Sums it up perfectly IMO........

The fact is that every player has his price regardless of contract. It may not be ideal but it's true.

We still don't know if Sams going.
If he is then good luck to him, he will have a short career in RL and needs earn as much as he can while he can.
I will consider my self lucky to have been around to watch a great talent every week and maybe we will get some other attacking moves when he goes.
If he is with us then we get to watch a great talent for another year.
There will be life after Sam

And the fact is that the "price" doesn't matter to supporters.

The chairman may well get some money in his pocket. He may well try to pretend that this is going on "long term development" or "investing in the infrastructure" of the club. However, this should be happening irrespective of transfer fees. Surely a business plan cannot rely on transfer fees (or at least should not for a club the size of Wigan).

As I have said before, Tomorrow never comes, or to use another cliche, we have been without jam for long enough to make jam today more important than jam tommorrow.

And where else does this money come from?
Or do you expect IL to fund it all out of his own pocket.

Think about Sam's contract for a while.

Once a player signs a contract, no club is allowed to talk to the player (or 'tap up' as it's called) until the contract is up. So why was it announced that Sam couldn't talk to anyone for 3 years? The only logical answer is that Sam didn't want to sign a 5 year deal. As part of the negotiations IL offered a clause stating that after 3 years Sam has permission to seek employment elsewhere presumably with a previously agreed level of compensation.

What changed? A club came in for him. Providing they did it proporly and approached the club rather than Sam they are quite entitled to do that. IL is then put in the unenviable position of having to make a decision. As Sam was interested in the offer, which frankly, most players would be IL can either milk it for as much money as he can or potentially have an unhappy player who is allowed to leave next year anyway. I'd rather the club treat players proporly providing they deserve it. Those who don't deserve it can get farmed off on loan with a clause saying Thayer can't play against us.

In a salary capped sport I wonder why that should be the case though. We're a sports club not a business and making profits shouldn't really be a concern. It's nice to I suppose and you certainly don't want to be losing money but the most important thing is that the club is stable and we have success on the field.


If we're going to re-invest some of the money in signings fair do's but there aren't any rumours of us looking to do that. Along with the CC money, the Hock money and Mossops fee we'll have brought in a massive wedge this year. I appreciate we do spend a lot of our coaching set up and junior development but we'd have still made good money even if we'd held Tomkins to his contract.

It's a balancing act I suppose.

???

Maybe out of a BUSINESS PLAN that doesn't rely on windfalls from transfers?

Every Wigan Warrior player has a price you can not say the same for Leeds players. Its the owners that are the difference at both clubs. Both have average coaches and good sides. Difference is we are getting weaker and they are staying the same.

Its not our players that have a price its IL who has his price.

They're probably getting stronger with the emergence of lads like Sutcliffe who has the advantage of coming in to a strong and experienced side.

We produce as many and probably more young players then Leeds but with the way things are going they'll be coming in to a very inexperienced side that's getting weaker by the year. I could never criticise the job Lenagan has done and he goes down as a legend in my book but I do wonder if we'll get to a stage where he'll have taken us as far as he can.

We simply can't keep losing so many lads each year.

The lack of continuity is a big issue i agree.

Leeds have been lucky in that regard, the big NRL bucks were not around when their spine was younger, now they are older and past the time where clubs in the NRL would want them. This "Hetherington stand up to the NRL" is not entirely accurate, he does not have anything they want. Lets see how they cope as the youngsters start to come through.

Continuity is important, and i think Leeds have been freakishly lucky in that respect.

If i was a NRL club i'd certainly be looking at Hall and Watkins, possibly Hardaker too.

They are but the biggest difference is that Leeds will let a players contract run out and get the best out of them rather than sell them. Maybe it will change with time. But up to now none have gone of the 3. Hall will be the big NRL target next season especially if he plays well in the 2013 WC.

Reported in the League Express or League Weekly last Monday in a poll by the players union over 70% of players said they would consider a move to Australia od to Rugby Union.