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.

www.samtomkins.com/blog/i-want-t ... n-purpose/

www.samtomkins.com/blog/i-want-t ... n-purpose/

If you would care to look back over posts in this thread i have stressed that i know nothing, and am just giving my musings.... If you feel they are ridiculous, you are free to comment.

"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." Posted earlier today...

Only posted after being pulled up by 2 of us. You started off speculating that IL may be pulling out the stops to keep Sam. I said there was no need, we all know the score because IL told us. After all, what else is there for any of us to base our opinions on other than public statements from the club? You then went on to say you believe that all parties knew all along when Sam would be leaving. If that's the case IL can stop stop-pulling, can't he? Ateotd we were either told the truth or we weren't. I believe that the deal sold to us was kosher and that something has obviously changed since it was signed. You seem to think it was never as we were told. We'll never change each others opinion but if I had your belief it follows that you were happy for the club to mislead us, doesn't it? Well, I for one would be most unhappy to find out we had been lied to all along but, since I don't know where you drew your conclusion from, I'm happy to not believe that, if you know what I mean.

I understand your point and don’t disagree with what you are saying. All I say is if they wanted to take a stand, and who knows maybe it was considered, but if they did are you sure the outcome would be as you would hope, and if not, they still lose face and gain nothing. How often has a contract dispute in sport resolved it’s self amicably? You could end up chucking the baby out with the bathwater. Contracts are binding unless both sides agree a change! I think things are not always as straight forward as they seem to us outside.

I fully agree but feel that, as Cruncher explained recently, the time has come to make a principled stand. Mossop gone early, probably Sam, possibly Josh. We have to draw the line IMO. It may be damaging to us short term, we may have contracted players sulking in the wings, but both scenarios are more palatable to me than watching us give them an early send off. If we carry on down this path why would it ever end? We demonstrate time and again we can produce top talent, what are we doing to dissuade the predators? Nothing IMO.

You seem to be ignoring the two different scenarios.

The one which would conform to the "sporting contracts are not worth the paper they are written on" scenario would be Sam or his agent instigating the move despite being expressly forbidden to do so by the terms of his contract.

I have no idea why you think this contract is as vulnerable to the player wanting away than a normal contract.

If you think that why were Wigan naive enough to think otherwise? They have contract lawyers to draw these things up.

If are you suggesting they were [inot[/i naive at all and knew it was no more water tight than other contracts then the only conclusion is IL deliberately misled the fans.

The way he was banging on about it suggests to me he was sincere. I hope so otherwise how can anyone trust what he says again?

The counter argument to this seems to be some people suggesting the club is always economic with the truth which is bonkers because that means whenever IL says we are going to do this, that or the other they can't believe a word he says. It's a straw man argument.



Yes they do. As does the law. The only way Sam can leave is with the clubs blessing. This is also where the second scenario comes in. That is the club instigated the move presumably after an enquiry as to his availability.

I am sure some "Happy Clapper" will point out that when the club made great play of the fact it was preventing Sam from speaking to other clubs it never said anything about not doing the same itself.

If it turns out this is the scenario then it would cast the club in a very bad light. Being economical with the truth and downright disingenuous is no way to treat your customers. And selling your best asset isn't going to gain you many friends either especially when the current rumoured replacement has two shot knees.

I think a club instigated move is the most likely scenario. I do not believe IL would want to look a complete fool by letting Sam walk all over his gagging clause nor do I believe Sam broke it. I'd be astonished if IL did, so I think all this "contracts are worthless if the player wants away" just doesn't apply. I don't think he did want away or he wouldn't have signed the contract in the first place but has been given the opportunity to go.

Despite all of this I am still clinging to the hope he stays!

Whilst technically what you are saying is correct, it's not reality.

A club cannot "force" a player to play to the best of his ability. A player unhappy at a club can simply not play well. He can moan, he can tell the coach to bugger off in front of the players, he can upset the apple cart in numerous ways and become a liability............ Of course he is unlikely to do all of these and give himself a bad rep, but he can do a few, and cause problems for the club.

What is the club to do? In a Communist Capped world, continue to shell out a large proportion of it's wage bill on a player that is not an asset?

I am not for one minute suggesting that Sam would do this, but it highlights just how little a contract means when appraised from the clubs perspective.






=#FF4000[i
If are you suggesting they were [inot[/i naive at all and knew it was no more water tight than other contracts then the only conclusion is IL deliberately misled the fans. [/i

[iThat's exactly what I am suggesting. My reaction to IL's comments were "pull the other one it's got bells on it". Others on here seemed to believe him- that's their issue.[/i

A club 'could' actually [unot[/u pay that player. If they refused to play.

They do that in football on occasion, through the use of fines.

Not suggesting it's a good idea, but it is an option. That is if 'that' club was sticking to the signed contract.

Whilst top rugby players are not on the obscene amounts paid to their[i'prima donnas[/i' in football, they have a living standard far higher than the average bloke on the terraces. They want to keep that standard of life or improve.

"fresh" reports about the NZW move from some mouth piece agent or other www.3news.co.nz/Reports-Warriors ... fault.aspx?

"fresh" reports about the NZW move from some mouth piece agent or other www.3news.co.nz/Reports-Warriors ... fault.aspx?

Quote ="tugglesf78""fresh" reports about the NZW move from some mouth piece agent or other www.3news.co.nz/Reports-Warriors ... fault.aspx?'" IL, Sam Tomkins and the club have sold us a lie, the chairman has some serious explaining to do once this is announced, and I don't want to hear the "give them 2 years in the NRL to get it out of his system rubbish" he has actively allowed the best home grown talent of a generation to break a key clause in his contract a clause which has been stated to the fans time and time again as a way of appeasing our concerns.

Quote ="tugglesf78""fresh" reports about the NZW move from some mouth piece agent or other www.3news.co.nz/Reports-Warriors ... fault.aspx?'" IL, Sam Tomkins and the club have sold us a lie, the chairman has some serious explaining to do once this is announced, and I don't want to hear the "give them 2 years in the NRL to get it out of his system rubbish" he has actively allowed the best home grown talent of a generation to break a key clause in his contract a clause which has been stated to the fans time and time again as a way of appeasing our concerns.

Perhaps IL is taking tips off Dave, OOO...... PROFIT.