I think you're right.

The really annoying thing about all this is that if only RL could sort out its management and administration and make a better job of running and marketing the game the bigger clubs could afford to pay the sort of wages that would make it a lot more difficult for RU clubs to entice our players to take the risk of moving to a different sport and a different sporting culture. But when even the most intelligent and enlightened of club owners, our own Mr Lenegan, persists in sticking his head in the sand on the SC issue and even gives interviews in which he says he's not worried about RU then nothing is going to change.

That depends on what you call a massive payout I suppose. I dont want Joel to go but anything over £200K cant be sniffed at. Saracens would largely be buying potential. As a centre the jury is still out whilst in the 2nd row he isnt the best in SL......yet. So when you consider what other players have gone for, if he has to go that might not be a bad deal. There is not point demanding a stupid fee just so that the deal doesnt happen, we all know sport is different to pretty much any other business when it comes to employees.

You don't have to demand a stupid fee in order to prevent the deal happening. You just have to demand a reasonable fee to reflect the years of development you've put into developing the player, and as compensation not only for the loss of his talent but for the overall negative impact on the club and fans that his departure will inevitably have (in this case it's put the entire fanbase under a massive downer).

If Saracens regard that as stupidity and walk away, then that's their problem.

To be honest, I don't get all this "we need to consider what other players have gone for" and "Saracens are only buying potential". My answer to that is tough schizer! I'm interested in our loss not their risk. If they want a sure thing, they should buy a world class RU player, or better still, break the habit of a lifetime and actually develop one of their own.

We also need to think of the precedent. The days of RU paying pig money for knackered veterans like Farrell are over. They now are targetting guys like Eastmond and the Tomkins brothers - exciting young stars with big careers ahead of them. We already labour under extreme dfficulty hanging on to these guys. Why should we score another own-goal by making it even easier for people like Andy Clarke to market them elsewhere by sticking reasonable price-tags on them?

I hear all the stuff about market forces, etc, but we really need to stick out for a big payday on Joel. We have to put a marker down to let these parasites know they are not going to benefit from out hard work without paying through the nose for it. If it's true - and I keep hearing people in positions of power saying it is - that many Union clubs are already mortgaged to the hilt, that may well concentrate a few minds about whether it's worthwhile keeping raiding RL. Ultimately we want them to make the decision that it costs a lot less to slam the door in Andy Clarke's face.

Well said. Wigan should not put a low fee on Joel to be nice to Joel either because he can earn more in Union. That is not being vindictive but putting a true value on the player for the reasons you state:

"...to reflect the years of development you've put into developing the player, and as compensation not only for the loss of his talent but for the overall negative impact on the club and fans that his departure will inevitably have... Why should we score another own-goal by making it even easier for people like Andy Clarke to market them elsewhere by sticking reasonable price-tags on them?....We have to put a marker down to let these parasites know they are not going to benefit from out hard work without paying through the nose for it..."

That should mean a high fee not a reasonable one and if they don't want to pay it, no deal.

The problem with charging a high transfer fee to the club is that you are putting the player out by preventing him from earning a much higher wage. It's not like football where there is silly money flying about. If Wigan turned round and said we want £3m for Joel which they obviously wouldnt receive, Joel misses out on the extra wages. You then end up with a disgruntled player.

Some power has to be handed back to the RL clubs so that they are able to fight off advances from union. At the minute, unless the player says NO, then the RL club has to roll over and wave goodbye.

So what? We are constantly told this is a job to the players not a vocation to justify letting them go for higher wages and if so they have to accept the club must view any transfer requests in the same business context. It's simply business and if as Cruncher said setting a high fee that reflects the players value to Wigan sets precedent then one disgruntled player is a price worth paying if that means when Andy Clarke and Co try and manufacture another move out of nothing the players know from the start it is not a forgone conclusion they will be allowed to leave for peanuts. They won't have the expectation they will be allowed to do so without what the club considers adequate compensation.

And no one suggested stupid fees such as £3m either but a fee that sets a fair value on all the things Cruncher mentioned. If the club can justify the fee it sets (which they could not if they asked for £3m) then the player will be able to see why the club values them as they do and he should blame the Union club for not wanting to pay the fee if they walk away, not Wigan for setting it.



No they don't. Are you seriously suggesting if Saracens offered say £50K and no more Wigan would wave goodbye? I think not.

I agree that to ask £3 million would be ridiculous. But I don't consider £400,000 ridiculous, given that fees like that have been paid for RL stars in the past. And if someone ends up disgruntled then I'm sorry but maybe that's the result of a player's agent making his player unrealistic promises.

That said, I don't like these situations when players are frozen out of the game, and by tradition, Wigan don't. They always took the line that if a player wants to go he should be allowed to go. But things are different now. Wigan have invested a lot of time and money in Joel. Not only that, his defection would be yet another blow to the British game overall. These things cannot be considered lightly any longer - we stand to lose too much.

If Joel has decided that he wants to go, and it's a decision based on providing the best future he can for himself and his family, then it's perfectly understandable. But likewise, Wigan have to think about their future and their finances. It's all about hard business these days. There should be no room for sentiment.

I agree 100%. As I said it is often said it is a job to players, well it's a business to Wigan. Letting any player leave for a small amount of money in transfer fees is not good business for Wigan or the game as a whole. Players need to understand that.

JT plays is a first team player for one of the best sides in the game and is an England International. If RU want him then even ignoring things like the development effort Wigan put in and other intangible considerations such as the fans disappointment (which may affect crowds etc) then £400K is about right.

First of all

Someone did suggest £3m.

What I'm saying is that if a player has a chance to triple/quadruple whatever their current wage is and the club blocks it by setting a fee that is too expensive then you are going to have a very unhappy player. It's not football where they are all set up for life anyway, this is literally life changing money to a RL player.

If a club comes in with a reasonable offer of a transfer fee (which around 250k would be imo) and the player decides they want to go, then there is little the RL club can do. Im not sure why you add that bit about 50k at the end because I never said anything like that?

£3million was just a random high number I thought I would put out there, I know that is impossible but what I mean is that Rugby League clubs should be aiming for high figures when it comes to compensation, it is a business and if some of the players end up being valued higher then surely there has to be changes to the cap system. However it's The RFL so probably not.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on what constitutes a reasonable fee. Considering Wigan's time, effort and investment, the damage to the club, the ongoing damage to the game, and then the remainder of Joel's contract which will need to be bought out in addition to everything lese, I still think that £400K would be a good start-point.

But I honestly don't care about this unhappy player lark. If we're ever to finally draw a line in the sand on this matter, there's going to be at least one unhappy player - it may as well be Joel, given that he's the first loss I think we will really, really feel.

Sorry didn't see that but I certainly was not thinking along those terms. That would obviously be a nonsense figure. Setting a proper fee however (and the £400K suggestion seems reasonable to me) is not.



I am sorry but that is irrelevant. If an agent goes to a player and says I can get you triple wages by getting you an RU gig without first seeing if the transfer is feasible the player has no right to feel hard done to by his club if they set a reasonable fee on his move if the RU side won't pay it. The agent has offered something he could not deliver.



I mentioned £50K because you said "At the minute, unless the player says NO, then the RL club has to roll over and wave goodbye." and if that is the case then Union can offer £50K because you seem to think because the player has been offered a high wage that is the end of it. Quite frankly if it is inevitable why would the union side pay [ianything[/i?

So let me ask you. If the Union club offered a fee unacceptable to Wigan (however much that might be) what should Wigan do?

I would have thought 400k+ was perfectly reasonable, especially only 1 year in to a 5 year deal. But I just couldnt see Wigan turning down 250k.

The problem with a player being "unhappy" in this situation is they could become uninterested and their game gets affected, to a point where there was no point keeping them anyway, with the added insult that the club isnt financially rewarded.

In my honest opinion, and it has been said time and time again for a fair few years now, clubs should be rewarded for promoting youngsters in to their first team by implementing a system whereby only a certain % of their wages count towards the salary cap.

Sorry few crossed wires I think, (Im gonna blame the time

)

In the situation you mention there then obviously Wigan tell the RU/NRL/whatever club to get stuffed. But in this particular example of Joel moving to Saracens it appears though the clubs are attempting to negotiate a transfer fee which both parties will be "happy" with.

I would imagine if a player was told by an agent I can triple your current wages, then the union club offered a stupidly low amount, then the player may be a little pee'd off but would probably understand why the RL turned it down.

I would also imagine a RU club wouldnt come in for one of our stars without knowing that they were going to have to pay a decent fee, especially for contracted international players in their mid 20s. I still stand by my point that if a union club is interested and the player wants to go then the RL club dont gain anything by digging their heels in and will eventually end up letting the player go.

The bits in italics form your post are contradictory because they inevitably mean unacceptable fees could be offered because a club will just let them go anyway eventually. RU people are not thick and if it became apparent we were always going to release players the fees offered would be less and less. We then have no negotiation point other than the goodwill of the Union club to give us a nice wadge of cash.

Or put the other way any club willing to say no to an unacceptable fee must be preprepared to deal with the player afterwards but you say there is no point to hanging onto the player.

So at the end of the day we either cave in no matter what the fee offered because we don't want to deal with an unhappy player or we set appropriate fees to reflect the players value and stick too it. If doing the latter means we end up with an unhappy player then we have to deal with it. To pinch Crunchers phrase a line in the sand needs to be drawn and the club and the game will have to deal with the consequences of doing so. If that means he goes for free in four years time I see no problem with that because we will have had our value as I doubt any player in that circumstance would be daft enough to be unprofessional as it would hurt them as much as the club.

Hmmm. A lot of unrealistic thinking going on here, I'm afraid.

In the event that Joel simply walked out on Wigan and joined Sarries Wigan would only be entitled to damages to compensate them for their loss. Their loss would be net of the wages they would otherwise have paid. The losses would therefore include the costs of finding a replacement player, loss of any sponsorship revenues that were particularly attached to Joel, but would not include the "value" the club place on Joel.

If Joel were the subject of a transfer bid from Leeds Rhinos and the club wanted to sell him to Leeds and Joel had already agreed personal terms with Leeds before changing his mind then you might have a case that Wigan were being deprived of the transfer fee, but other than that it's hard to see how the "value" argument works in terms of reflecting real losses.

In terms of the "investment" Wigan have put into training Joel it's hard to see how the costs of training required by an employee to carry out his employment can be recovered from him if he leaves. It may seem unfair that Wigan have become an RU feeder club and that our players can be enticed away, but that's just business I'm afraid. Employees can leave to join other employers after receiving on the job training and experience. The danger of RL clubs becoming feeder clubs for top talent into RU has been obvious for years and RL clubs (and most fans to be fair, including on this board) have just ignored the issue.

Ultimately the losses would not be huge because RL players of Joel's calibre aren't paid much relatively speaking and wouldn't cost much to replace (due to the SC's effect on dampening down pay). Figures of £500k or more have been bandied about (£3m?) but just aren't realistic - I wish they were, but they aren't.

In the event that Tomkins simply walked out on Wigan and started playing for Sarries and Wigan took this to court and won the case (as I'm sure they would) both Tomkins and Sarries would be liable for damages for breach of contract in Tomkins' case and inducement to breach contract in Sarries' case. However it would be unlikely to get that far - Sarries would put in an offer to settle, which would then put Wigan in a difficiult position on costs if they held out for an unrealistic "valuation" that did not reflect the damages the court would award (see my post on this earlier in this thread).

I'm sure Sarries won't want the negative publicity or the damaging effect on Joel that a major dispute would cause, which will lead them to pay a premium over what they would have to in a court case but legally Wigan are in a weak position due to the low damages that would be available and that is also part of the picture on these negotiations (as is the point that Joel has obviously had his head turned by this RU overture and is not going to want to stay at Wigan now). If IL gets £250k he will have done really well.

DeanO, are you suggesting that players of Tomkins' 'calibre' are ten a penny? I would have thought that if you look around SL, the number of quality British centres is very low indeed. There are a number with potential, but as of today the best SL can come up with is Yeaman and Shenton (if fit). Joel would have been in the squad (and possibly team) if he hadn't pulled out. It's hardly a buyers' market.

I also agree with those saying that its about time RL clubs started sticking up for themselves with respect to these deals. I'm of the view that whilst Saracens would undoubtedly be able to force a transfer in breach of Tomkins' contract if they went to court (and Wigan may get less than hoped in compensation), they too wouldn't like the implications.

Imagine a (highly improbable) scenario where a crazed Russian tycoon decided to invest in Quins (I said improbable!). I suspect the RFL would quickly decide that things such as transfer fees were irrelevant, and that RU internationals could be exmpted from the Cap so long as the club involved had the money. In such a world, Saracens would be absolutely unable to prevent said Russian loon from looting their entire squad for peanuts, as they themselves had set the precedent that contracts betwen sporting clubs and professional players are basically worthless if the player wants out.

OTOH I wouldn't underestimate a court's willingness to treat reasonably highly-paid sports stars somewhat differently to your average punter. Chris Caisley (a lawyer of all things) seriously misread the ability to enforce employment contracts with respect to I Harris. I'm not saying the issue is the same but Caisley obviously thought the court would see the 'deal' between Harris and Leeds as restraint of trade and ignore it. They didn't and it cost a lot more than Leeds would have settled for before the case went to court (not to mention costs).

Finally, I'd also add that its also about sending messages to players as well. Wigan gave Joel a very long contract. Regardless of the level of pay, they offered him years of job security. In return Wigan wouldn't need to look for a player in his position for the duration of the contract. I also assume that if he really kicked on Wigan would - as every other club - have been open to renegotiating. Players need to understand that long-term deals aren't offered lightly - clubs are taking a big risk themselves. What if Joel's form goes down the toilet during the contract? I'm sure he wouldn't be arguing that 'its just a job and it'd be OK if Wigan fired me'.

Apologies for the rant but I've seen Leeds lose a couple of players to the dark side, and I don't buy the argument that players leaving RL is OK. Its not, it hurts the sport I follow a lot.

You both miss my point. I am not saying we should put a low fee on Joel nor should we roll over and die. We should hold out for what we believe is a realistic figure and stick to it. Making the fee too high with the sole idea being to make Saracens walk away would be foolish IMO on one condition....If Joel wants to go. If he doesnt than its a pointless thread if he does we need to do whats best for the club. Demanding a world record fee just to keep a player who wishes to be elsewhere will cause problems. We would be using valuable cap space for a player who would rather be somewhere else . I am all for doing all we can to stop the top players switching. However, Wigan can not do it alone the RFL needs to grow a pair. Ashton, Eastmond etc were released or out of contract. As soon as RL players can be 'bought' then long term contracts will mean nothing. This will lead to shorter contracts so players can walk away at the end of them. We will then see an increase in talent crossing over year on year. Wigan should lead the way but we cant do it on our own.

Rugby League is making the wrong impression to union by even considering sell either joel or sam they will think they can take anyone after this. If some one wants to buy a union player that is under contract they if they dont want to sell they will not sell simple as that and certainly not when they have just signed 5 year deals they would have the player come and commit there future to there club till they contract ends i.e Manu Tuilagi super 15 was looking at him he was interested but theres no way he was getting out his contract. End of the day joel signed the 5 year deal he was happy and said his future sorted and it was a easy decison for him sam was the same and now we are expected to role over because they have been brain washed with sh#te. If correct what few people on here think that if a player gets offered a extra £50,000 or so they should run to off to union then we will never have any stars in the game and it will die. Bottom line is RL is a game were we need a bit of loyalty from everyone and its not like joel, sam and any other top RL dont have a pot p#ss in is it. People like sam and joel are becoming like proper little yes men union clicks fingers and they going running. I do think all that said that if joel is only on 80k then he should be on at least £100k to £120k and dont no what sam is on but i think he should get £200k plus and to do that with the salary cap as it is must be a possibility when you look at the players that left left like hoffman etc and if i was the RFL i would then give sam a loyalty payment.

Won't that actually be 1 year into a 3 three deal with an additional 2 year option for the player, the same as his brother's deal?

I agree absolutely that the RFL needs to grow a pair and start fighting to keep its prize assets. It can't just be down to the clubs, because ultimately they haven't got the resources.

But the bit I've underlined honestly does not matter. This is now a much bigger issue than whether we've got a player sulking in the dressing room. I've said before and I'll say it again, I'm not in favour of freezing players out of the game, but IMO we've reached a key moment in this tug-of-war over playing talent. Yes, it won't help Wigan to have a player on their books who's not being cooperative etc - but it helps them even less to put out a signal that they will release their best players on the cheap. It's clearly the case that RU will now chase any RL back who attracts rave notices (or, dare I say it, scores one good try on network television). If this is allowed to continue, we will NEVER develop any more players of this calibre and be able to keep hold of them.

We should not be thinking about negotiating a deal that suits us, Saracens, Joel and Andy Clarke. We should be thinking about negotiating a deal that suits us solely. That's the bottom line, and if it turns into a legal battle - then fair enough. If they are going to keep on swooping for our prize talent, they need to know that it's going to hurt.

The other thing is - if you make it complicated for a player to leave, that might concentrate the thinking of both the player (in Joel's case I keep hearing rumours that he's unsure about leaving) and the RU financiers, who, as they're only buying 'potential', might be tempted to start looking closer to home. If might also help if it puts a few questiionmarks against the wisdom of agents like Andy Clarke and Frank Endacott, who appear to be doing very nicely out of unsettling RL players.

Cruncher, I'm afraid that losing our best young players is now the future for RL, unless there is radical change.

I've been talking about this on this board for years (as have others, I can't claim any special insight) but unless RL overhauls its management and structures it is going to decline into a semi-professional, third rate sport.

I have never said that RL clubs should pay any player more than they can afford (in fact I've argued for tighter financial monitoring - the SC and licensing system have been dismal failures), but the game should plan for and reward growth, rather than encouraging a lack of ambition.

We have a situation now in RL where clubs apparently can afford only to pay players over 30% less in real terms than they did at the outset of SL (this is shown by the fact the RL has not raised the salary cap in line with inflation). If this carries on in the long term we will not have to worry about RU raids because the game will not exist in the form it does, most players will have gone back to semi-pro status and the game will be similar in status to the French domestic RL championship.

If we had put in place proper structures and management we would have clubs that could afford to pay a bit more now to players like Joel, enough to make it a big risk for him to move to a different sport. 80k a year for a player of Joel's calibre. That's the level RL has sunk to in this country and it's only going to get worse.

The shortsightedness of RL club owners, inept RFL management and the parochial and at times idiotic nature of many RL fans (over the years there have been a huge number of stupid posts on this board by the pro-SC and pro-status quo, Wigan hating flat-earth muppets, in fact some people seem to be motivated by envy and think RL players earn too much...

) have left our sport in a weak condition and with a very uncertain future. Thanks a lot.

I also don't buy the argument that players leaving RL is OK!

As for Joel's worth, it's going to be difficult for Wigan's barrister to stand up before a high court judge to argue that a player who is only paid £80k p.a. is "worth" say £500k in terms of lost income to the club and costs of replacement!

Joel is a special talent, but in RL special talent doesn't equate to expensive staff cost (because of the SC).

I'm afraid that while the SC works to help short-sighted club owners clamp down on the pay of playing staff, it doesn't help them as employers claiming damages from their (relatively) poorly paid playing employees. They can't have their cake and eat it - if players like Joel don't cost much they can't argue they are "worth" a great deal. If club owners did try to run that argument then that could be very dangerous for them; the club owners might find the SC coming under rather closer legal scrutiny that they would wish. It's far from clear that the SC in its current form would be upheld by a court as a lawful restraint of trade. (The NZ courts allowed the NZRU cap in a restraint of trade case, but subjected it to strict conditions; I imagine a British court would approach it in a similar way and would be unimpressed by the fact that the SC has not risen in line with inflation and that only a small number of big clubs have won the SL, which makes the SC look like a device to reduce player pay rather than something for the good of the game.)

I certainly don't disagree with any of that.

I despair, Cruncher, I really do. I can see a future for the sport where we aren't even losing our best young players in 20 years' time to RU because they aren't even getting involved in the sport in the first place.

We may well end up with a third rate sport whose semi-pro players aren't good enough to make RU clubs want them. What a dismal future that would be. That is where we are heading.