Since he was supposed to be legally bound to a contract of which nobody knows was 3 or 5 years then Mr Lenegan could of demanded he stays for at the very least another year but its obvious that the money was more attractive unless what Mr Lenegan told us about the 3/5 year deal was lies?

then you alienate a player and prevent him from earning the maximum he could and that would be a black mark against this club when it comes to trying to negotiate deals with other players. And somehow i don't believe new zealand warriors would pay anything if he was off contract next season.

This is symptomatic of a worrying trend in SL. It has always been the case that the richer or "bigger" clubs like Wigan have been able to attract talent from the smaller and poorer clubs in SL. With the current disparity in the salary cap between the northern and southern hemispheres, it is now the case that the NRL can pretty much take their pick of British talent. Beyond the limits the NRL clubs desire to cream off our best players, it could be that only sentiment or family ties will dissuade players from moving south.

I suggest you read back through the thread and you will see i did not say that at all.

Don't make yourself look as silly as Cruncher!

I said that by investing it off the field increases the clubs value when he comes to sell it.

We are going around in circles here. You agree with letting our best players leave early and i don't. Who knows when his contract was up next year on in 3 years? As far as im aware its another 3 years until his contract was up but he wasn't allowed to speak to RU clubs in the first 3 years out of the total 5.

He signed a five year contract with an agreement he could talk to interested parties after three years I doubt anyone held a gun to his head to make him sign, so not sure how NZW would have paid no fee next year !!

Ian, sorry Dubairl, you really must read the post before replying with nonsense. It's not even Friday or Saturday after a few beers.

Where did I say "Ian" had not invested? Where did I say he would get "excited"?

I presented the options.

[i'Exactly. We have bucket loads of cash. So what are we going to do with it since the salary cap stops us using it for players wages? We are going to make Mr Lenegan richer than he already is!'[/i

You're own post on this thread, at 3.32pm today.

I don't know where the money will be spent - you know why?, because I'm not part of the Wigan management team. But just because I don't know, that mean doesn't the chairman is going pocket it, FFS!

If you're going to prove you didn't libel the guy, you're going to have to do an awful lot better than offer 'Well where else is it going?' as your sole argument of defence.

True up to a point; the main advantage I see in the return ticket clause is that it stops him going to one of our rivals if/when he does come back to SL.

Glad it's out in the open and we can now all say thanks to Sam for all the memories he leaves us with. Lets make sure he has a standing ovation on Friday for the service he has given the club. He deserves that I feel.

I bet you didn't say that when Sam signed his extended contract. I bet "Ian" was toast of the dubairl household having secured Sam's services and prevented him from speaking to RU or NRL clubs for the next three years.

Is it really necessary to re-post this link:

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/15625039[/url



It had enough pull when the deal was signed for "Ian" to state Sam was prevented from speaking to RU and NRL clubs for three years, which he clearly wasn't. If "ian" was going to cave in as soon as the player wanted to leave he shouldn't say he's signed a contract with the player such that it prevents players from talking to other clubs in the first place should he? Why do that if it's impossible to enforce or you have no intention of doing so? It's not just the contract that is worthless there is it!

We have been misled. It is as simple as that.