Beverley red wrote:
I did not realise he was as old as that? I think my point is still valid though, we should be tying home grown players to long contracts so at least we can recoupe a fee if they move on. We would be gambling up to a point but if the contracts were written up properly it could work. Different in my day once you signed the club owned you until they decided to release you. I am not suggesting we would want to go back to those days.
Lawler turns 26 on 1 September. There often seems to be a perception that local players are young and have lots of untapped potential compared even with younger non-locals.
Comments relating to the performance of ‘young’ Krissy Welham vs ‘Aussie’ Rhys Lovegrove have stuck in my memory because KW is 1 day older than than RL. Quite a few fans were keen to stick with James Green long term because props don’t hit their peak until a couple of years older than however old he happened to be at the time.
Tying players down also ties the club down. What if a player doesn’t develop as hoped (a frequent occurrence for Rovers home grown players over the last decade or so)? Or starts to get injured a lot? You’re then stuck with them on the payroll. Fees are pretty rare and small nowadays - I doubt Lawler would have attracted a big one if still under contract beyond this season.
Once you take sentiment out of it there’s no reason to worry about recouping a fee for Lawler more than there would be for Minchella or Storton. The feeling of possession and potential subsequent loss/disappointment associated with the academy system doesn’t make much rational sense. There’s more to rugby and life than just the rational, but it is always where you’re at that matters more than where you’re from - loads of our best and most favourite players have been adopted sons.
