Interesting. Hypothetically speaking, what would you're feelings be for the club to say offer him 60k a year and in the mean time his Agent has been putting his name around and one of the richer clubs, come in with a bigger offer of 10k more. Would that be a failure of the club to retain it's youth, or is it part and parcel of not been one of the big boys?

For me as long as the club do their best to put an attractive offer in for him and do their best to retain our better local players, i don't/won't have a problem.

Agree.

Agree, AG has had a successful start to his time at Trinity and he's over come many of the challengers but as we move forward those challengers change. Also the fans attitudes have changed from that of survival, to wanting to be more competitive, on and off the field. Like you say I very much hope we can rise to them.

Personally I think we're better off than we were, but we're still not out of the woods financially. Glover doesn't have real financial clout in the Dave Whelan, Koukash, Davey, Hudgell or Hughes league. No issue with this, but it means we have to run as a stand alone business far sooner in our transformation than all the others.

I think that perhaps the lack of a prop, a reduced squad size and the lack of recent news about the likes of Chris Annakin are symptomatic of a club with a few, hopefully transient, cash flow issues - caused in no small part by the collapse of Eric France's sponsorship.

If that happens now - it happens!

The point is that we could have offered him a deal at any point up to now - before anyone else (officially at least) is allowed to do so. We didn't, partly because of concerns over his size, and now it may well be that he's on the radar at Hudds and other clubs and his price will have increased as a result!

This is a Nigel Wright moment for me, albeit I am not suggesting he is on the same level, but it's about what our squad is going to look like in 5, 8, 10 years time - if we don't start with these guys then, from the reports I am hearing, we don't have much coming through for another 3 to 4 years minimum.

I reckon we already had that with Amor to be honest. Keeping him was the shot over the bows that we wouldn't just roll over and die.

However that will have been all for nothing if it turns out we have only one shot.

Like you I'm in a state of disbelief we have left it so long. I know it's always a gamble and yes he's no freakish giant but he clearly has skill and bags full of ticker and had to be worth tying up a year ago. It's not even as if we have a shed full of youngsters to sign, him Walshaw and perhaps Cowling are it. Yet we waste vast sums on that pile of uselessness Mellors. Even if Mellors had reached his potential would he have been worth it above signing those three for the same money?

Now it's us on the back foot and it really shouldn't be. When will we learn.

Not yet being offered a contract is more down to Chris Annakin than anyone else, until this preseason he has'nt put himself in a position where the club wanted to offer him a new contract.

Tallent and physical attributes are not enough, there must be many other things in place and in Chris Annakins case they were missing or were offered up woufully short of the levels required.

To his great credit he's recognised that and, at the moment, is a different proposition from the player/person that we had before. If the penny has permanently dropped and the changes he's made are for good then he's worthy of an extended contract. Prior to this season if the club had let him go I would not have been critical of them, in fact I would have agreed with it.

He's really stepped up, in every aspect and everyone not least himself are seeing the results.

I get your point but I'm not sure I agree. His attitude was hardly diabolical in the past and I've seen us take a punt on young players who have shown far less appetite in the past.

He's always been up there and if Wildie was worth the nod then Anakin sure as hell was. I just don't buy this he wasn't good enough last year, when to many of us he certainly was. I accept you have a deeper knowledge than most on these issues but on this one I can't go with you (not that it matters

)

At the end of the day - last year we could have taken a relatively cheap punt on Anakin as he was on nobody's radar. This year he will soon be noticed and we will have to pay through the nose to keep a player we always had - his agent will see to that. Sorry but that makes absolutely no sense to me and makes youth teams pointless. Surely it's all about going with gut instinct as well as stats ect and taking the risk rather than waiting for the perfectly formed player to appear just in time for Hudds to go shopping.

Am I getting the wrong player here? Didn't Annakin snub our offer a few seasons since as he had a well paid career away from rugby league?

I think he didn't take up the apprentice scheme or whatever it's called. Instead he worked his own way through college so to speak. This will be the first time he will be offered a full pro contract.

I'm not sure I'm right as I must say it's all very complex now as to how youngsters get paid and what deals they are on and whether they are a Trinity player or not.

Good player though!

Unfortunately, from someone like me who only sees what he sees on the field with the odd extra info from this forum it is hard to comment.
I would agree with both sides, in the sense that we should have signed him up if he is good enough, but not if his attitude wasn't right.
Clearly an on the fence position but the key for me is that people closer to the player made that decision.

I would criticise if they made no decision and then let him go because they couldn't work fast enough to recover, but as I see this, we have decided in teh past not to offer him something and now we may do as he is getting better.
I'd say that's a reasonable approach.

We have had many threads like these for the likes of Southernwood and Gledhill, but in reality I can't see any have really proved us wrong.
The Ferguson and Murphy type loss was less to do with us and more to do with a bigger money club just paying more and taking advantage at the time. Both would have been good of course but we've managed without for now.

The elements which were below standard are essential not only to an individual but also to the team dynamic.
There is simply no way for them to be tolerated as it would not only fatally flaw the player but would also undermine the whole team ethic not to mention diminishing the Coach in the eyes of everyone.

We've kept the faith with Annakin, he's on contract.
In some aspects the size of the contract isn't what’s relative now it's whether or not you could offer any player a place in the 1st team squad given that the player isn't conforming to the standards set and required by the Head Coach. If a player is not responding to the coaching team’s advice and failing to recognise the need for changes then it's time for the club to cut its losses.

There's a much higher degree of professionalism at the club than ever before, there's much more expected of the players in terms of their own self management. Some of the players who've been at the club under different coaching regimes have adapted to the higher standards faster than others, Wildie being one of them.

There's also a plate spinning act going on with the player budget which means we can't carry players who won't get with the program, their wages would be better redirected to someone else. Chris Annakins next contract is likely to be more financially significant than any of his previous ones therefore those spinning the plates needed to see the required improvements before making a decision, Chris Annakin is responsible for delaying the required changes.

Nobody's been waiting for the perfectly formed player just a genuine display of commitment at the desired level indicating that the raw materials can be moulded into something special without compromising the standards set by the club and its coaching staff.

Chris Annakin has really stepped up in all aspects on and off the field, at and away from the club but the changes are relatively recent. I'm delighted to see him playing in the 1st team and looking so good, he's beginning to realise the potential seen in him by so many people over the years. Other clubs will take notice, that’s the nature of the industry. I'm not going to criticise the club for thus far holding back on signing him up on a longer term contract. This season was make or break for Annakin and he looks like he'll make it but I'll say again, the person responsible for delaying his progress is Chris himself.

No one wants to see a Wakefield Trinity team full of local players who've come through our system more than me but we can't compromise the standards to make it happen otherwise we're destined to live our lives as a second tier feeder team.

Great post Clan.
It's unusual to see so much sense talked on RL Fans.

Great to read that about Annakin, Agar seems to be a strong disciplinarian and a methods man, as we witnessed when he sent us in "light" up front against Salford by dropping Amor.

A brave and potentially dangerous ploy by Agar, but certainly one that could reap long term benefits for the club.

What you say does seem at odds with what other posters of similar credibility have posted on here - this leaves someone less well informed such as myself slightly bemused and confused.

On this one I'm going to go with those who feel we have made a mistake - I base this on my own belief that sometimes you have to go on a hunch and the hunch was always there with Anakin for me.

Can't disagree although that is a slightly different issue.

wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news/chr ... s/2011/07/ Signed a two year deal in 2011, no idea whether it was a full time one or not. Hopefully the club and player can sort something or re an extension. Once the pack is back up to full strength, I see Annakin, Trout and Mariano fighting it out for the remaining SR spot in the match day squad.

wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news/chr ... s/2011/07/ Signed a two year deal in 2011, no idea whether it was a full time one or not. Hopefully the club and player can sort something or re an extension. Once the pack is back up to full strength, I see Annakin, Trout and Mariano fighting it out for the remaining SR spot in the match day squad.

Not sure who you're referring to, can you point me to the post(er)s in question then I can assess for myself.

Hunches are OK and they still have a part to play even in this era of sport sciences, metrics and analysis, they do however IMO require a fairly close relationship with the individual if they're going to be accurate.

Good post.

Annakin himself said he needed to improve his attitude & start listening to Agar more than he was. He's obviously knuckled down far more since the pre-season and now he's reaping his rewards with his consistent performances.

Most of that rings true in all honesty. My only other question would be over whether we have, as a club, managed the junior players as well as we could have and thereby contributed to the situation.

I know that there are some who say we mis-handled the whole of the 18's championship side - and that's not necessarily levelled at the current regime, although it still seems as if we stick with the same players come what may sometimes, hence why have we not given Cowling a run when Fox's form has dropped off a bit? (yes I know it's not like for like, but he could be fitted in).

Tough love is a difficult thing to get right - I really hope the club have got the gamble right?!

TRB and El ray amongst others have talked about the club mishandling young players and messing them around. I'm not saying they are talking it up as a massive issue but they seem less sure than you that the club is getting it right with he youngsters.

Agree about hunches but then we do pay RA to have good one

I don't want to get into criticising the previous coaching regime, they did what they had to in order to put out a competitive 1st team. Suffice to say that for numerous reasons our junior development wasn’t at the forefront of the 1st team coaches minds.

There are other things that I've heard of, some alluded to on this forum over the last couple of years by El Ray et al, but I've no firsthand knowledge of those.

At last a thread I WOULD LIKE TO STATE AN OPINION ON. Wakefield is a business that belongs to AG and he runs it as he sees fit, but youth development is part financed by the 1973 scheme and therefore is or should be open to scrutiny. What a crop we had
Will = London scholars
Jordan = Mackay Cutters
Danny = wakefield
Lucas = wakefield
Dale = dewsbury
Cain = whitehaven
Mattie = wakefield
Russ = dewsbury
Tom = batley/hunslet
Kyle = wakefield
George = hull hr
Adam = aussie
Chris = wakefield
Adam = aussie
Jake = York
Lee = hunslet
Then there`s the ones who were deemed not good enough Greg = hull kr, Joel p = hunslet. Tom harrington, Luke pendleton, Joel gibson, Jordan lauther. There should have been more of these devolved and in the first team squad by now. Look at
How many SL appearances such as Joe Arundel and Oliver Holmes have, and that weren't as good as ours. Not one of the last years 20s were retained and
I dare say none of the 19s will be on FULL time contracts at the end of this one. The principle of the 1873 scheme is 100% correct but in practise as with the purchasing of a £100s worth of shares under the previous regime it is not. If there is one item that should be on the supporters trust list to challenge the club on, the scheme should be it, after all we were promised transparency.

And thats why Chris has maybe gone of the rails, due to being dumped on time and time again.

I am more than chuffed he's turning it around and that the clubs taking development to another level.

I have no issues with the present set up but i feel Chris as suffered in the past and while i don't have the knowledge you have with regards to sports science and all that stuff

and for the record i believe you.
I do know if you treat a dog badly it becomes a bad dog.

Lets hope threads like this are a thing of the past.