I wouldnt read that much into it mate, Money talks. Also given the fact that since he signed that new deal hes now won everything worth winning in the English game and feels like he needed a new challenge?

Hopefully as someone has posted his friends and family have had words with him and managed to talk him out of it though

I don't know, for me it seem's dodgy, the 5 year contract signing was announced on 04/02/2011 and we're now 25/10/2011 so in just under 9months somethings changed from what Joel said;


I agree money talks but from that, to me it seems like he's implying that money doesn't matter, I want to play here.

It's the same story with Sam Tomkins;

Changed suddenly to;


Now that's a far cry from "I can't see myself playing anywhere else."

Its easy to say that money doesnt matter when you're already on 80k a year and not being offered anymore, but when they are throwing the figures rumoured at him everything goes out the window.

Strange one this as was full steam ahead a few weeks ago yet has all gone quiet so could be anything for you guys.

A) Pure rumour and he's staying.
B) You won't let him go until star replacement is announced.
C) Simply still hagling a fee with Saries (player may not be forcing the issue).
D) Everyone's on holls and will be sort with when get's backed



Personally I hope it's A as he is a cracking player with huge potential and I don't want to see him leave our sport (not that I'd in anyway blame Wigan if he did leave btw).

I've found a problem with this. It's probably just a rumour. Will we get compensation then?

Wigans position is very poor.

Let's assume JT want's to go and Sarries want to pay £100k. Wigan want £300k.

What can Wigan do? Refuse to sell to Sarries, (even assuming that they are allowed to). JT effectively refuses to play (wasting both money and CC space).

I fail to see how Wigans hand is strong in this one.

Wigan Observer tonight reckon the fee is £250-000 and will be sorted in the next few days, well that should get us a decent centre if they aren't going to play Josh there.

Well if Sarries don't pay up, why should Wigan release him? Thats like you wanting to sell your house for arguments sake, £100,000. But someone only bidding £75,000 for it, are you really going to take less then the valuation? No. Until you get the right offer, why should you accept? Exact same with Wigan and Joel. This is all pure speculation mind you, anything could be going on with it now.

If he wanted to leave he shouldn't of signed a 5year deal. Simples.

Not selling your house wouldn't have a detrimental effect on your livelihood though. You would simply ask for a price and if it wasn't forthcoming then you'd stay with the status quo.

The problem Wigan have is that if we refuse Joel a transfer because we haven't got what we feel is value for money then he may refuse to play or play poorly. That has a detrimental effect on results, performances and team morale overall.

£250,000 is probably a reasonable amount considering the arguments about the strength of our position in these negotiations.

You don't get this do you?

That analogy simply doesn't work.

Ok let me put it another way, using the example I gave.

Option 1 - Wigan take £100k, benefit from not paying JT's salary, benefit from not having JT's salary count on the Communist Cap.

Option 2 - Wigan get no transfer fee, have to pay JT's salary even though he doesn't play and have it counted on the Communist Cap.

Now what's your point again?

If he doesn't play then he's not fulfilling his side of the contract and Wigan will sue him.

If Joel has sounded out a move to Union I would let him go, no point trying to talk him out of it otherwise he might regret not going in the future. I'd let him figure it out for himself and when he is playing for Bedford on loan in the middle of winter he will want to come back, he will come back unfit, unskilled, overweight and a mere shadow of the player he once was and will always regret going, he will leave Wigan to go to someone like Salford or Widnes and spend the rest of his career jumping from club to club.

I wouldn't blame any player anymore for going for the big money and more publicity I really wouldn't but respect the Wigan name/brand/club/staff/tem mates and fans and do it before pre-season so we can replace the player and get ready for the new season without rocking the boat ala Ashton and Eastmond.

If he's going then go asap, he's a good player but I won't lose any sleep over him going.

If he stays then well done lad, we're right behind you.

Saracens won't want to pay any more than they can get away with, and if IL pushes it too far they could easily walk away and find a player from elsewhere.
That would leave JT in the peculiar position of having to stay and try and rebuild his reputation and standing with the club and with the fans.
Apart from his CC Final try, he didn't pull up any trees for me at centre, and as has been said, second rowers are easier to find.
He isn't so special that we can't replace him.

Don't be silly.

He could very well "play" and go through the motions.

"Oops I dropped the ball"

"Oops I seem to have hurt my knee"

"Oops I seem to have missed that tackle"

You cannot force someone to play if they don't want to. This is exactly why contracts are not worth the paper they are written on and I didn't go overboard with celebrations when the two Tomkins brothers extensions were announced.

I agree. I would rather him play for Wigan but he is nowhere near as great a loss to the game as his brother would be. He is also never a centre in a million years.

Hes hardly gonna do that when it could affect his two brothers livelyhoods that are playing for us too. Add to that he would probably get a good kicking from somebody too.

Why? They are a completely different competition and governing body. It's just like the NRL and us. Players have been banned form the NRL but get gigs here and play.

In any case it doesn't have to be French RL poaching Union players, another English club could do it whether the RFU rules say you can or not. Basically if in [ilaw[/i it is OK to get a player who was under contract to some other club if he walks out and you pay compensation sporting bye-laws won't be able to stop it. If Sarries can take Joel via the courts any club can take any player the same way.



So the victor in the court case is liable for the costs of those losing the case? I really do not think so. Sarries would be liable for costs as they lost. Money is not the issue anyway.

The reason Wigan are in a strong position is because if they have any sense Sarries will not try and force the issue such that Wigan take them to court because Sarries do not want to be in effect arguing all sporting contracts are worthless.

People keep saying contracts are worthless but forgetting if they are worthless to Wigan they are worthless to Sarries and other RU sides. Financially poorer sides such as Sale could simply not hold onto any decent players if contracts were effectively torn up.

Just think a little about what you have just posted......

Wigan are in a very very weak position, not a strong one for the reasons I mentioned above.


So let me get your argument straight. You believe that Sarries will not wish this issue to go to court because if it did, it would confirm the fact that contracts are effectively worthless. A fact that I know is true, you seem to know is true, Sarries know is true but they don't wish anyone else to know is true. Er ok............

On the costs point, have a look at this, which explains how the offer procedure I mentioned works:

[urlhttp://www.pinsentmasons.com/PDF/Part36offerstosettle.pdf[/url

I'd be surprised if the RU does not operate a player registration system which is respected internationally, but even if it doesn't the reality is that within the same sport there is unlikely to be a free for all for players.

In terms of sports bye-laws there are ways of making them override laws in certain contexts. The most obvious example is the so-called super-priority given to football creditors on an administration of a football club. This arises because the club (or any company set up to buy the club's assets from the administrator) won't be allowed back into the league unless all football related creditors have been paid off in full. The reality commercially therefore is that the administrator has to do a deal with the football related creditors, even though the priority of debts laid down by law would seem to dictate otherwise. See [urlhttp://www.shepwedd.co.uk/knowledge/article/852-1945/paying-the-penalty/archive/?page=1[/url

If he goes, I hope you get some money for him and he fails miserably. Same goes for Eastmond. The more failures there are the less likely union will be back for more, particularly if they've paid over the odds. BTW is it true that Andy Farrell is involved at Saracens? Seems like a poor thing for a long-time player (defended to the hilt by Wigan fans as well) to be involved in tempting talent from their ex-club.

Yes, He's coach and I remember seeing him at Wembley this year cheering on Wigan to victory!

Wigan are not in a weak position.
Sarries are taking a risk. Paying, say £200k, for a player who may not take to their code of rugby at all. He could do another Lee Smith, go to Union and be back within months. That would have cost Sarries big time, first his fee than his wages at a rumoured £8000 a week for whatever time he was there.
Joel is a very expensive buy given his fee, then salary and the fact he's never played Union.
It's Saracens who are taking the risk not Wigan!

Of course. However, Wigan ARE in a weak position as regards bargaining.

Absolutely. In situations like this the player gets his move 99 times out of 100