Re: So then : Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:14 pm  

Gazemous wrote:

Maybe you're not as well informed as you think you are and no deal was ever on the cards.

Presumably if I was as imformed as you imagine I think i am then surely that would have been a silly question for me to ask. As it goes it would appear that neither of us are as imformed as we would like to think we are, the difference being that i recognise that hence the question in the first place where as you by your own admission can only assume that you know the answer hth

Re: So then : Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:17 pm  

chissitt wrote:

Presumably if I was as imformed as you imagine I think i am then surely that would have been a silly question for me to ask. As it goes it would appear that neither of us are as imformed as we would like to think we are, the difference being that i recognise that hence the question in the first place where as you by your own admission can only assume that you know the answer hth

Exactley, as i said we may never know what what happened and i think the matter is best put to bed now. All it can possibley achieve is more bickering between the two sets of fans which i really dont want to see anymore of, i enjoy it far more when we stand side by side against little planks from huddersfield.

Re: So then : Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:18 pm  

pyeman wrote:

Exactley, as i said we may never know what what happened and i think the matter is best put to bed now. All it can possibley achieve is more bickering between the two sets of fans which i really dont want to see anymore of, i enjoy it far more when we stand side by side against little planks from huddersfield.

There was plenty of rumours going around from both sets of fans and i thought that if they were true it seem a little strange, but as you rightly say we will probably never know and maybe they were just rumours nothing more. When all is said and done there is plenty of them going round at the moment especially at our place, we will be lucky to have a team come next Feb. If you want to know anything Wakefield which I am sure you dont anyway, go on the midgets board Queen Marsden is holding court at the minute.

Re: So then : Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:12 pm  

BIGAL1 wrote:

More than just rumours but i guess we'll never know the full story, some back peddling by both clubs is in order and then we can move on.

At times both clubs seem to be run poorly.

Too true

: Mon Aug 10, 2009 8:19 pm  

According to today's League Express Evans has a dispensation not to count as 'non-Federation trained'.

I'm not entirely sure this is correct but if it is we have room for 1 more 'non-fed trained' player next year. I'd also not be surprised if Chase is KOLPAC hence doesn't count on overseas quota* in which case we can sign a Quota player.


* 2010 restrictions being up to 6 'non-federation trained' players of which a maximum of 5 can be overseas quota** players.

** Overseas quota players being those that do not hold an EU passport or qualify under the KOLPAC ruling.

: Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:16 pm  

Cecil B wrote:

According to today's League Express Evans has a dispensation not to count as 'non-Federation trained'.

I'm not entirely sure this is correct but if it is we have room for 1 more 'non-fed trained' player next year. I'd also not be surprised if Chase is KOLPAC hence doesn't count on overseas quota* in which case we can sign a Quota player.


* 2010 restrictions being up to 6 'non-federation trained' players of which a maximum of 5 can be overseas quota** players.

** Overseas quota players being those that do not hold an EU passport or qualify under the KOLPAC ruling.

Nope. We cannot sign anybody else.


Total Overseas Players has a max. of 6 as you've already said five are quota:

Quota: McGoldrick, Sargent, Widders, Chase, Sherwin
Non-Fed- Evans.

: Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:48 pm  

Fully wrote:

Nope. We cannot sign anybody else.


Total Overseas Players has a max. of 6 as you've already said five are quota:

Quota: McGoldrick, Sargent, Widders, Chase, Sherwin
Non-Fed- Evans.

Just to clarify, you're saying that League Express have indeed got it wrong about Evans? If so I'm a little surprised we've given him a 2yr rather than 1 yr contract.

: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:06 pm  

Evans should be counted as federation trained.

: Tue Aug 11, 2009 5:20 pm  

Cecil B wrote:

Just to clarify, you're saying that League Express have indeed got it wrong about Evans? If so I'm a little surprised we've given him a 2yr rather than 1 yr contract.

No I'm saying they've got it right. They say he is NON-FEDERATION trained.

The total people the club are allowed next season is 6 overseas (5 Quota [Sargent, Widders, Goldy, Chase, Sherwin] and 1 Non-Fed [Evans]) - that's all

We're not allowed anymore.

: Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:05 pm  

Fully, the League Express states that he is 'not classified as non-Federation player, because he first joined Huddersfield Giants in the 2004 season, before the current system of classifying players took effect in 2007.' Therefore he is a Federation player so surely we have one non-federation place left for next season?!?!