Not selling your house wouldn't have a detrimental effect on your livelihood though. You would simply ask for a price and if it wasn't forthcoming then you'd stay with the status quo.

The problem Wigan have is that if we refuse Joel a transfer because we haven't got what we feel is value for money then he may refuse to play or play poorly. That has a detrimental effect on results, performances and team morale overall.

£250,000 is probably a reasonable amount considering the arguments about the strength of our position in these negotiations.

You don't get this do you?

That analogy simply doesn't work.

Ok let me put it another way, using the example I gave.

Option 1 - Wigan take £100k, benefit from not paying JT's salary, benefit from not having JT's salary count on the Communist Cap.

Option 2 - Wigan get no transfer fee, have to pay JT's salary even though he doesn't play and have it counted on the Communist Cap.

Now what's your point again?

If he doesn't play then he's not fulfilling his side of the contract and Wigan will sue him.

If Joel has sounded out a move to Union I would let him go, no point trying to talk him out of it otherwise he might regret not going in the future. I'd let him figure it out for himself and when he is playing for Bedford on loan in the middle of winter he will want to come back, he will come back unfit, unskilled, overweight and a mere shadow of the player he once was and will always regret going, he will leave Wigan to go to someone like Salford or Widnes and spend the rest of his career jumping from club to club.

I wouldn't blame any player anymore for going for the big money and more publicity I really wouldn't but respect the Wigan name/brand/club/staff/tem mates and fans and do it before pre-season so we can replace the player and get ready for the new season without rocking the boat ala Ashton and Eastmond.

If he's going then go asap, he's a good player but I won't lose any sleep over him going.

If he stays then well done lad, we're right behind you.

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............