People that think Sam Tomkins' contract concerning the not talking to RU/NRL clubs is anything more than a gentleman's agreement are deluded.

shouldnt this be in the "OTHER SPORTS" section?

im sick of seeing Union threads........my sports LEAGUE....thats why i use this forum, and not a Union one.

Sam can't speak to Union for 3 years, it doesn't stop Union speaking to Wigan though, they call up, have one of their very rich backers pool in a million each and offer it to Wigan.

People are so paranoid about Sam Tomkins on here. It does make pretty amusing reading though.

If that is actually true, IL's crediblity is hanging by the slimmest thread imaginable.

But then I suppose that's the sort of amateurish deal he's been making all his life. You can tell that from the latest 17 million quid he's pocketed this week.

Even so, I wouldn't have believed it if you hadn't told me.

It would be a restraint of trade if Sam Tomkins challenged it.

No it wouldn't?

What would? Asking him to fulfill the terms of a contract that he agreed to and voluntarily signed?

If you genuinely think Ian Lenagan has made Sam Tomkins the most highly paid RL player in the Northern Hemisphere on the basis of a handshake, you are the one who is deluded.

Anyone that believes an employee can sign a contract that says you can't speak to certain other employers is deluded. I'm sure the actual employment contract is fine, but the media soundbyte i'm on about is illegal.

I'm sure Lenagan will be massively relieved to hear that.

Especially after the recent "non fulfillment" of JT's Wigan contract , I find it bizzare that anyone can seriously talk about a contract being "legally enforceable". Anyone who thinks that Sam will be unable to speak to RU clubs on the basis of a written contract is deluded.

You'd better go and tell Bradford and Harris to get all their money back off Leeds then.