Who will replace Faz

[Welski]

DaveO posted:

gab0512 posted:
If a player asks to be released early from a contract and his employer does not agree it should be something players accept as part of the job given they freely agreed to the contract in the first place.

Dave

I agree Dave but as I've said before I would guess it was by mutual consent. Still only time will tell mate.

[DaveO]

Welski posted:

DaveO posted:

gab0512 posted:
If a player asks to be released early from a contract and his employer does not agree it should be something players accept as part of the job given they freely agreed to the contract in the first place.

Dave

I agree Dave but as I've said before I would guess it was by mutual consent. Still only time will tell mate.

I am sure it is by mutial consent I am just saying Maurice Lindsay should not have given his consent and held Farrell to the contract. :devi:

Dave

[gab0512]

Welski posted:

DaveO posted:

gab0512 posted:
If a player asks to be released early from a contract and his employer does not agree it should be something players accept as part of the job given they freely agreed to the contract in the first place.

Dave

I agree Dave but as I've said before I would guess it was by mutual consent. Still only time will tell mate.

There is a big difference between a person honouring his contract i.e. staying until the last day of the contract period, and actually being happy whilst doing so!!

The problem we would have then - and is seriously debateable is this: -

Given that he will complete the timings of his contract. How do you judge his commitment on the playing side and whether he has 'honoured' that part of the contract? The contract must basically say we employ you to play RL for Wigan until end of 2006, for which we will pay you £xxxxx. What it won't say is "We will only pay you if you meet our playing standards".

The only reason we have such a debate is because of the high standards Faz has achieved over the years. Be honest DaveO (and others) - have you ever lost sleep when a player never made the grade, and the club cancelled his contract or sold him on? Did any of us care how that person would pay his bills and keep his family? I seriously doubt it. If the club can do it, and we don't object because the player wasn't quality, then we should accept the fact it can happen the other way!

[Fraggle]

gab0512 posted:
There is nothing anybody can do about the Faz scenario, and no matter what anybody says about Lindsay etc. What is the point in keeping a player who is unhappy?

If the club had done its job properly and say no to the RFU the opportunity would never have presented itself. As far as we know he was perfectly happy a month ago before this all started. Why should he suddenly become unhappy at being told to do the job he's being paid to do by the club.

It was his decision to sign a 6 year deal, rather than a 3 or 4 year deal and look again at his options. He should accept that and honour it, or more to the point the club should have made it clear the contract would be honoured no matter what.

[heydude]

Thing is no SL club or NRL club are going to release a top quality player at this stage of the season for whatever money is offered,the other thing to consider is not just a top quality player but one with great leadership qualities which (no disrespect to radlinski but) we seem to be lacking at the moment without farrell.[/quote]

[pricey]

heydude posted:
Thing is no SL club or NRL club are going to release a top quality player at this stage of the season for whatever money is offered,the other thing to consider is not just a top quality player but one with great leadership qualities which (no disrespect to radlinski but) we seem to be lacking at the moment without farrell.

[/quote]We did didnt we ?

[mrs_carney]

not without the player wanting to go, if they dont wanna go wigan wouldnt just let them go to get money

[proud_pie_eater]

I dont think anyone realises that Farrell is irreplacable, as a captain, as a player and as a Wigan personality. The man himself will be sorely lost but I think the natural replacment for Faz is Sean O'loughlin. He will replace him in position and he will be good for the team, but Farrell will never be replaced, only lost.

[mrs_carney]

isnt that what i basically said?

[GeoffN]

DaveO posted:
If every time a player wants out we rip up the contract there is no point having them in the first place. Contracts work both ways giving the player a degree of certainty of employment and the club a good idea of its playing roster into the future. They are mutually beneficial to both sides but if one side can rip them up as soon as a better offer comes along then thay are not worth the paper they are written on.

Letting Farrell walk away from a two year commitment is a mistake by Lindsay not only because it is not in the interests of the team and we can't replace Farrell but because it sends out the wrong message to players and to those who would tempt our players away.

RL is not a semi-pro or amateur sport and contracts are part of it being a professional game now. They should, IMO,be honoured or enforced.

Dave

By the same logic, we wouldn't have got Guisset to replace Davico, since he was on a 2-year contract with Brive.