Looks like I totally agree twice (computer playing up).

Being a Trinity supporter is not easy. We crave for homegrown talent and when have had it in the past, out comes the cheque book and a 'bigger' club and money then talks. Both the club and player succumb to it and we, the poor sodding supporters have to grin and bear it.
It's different now though, I sincerely hope!
We have had to sell previously to balance the books but we are supposedly not in that position now.
Let's hope that's the case and that there is no mass exodus from 1873!

Am I correct that the club is now one of the few not saddled with any outstanding bills to pay in league? If so that works massively in our favour in keeping the likes of Johnstone and Jowitt.

Had a look at the Wakefield accounts (Spirit of 1873) as this is public domain. MC appears to be owed £850K by the club. Trinity appear £1.5M in debt with £140K owed to the RFL.

They'll still be saddled with bills like everybody else, maybe you mean outstanding debts in which case I think your right, If I'm not mistaken I'm sure I've read it where the chairman said we need something like four and a half thousand crowd to break even, although I may be wrong there.

Quote ="chissitt"They'll still be saddled with bills like everybody else, maybe you mean outstanding debts in which case I think your right, If I'm not mistaken I'm sure I've read it where the chairman said we need something like four and a half thousand crowd to break even, although I may be wrong there.'" 2000 short then against Salford with only a 2500 attendance but looked that it would be about 4000.... www.rugby-league.com/superleague ... port/12252

Quote ="chissitt"They'll still be saddled with bills like everybody else, maybe you mean outstanding debts in which case I think your right, If I'm not mistaken I'm sure I've read it where the chairman said we need something like four and a half thousand crowd to break even, although I may be wrong there.'" 2000 short then against Salford with only a 2500 attendance but looked that it would be about 4000.... www.rugby-league.com/superleague ... port/12252

That right chissitt it was at the time when M C used to take part on the board.

He signed a 4 year contract last year.

Quote ="asmadasa"2000 short then against Salford with only a 2500 attendance but looked that it would be about 4000.... www.rugby-league.com/superleague ... port/12252'" It wasn't 2,500, I mean for a start that's to rounded and arbitary. The figure I saw was 4,200ish and that would be about right - if we got 4.900 against Hudds the missing 700 seems to be correct for the empty west terrace. If you were ask me to guess I'd have said 3,800.

Quote ="asmadasa"2000 short then against Salford with only a 2500 attendance but looked that it would be about 4000.... www.rugby-league.com/superleague ... port/12252'" It wasn't 2,500, I mean for a start that's to rounded and arbitary. The figure I saw was 4,200ish and that would be about right - if we got 4.900 against Hudds the missing 700 seems to be correct for the empty west terrace. If you were ask me to guess I'd have said 3,800.

The official attendance was announced during the game as 4,038.

So with SKY comp (if that still happens) then we will have broke even.

I'm sure it does yes. It was a reasonable attendance for a SKY game kicking of at 2.50pm Saturday afternoon with a small away
support.

There's no Sky compensation for the first televisied game then its 15k per game for every home game after that. Trouble is all clubs have to put in extra money into a pot out of their annual TV money every season for this to happen. So unless you get selected for Sky a good few times you don't end up gaining.

Quote ="asmadasa"2000 short then against Salford with only a 2500 attendance but looked that it would be about 4000.... www.rugby-league.com/superleague ... port/12252'" I can't recall the attendance being announced on Saturday tbh, but in today's league express the attendance was 4048. can't tell for sure but 4k+ looked a better bet than 2500.

Quote ="asmadasa"2000 short then against Salford with only a 2500 attendance but looked that it would be about 4000.... www.rugby-league.com/superleague ... port/12252'" I can't recall the attendance being announced on Saturday tbh, but in today's league express the attendance was 4048. can't tell for sure but 4k+ looked a better bet than 2500.

Up until his 3rd try against Salford I was undecided if he was just a flash in the pan but that try needed some scoring and showed speed, strength and confidence in his own ability. As some have said above talent such as this will always attract the bigger clubs and an agent usually only thinks about what is the best deal for himself and not the player. Its a hard choice if big money is being dangled.

Well obviously you have not seen as much of TJ as us Wakey fans. We have known for some time that he is no flash in the pan.
The good thing of course is that TJ is not the only rising star at WT, I am sure Max Jowitt is going to make the grade big time and there is young Jordan Crowther waiting in the wings (so to speak!) His chance will come but it is probably a little harder for a forward to break into a team early rather than a back.
Then of course, another youngster with a bright future, Batchelor, has just signed a long contract - so, either we have a very bright future with homegrown talent - which we all prefer, alternatively, a lot of cheque books are going to have to come out with a lot of money!
I'm sure things won't stop there I believe 1873 is really working!

York have just renewed young Crowther's loan period, so he must be doing things right there

The future does look bright with this group of young kids coming through

................the crown jewel of young prospects would be a half back though. They are not produced so readily and take a lot of nurturing.

Absolute bull. Ask the vast majority of agents and the last thing they think about is how much money they will make from a deal. There's far too much at stake than to just think about the money. It's much more than that, if an agent gives a player ill advice and screws up his career then it's not good for him getting new players on board.

When people work in sales one of the main reasons they do so is to earn good money.
an agents job is to get the player the most amount of money possible
The higher the pay the higher the commission

Repeat sales are as important as big sales though. You need to keep a good reputation of looking after your people

Bingo! It's not all about the deal it's what fits for the player.

I suspect that is a fans view point. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be "an agent usually only thinks about what is the best deal for himself and not the players current club"
If they didn't think about the players interests they wouldn't retain them as client's for very long.
As a fan though, we see agents as bad guys because they may advise their players to leave our "smaller" clubs to go to the bright lights of a "bigger" club.
An agent can't however force a player to move, although they can advise them to. The player has to agree to any move surely, which means they must be happy to accept that move.

I would like to think that the game would be better off without agents, but it probably wouldn't; unscrupulous club owners would replace unscrupulous agents and young players would still be exploited, but in a different way.

What's more accurate to say is that the game would be better off without *some* agents.

Have you all seen the Tom Johnstone video by the 18th Man yet?

It was shared by Michael Carter today on Twitter. Basically it has TJ dancing away in a night club with Wane watching on. Kirmo and a couple of others are watching on too. TJ then goes up to Wane and gives him a hand gesture suggesting he is not interested in going to Wigan. Very funny and well worth looking up.

(It is probably a modified clip from a famous film, but I've no idea what.)