Take noticed that those who are the most critical never tell us what they would do if they were in the same situation that IL and other Owners/Chairmen are now finding themselves in as a result of there being more money down under and in a rival code.

What do you mean never tell you what they would do? With the Sam situation I have said all along I wouldn't be selling him early and make no mistake if he does go at the end of the season IL will have sold him early when there is no compulsion to do so at all. Not selling him is exactly what most people who don't agree with him going are saying they would do. And that is after reading the usual comments that he will sulk or we shouldn't stand in his way etc. Cadoo's post in the signings thread dealt with those objections pretty comprehensively IMO.

So yes people do tell you what they would do.

Perhaps you can tell us why you would support IL selling Sam early baring in mind he has no reason to do so?

Not true in my case. I've said hold players to contract. That's what I'd do if I was in charge. It makes no difference how much money is available if you're not interested in it! This club IMO can afford to hold players to contract then release them. It cost us nothing to sign Mossop or sam so there's no transfer fee to be recouped. All speculation on my part of course.

Tricky one because of the salary cap. We'd effectively be paying a player money that could be spent better elsewhere.

The Sam situation is different though. We all presumed he signed the new improved 'no speaking' contract with the intention of leaving after the 'no speaking' clause was up. Thus enabling us to still get some decent money for him.

[size=150[uIF[/u[/size he has requested to leave before that part of his contract is up, I think I'd like to see IL hold him to it. [size=150[uIF[/u[/size IL is trying to cash in on him early, then I'd be very disappointed.

I suppose there is two places you can spend the money. On development or on players. I don't see us lacking in development and you have to ask what is the point anyway if all you are dong is developing players to sell. Or it cold be spent on transsfer fees to buy players to replace them.

For lesser players than Sam it;s possible. Hopkins frm Leigh cold be viewed as Tuscon's replacement but I am still not convinced you wouldn't be better off with a settled squad than having a higher turnover if possible. But with players like Sam there are no replacements to buy.



Well its got to be one or the other.

And this is the key point.

Sam is a once in a generation player. When he goes it will be at least 10 years before we get anyone like that, the way RL in this country is going, maybe never.

What I meant by that is that a player would be taking up a big chunk of cap just to be sitting around twiddling his thumbs or putting in half d performances on the pitch because he doesn't want to be there. Because of this it seems to be the done thing in all sports to let that player go.

I can't see many clubs being able to hold on to all their superstars in the current climate. Long, Cunningham, Scully and Wellens were the cornerstone of a very dominant Saints team not so long ago but I'm not sure they'd have stayed around in the current situation with Union and particularly the NRL seemingly willing to splash it's cash.

With regards to player development, I don't think you could ever spend too much money on that regardless of if you think they'll just leave anyway.

Re player development. That production line has got to be maintained and I don't think we could do it any better than we are at present. Credit to all concerned there. Re half d performances I would like to see us at least appear to do something other than roll over. If we tell a disaffected player he must stay what are the consequences? A player may take a dip in form but, in the case of sam or Mossop we are talking about 1 season only. IMO we can cope with that to make the point that contracts should be honoured by both sides. Until we actually dig our heels in we won't know if a player will start to turn in poor performances. Given our recent luck with injuries they could be sat out for other reasons anyway.

The player development seems spot on. If we have to sell the likes of Mossop and Sam to fund it then it's not sustainable IMO and development should not come at the expense of losing players like Sam. In any case I don't think we do sell players in order to fund this aspect of the club. I think transfer fees are a bit of a red herring used to justify unpopular sales of players.

As JJ says re contracts I think we just have to dig our heals in at some point and say you are staying. If they sulk we put up with it to get the message across. In Sam's case I can't see any justification for doing otherwise if it was Sam who broke his "no speaking" clause. (If we actually facilitated a sale well you know what I think about that.)

The top and bottom of this in my opinion is that until we know the exact fact or at least we get a press release concerning the deal much of the debate around Tomkins departure is pointless.

Basically some appear to want to criticise a decision made by our Chairman, without knowing what the decision made is.

I am personally if the opinion/suspect it will be far less black and white than Tomkins leaves Wigan in exchange for a transfer fee.

Whilst it is frustrating to lose Sam, it is not a decision I feel any of us are in a position to judge yet.

The only thing I can form an opinion on IFL on at the moment is his current performance to date, which I believe is outstanding. He has overseen a huge period of transition in the club, put systems and structures in place to ensure we have pathways to the first team from our youth structure on the field and made us a financially viable business off the field.

There always seems to be a plan with IFL and a bigger picture mentality to his decisions, and personally I for one think he is the best Chairman in the league by some distance.

One point I wish to raise about the long term contract issue and how we should force players to honour them is this. Going forward, if we adopt that policy, why would any player consider signing one with us? If for example one of our developing players who spends time in the dressing room around a player who is being forced to stay and is unhappy is offered a 5 year deal, and another team offers him 2 years on similar terms, at which point after 2 years he can look around assess his options and potentially move to the NRL then what would people's reaction be?

The above example is without even considering what effect a player being forced into stating will have on the dressing room and also of course his own performance.

Correctamundo!
And a point I've been trying to get across but not as we'll as yourself.