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, dboy said:

When they signed him, he wasn't even fit to play.

 

When did they sign him please, just out of interest?

Edited by The Phantom Horseman

"I won’t engage in a debate because the above is correct and if anything else is stated to the contrary it’s incorrect." 

The Phantom Horseman

The Phantom Horseman

Posted
Posted
Just now, dboy said:

Before deadline day.

What's your point?

 

Because he played for Hull 2 days after deadline day!
 

"I won’t engage in a debate because the above is correct and if anything else is stated to the contrary it’s incorrect." 

dboy

dboy

Posted
Posted

It's the rules!

Why are you being so dim?

I hope Mash and the York players are as screwed up as you are by this!

  • Sad 2
Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson

Posted
Posted
Just now, dboy said:

It's the rules!

Why are you being so dim?

I hope Mash and the York players are as screwed up as you are by this!

I couldn't care less, as I have stated on this very thread several times.

I know its the rules, and Wakefield have identified a loophole in those rules. Well done Wakefield.

The fact that you are willing to die on this hill is hilarious. 

  • Like 3

@GavWilson

dboy

dboy

Posted
Posted

For people who claim not to be bothered by the Trueman signing, there's an awful lot of bleating going on.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, dboy said:

For people who claim not to be bothered by the Trueman signing, there's an awful lot of bleating going on.

The only person bleating here is you my guy. 

  • Like 1

@GavWilson

dboy

dboy

Posted
Posted

What is "my guy"?

For something you now think is a non-issue, you've made quite a few posts about it.

I'm surprised you and Phantom even mentioned it given how you keep saying you don't think it's a thing.

Would you like to discuss the game of rugby now?

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
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.