Unfortunately these days, contracts are barely worth the paper they're written on - you only have to look at the football world for that one!

At the end of the day, nobody wants a player in their squad who doesn't want to be there, so it's usually more financially beneficial to let them go for a fee when they decide they've had enough

It seems to me that sporting contracts are a must have, but not a must do. What I mean is, two sides must sign a contract, but both have ways and means of forcing the others hand to do what they want at a later date. A player could if he wanted out, not play with maximum effort if his wish to move is rejected, and a club could make life at work very unpleasant for a player by none first team selection, or a lot of bench sitting, and coach cold shouldering etc. I think whichever side of the contact really wants out; they usually get what they want in the end.

Of course.

I don't know why there is a debate around this, it's obvious.

That is not the issue. The issue is, given Sams particular contract, we have people arguing it is different than stated without any evidence that it is.

It's been said before but is worth stating again as people seem to have forgotten this is no ordinary contract, that given the contract as announced the only way Sam is going after two years is with the clubs blessing. If he or his agent instigated a move this is a flagrant breach of the "not speaking to anyone else clause" and for the club to let him get away with that would show incredible weakness of leadership.

I am sure most people if not everyone when they saw that contract were happy to assume he was ours for at least three years because they would never countenance the club would actually decide to sell him themselves which is the only other way he can be leaving.

IL and the club got huge credit for securing our best player with that deal so God knows why people are so sanguine it looks as worthless as any other deal.

If he goes the club has either been weak or deliberately misleading.

The whole affair is proof that the people who swallowed this "This contract is different" argument were wrong.

As I have argued on multiple occasions, sporting contracts are not worth the paper they are written on, for umpteen reasons discussed to death on here and elsewhere on the forum.

I don't blame IL for this. Just as I gave him no credit for the initial signing (unlike the happy clappers on here), nor will I chastise him if the contract falls through.

The mechanics of a sporting contract simply do not allow for it's enforcement if one of the parties is adamant they do not want it.

Or an offer has come onto the table that neither club nor player can refuse? Money talks for everyone at the end of the day I guess

How have I avoided the question which we all know you threw in when you realised how daft your statement was? I answered your question if you care re read. The fact that I wont bow to your command for a one word answer is your problem. Again, my answer is that we (according to ILs public declaration) have a legally binding contract over Sam Tomkins.We were plainly told the gist of the deal. I didn't claim any more knowledge other than that made public at the time. It's a 5 yr deal with a get out clause after 3 in Sam's favour. What i do know is that were I in ILs shoes Sam would going nowhere! You were the one making claims based on nothing as DaveO pointed out. If IL wants to hang into him he doesn't need to be working tirelessly unless he's far less than the shrewd businessman I believe him to be. You are saying (based on nothing) that Sam's departure date was known all along. I'm saying I believed IL at the time regarding his statement on Sam's contract. So, either IL told us the truth at the time (my belief) or we were duped by him because there was never any intention by either party to even see out the 3 year element (your belief). Strange that you purport to be the steadfast IL fan whilst I am the one saying I believed him in the first place, don't you think? Maybe I'm not such an IL hater as you would clearly like me to be.

I’m sorry but this is all a storm in a teacup. You say people speak without any evidence of things being different than that which has been stated previously by the club. I do not say I am trying to; all I say is that sporting contracts are sometimes not worth the paper they’re written on. Neither you nor I know for sure who spoke to whom about what and when. If it was Sam, His agent or IL no one seems to be making a fuss, or threatening court action over a broken contract, so we can only assume at this stage if anything has gone on (and as yet we have had no official confirmation) it’s with the agreement of both sides, and if so I for one blame no one. I’m sure on one side it will be the best deal for the club, on the other, the best deal the player could get, end of. If this is the case? The contact does not stand by mutual agreement, and for me that’s that!

What about taking a stand against the whole scenario? Cruncher for one has come to that conclusion, namely, that there is no long term benefit for anyone linked to domestic RL unless we do so. For me, I've been saying as much all along. The contracts are legally binding, or they aren't contracts! I would just like us to stand firm instead of getting shafted. The other issue of whether we are being fully informed is exactly that, another issue.

www.samtomkins.com/blog/i-want-t ... n-purpose/

null

www.samtomkins.com/blog/i-want-t ... n-purpose/

null

If you would care to look back over posts in this thread i have stressed that i know nothing, and am just giving my musings.... If you feel they are ridiculous, you are free to comment.

"But let me state that unlike you, i'm not claiming to know, be in the know, or that this is fact, just my thoughts, nothing more." Posted earlier today...