See the club have released shaw and Croft , not so suprised re Croft but thought shaw looked decent prospect

What we see and what the management sees are two different things. Croft looked OK as did Shaw, but I certainly bow to the coach's experience and knowledge of what we don't see in a player.
If either was an outstanding prospect I'd be disappointed but they weren't.
Anyway, maybe they were offered contracts but declined them or thought they were worth more than we were prepared to pay?

Disappointed again two good players just needed game time poor from trinity

Croft has had plenty of game time. That won't suddenly make him better than Hall, Lyne, Langi or Gaskell.

Very sad story, looks like they could be forced out of the game.

No, they forced themselves out, or to be fair as they are basically only kids, they were badly advised.

There are a fair few players at Trinity who are now on pretty decent money whose first contracts were very low indeed, Crowther, Jowitt and Hall off the top of my head, they played the smart game. I know it's a short career but unfortunately the same rules apply as in any other, you start low and build up, unless of course you are freakishly talented, not the case here.

Forcing them out of the game is really bad, but they are not living on the street with the loss of a job.
We are still paying them their current contract for doing nothing.
If they then did get another job, whether scaffolding or RU, it will be quite beneficial for them.

I'd rather both parties agreed a sum that would keep them playing within our budget.
They could be just loaned out to make it cost effective.

You keep saying this but you said earlier you didn't know if we offered them a contract and I assume if you do know, you don't know how much.

So do you know they were offered a contract? Or do you assume they have?

Whats game time got to do with anything?

It's about money, they were offered a deal and didn't accept it, absolutely nothing to do with game time.

A coach puts a value on a player and the club then has to find the cash, those two players were given a value by Mash and they didn't agree. His job depends on who he signs so he cant be emotional even though he was the man who signed them as youngsters. He will have offered then the most he could but just like Chester and Poching he is yet to find the magic money tree. Do you know where it is?

Finally should you be willing to show some patience and not pre judge, you will soon see that the money earmarked for Croft and Shaw has now been used to promote two more youngsters. How do you know they won't be far better?

In fact I'd hazard a guess that one is Ollie Pratt, and no offence to Croft, Pratt is in a different class.

If we hadn't offered them a deal they would have been released as free agents, or that's how I understand it.

So even without any other knowledge I'd say yes they were. But if it helps, then yes they were, I know this to be the case.

What I don't know is the deals, that's private, and it could well have been peanuts as people love to say, but I'd suggest had it been you or I we would probably have gone for it.

As I see it these rules were brought in to protect clubs from having their pockets picked; very noble & worthwhile. It appears that the unintended consequence though is to potentially force young players to accept a contract beneath their value/worth or face being forced out of the game. This isn’t good at the best of times & with the player pool shrinking every year is just plain silly - anyone else remember pre-bosman? I just can’t see this standing up in Court, whether the player(s) can afford to challenge it is a different matter.
I’ve every sympathy with Wakefield, but I just don’t think it’s a good look for them, not any club to effectively say to young players: sign the deal or go find another sport to play. It would certainly make me re-evaluate as a parent to a rugby playing kid.

Yes but who decides that worth, this is the crux and the point I've been making. I suspect they have been given duff advise and over-valued themselves, This I would say is backed up by the lack of apparent offers as let's be honest the comp amounts are not huge.

What this whole story stinks of to me is an Agent who's cocked up and is now feeding the story into the media to gain a sympathy angle, and it's working and thats pure cynical manipulation imo.

On your last point I utterly disagree, that's wanting your cake and eating it. SL is a business not a charitable foundation. When clubs sign youngster they are offering them a chance to pursue their dream, not a promise. No club, certainly in the last 30 years has ever sat a kid down and said we guarantee you a future in the game on a wage that will suit you from the start. Thirty years ago we went full time and with that came huge benefits for some, but for others massive disappointments, that is the very nature of professional sport, every sport not just RL, so there is nothing to re-evaluate IMHO. It's nothing to do with how it looks, it's how it is and pretending otherwise only gives false hope.

Also I'm not sure you can just pick and chose a sport, being good at RL doesn't mean you'd be just as good at football, certainly wasn't the case for me.