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

The Wigan Observer says Joel has agreed personal terms and Wigan are expected to recieve around 250k with the move possibly being completed in the next couple of days.

They have been saying we'll announce Dudson, Flower, Lauaki and Thomas in 'the next few days' for 2 months now though.

Because there is no point keeping a player who doesn't want to stay. I suppose if your Man City (with near infinite cash) and salary caps didn't exist then you could hold some cards.

I think some of the assumptions being made about Joel's character are incredibly unfair. Rumour has it he is being offered 4 or 5 times his current salary, anyone would be silly to not give it some very serious consideration. It's probably a very difficult decision for him to leave Wigan and people saying stuff like "let him rot in the reserves" or questioning whether if Wigan in some way managed to prevent a transfer he won't give 100% for us are being very unfair imo.

If he does go, the blame isn't with the player or the club, it's with the people at the head or this sport in the UK who have let it get to this situation with very little resistance.

No. You have not got it straight at all. At this point in time no contract of any player who has gone to RU has been proven worthless and that is a fact. Easmond has just effectively sat a year out at Saints. Ashton was out of contract as well. What has not happened is a dispute over a player who is contracted to league who has just gone off mid contract without the agreement of his RL club.

If there were such a dispute it and the player ended up at the RU side for a small amount of compensation agreed by the courts THEN contracts would be worthless (or worth very little). That would set a precident that has as yet not been set and it would not affect just RL either but all sports that offer fixed term contracts to players.

The idea all sporting contracts are a complete waste of time (which is what this would mean) is not credible.

Wigan may well accept a fee for JT but it won't be because they have no choice. If they didn't want to accept the fee on offer I would bet my house Sarries would walk away rather than asking a judge to render sporting contracts truly worthless.

I don't follow your logic. Maybe it would help to break it into chunks.

Are you saying that Sarries have a vested interest in keeping the fee that they would pay Wigan high, in order not to set the precedent that contracts are worthless?

That is simply bonkers! Sarries do not have a monopoly on setting such precedents. All it would take is some other club to accept it and there it is!

I presume you are arguing that Wigan could enforce the contract of JT. To what end?

For a player to sit out eating up a chunk of the CC? Eating into the wage bill of Wigan? How could this possibly benefit Wigan?

Exactly.

Contracts aren't a waste of time but if one party breaches a contract a court will only allow the other party to recover its losses, not hold the party in breach to ransom.

Unfortunately RL doesn't pay its players much (relatively speaking). If its players aren't paid much you can't make out a case that being deprived of a player causes a great loss, because replacements are availlable for a relatively modest cost.

If IL has negotiated a £250k pay-off as suggested then he has done very well indeed. Having said that, it's buttons to a rich RU club; they won't mind shelling out that amount to get their hands on a player much better than his RU counterparts.

City would also have their player's registration. That protection doesn't apply with a cross-code switch.

The nail has well and truly been smacked on the head.

thomas has announced his retirement....so i'll take the rest with a pinch of salt until its officially announced by the club

Yeah that's my point.

There's obviously something going on and he probably will go but I don't think they know anymore then us.

True that, I wonder if pushed would Tomkins or another player from either code take up the legal challenge.