No point in posting facts it gets in the way of a good argument.

thats still 7 overseas players, hardly an acheivement

and whats the need for the other 5 who arent playing? if they arent needed then why keep them on, or are they just injured?

I have answered your questions as to why you cant just release someone/make it public that they wont be in the first team,not with excuses but with realistic implications of what happens if you do this.

As ever you come up with these ideas,but put very little thought into the implications of your ideas.

Please think through any future ideas you recommend.

read it again,

if you have the players in reserve, if you have the players you need and you dont need the overseas players, you are perfectly able to offload them,

its natural and what teams generally do, they offload players they dont need, wakefield can do this too

unless of course they do need to have 11 overseas players in their squad to compete which is frankly a p'sspoor effort

Ah the credo of many wakey posters.

7 overseas in the 19. Like many clubs we could not do that at the Giants - not enough non UK players.

Clearly with Scully 2 weeks away what Wakey really needed was a reserve grade NRL player.

Yeah we need a young player with lots of potential who can make a big name for himself, who would not want that type of player?

Scully is a prop

Frank is 2nd row.


Don't see why you need to have a pop at Wakey. Signing past it players is far worse. In fact Wakey doing nothing wrong. But then again you are a Hudds fan so you look to moan about Wakey where possible!

But last year you did and the year before that...

Amazing that you should choose to pipe up about this subject now.

Hypocrite!

Am I? Od dear



What you are not capable of grasping is that we then only had 7 in the [uwhole squad[/u

not 10/11



10 years in SL and one of the highest overseas quotas and now signing reserve graders. Very disappointing.

Could the signing of Brett Hodgson be seen as a problem for Hudds as this could see Cudjoe playing limited time in his favoured position? Is this a not a backward step for Hudds, no matter how good Hodgson has been in oz? I dont just think the signing of reserve grade Aussie is a problem as the above case shows.

You've had 10 years in SL, develop the players not bring reserve graders half way across the world.

Why is objecting to signing a reserve grader a 'pop' at wakey? Its a fact.

Don't talk sense man!

How can learning off one of the world's best full backs be a bad thing?

Yes

The evidence is in your posts,

Leroy can play in a few positions. He knows BH has several SOO / GF winners medal / fb of the year in 2005. If he is not getting picked Leroy knows it is because of a top class player (not an Oz reserve grader) Also Leroy has an excellent role model/mentor (not a service FW is likely to offer). When BH finishes Leroy will be only 22.

If we signed a 22year old fb from an oz reserve grade team with only 5 1st team games and put him before Leroy I would be appalled.

I think he would learn much more by playing consistantly at FB to be honest. You can only take a youngsters development so far by training ground teachings. He has to do it under the spotlights of the big time.

Is it? Dear me

When it clearly denies Cudjoe a regular place in the team.

Are you suggesting that Nathan Brown and his staff are incapable of developing Cudjoe without recruting a 31 year old player who has clearly put his best days behind him?

So instead of buying a reserve grader you bring in a 30+ yr old player to take up the position of a potential GB prospect. They are both as bad as each other those scenarios. Plus at the age of 22 Cudjoe could have missed the boat. Needs to be playing in his favoured position of FB now IMO.

Im quite happy to let NB get on with his job and leave it to him regarding team selection

Irrelevant what i think regarding his recruitment

It's a shame that some of your fellow Giants fans can't adopt the same attitude toward Wakefields recruitment!

As it is what anyone else thinks about John Kears, I can't believe that our lot have fallen for this and bitten for so long.

Once again you come up trumps.
Teams most definately dont generally offload players that are under contract,and they very rarely do it,if they are going to have to pay up the contract

You came up with the hairbrain schemes - like make it publicly known the player wont be in the first team,just transfer list him.

And as i pointed out to you,these hairbrain schemes of yours ,have implications.

Unless of course you were talking about players that are coming off contract -- but then you cant have been ,otherwise why start suggesting transfer listing and not selecting for the first team.

You really are starting to get your knickers in a twist with all this posting.





Can you not grasp that

You dont bite then the thread dies though i tip my hat, 20 odd pages, amazing

of course it is hair brained to expect Wakefield to have less than 11 overseas players, it crazy to expect them to release some or let some go,

its you who started suggesting we break employment laws, i simply said wakefield could release some overseas players (which they could) they could transfer list some (which the could) and they could make it publicly known that some were considered first team squad members (which they could) none of which would come close to breaking employment laws or come close to constituting constructive dismissal

its fairly simple, but in your desperation to make a case defending a club in its 11th year needing 11 overseas players you missed it, and needed to fall back on idiotic interpretations of employment law

you know as well as i do, if wakefield wanted to get rid of a couple of their overseas contingent, they could very easily

and i know you can grasp that, and i know like most of your fellow wakefield fans you are choosing not to because you know it makes your club look bad

And still the penny hasn't dropped