The clause in the contract was to stop Sam or his agent either approaching other clubs or being approached directly by other clubs during the 3 years. Nothing would stop any club that wanted to try to sign from approaching Wigan and making the club an offer and asking for permission to speak to Sam once an offer of compensation (transfer fee) had been accepted by the club. With the clause in place any interested club has to go through the Wigan club to get permission to approach him. The clause was only put in the contract to prevent him from being put on the market for a move without the knowledge of the Wigan club and without them being willing to let him be transferred. The clause means that Sam and his agent would only know of any negotiation about a potential transfer once a transfer fee acceptable to Wigan has been put forward by the interested club. This means Wigan are in a strong position to get the fee they want whilst the clause is active. If clubs were allowed to approach the player and his agent directly then offers could come in that whilst very good for the player (and agent) were not providing the required level of compensation to Wigan. Such offers whilst not acceptable for Wigan could (and probably would) turn the player's head meaning that he would then tell the club he didn't want to stay and Wigan are faced with either having someone who doesn't want to stay (and possibly is unhappy with them rejecting the offer) or with having to accept a very poor level of compensation for losing their star player part way through a long contract. The clause is there to avoid such a situation occurring rather than preventing any transfer occurring.

I am not suggesting that he has been, is or will be in talks with any club about a transfer (I don't know him or anyone connected to him). I am just saying that the clause in his contract doesn't mean that he can't leave before the 3 years are up.

That may be possible given the way the contract was worded but that wasn't how it was sold to the fans by the club and I do not think that was what the club itself intended. It was to make sure he was a Wigan player for at least three years. As simple as that.



Given what you say it would have to be Wigan who decided to release him from the three year part of the deal and IL would have zero credibility with the fans if he did that. Sam is actually contracted for five years not three so if in either of the last two years of that he was approached and wanted out Wigan would still be entitled to compensation. Given that is the case I can't see any reason for Wigan to agree to him leaving at this point in time.

In fact whatever amount of compensation was offered at any time before the five years is up (because it aint going to be silly money) Wigan still ought to take a view if the club is not better served by keeping him for the full five years and him walking away for free at the end of it.

If he helps us get to a CC final which according to IL is worth about £250K to the club then losing him early and being also-rans in that competition is going to take a heck of a lot of money I don't think will be on offer to compensate.

Unless you or anyone else on here has seen the contract or knows the stipulations of the contract it's all hearsay. i've heard the same things as everyone else regarding it being 'watertight', but who actually knows the ins and outs of the contract?

Personally, and this is just an opinion, he'll stay for another two seasons then say bye.

It's not black and white. And 'watertight' in terms of a contract is debatable. Have you seen the ins and outs of the contract for yourself? Probably not. Has IL disregarded contracts before? Yes, many times over, so if the right deal came in for Sam before the 3yrs is up are Wigan going to ignore it? If the offer on the table is too difficult to resist the club then will discuss the situation with Sam.
Its business. the club, IL are far from 'monumentally stupid' hence why they would also review each offer which game their way. Hence Lima leaving early etc...

The only thing you and I have heard about the contract is that it is supposedly watertight so as you are in no more privvy to the details than anyone else your not in a position to imply it is no different to any other contract are you?

Given the publicity of it being watertight I think it is highly unlikely IL will treat it as any other run of the mill deal either. He will have a lot of explaining to do if he does to the press, fans and the RFL who I thought were instrumental in us getting a deal to keep Sam as regards our salary cap.

That puts terminating this contract into a whole different ball park than any other contract no matter how it is actually worded. Publicising a contract as watertight when it isn't is idiotic. They either wanted him here for three years and went out of their way to secure that or they may as well not have bothered. As I said above wasn't there supposed to be all sorts of special arrangements made to accommodate this contract under our salary cap? It is unrealistic to countenance the idea the club does all this and then rips it up after two out of three years. If they do then yes, they would be monumentally stupid in my opinion. The whole charade would have been a complete waste of time.

No I haven't see the contract, neither have you, that's the whole point.
Which means it could literally feature anything which none of us know about. My point is anything could happen. I feel Sam will be here till 2014 then go. But there's no guarantees.

I agree, I think that Sam will be at Wigan for two more seasons. He will then move on to new challenges and the club will receive the biggest transfer fee in RL history.

Like I said in an earlier post, anything can happen, but I think a move to Union to Sarries is on the card for 2014.

For the sake of RL, I'd like to see other stars of our game promoted in the media, otherwise losing RL golden boy to RU would be massive kick in the d!ick for our game.

I think the fact it was promoted as watertight deal and the lengths gone to by not just Wigan to make it so mean the idea "anything could happen" as in him not seeing out the three year deal is incredibly unlikely. On a par with him being flattened by a piano falling from a building. It is not just an ordinary contract and we know this because of what was said at the time.

One of the things said by IL was:

"It shows the strength of the sport and the Wigan Club that we are able to invest in such an exceptional player within the Salary Cap. I am fully aware of Rugby Union's interest in Sam, however [uit gives me great pride that we are able to retain[/u and reward one of the Sports brightest talents."

He will look ridiculous if in fact he ends up failing to retain him for the three years.

I genuinely believe Sam will go to the NRL rather than Union, hopefully Souths. Earning a massive transfer fee, playing in the best rugby competition of any code in the world and earning a huge wage and living in Oz, why Union. Shitty England, risk of losing his reputation if he doesnt convert, learning a new game from scratch. I dont think RL will lose the best talent this country has produced for years. He'll want to test himself against the best, and thats the NRL.

You keep missing my point. I agree with all which you have heard, as I've heard the same. The point is anything can happen with contracts, nothing is a certainty. Never has been, never will be.

I've boon told from a decent source this morning that Hock will be going to the NRL and we will be getting Ben westwood as a replacement. Just another rumour I accept but the source is pretty hard to ignore. Not sure I can see it happen as I know wire have refused to deal with us regarding players in the last year or so and that was with a player with much less pedigree than Ben Westwood. Personally I wouldn't swap Hock for any SR in SL but Westwood is the only one close.

Hearing two rumours at the moment. The first one is Prescott to Hull (not sure which club) but this isn't very reliable and the second is from a very reliable source. Gaz Hock being chased by more than one NRL club with representatives trying to arrange personal talks. Unlikely to develop though from what I understand. He's happy here

Was going to add that in my post that I know for a fact there have been strong links with Gaz and the NRL in years gone by and that he has turned it down as he is more than happy here and wanted to repay the club for giving him a second chance. He's a bit of a homebird.

He also has a young family so I doubt he'd want to uproot them and drag them to oz

Ha Ha Ha Ha - deluded.

Did they tell this to the u20s players as well.

Entitled to believe what you want pal, Like I said I can't see it happening for several reasons but the source is hard to ignore.

Not quite sure what the U20's has to do with it as both players are a lot older than 20 but as far as the U20's goes I know exactly what is happening and I know Wigans stance on the matter (which happens to be the mirror opposite of what you believed to be the case)

There may be some truth in it. Why would we have been pro-actively trying to sign Ellis when we have an abundence of back row forwards. I dont think Ellis would push Hansen or Hock out of the starting line up and Ellis certainly wouldnt want to be a bench player. Cant see it happening if im honest and there is not a chance in hell Wire would allow Westwood to come to Wigan and to be honest, why would he want to. Hes in a title challenging team already and clearly loves being at Warrington

If that is what you are being told then you're being played for a fool by whoever it is.

Translates as: "Oh God I hope this doesn't happen! Who told you? Is he reliable? etc etc"

Maintaining a dignified is the best way to prove that you're not badly disturbed by a rumour.

I would be gutted if we replaced hock with Westwood, Westwood is more similar to the Hansen mould type player. Hock is just another level in attack to most second rowers I've seen.

Do you have anything at all to back up why he'd be a fool to stay that? Do you have a contrasting story from a reliable source?

I think Westwood is more similar to Hock, very aggressive in attack, excellent in defence and can be a solid enforcer while keeping his head. I think he's a better ALL ROUND player than Hock. Came close to being the MOS due to consistent good performances.

Plus he can kick, nice to have a back up for Pat.

Can anyone clarify if the rumours and opinions are always this bad in the off season or is it just a slow day?

Also I too would be disappointed with the (very realistic) signing of Ben Westwood to replace Hock.
In the same way I'd be disappointed if we decided to swap Matty Smith to sign Cooper Cronk!