shouldnt this be in the "OTHER SPORTS" section?

im sick of seeing Union threads........my sports LEAGUE....thats why i use this forum, and not a Union one.

Sam can't speak to Union for 3 years, it doesn't stop Union speaking to Wigan though, they call up, have one of their very rich backers pool in a million each and offer it to Wigan.

People are so paranoid about Sam Tomkins on here. It does make pretty amusing reading though.

If that is actually true, IL's crediblity is hanging by the slimmest thread imaginable.

But then I suppose that's the sort of amateurish deal he's been making all his life. You can tell that from the latest 17 million quid he's pocketed this week.

Even so, I wouldn't have believed it if you hadn't told me.

It would be a restraint of trade if Sam Tomkins challenged it.

No it wouldn't?

What would? Asking him to fulfill the terms of a contract that he agreed to and voluntarily signed?

If you genuinely think Ian Lenagan has made Sam Tomkins the most highly paid RL player in the Northern Hemisphere on the basis of a handshake, you are the one who is deluded.

Anyone that believes an employee can sign a contract that says you can't speak to certain other employers is deluded. I'm sure the actual employment contract is fine, but the media soundbyte i'm on about is illegal.

I'm sure Lenagan will be massively relieved to hear that.

Especially after the recent "non fulfillment" of JT's Wigan contract , I find it bizzare that anyone can seriously talk about a contract being "legally enforceable". Anyone who thinks that Sam will be unable to speak to RU clubs on the basis of a written contract is deluded.

You'd better go and tell Bradford and Harris to get all their money back off Leeds then.

You're missing the point here. Both Leeds and Bradford operate under the "rules" of the RFL.

Replace Bradford with Leicester Tigers and the argument falls apart.

If that is the case why did Sarries pay us a transfer fee?

[urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/16144062.stm[/url

Seems like the resident Union thread so...

Chris Ashton demanding more money, what?! Interesting to see Sarries are interested in him I think their on a mission to fill their team with as many Wigan players as possible.

It had nothing to do with the RFL - it was the fact Harris and Bradford broke a contractual arrangement agreed by both Harris and Leeds that caused the problem, hence why it was sorted in a court of law.

Quote ="TrentBarrett"[urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/16144062.stm[/url [iSeems like the resident Union thread so...[/i Chris Ashton demanding more money, what?! Interesting to see Sarries are interested in him I think their on a mission to fill their team with as many Wigan players as possible.'" Agreed. If there were any mods knocking about they could merge it with this thread, viewtopic.php?f=30&t=437277

Quote ="TrentBarrett"[urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/16144062.stm[/url [iSeems like the resident Union thread so...[/i Chris Ashton demanding more money, what?! Interesting to see Sarries are interested in him I think their on a mission to fill their team with as many Wigan players as possible.'" Agreed. If there were any mods knocking about they could merge it with this thread, viewtopic.php?f=30&t=437277

Quote ="Catalancs" Quote ="TrentBarrett"[urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/16144062.stm[/url [iSeems like the resident Union thread so...[/i Chris Ashton demanding more money, what?! Interesting to see Sarries are interested in him I think their on a mission to fill their team with as many Wigan players as possible.'" Agreed. If there were any mods knocking about they could merge it with this thread, viewtopic.php?f=30&t=437277'" You can use Piespace to discuss union as well, and that's where any Ashton or other union posts need to go. This thread is about a current Wigan player so it's fair game to discuss here.

Quote ="Catalancs" Quote ="TrentBarrett"[urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/16144062.stm[/url [iSeems like the resident Union thread so...[/i Chris Ashton demanding more money, what?! Interesting to see Sarries are interested in him I think their on a mission to fill their team with as many Wigan players as possible.'" Agreed. If there were any mods knocking about they could merge it with this thread, viewtopic.php?f=30&t=437277'" You can use Piespace to discuss union as well, and that's where any Ashton or other union posts need to go. This thread is about a current Wigan player so it's fair game to discuss here.

Harris had a legal contract with Leeds, not simply a gentleman's agreement.

Isn't Tomkins' a legal contract?

Here's another one who actually believes that Sam Tomkins is now on the amazing money he's on as the result of a gentleman's agreement.

What do people not understand about the phrase "extended his contract"? or "three years ringfenced"?

It's not bloody rocket science, chaps.

So Sam's new contract is simply a gentleman's agreement then? You think Lenagan wouldn't have got a clause in his new contract, especially given the club were so keen to emphasise the point when Sam signed?

Harris and Bradford were found guilty of breaking a clause within his contract, even though the High Court Judge who found against them agreed it was potentially restraint of trade - however Harris agreed to it and the rewards he received by agreeing to it, hence why the judge found in favour of Leeds.

Indeed, self-made multi-millionaires like Lenagan are known for giving money away in return for nothing.

Just to put this one to bed:

Can't see why its so difficult to have a clause in his contract prohibiting Tomkins from speaking to RU or the NRL for three years (why not make it four and a half of a five years deal is perhaps a more pertinent question). Its only like all current Super league contracts prohibit players from speaking to other clubs until the September of the final year of their contract.

I still am unsure of the legality of preventing a party to a contract such as this from "talking" (whatever that means) to a third party.

I can understand (to a degree) if it is in the same area e.g. Bradford and Leeds are competeting against one another and presumably one side could claim that the other is directly affected by certain actions.

However, where we are talking about 2 different spheres then a contract such as this strikes me as very odd. It's a bit like me signing a job contract with a window cleaning company, with a clause that I wouldn't look for work in a car factory for 3 years. The notion of such a contract and it's legality strikes me as odd.

I presume those who pour scorn on the fact that such a contract IS enforceable are legally trained/have access to such advice, and could post exactly why such a contract is enforceable?



Of course all this is irrelevant since time and time over, the concept of a sportsmans contract has been proven to be vague at best.

If Sam wanted to "talk" (again, just how vague is that term?) to RU in 18 months time, all he would have to do is make it clear that he wanted to. If he was refused, he could simply drop a few balls here and there, miss a few tackles, look generally disinterested, and it would be in everyones interest to grant him his wish. I know that, I suspect Sam and IL also know that.

I find it hilarious that many on here simply cannot grasp this basic concept.

It's actually nowhere near as difficult as you make it out to be.

The deal just means that Sam and his agent will not enter negotiations with any other club - in the NRL or RU - for a period of three years. And they've agreed this and signed a contract to this effect, in reward for which they are being very well paid.

The problem has always been that, while other British RL clubs accept the RFL's rule about not approaching contracted star-players and unsettling them with big offers, there was nothing to stop RU clubs doing this. The contract Sam has signed goes some way towards redressing this balance. While I'd agree that if Sam really did have a major fall out with Wigan, it would be in everyone's interest to allow the player to buy-out the remainder of his deal, at least this will make it more difficult for his agent to cheekily market his services all around the world while he's supposed to be contracted to us - which is exactly what some RL players' agents have been doing.

What surprises me is that you don't seem to think this a positive step. I understand that it's now a face-saving thing for you to remain as skeptical about Ian Lenagan's administration as possible, but surely you'd agree that we had to take some kind of action to try and cement our top players into the game?