I don't know whether or not you say is correct, (not doubting it, I simply don't know) but assuming that it is...
If I owed you £5,000, but you wanted my car so I gave it to you and you wrote off my £5,000 debt then the car was not free, it would have cost you £5,000. Whether handing over the cash, or writing off a debt, wigan would still effectively have paid for Sam Tomkins.

Your example has nothing to do with the Tomkins deal.

If you trying to put it in those terms then I would guess the contract is the use of the car until all payments are made otherwise there is a risk of loosing the use of the car contract and then debt is Tomkins. NZ warrior cannot keep up the contract use of Tomkins and return the goods but the wholesale price of the contract has not depreciated like the car because it's not a car it's Tomkins.
In all essence it is really a loan and by letting Tomkins go for a couple of years, Pies relinquish his wage bill and receive a sum, and get back Tomkins, whilst value is added throughout the deal as NRL experience has been aquired.

I'm confused myself now....either way Wigan has come out of it smelling pretty, the only dampener to the deal if that the debt Tomkins was returned with some front end damage, and now getting back the contract, the use of Tomkins, there is a loss, his wage.

But what if, after letting Tomkins leave to play in New Zealand, wigan brought a youngster through their system or picked up a gem from a lower level club. They then realise that this new wonderkid is a better player than Tomkins, and they don't need Tomkins back. New Zealand Warriors are then obliged to pay wigan the outstanding debt of NZ$400,000.

One scenario, wigan don't sign Tomkins so receive a payment of NZ$400,000 to put in the bank.
Other scenario, wigan sign Tomkins but don't receive NZ$400,000 to put in the bank.

Which ever way you look at it, choosing to sign Tomkins would effectively cost wigan NZ$400,000.

Correct, he cost Wigan what ever the balance of the debt that got cancelled. No idea what the exact numbers were though.

No it won't. The only loss for Wigan was the lack of Tomkins on the field and predicted extra success they may have had for them while he is at NZ and the relatively smaller contract offered to Bowen.
They got Tomkins back entirely without a signing on fee.
The loss of revenue over Tomkins contract is different from Tomkins the player.

Wigan owned Tomkins not NZW until the contract is complete.
They didn't buy him back. It was like a loan through hp.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I appreciate the Ian Leneghan didn't have to write a cheque for the transfer, but if wigan wrote off the debt owed to them in order to sign Tomkins then Tomkins effectively cost wigan the value of the written off debt.

They could have waited, banked their NZ$s, and then hoped to resign Tomkins at the end of his contract. But by taking him back early, wigan wrote off a debt owed to them, hence there was a financial cost to resigning Sam Tomkins.

By not agreeing with you is obtuse? I disagree with your view but I won't insult you.
You have a right to differ on opinion. Your counter post have not on this occasion swayed my view., that doesn't mean to say I don't enjoy the debate and won't be swayed on other matters in other topics.
If I can't give you an argument I'll say so with pleasure.

I don't see referring to someone as being obtuse as an insult, but I wholeheartedly apologise if it has been taken that way.

On this occasion we should agree to disagree as it seems to me that we are looking at the same situation from opposite angles. As it turns out I couldn't care less whether wigan have paid £1,000,000, half a dozen meat pies, a packet of Uncle Joes Mintballs, got him for free or are being paid in lamb chops to take Tomkins off NZ Warriors hands. He is still the worst fullback in SL based on current form, and the biggest waste of salary cap so far this season.

No offence and we've found common ground about how much or how many pies.

Cat's are pretty good ain't they

Sure are.
Defence very impressive

Saints lost this because of the effort they put into our game, Eddie mentioned it at least twice.
Yes because flying over 2weeks in a row takes nothing out of you ??

Cats very good and stains poor. I still can't believe we lost to that stains side last week.