Does one? Wow.

Amazing how some wakey fans write about vendettas! My comments have been about your finances (where most wakey fans were denying there was a probem) Winterstein (taking on overseas reserve graders when you have loads of overseas players) and now Stosic and 10 / 11 overseas players. All legit RL and hardly a vendetta

Some wakey fans seem touchy.

The last 2 points are the same theme. And the theme of this thread.

Sure have - for those sensible enough to understand it!

Yeah yeah. Or perhaps those gullible enough to believe it. Careful with the forlock old chap

I will - old chap!

Amazing indeed.

Agreed

Definition of vendetta
A situation in which someone has angry and negative feelings towards someone else and keeps trying to harm them or to cause problems for them
[iSource: Macmillan Dictionary[/i

Condemned by your own words!

I can't be bothered searching for all the other threads you've jumped on with your negativity towards Wakefield

signing seven of our own academy into the first team with at least another four next season i would guess(from this seasons side) is a fantastic thing for the british game, however they can not all be stuck straight into the first team so bringing in some experienced player seems sensible dosent it?

cant see how this long term strategy can possibly be a bad thing

what are your club doing to promote the young british talent

In fairness though as mentioned we have lost several of our young british talents Atkins and Grix for instance, so i'll make a swift 2 points -

1) Who is there around at the moment who Wakey could afford, who would not be a massive loss of ability in either positon and from the UK?

2) I believe that there isn't anyone who meets all 3 of the above criteria and therefore i would rather see a proven overseas player there, than some average youth who is in the team for no other reason than he is British.

Having said that though, I do agree that 10 overseas players is going against the spirit of the quota system and the new forward thinking that is becoming more prevalent in the game in general.

And really, we arn't that much more guilty than any other team, its the whole thing needs looking at and the rules on overseas players tightening up.

agree 100% got to say the rules at the moment are there to be bent broken however you look at them, its about time there was a blanket block, no more than 4 overseas players, irrespective of where they are from. overseas is any country or continent not directly connected with GB. how simple is that not Franks grandad came from Azerbajan, or Peters great great grandma was from Outer Mongolia.....

that really isnt the issue is it, Wakefield dont deserve an advantage because they were embarrasingly poor previously, and in effect thats what you would get

Clubs for too long have been protected from their own incompetence and that really is terrible for the game as a whole

if Wakefield using 10/11 overseas players next season finish 8th ahead of a club who use say 6 overseas players, that other club has been punished by giving something back to the game, where is their reward for investing in our games future?

why wouldnt that clubs management then think sod this bringing through youngsters and giving them a chance malarky, Wakefield are getting all the benefits of play off rugby by spending less on some mediocre imports, lets get rid of these youngsters who [imight[/i take us to play off rugby and spend the money on these Aussies who [iwill[/i take us to play off rugby instead

if Wakefield have to be for a season or two to bring through their talent, so be it, thats how it works, if you need to play a player not quite as good as an import you could get, good, then a club who has invested in developing youngsters, and who has given a chance to british youngsters will get their reward and you will get yours

whilst Wakefields fans are defending their club, think of it another way, how will they feel if they lose out on a play off spot to a club with 14 overseas players? what if every team just says sod it and employs a squad full of overseas players then Wakefield are still left at the bottom because they cant spend as much as everyone else, so other teams get better imports and we are back where we started but with more imports and nobody has benefitted

its shameful form, that clubs are using loopholes like these, but they are only of a benefit whilst other clubs dont use them, they are punishing clubs for doing what we want them to do

They are not loopholes - they are the rules under which we all operate. The rules are designed to protect the employment of previously existing players, and once they have gone we will all have reduced levels as the rules have been tightened severely - which is right.

In the meantime, Wakefield have improved their junior development beyond any other club - so in that sense we are doing at least as much, if not more, to develop the quality and quantity of player production than all the other clubs at SL level - so what't the problem exactly?

no they are loopholes, they are actions contrary to the spirit of the rules, rules put in place to increase the number of british youngsters in the game, not the number of Australians who can get a macedonian passport, the rules werent put in place to protect new players who can get a passport for a country we legally cannot stop earning a living here

in the meantime, Wakefield can surely rely on their youngsters, or if not suffer the consequences of not putting the effort into junior development earlier

and the problem is Wakefield signing of players like Stosic ahead of british players makes it harder for other clubs to sign british youngsters ahead of players like Stosic

again, the only reason Wakefield need to keep a player like Stosic is because some others dont follow the same route

if all clubs acted like Wakefield, then Wakefield would be back at the bottom as others could spend more on more and better imports

[It says that they have 30-50% fewer than Wakey

Are you sure about that??

You say Wakefield arent within the spirit of the rules.

I dont recall it being Wakey that set the ball rolling,looking for exemptions,i would say Simon Finnegan and Bradford(although i recall Bradford denying anything to do with it) starting the ball rolling when challenging the new quota rules.Was it then followed HKR who started looking for exemptions for Stanley Gene.

I doubt if any club isnt actually manipulating the rules to their benefit.

As ive already said 10/11 is very poor,but Wakey are just the poorest of the poor when it comes to overseas signings,no club has anything particular to be proud of when the best we can get to is 5 overseas players.

Leeds are equally guilty with 7 overseas players next year. I know some Leeds fans don't care so long as we win things, but I'd like to see no more than 4 at ANY club (with allowances for maybe 1/2 more at Quins and Crusaders).

The problem with some arguments is its based on where a club is today. Well, had Wakey - and others - started on a half-decent youth development program five years ago they wouldn't be where they are 'now'. Instead of a bunch of 17-year olds who I would agree aren't ready for SL as a bunch, they should have a host of lads in their early 20s in the squad, and need only to promote a couple of juniors each year.

Where Wakey are now - needing up to 11 overseas players just to make a possible mid-table team - should be considered an abject failure, not just for Wakey but for SL as a whole.

The same argument was being had last year re KR, and I wish fans would stop being so oversensitive when their club is mentioned. Quite happy to go on record as saying Leeds' current direction with respect to overseas players is completely wrong.

how is having 7 equal to having 11? its not really is it


however saying that, and i said this last season, i would have been happy to see Donald and Lueluai go and be replaced by british talent, and i think we could still be successful with replacing those two players with players already in our squad, which is the most disappointing part,

we also need to bare in mind though that the Rhinos dont exist in a vaccuum, and it is only fair that numbers are brought down throughout the league, rather than expecting some clubs to sacrifice success to so they can make a statement

i completely agree with everything else you have said

Totally agree,nobody has anything to shout about,Wakefield are just the worst of a bad bunch.

At least get the facts right.It was actually =redSuper League that tried to impose the 4 point penalty,based on a 74% spend.The RFL then looked at it and decided that the spend was in fact 58% and it only merited a 2 point deduction.Huddersfield were relegated because they were gash and didnt win enough games,not because Wakefield were only deducted 2 points and not 4.

you see I have an issue with that!!!... look at the tri nations final...

two players playing for england who came through the Trinity Junior ranks... Ellis and Westwood, another one (Fox) who cut is teeth at Belle Vue after being discarded by Leeds and, had he been fit, another (big four) discard in Ryan Atkins who also came to Wakefield to make his way...

the big issue is not for Wakefield to produce players... nor indeed their ability to bring them through to first grade and then to border international selection... the difficulty is keeping them once other clubs come sniffing round.

Compared to the structure here in Australia... where pay structures are pretty good on the whole... the UK is prepared to pay far too much for average (comparitively) players... the four nations showed that these young UK players are NOT prepared to work hard enough for their money.

Smokey - 7 obviously isn't the same as 11, but it is in the sense that its too many. I'm just throwing Leeds in there because as the 3-time winners of the Championship, whatever approach Leeds take is going to set a benchmark for other clubs, and IMO where we're heading is the wrong way.

Underground - I do take your point about wakey produced players elsewhere. From Leeds though (for example) we could add Mathers, Calderwood, Walker, Fox (if you can have him so can Leeds), Carvell, Morley, Newton, Fozzard etc etc at other clubs.

Genuine question - why do you think they have moved - money or improved chances to win things?

The point with Fox is that he had no future at Leeds ... and had been pretty much discarded... it wasnt until he went to wakefield that be began to blossom as a player... and by the time he went to HKR he was a genuine talent!

other players that fit that mould are Sean Gleeson (Wigan) and Ryan Atkins (Bradford)...

why do players leave Wakefield... usually for money.... and generally because the club has to sell them to stay afloat!

only Ellis has left when the money on the table at Wakefield was more than on offer at Leeds... but Gareth is a unique player amongst english RL players ... he is a man who wants to challenge himself... thats why he is now playing is the NRL.

Westwood went for a fee because we needed the money... Fox was out of contract and we couldnt/ wouldnt match HKRs contract offer

Atkins has gone to Warrington because we needed the money!!

DO NOT FEED

Is there an echo in here?


[size=75in here?[/size


[size=59in here?[/size

this isnt an acheivement by Wakefield, allowing other clubs to do your development work for you isnt a good thing,

Had Fox not gone to Wakefield he would have gone elsewhere,

a better example would be Jason Golden, a player Wakefield were in an ideal position to sign, who went to school a few hundred yards from their ground, yet only ever got to Wakefield via Hunslet Leeds and York

being a dumping ground for cast-offs isnt a position we need filling,


all of which surely questions Wakefields ability to be a top flight club