[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?

I suggest you go and read the Bradford/Harris v Leeds judgement as it'll clear it up for you. I've already summarised the main points in one sentence earlier.



You said it.

*snip*

You are missing the point WLA.

Bradford and Leeds are both RL clubs and the issue was that of an RL player moving between them.

The key point here is that I have never seen a contract preventing moving jobs between different industries.

I suggest that you at least make sure of your facts before attempting a patronising response. I will, however, try and find the judgement of the Harris investigation though as you suggest.

:7g01bs2l

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. :7g01bs2l[u:7g01bs2lThat's as maybe, but it is irrelevant to the issue here. The issue is IF Sam decided to "talk", could the contract be legally enforced by Wigan?[/u:7g01bs2l:7g01bs2l

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.
:7g01bs2l[u:7g01bs2lDoes it? So you have read it then?[/u:7g01bs2l:7g01bs2l

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
:7g01bs2l[u:7g01bs2lWhy should he "buy" anything out. It would be in everyones interest for him to walk away as I have stated above[/u:7g01bs2l:7g01bs2l

the remainder of his deal, at least this will make it more difficult

:7g01bs2l[u:7g01bs2lSo we have moved away from "impossible" to "more difficult" Which is it then? Is it illegal or simply another "hurdle" (the size of which is a matter of opinion). [/u:7g01bs2l :7g01bs2l

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.:7g01bs2l[u:7g01bs2lI don't? Actually I have no opinon on it being a positive step or otherwise. I see it as being irrelevant as I have indicated[/u:7g01bs2l:7g01bs2l

I understand that it's now a face-saving thing for you to remain as skeptical about Ian Lenagan's administration as possible, :7g01bs2l[u:7g01bs2lFace saving? On an internet forum? Not really.[/u:7g01bs2l :7g01bs2l

but surely you'd agree that we had to take some kind of action to try and cement our top players into the game? :7g01bs2l [u:7g01bs2lI have gone on record as saying the RFL/Clubs should do all they can to keep talent in the game. An increased offer to Sam is one example. An increase in the Communist Cap would be another. However, I don't buy into empty promises about the validity of a contract[/u:7g01bs2l

Can I clarify that I was taking the mickey when mentioning the standard Super League contract stops players negotiating with other clubs until the September of the contract expiring. It may be in the contract but we all know countless examples when this was completely ignored.

There is no way of policing it and that is the problem.

Also in relation to his agent then I'm pretty certain he will not have signed a contract with Wigan so how he can be stopped talking to RU or NRL clubs and is beyond me.

Wigan have done the best they can (and well done on getting Tomkins to sign for five years) but to think they have some magic hold over him for the next three years at least is extremely naive.

Like I said, if they can freely move why do RU clubs pay transfer fees?

I have underlined the only relevant bits. It would seem this entire pompous stance you are taking is based on a determination not to believe what the club is telling us.

And you’re not trying to save face?



As for the Communist Cap stuff, dream on. At least Ian Lenagan and his team are trying to find ways around the problem rather than standing on the sidelines spouting endless, facile rhetoric – like you do.

I'm not missing the point. The point was that Harris broke a specific clause in his contract, it matters not that it was between two RL clubs. Harris agreed to something that he then broke, hence why Leeds won, even though the judge agreed it was potentially restraint of trade.

I've very sure of my facts, you obviously aren't given you haven't a clue about the Harris judgement yet are still trying to make a point about it that doesn't exist.

Having read the case notes, this bit isn't true, at least this isn't WHY Leeds won the case.

You'll need to tell the judge to change his verdict.

I have seen this thread but never opened it untill today. I have a new found friend (work related) who coaches RU, he has coached at the top level and still is involved in junior level. He often asks my opinion of RL players and we have had a few interesting chats. Only last week he told me he was in London for a meeting and he was talking to the coaching staff and directors at London Harlequins. They are still after Sam and do have a package together which is supported by sponsors money. If would make him the highest payed player in both codes in this country. I just laughed it off at the time stating he had just signed a new 3 three year contract with a "no communication with RU" his reply, does that stop them from going to him and giving him the offer? Suppose not. Will he go? i dont think so. Its just going to be a story that will never go away.

No I don't. You need to read into the REASON for the verdict.

I have done, thankfully without the need to spin it into an agenda I desperately need to keep going (for some reason).