[urlhttp://www.mysporttoday.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=1223&ArticleID=5540281&sitecode=leed&sportcode=rugbyl[/url

Personally I think that this is a big blow for us. He has been one of our better players this year and I think that we will miss his experience, versatility and cover with the goal kicking, particularly if/when we reach the playoffs.

Wise words from Mr Kear.

Something the club has chosen to do, and effectively taken the risk that should we perform well, we would struggle to keep them. Not something I'd strictly blame them for as clearly there are downsides to giving too long contracts, and those who perform well often demand enhanced contracts anyway. I do think we could have sealed some earlier, particularly considering the likes of Snitch, announced as a 2 year, now saying it was a 1 year with an option. As he's been playing well since the start of the season, that option could/should have been sealed earlier, but we gambled on other clubs not noticing he was playing well.

More and more I think this was just plain BS from the Club clearly it was a 1 year deal that they reported as a 2 year deal.

It’s a very fine balancing act and not something I would envy doing. There are so many variables that it’s impossible to get everything right.

Has the club ever given official word on this subject? If so I have missed it. It was my assumption that the deal must have been a one year deal with the option of a second, but I haven’t seen anything confirmed.

That's why I'm not being over critical. However, the implication of Kear's statement seems to be an admission they've got it wrong and that is worthy of discussion. Without a full list of which players have been on contract, since when & for how long, it's a bit pointless discussing the detail of it. As a general point though they should have forseen the first couple of seasons with a 14 team league & changes to the quota would put a premium on players and lets face it, in the past we've been more than willing to hand out 2-3 year contracts on the basis of a good show over 4-6 games.

No the only official word was when he signed at that he was hear for the next 2 years. Then a couple of months ago people said he was OOC I guess it could be more rumour but who knows.

Having so many players coming off contract at the same time is a problem and not ideal planning, however, it’s compounded by how well the players who are OOC have performed. Wilkes, Blanch and Grix were signed from NL1, Snitch was signed up with presumably no other interest and Bibey’s only option aside from Wakefield appears to be Leigh so how these players have performed may have even caught the clubs by surprise. Fair enough maybe they should’ve reacted quicker when these players were putting in the performances that warranted a review of their contracts, but that still doesn’t stop the players agents from touting them about and knocking back the clubs offers.

The guy was on a 2-year contract - with a get out option if someone came along with a better option after the first year. He is on peanuts - as he didn't have many options available, but now he has put himself in the shop window and has earned a better rate of pay - albeit not with us.

I suspect that the effect of being pushed out at Huddersfield probably gave him a wake up call - and he's heard it and heard it well. Good luck to the lad - shame we weren't able to hang on to him!

I'd hope we signed them with the expectancy that a fair few of them did perform well, and therefore have the structures in place to respond quickly. After all, if they are tied up sooner rather than later any jump in outlay would hopefully be less significant.

If that was the case, we were lucky. He wasn't a bad player at Shudds, more a case (as I saw it) that he was injured at the end of their season and presumably didn't fit into the new coach's plans. If we were that lucky, maybe it was worth the 2 year contract on a mobile hard working forward who was still at an age where you'd expect further improvement.

They were, but all had already played a season with us with fair success. It would suggest to me there is an element of leaving players who've been signed on initial contracts that essentially undervalue them against the yardstick of 'if they play reasonably towards the potential we've spotted', and only upgrading the contracts when we have really have to (e.g. when they near the end or perform significantly better than expected). Fair enough, everyone hopes for a bit of value, particularly when taking a chance on NL players, and to counter those that flop. But if we test that value to the limit, then we play a game that risks a large turnover of staff. No problem with that generally, I'm a realist who accepts we haven't the money to compete in the way others do. However, what I am saying is we've not always been consistent in this, with players and coaches rewarded with longer contracts on relative whims. I do feel this season was obviously going to see a more competitive market for reasons I've already stated, and we shouldn't complain too much about a situation we have partially created.

That particular case I'd accept as a surprise, although it does serve as a lesson in taking players like this, who are the mainstay of teams like Wakefield, for granted.

That is my main point, we should have reacted quicker. As for agents, I'd call rentokil on them given the chance. But it's a situation that everyone suffers and the quicker those players who are performing well are tied into appropriate contracts, the less of an impact their touting would have.

Has he gone to Cas then or someone else?

When you don't spend up to the full cap like us, then there is always going to be an element of turnover of players - not something I particularly like but something we have to put up with at the present time.

The development of the younger players at the club and the rumour that a good number of them are to be signed up on full time contracts is a big positive in my eyes. The reason that the likes of Leeds and Saints have been up at the top for the last 5 years is their ability to bring quality young players through the system and into the first team. These players when they start off are (I suspect) on relatively low wages for what they bring to the squad and that allows these clubs to then go out and spend big money on 3 or 4 top quality experienced players.

If we can start to develop our own systems in a similar fashion, then it will make it easier for the money we can afford to spend under the cap to go further, plus of course we will get what we would all like, a much larger proportion of the squad to be local lads with hopefully a pride in playing for Wakey.

Until this development system can start to work properly and/or we increase you available spend under the cap, then when a project player gets offered a significant rise from another club. we are naturally going to have to question whether we can justify paying the same, or whether we look for a similar project player who can possibly come in and do the same job for the same wage as we were paying the outgoing player.

Another issue that needs to be considered is the fact often referenced to on here that we are "punching above our weight". If we buy into that concept than in my opinion this means that certain players within the squad must also be "punching above their weight". The logical conclusion would then be that it is likely to be the project players who are doing more than expected and that begs the question, how long can they continue to over achieve and do we risk giving them a big rise ?

As someone has already said, this is far from an easy job for the powers that be at the club and they are bound to make some mistakes along the way.

Well put and I don't disagree with anything you say. The point I've tried to make is that this year I think we've not handled it particularly well. If we are going to work like this, we need to be a bit quicker in deciding which players are worth an increase. I've overwhelmingly more faith in Kear and the rest of our 'powers' than I've had in 20+ years supporting the club, but that doesn't mean there aren't still lessons to be learnt.

Agreed

ther is an alternative opinion that by punching above our weight we get to get fees for some players who we may not have seen the best of and can invest in very good players, im looking at tronc here, and stosic last year.

it looks to me like JK has a type of pack in mind, a type that allows the backs some freedom and tackles everything that moves.

i just look for us to move forward a bit each time and frankly this year has been a great stride forward on the playing front and the clubs image front


actually my major worry is an ambitious club coming in with mega bucks for mr kear, a widnes or a leigh with a backer, now that REALLY scares me.

Dont have to worry about that.

no i think hes home and on a mission!
but christ could you imagine this lot of misfits renegades and street fighters without him??

my faith is in jk



personal opinion is that he has people ready to come in and contracts would have been offerred earlier if they were warranted.. everybody has their own opinion but it is only 1 persons that counts. let's see what announcements are made in the next few months, we could be very surprised



shame about snitch if he is going, not too sure personally about atkins, i see him as a luxury but we don't have the players around to cover up for his defence and inablity to pass the ball,

and that is all i want to say about that