Yeah - Brough to Wigan/Huddersfield/=whiteCastleford/Salford/Celtic/Bradford=red*


=red*Delete as appropriate

4 of the players listed are out of contract at the end of the season and are not having their contracts renewed as they no longer figure in the clubs plans. Wasn't aware George was leaving but Snitch/Pitts are the only ones I am disappointed about.

The three players coming in will improve the squad and I think its clear that we will probably be running with a smaller squad next year, but with more quality.

Absolutely no problem with the club "balancing the books" as you call it, that is just good business sense.

Please not us dont need the trouble maker.

is that better?

thats better

So we can pass speculation off as fact now then. I think it's a case of believe what you want to believe. You so desperately want Wakefield to be in financial meltdown that you will twist anything you hear and add negative slant on it.

The next club I can see to have financial problems is probably Huddersfield. Once sugar daddy gets bored and pulls his money, Huddersfield will retract to their natural standing, ie wooden spooners. Maybe you could have a Sheffield type merger with Bradford to keep you in SL a little longer.

Good point! The implication of what you say is that a club with a low SL spend would be 'out of balance' if the players were retained. Something many of your fellow supporters are desperate to deny.

Since the play off system was created I have seen teams try and bring in a player or two as they approach the play offs. I cannot recall anyone being stupid enough to get rid of several players.

So can anyone name another SL with, play off ambitions, that has off loaded 4/5 players in the run up to the play offs?

we'll see shall we. Speculation or fact? Not overly bothered about Wakie. Got some good fans who have put their heart and soul into supporting their club through some difficult times.

Playing good rugby and are a pleasure to watch but not getting the crowds - and they need to balance the books to be a viable venture.

They should move to York.

I've looked into such a move, its a real winner.

The decision only becomes suspect if we have a run of injuries and are short in the areas that the players who have left could fill and this affects our reaching the play-offs/performance in them. If this does not happen, then the decision is vindicated as we are not wasting money paying players who would not be getting in the first team squad.

and whilst you have an academy team doing so well you have a wealth of backup talent to dip into should the need arise.

You are right. No other SL team has done this because it is por management.

A lack of injuries does not vindicate the decision, it simply means that you did not 'get caught'. It remains high risk.

However it is obvious why wakey are taking this high risk strategy, They are desperate to save money. This appears to be more desperation than prudence.

That may be true in 2/3 years time.

If you look at academy GF winners you see that a club will be fortunate if 2/3 players make SL careers. Also SL debuts are usually around 20/21 yrs old. The rare exception is ready sooner. A club relying on academy back up may be taking risks.

Is thats the obvious reason you did not post it on your board then? Anybody can have her causing mischief so long as it isnt you eh. Is this in keeping with your new found resonsibility on the Hudds board or is it simply that she is too much of a handful for you and you would sooner give somebody else the problem of sorting her trouble making efforts out.

Really, for somebody who is not bothered about Wakey you seem to spend a lot of time discussing them with that person you alleged did not know. We have a lot of good fans who support Wakey through thick and thin whatever the cost unlike some not too far away who have only got a few extra fans at this moment in time because of the freebies on offer.

Cant understand it really though we must be the only team in SL with dwindling crowds as everybody elses' have gone up alarmingly dont suppose you have our stats to hand you usually have. I wonder if a lot of our fans have taken advantage of the reduction in prices at the Galpharm and gone to watch them, Nah they're not that fickle. Your concern about balancing the books has been noted, just a thought really but why dont you get in touch with the BOD at Wakey and voice that concern, I am sure they will take any advice you have to give on board and appreciate your imput.

Ark at you



the VT is the place for such threads.

Plenty of wakey posters characterise facts as trouble causing or mischief.

If you want to pretend that the 'rushed' stadium naming scheme, the shares issue, the drop in gates and the early off loading of players is all positive... go ahead. None of this stuff has been 'made up'.

What is stupid about sending players out on loan to other clubs when they are that far down the pecking order?

Rooney was behind Brough, Obst, Grix, Martyn and even JD in the halves, they all played ahead of him.

Bibb was behind Moore, Bibey, Stosic, Wilkes, Korkidas in the propping ranks and all those are now fit and playing well.

Pitts, nothing can be done about a player who wants to sign for the current super league Champions, the team he supported as a boy.

Sculthorpe was nothing to do with money, but Korkidas in for him makes everyone happy.

Petersen is rumoured to be injured, but if there's something else in it and he's played his last game it's no surprise to many Wakey fans, he's been injured a lot and his form hasn't been the best. I'd argue that he's only lasted as long as he has because of injuries to Murphy and Blanch. Now Murphy is fit again it doesn't surprise me.

Winterstein is the only other one who won't play for us again this season and that's because he's injured.

Now you come back to me and tell me which one of those decisions by the club was a poor one and which of those positions in the team has suffered or we are short of numbers on?

Pretend! you invented the word. There is no pretend about the new stadium its there whether its built on time is another matter, pretend clearly not. Naming sheme shares issue they are not pretend they are a way to bring in extra revenue, I'm dissapointed in you there dear you have the brains allegedly and you did not see that

Drop in gates course we have there is no pretence there its a fact one well documented by your good self at every opportunity I might add

Oh and before you remind me of the Midgets gates we cant afford to give away free shirts with every half priced ST but it wont last though will it, is it just our gates that have fallen or has anybody elses dont suppose you are interested anyway. Players come players go whatever the outcome I am sue you will put your own spin on it to suit your twisted mind. Pretend nah reality dear.

Can't see what the problem with the stadium naming is. Was a good idea that raised some funds for the Club. The share issue obviously hasn't taken off as the Club hoped it would but again it has raised some funds for the Club. The drop in gates is of course a concern but the Club are doing good work in the community which will hopefully pay off in the near future. As to the off loading of players many have covered that and you have chosen to ignore them time and time again so there really is little point going over it again.

The off loading of several players as the play offs approach is dumb. Why take an unnecessary risk? ....Answer: because funds are dreadfully low at the club. If the club has so much freed up money and ambition they would bring in players Kear wants for the fnal games. One minute wakey fans are on threads saying the club are NOT off loading players during the season, then they are claiming it is a stratejic master stroke.

the stadium naming scheme launched ridiculously near the season start. Did wakey ever name the '50' companies they wantedto enter the draw? I wonder why they woud not give them publicity? They stated a date for the announcement of the name and then overran it by weeks. You may think that is good practice. In the real world it is not.

The share scheme was launched to raise £100K ...did you achieve it?

Your funniest coments are about the stadium. Is it 'there'? Where? Just like your last effort, an utter farce. This time the RFL will not fall for this smoke and mirrors routine.



As I say if wakey fans want to pretend these events point to a club that is financially healthy...so be it. Try not to be so surprised that others see a shambles.

See above.

There is a dearth of cash in the game as a whole!

At the moment CASH is at a premium and "borrowing" in any form is not as easy as it used to be.

The "cash" problems at Crusaders, possibly Trinity ( nothing confirmed) are to be honest not unexpected. It's also happened at Donny and now Oldham.

Doe anyone HONESTLY believe that their club is financially solvent?

I have a feeling that there are more "financial problems" than a lot of people are admitting (thankfully we will never get as bad as moronball) but it is how they are dealt with that is the major challange.

It dosn't help the profile of the game when common sense is knocked on the head re ground sharing! Other sports seem to manage why not RL in GB.

For example how many "Home Grounds" is the ANZ stadium/Football stadium in Sydney?

I will ask again then...what is dumb about sending Jamie Rooney and Kyle Bibb out on loan?

How do those two equate to several players?