Just gone back and had a look and Sam was already contracted until the end of 2014 and the new contract replaced this - obviously upgraded to reflect his new status. So I think we can safely say that Lenegan would not replace a contract that had 4 years to run with a new one that could let him leave after a year if we won the CC.

Lenagan sought advice from Brian Noble who convinced him we have 'a duty of care' to young Sam and that as soon as we won the challenge cup we'd let him leave for £3.50 and a friendly against Aspull RUFC.

Good deal for everyone.

Is it not possible that this was written into his original contract which was signed before we won any trophies and this clause could not legally be taken out??

No. It was a new contract he signed, not an extension to a previous one.

Thanks for the sensible input

Like I said, only what I have been told from a very good source that has no reason to make something like this up

So this clause (if it exists, as nowhere have I said it is definite) could not possibly have been written into the new contract could it??? Is it not possible that Sam would only sign the contract if this clause was in it and the club accepted that it was better to have him than not, we were never garaunteed to win the CC and probably not expected to this year with a draw of Wire, saints then Leeds

That's certainly possible as well

Seeing he still had 4 years to run on his previous contract do you serious think Lenegan would rip that up, probably give him a substantial salary increase and then insert a clause that would let him walk if we won the CC?

I find it extremely difficult to believe that Ian Lenagan - who is a self-made millionaire and nobody's fool at all - would fix a new contract for Sam Tomkins on the basis that we probably wouldn't be winning at Wembley this year, when the club quite clearly put everything it had into getting to the CC final. Ian Lenagan in particular was desperate to get to Wembley and win.

Is he really going to go to all that trouble to give with one hand and then take away with the other?

And to be honest, just saying that you have an very good source who is rarely wrong doesn't cut it.

No offence, but this sounds like the sort of complete twaddle that people make up for the sake of being mischievous.

Maybe if that was the only way he would sign it, like I said we were never garaunteed to win the CC and I'm sure the club would rather have him than not.

"I'll only sign it if there is a clause saying I can leave when we win all the domestic trophies"

"then we'll not retain you"

His agent then gets onto all the other clubs in SL and says Sam is a free agent and I'm sure one of the other clubs would take him on these terms

I will happily PM you my source if you like and you can make up your mind for yourself if you like?

I think people are more interested to know why Sam would want this clause in his contract in the first place, it doesnt make any sense!

As I've pointed out, he still had 4 years to run on a contract when he signed the new one...............................

I dont care who said it, theres no way we would sign somebody on a contract that is now basically worth nothing. We may as well rip it up now hadnt we?