Couldn't agree more, and I haven't said anywhere that it is definite, just what I've been told but I don't believe anyone on here knows for a fact either way, I'm merely saying that it is plausible

and as I have pointed out this clause could have been in the original contract signed before we won any trophies

So why give him a new one then.

Contracts are rarely worth anything these days anyway

To improve his salary based on his success and to try and keep him at the club despite obvious interest from other teams/codes

The fact is, as I have stated several times THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD and I couldn't possibly know if it was definite but at the end of the day it could be possible or it may not be possible, I am saying it is plausible and given the person who told me I have no reason not to believe them. That is the last I will say on it.

Imagine the conversation.

IL: We think your performances have justified us giving you an improved contract.

Sam: OK, I'm happy to stick around for 5 years as long as we're not successful, but if we win trophies, I'm off!

It's quite clear something was in his last contract what IL wanted to get rid of it's strange how it's just suddenly just popped up now about it

They are worth a fee if somebody wants to buy it out but he can basically walk away for free tomorrow if what you said is true.

So if I not mistaken, based on what you've been told, either:

1. Sam had a SL/CC clause in his old contract with had 4 years left to run (which was signed when he wasn't anywhere near the household name he is now in RL) and even though he signed a new contract this clause was allowed to continue. While he could still walk if we now only won the CC, we still decided to offer a new contract, no doubt on a considerably improved salary.

2. Wigan ripped up his old contract (which still had four years to run), offered him a new 5 year one, probably with a considerably higher salary, but would let him walk if we won the CC.

In either scenario Wigan are paying more but are in a worse situation. Therefore the question is why bother with the new contract when there was still one with 4 years remaining?

I think we can safely say Lenegan is not mad enough to allow either to happen.

I don't think it's plausible no matter who told you, and there's no point pm'ing me their details, because they are the party I don't believe.

From a players perspective, a contract is effectively a guarantee of salary for x years. The club, even though they may not want to, are required to pay the player for the duration. e.g. Moran and Vaeliki - IF the club wanted them out, they couldn't do it.

Let's be honest, from the clubs perspective, a contract really does mean nothing.

If the player doesn't want to play, he won't, and it's to neither sides advantage to try and "enforce" a contract if the player want's out.

Imo it's a question of time before Sam goes to RU. Frankly if he doesn't then he is mad. Chris Ashton is reported to be currently looking for a SECOND home, not his primary residence, purchase price in the region of £1.5m.

Imo Ashton is nowhere near the same league as Sam.

As the Americans say "Do the math"

Oh and before you say "people oustide RL don't know about him". That's nonsense. I was in South Wales a few weeks back and we got talking about rugby. Tomkins was brought up by some RU fans, with the comment "awesome talent".

In London today on his day off according to twitter. I'm awaiting people to put two and two together and come up with 5