Please, never remove or dilute this criteria. A Hall of Fame should be the elite, and this ensures that it remains that way.

I get that, but I would suggest when the time is right that Dream Team members are allowed - it is a major recognition of ability and consistent effort in a season. We haven't had many, which shows it is hard earned.

I agree, but perhaps we could have some kind of associate inductees, for such as Adam W and Leon W.

Ok then, to play devils advocate... What about Wally Lewis? He played a handful of games for us but is still revered even by those who never saw him. One of the greatest RL players the world has seen, surely we should recognise his contribution, not only at the time, but the legend he has become for us?

Now he was a marquee player, before the term had even been invented.

Or Ray Price even - loved this guy!

But I think the 100 games criteria is a good cut-off generally. Its not possible to please everybody in these things!

I think the winners medal criteria might mean there is a few decades without any inductees

They are not Hall of Famers though, they are idolised guests.
Wally Lewis is the greatest player I've ever seen play at Wakefield but he only played 12 games. You can't compare that to Neil Fox or Derek Turner.

Hall of Fame criteria should remain exactly as it is

The event last time was really good. I'll be aiming to be there again this time.

It's easy to understand what your saying, but the problem is the criteria for membership, there cannot be many players' left to qualify for the accolade, so unless you dilute the qualification for it, or invite deserving ex players into it it's going to be a pretty exclusive club unfortunately.

But isn't that the point. It should be exclusive

I think the International recognition, Challenge Cup and Championship part is too restrictive, there's been some absolute class stalwarts of the club who were unlucky to have had a great player ahead of them internationally.

There's also been some legendary Wakefield players who never won anything at the club yet gave the whole or majority of their careers at Trinity.

From the last 40 years who could possibly qualify?

So on that basis then, that will exclude any player what played for the club after 1968.

I think you are missing the details of the criteria:

"Players must match at least one of the following criteria to be considered for the Hall of Fame:

- Minimum of 100 games for the club
- Been retired from the game for 10 years or more
- Won a Championship or Challenge Cup with the club
- Have earned international honours"

You are just more likely to get a vote if you pass more than one criteria

Thats not what it says in the post from Trinity Heritage though which is causing the confusion. It says you have to hit ALL those criteria.

Ah, you are correct. But I checked anyway, and they don't have to achieve them all, just you are more likely to be chosen if you have.

Initial post: As with last years entrants, this years members must have played a minimum of 100 games and been retired more than ten years aswell as winning international recognition, a Challenge Cup or Championship winners medal in their time at the club.

Not sure where it says you have to have ALL the above criteria ...
The top two are a must ... minimum of 100 games and been retired 10 years
Then one of the three ... international, Challenge Cup winner OR Championship winner

That criteria covers over 200 past players

So you can write the Challenge Cup Winner and Championship Winner off straight away because we haven't won either in almost 50 years. When you add the retired 10 years to that it means anyone who qualified via either of those two criteria would be at least 78 years old, assuming they were 18 or more when they played.

You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of internationals that have played for the club in the last 40 years. Unless of course you count Scottish, Welsh and Irish as achieving that status. If you do then you're lowering the standard of player that can be considered for the Hall of Fame as there's been some distinctly average players who have achieved that level of International recognition.

It's a tough one I know!

I think that's part of the point though. We need to recognise those from 50 years ago as they did great things and shouldn't be forgotten, 78 or not.

People seem to be missing the point ... there are over 200 players to choose from over the last 120 years who have fulfilled the criteria ... a Hall of Fame is an exclusive club for legends and stars of our club

In years to come, the criteria may change ... I'm sure you can all name players who you think should be in who haven't played internationals or won a winners medal but for now the criteria fits what we are trying to do

No doubt about it. an obvious choice of Hall of Famer has to be Nigel Bell. Nothing less than 110% over his 300+ appearances.

I've no problem with that, they're deserving and ought to be recognised.

The problem is it pretty much ends with them!

Harry Wilkinson for his record number of appearances and Johnny Thompson for undying loyalty through Trinity's good times and bad!!

I agree but need I state the obvious. .