Maybe the special marquay play rule is coming in to the salary cap. 1 Player the club can pay anything to to keep them and it doesnt count on the cap. Then we would have no reason not to keep him

To be fair there are reasons they can ward off the NRL from their top players though:
Briers - age 35
Westwood - age 32
Brett Hodgson - age 35
Joel Monaghan - age 31 and Dog incident
Michael Monaghan - age 33
Micky Higham - age 32
Trent Waterhouse - age 32
So the only guys the NRL are likely to be looking at there are Atkins, Myler, Ratchford and Hill, I wouldn't have thought anyone else there would be good enough. It'll be interesting to see how Wire go about replacing most of their starting 13 in a year or two with no chance of bringing over top players from the NRL as they used to. Do they have players like Hampshire, Tierney, Burgess, Williams, Crosb, Burke etc ready to step up or are they just going to blindly hope good players become available? I wouldn't swap our position with theirs

It's the same with Leeds, great team, but how many of the individuals would you see as targets?... It's totally different with our crop of youngsters, and our high profile. No matter what Leeds and others may think we are still the biggest name in English RL, and our players will have a higher profile.

Doing all he can to stop the move??? Given that Sam has 3 yrs of his contract left even I could stop the move!

Well, i'm sure that as you have been over the contract with a fine tooth comb, you have all the answers.

Deary me, that's straw clutching at its finest! We were told the terms of the deal via a big song and dance press release! 5 yr contract, no discussions with other parties until after 3 years. What bit have I got wrong or are you suggesting that the details as released to us paying fans were false?

Unlike you apparently I was happy to take IL at his word. Did you think it was all bogus from day 1 or has this just occurred to you?

You are putting forward a false premise.

No one, including you, has any reason to believe there is anything to the contract other than what was announced at the time (five year deal with a three year gagging clause).

Just occurred to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I made a post at the time that i thought the time of sam's leaving had already been decided, whatever we were being told.

Do you seriously believe that anybody signs a contract they cannot get out of? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I realise that simple answers are easier for you to process but would you like to return to the original point? Irrespective of how easy or not it is to get out of a contract ( to give you my answer, I would imagine it is very easy for one party to hold the other to a legally binding document), are you seriously trying to imply that there is more to the contract than was published? If so, wouldn't you feel at the worst misled by the club or individuals therein? A simple yes or no would suffice, but even better would be an admission that your premise as posted was preposterous.

No, i would not feel misled, as i would not expect to be given all the details. I'm a fan and therefore i do not expect to be party to all business re contracts...

Do you feel you are somehow special and should be? Was a simple yes/no too difficult for you?

odd how certain posters feel that have to imply that people are somehow mentally deficient if they don't agree with them...Bit sad really..

Well you weren't going to admit that you painted yourself into a corner with your unsubstantiated theory so I thought I'd offer you a way out without you losing too much face. Happy to oblige unless you would like to tell us all what you thought may have been in the contract all along that IL didn't mention at the time?

Contracts are hardly worth anything in any sport these days. If an offer comes in that both the club and player in question find difficult to turn down then more often than not the transfer goes through. People seem to think that IL has gone out of his way to directly lie to the fans when this probably isn't the case. Situations change, 2 years is a long time in sport and if anyone thought that the contract Sam signed 2 years ago was completely watertight then they were/are being incredibly naive IMO.

Simple answer is yes ..... but you have been forced to play yours this season whilst we have been able to bring them slowly into the first team routine over a period of time .......

Currie, Riley (G) & Laithwaite are already 1st team regulars, England will join the pack next year, Evans (both of them!) are back in full training, whilst the likes of Dwyer & O'Brien (amongst others) have been playing in SL on loan to gain the experience they will require when they are needed. There's a couple in the U16's (even another ginger!) who will clearly be ready to go well before their 18th. With Atkins, Myler, Ratch, and Hill, that gives Wire cover in every one of the positions held by the list of oldies, and the potential to put out a very competent 13 with an average age way below 25 come the 2015 season !!!

By making me think about this, you've actually cheered me up ..... I'll join you lot in saying "bring on the future"

Didn't Hock sign a 5 yr deal 2 years ago? Since when he has tried to force a move elsewhere in SL, been loaned to Widnes, 'signed' for Parramatta, and now might even end up as one of the Dr's harem ......

Sam or the club would not have signed a contract that would not give either party elbow room.. Is that clear enough?

Like you, i don't know what was in the fine print of the contract, but you chose to speak with the authority of someone who does. I also think that plans for where and when Sam should leave were arranged some time ago... But let me state that unlike you, i'm not claiming to know, be in the know, or that this is fact, just my thoughts, nothing more. So it would have been true that Sam would not talk after the signing, because plans may have been already made.

I'll ask you again a question you have chosen to avoid...

"Do you seriously believe that anybody signs a contract they cannot get out of? A simple yes or no will suffice."

Unfortunately these days, contracts are barely worth the paper they're written on - you only have to look at the football world for that one!

At the end of the day, nobody wants a player in their squad who doesn't want to be there, so it's usually more financially beneficial to let them go for a fee when they decide they've had enough

It seems to me that sporting contracts are a must have, but not a must do. What I mean is, two sides must sign a contract, but both have ways and means of forcing the others hand to do what they want at a later date. A player could if he wanted out, not play with maximum effort if his wish to move is rejected, and a club could make life at work very unpleasant for a player by none first team selection, or a lot of bench sitting, and coach cold shouldering etc. I think whichever side of the contact really wants out; they usually get what they want in the end.

Of course.

I don't know why there is a debate around this, it's obvious.

That is not the issue. The issue is, given Sams particular contract, we have people arguing it is different than stated without any evidence that it is.

It's been said before but is worth stating again as people seem to have forgotten this is no ordinary contract, that given the contract as announced the only way Sam is going after two years is with the clubs blessing. If he or his agent instigated a move this is a flagrant breach of the "not speaking to anyone else clause" and for the club to let him get away with that would show incredible weakness of leadership.

I am sure most people if not everyone when they saw that contract were happy to assume he was ours for at least three years because they would never countenance the club would actually decide to sell him themselves which is the only other way he can be leaving.

IL and the club got huge credit for securing our best player with that deal so God knows why people are so sanguine it looks as worthless as any other deal.

If he goes the club has either been weak or deliberately misleading.

The whole affair is proof that the people who swallowed this "This contract is different" argument were wrong.

As I have argued on multiple occasions, sporting contracts are not worth the paper they are written on, for umpteen reasons discussed to death on here and elsewhere on the forum.

I don't blame IL for this. Just as I gave him no credit for the initial signing (unlike the happy clappers on here), nor will I chastise him if the contract falls through.

The mechanics of a sporting contract simply do not allow for it's enforcement if one of the parties is adamant they do not want it.

Or an offer has come onto the table that neither club nor player can refuse? Money talks for everyone at the end of the day I guess

How have I avoided the question which we all know you threw in when you realised how daft your statement was? I answered your question if you care re read. The fact that I wont bow to your command for a one word answer is your problem. Again, my answer is that we (according to ILs public declaration) have a legally binding contract over Sam Tomkins.We were plainly told the gist of the deal. I didn't claim any more knowledge other than that made public at the time. It's a 5 yr deal with a get out clause after 3 in Sam's favour. What i do know is that were I in ILs shoes Sam would going nowhere! You were the one making claims based on nothing as DaveO pointed out. If IL wants to hang into him he doesn't need to be working tirelessly unless he's far less than the shrewd businessman I believe him to be. You are saying (based on nothing) that Sam's departure date was known all along. I'm saying I believed IL at the time regarding his statement on Sam's contract. So, either IL told us the truth at the time (my belief) or we were duped by him because there was never any intention by either party to even see out the 3 year element (your belief). Strange that you purport to be the steadfast IL fan whilst I am the one saying I believed him in the first place, don't you think? Maybe I'm not such an IL hater as you would clearly like me to be.

I’m sorry but this is all a storm in a teacup. You say people speak without any evidence of things being different than that which has been stated previously by the club. I do not say I am trying to; all I say is that sporting contracts are sometimes not worth the paper they’re written on. Neither you nor I know for sure who spoke to whom about what and when. If it was Sam, His agent or IL no one seems to be making a fuss, or threatening court action over a broken contract, so we can only assume at this stage if anything has gone on (and as yet we have had no official confirmation) it’s with the agreement of both sides, and if so I for one blame no one. I’m sure on one side it will be the best deal for the club, on the other, the best deal the player could get, end of. If this is the case? The contact does not stand by mutual agreement, and for me that’s that!

What about taking a stand against the whole scenario? Cruncher for one has come to that conclusion, namely, that there is no long term benefit for anyone linked to domestic RL unless we do so. For me, I've been saying as much all along. The contracts are legally binding, or they aren't contracts! I would just like us to stand firm instead of getting shafted. The other issue of whether we are being fully informed is exactly that, another issue.