WiganWarriorsFans.com

Personally I feel both parties have done right for themselves. I don’t think either party has done anything wrong.

I don't think Sam has done anything wrong.

I suspected (and posted) when we re-signed him that it was a mistake.

Sam has to look after himself and he has done that.

If anyone is to "blame" for him going (blame is not the right word), then it is the club for bringing him back in the first place.

Sam will do what he thinks best. It seems the club have behaved fairly and professionally. Sam might well fancy the sunshine and the money, but I don't know how old his kids are, but if I was a 7 or 8 year old, say, I don't think I'd be too thrilled about going to a school where I didn't know anyone and they all spoke a language I didn't know a word of.

Wes wrote:Personally I feel both parties have done right for themselves. I don’t think either party has done anything wrong.

100% agree

also to add to this i dont get why people are getting so wound up over his statement, saying he should just "be honest"

lets not forget he still has a club to go to and play for he is hardly going to make it out as anything other than his preferred choice is he?.

Like Aussies who came to Wigan in the past didnt say "im only going there because i cant get a decent contract over here anymore and they are likely to pay among the top out the superleague teams"

With the track record of recent Wigan will resign him after a couple of years.In the mean time they will be looking the cheapest way to replace him

Wes wrote:Personally I feel both parties have done right for themselves. I don’t think either party has done anything wrong.

Sam hasn't done anything wrong but the club has been unprofessional. It offered him a deal to re-sign in 2015 and then decided it wanted to change the nature of that deal. And while the statement about Les Cats making an illegal approach is no doubt true just how naive are those running the club to think this won't happen?

DaveO wrote:

Wes wrote:Personally I feel both parties have done right for themselves. I don’t think either party has done anything wrong.

Sam hasn't done anything wrong but the club has been unprofessional. It offered him a deal to re-sign in 2015 and then decided it wanted to change the nature of that deal. And while the statement about Les Cats making an illegal approach is no doubt true just how naive are those running the club to think this won't happen?

I don't think that is right, given how little we have got out of him in this stint, and the nature of an option. Plus, the chronology was that he sorted his deal out with the french before we gave him our offer, so it is easier to argue bad faith on his part than the club's. He is wired to look for the route of least resistance.

DaveO wrote:

Wes wrote:Personally I feel both parties have done right for themselves. I don’t think either party has done anything wrong.

Sam hasn't done anything wrong but the club has been unprofessional. It offered him a deal to re-sign in 2015 and then decided it wanted to change the nature of that deal. And while the statement about Les Cats making an illegal approach is no doubt true just how naive are those running the club to think this won't happen?

How did they change the nature of the deal.

Thought the deal was 3 years and 4th if the club wanted to carry on with the deal.

thegimble wrote:

DaveO wrote:

Wes wrote:Personally I feel both parties have done right for themselves. I don’t think either party has done anything wrong.

Sam hasn't done anything wrong but the club has been unprofessional. It offered him a deal to re-sign in 2015 and then decided it wanted to change the nature of that deal. And while the statement about Les Cats making an illegal approach is no doubt true just how naive are those running the club to think this won't happen?

How did they change the nature of the deal.

Thought the deal was 3 years and 4th if the club wanted to carry on with the deal.

My take on it exactly

Wigan didn't want to exercise the option but instead offer him a new deal, which by that time, he had all ready agreed terms with Catalans

Been a long time coming this as he was rumored to have agreed this move whilst we played Hull in Australia

I know I am borrowing another posters comments but the "original" Sam that left for NZW, was far more irreplaceable than the one departing for Catalans.

Still, some on here are saying Bateman isn't worthy of marquee - yet they will be the first ones posting 20 pages of guff why the club should have done all it could to keep him if he left

I don't see how Sam can be considered any more of a mercenary than Hanley and Gregory (to name but two) when they chose to leave for more money, but then we didn't need to worry in those days when we had Edwards and Botica already at the club. I do feel the club is taking a big risk with Hardaker. Players who misbehave rarely go straight for long (Hock, Gleeson, Rangi Chase for example), so it could all end in tears.

I also don't get why so many posters don't get the contract system. If you go off sick from work you expect to receive sick pay don't you? Why is Sam expected to give money back for the games he has missed just because he is the highest earner? Players can be struck down by injury at any time. Clubs have to take the rough with the smooth.