He didn't say that. No doubt Wilkin was on the radar of Union clubs and possibly NRL clubs as he is a quality player. All Robbo was saying is that it would now put off possible clubs coming in to sign him.

Thankfully not all players "do a Tomkins" and walk all over their club playing the union card shortly after signing an improved contract.

Some players just have a bit more respect for their clubs I suppose.

Wilkin might of done if he was good enough

[sizeWHOOOOOOSH[/size

Wilkin just has far more loyalty than either of the Tomkins brothers. One has already gone and the other needed a bumper increased contract and a get out clause in order to sign.

I'm fairly pleased we've kept him, although the length of deal is a concern I expect he will be one of a few Saints players that will benefit more from having ten interchanges instead of 12 next year as he can play long minutes at high intensity.

I wouldn't put loyal and Wilkin in the same sentence to be honest, but that's another story.

The deal first. A great deal for a quality player. Not many second rowers who can have the odd cracking game as a half back. This gives us a good portion of the pack going forwards and even if we do not keep sia we have two good second rowers in flanaghan and wilkin signed up long term.

Union wise I think there is not as much scope for conversion as people think. I would say 28 is getting towards the wrong end of the specturm. Also as a second rower it would not be a straight forward conversion. That was why I was quite surprised when theysigned joel as he was not really a quality centre. He was only filling in there for wigan.

I think forward wise the window is narrower for them to convert from league to union. Back wise the window is more dependant on your speed and of course a good agent who cqan sell your wears

That sounds libellous to me.

What is this other story, or are you not prepared to tell us.
Seems to me that you are trying to discredit Jon Wilkin. Bit nasty of you dont you think?
You should PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

If he'd have been loyal wouldn't he have stayed at HKR?

Loyalty stops when professionalism starts.

There can be more to a deal than money. ie length of contract . international recognition. being comfortable in present surrounds. chance of making finals etc. but in the end if china offered wilkin one million a year to play tiddly winks then he would professing the benefits of a new and exciting challenge just like the rest of us would.

I would probably say the club HKR are the most dis loyal club in Superleague, they would sooner sign loads of overseas players than persevere with there own.
If Wilkin had stayed his progression would probably been stifled, 10 years loyalty with one club is a remarkable achievement these days, will Tomkins still be at the warriors before the decade end.

I also think he is part of some 17th century Puritan sect,He doesn't like to hear happy noisy celebrations