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.

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

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

Something tells me Maurice Lindsay would never let Sam leave earlier than the contract he signed demanded.

I have been a Wigan fan since the late 1950's and hope this is not true.

However, money talks and bull walks!

It is something many have suspected.

Even though I am not Sean Wanes biggest fan, I feel for him, in that he has probably had no/very little money to build the team with.

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"Sams reply. www.samtomkins.com/blog/i-want-t ... n-purpose/'" Which doesn't tell us anything from the orthodox 'official' line does it ?

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"Sams reply. www.samtomkins.com/blog/i-want-t ... n-purpose/'" Which doesn't tell us anything from the orthodox 'official' line does it ?

But this is the point.

A player could still play but peform "below par".

Dropping the odd ball, missing that tackle etc etc etc

Quote ="XBrettKennyX"But this is the point. A player could still play but peform "below par". Dropping the odd ball, missing that tackle etc etc etc'" No that could never happen.. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23703265 Ok maybe then

Quote ="XBrettKennyX"But this is the point. A player could still play but peform "below par". Dropping the odd ball, missing that tackle etc etc etc'" No that could never happen.. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23703265 Ok maybe then

Quote ="exiled Warrior"No that could never happen.. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23703265 Ok maybe then'" Haha Nice timing from Mr Savage. Do you think he reads these forums? This is the point though in a nutshell. DaveO - You cannot simply point to a contract and identify "black and white" clauses that may well legally point to one issue or the other. Whilst this is no doubt correct from a legal and technical standpoint, it simply does not translate into a real world situation. I am sure Sam could be "forced" into staying if he wants to leave. However, you cannot force him to play to his ability (or even measure the fact that he isn't doing so). The whole thing is nonsense. It was wrong of IL to accept the plaudits when Sam signed, it's wrong to levy the blame at IL IF Sam wants away. Now if it's IL who instigated the whole affair then that's a different story.

Quote ="exiled Warrior"No that could never happen.. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23703265 Ok maybe then'" Haha Nice timing from Mr Savage. Do you think he reads these forums? This is the point though in a nutshell. DaveO - You cannot simply point to a contract and identify "black and white" clauses that may well legally point to one issue or the other. Whilst this is no doubt correct from a legal and technical standpoint, it simply does not translate into a real world situation. I am sure Sam could be "forced" into staying if he wants to leave. However, you cannot force him to play to his ability (or even measure the fact that he isn't doing so). The whole thing is nonsense. It was wrong of IL to accept the plaudits when Sam signed, it's wrong to levy the blame at IL IF Sam wants away. Now if it's IL who instigated the whole affair then that's a different story.

Every player has his price/value. It's always been the same and always will be.

For me it's not about forcing individuals to stay and play, it's about getting the message out there that it's a waste of time trying to lure our contracted players.

i for one can't wait for it to be over with, if he is leaving then so be it, if then then we get a bit more out of him.

i genuinely believe he's just been struggling with fitness of late and i hope the pampering he's had of late will reap benefits going into the CC Final and playoffs, but at the end of the day no player is bigger than the club and at least hampshire has had some decent game time who looks a great prospect.

sam has moved to right the critics wrong regarding his lack of match fitness of late so lets leave it to the team, hopefully including sam, to do the talking over the coming weeks.

who cares what the contract may or may not say - if he's leaving let him go, it will be better for the team all around looking towards next year and beyond and hopefully the club will get a good fee out of it too.

Totally agree

So in this hypothetical scenario, Sam wants to leave, NZ warriors want to buy him.

You can enforce the contract and force Sam to stay......but you cannot force him to play well.

So you end up paying a large chunk of your CC to a player who isn't interested.

Not the best scenario is it?

Yes but what benefit is there to the supporter under the current situation.

What good is the money to the supporter?

The CC changes the dynamics of this old fashioned argument.

If you only look at player replacement on a like for like basis, then yes, but if the money is used in other areas, scouting, youth development, club infrastructure etc then no.