WiganWarriorsFans.com

butt monkey wrote:

jobo wrote:

butt monkey wrote: As Daveo has quite so eloquently put it, Wigan do not need to do anything!

Joel signed that contract and it was given to him by the club in good faith. If it was not acceptable a year ago, why did he sign it?

To attempt to force a move for pure financial gain, when you have already committed yourself to one deal is bordering on an illegal approach by the "interested party"

Why has Joel been allowed to hold any so called discussions with the RU when we are being informed that the stumbling block is compensation?

Surely the purchasing club must come up with enough financial benefits to force Wigan's hand to allow the player to talk not the other way around? Wigan should not have to accept "cap in hand" whatever is offered (if anything) just because A player is now "unhappy" after being illegally approached!

If Joel is left to rot in the reserves or another RL teams reserves because he feels he can renege on a contract then so be it. I don't care how unhappy he is there. I would be more concerned if this became the norm and then what sort of team would you all be left with?

Might be a tad cynical here but I doubt the good faith was on the side of the club. IL recognised that Joel and Sam are prize assets and took the usual precaution of protecting those assets. Assuming they were correctly advised at the time i.e. as to what their actual earning potential is, then it was an unselfish act on their part. If the union clubs come up with the right level of compensation, I'll bet there's no way will they be staying at Wigan, whether they want to or not.

I underlined the important part.

What happens if the Union club decides the most it is prepared to part with is something in the region of £50,000 compensation?

What if next season even less is offered for Sam (after the same illegal approaches)?

Exactly, what if??? Like I said, the right level of compen and they'll go, whether they like it or not. IL looks to be holding the winning hand at the moment. He can hold them to their contracts and it appears he's doing it for the good of the club. Let them go with a good amount of compen and he's doing it for the good of the club. Where this could backfire is if the scenario you point out happens. Then he's left with disgruntled players and no adequate transfer fee. Then he'll have 10,000 fans on his back. :eh: :eh:

They are impossible to practically enforce though DaveO really arent they?

ok you COULD make Joel stay but all that means is you effectively would have a player not worth playing because he wont be playing with heart, he we still be earning a massive wage which we cant spend on someone else, and at the end of that he goes scot free and we get nothing but the middle finger.

You have to cash in on the inevitability of them leaving once these things are in motion its difficult to stop!. The Teves and Modric examples are pointless mainly because you arent limited to wages in football so you could (with the backing of the board) let them rot in the reserves and pay for another player to replace them.

It comes down to the old saying "cutting your nose off to spite your face".

I hate to say it but the wheels look to be coming off in a big way at wigan, i fear that madge leaves with our team spirit

DaveO wrote:

jobo wrote:If the union clubs come up with the right level of compensation, I'll bet there's no way will they be staying at Wigan, whether they want to or not.

If they want to stay they can't be made to leave. Contracts do work both ways and if either of them thought they were not going to make it at Union despite the money on offer and wanted to stay then IL can't force them out.

I would like to think he would not even try.

Scott Quinell didn't want to go, Twiggy didn't want to go but when the financial package on offer is enough for both club and player, then these things happen. A contract nowadays is a negotiating point, or so Paul Cullen said.

Until the idiots at red hall get rid of the crippling salary cap; this will continue to happen. Joel will not be here next year and if he has a half decent season, then it is highly likely his brother won't be next year.

SL needs to shrink. Rather than having a league with 5 or 6 big clubs and a host of those teetering on the brink of bankruptcy; they should have a SL that has 8 or so clubs who can really compete.

The RFL could then financially support whichever expansionist area they felt they needed to and the rest of the money could be given to Wakefield et al and they could play in NL1.

All the salary cap has done is drive down the quality of the sides across the board. The biggest clubs still have the best players; they are just have less of them as the others have either gone to union (or with the current exchange rate and salary cap) refused to leave the NRL

That's the trouble with "Super" League is that it's currently geared towards pleasing the lowest common denominator.

The lower clubs should be made to buck their ideas up not drag the better run clubs down to their level.

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:They are impossible to practically enforce though DaveO really arent they?

ok you COULD make Joel stay but all that means is you effectively would have a player not worth playing because he wont be playing with heart, he we still be earning a massive wage which we cant spend on someone else, and at the end of that he goes scot free and we get nothing but the middle finger.

That is a price well worth paying to ensure other players honour their contracts.

You have to cash in on the inevitability of them leaving once these things are in motion its difficult to stop!. The Teves and Modric examples are pointless mainly because you arent limited to wages in football so you could (with the backing of the board) let them rot in the reserves and pay for another player to replace them.

But we can afford to let Joel rot but I don't think he would want to anyway. As I said I'd go with a squad of 24 and him in a sulk if necessary.

As to cashing in there is not point in doing that. The money is practically worthless as there are no transfer targets I can see. If RL clubs know Wigan are cash rich then the likes of Tony Club become worth a £500K fee or some other stupid amount. This is not soccer where selling Teves because he wants out means we can go and find another player with the cash.

It comes down to the old saying "cutting your nose off to spite your face".

We would not be doing that and at some point we have to protect our investment in players such as Joel or the club may as welll shut up shop or apply to join Barla

I hate to say it but the wheels look to be coming off in a big way at wigan, i fear that madge leaves with our team spirit

If IL lets Joel leave and signs Thomas and the Crusaders players following on from Madge going the positive feeling that was there in 2010 will have gone IMO. We will be going backwards and IL will have a lot of explaining to do.

jobo wrote:

DaveO wrote:

jobo wrote:If the union clubs come up with the right level of compensation, I'll bet there's no way will they be staying at Wigan, whether they want to or not.

If they want to stay they can't be made to leave. Contracts do work both ways and if either of them thought they were not going to make it at Union despite the money on offer and wanted to stay then IL can't force them out.

I would like to think he would not even try.

Scott Quinell didn't want to go, Twiggy didn't want to go but when the financial package on offer is enough for both club and player, then these things happen. A contract nowadays is a negotiating point, or so Paul Cullen said.

I said if the player does not want leave he can't be made to go and he can't. You are saying if the offer is good enough for both club AND player which is not the same thing.

The situation re-Quinnell was different as it was with Inga. We were in a financial mess and needed the cash in both cases. We needed to be a selling club back then. If we don't need the cash - which we don't, we should not be selling anyone who we deemed worth a five year deal just one season ago.

Fascinating 13 page read just caught up! Won't back track but my 2 pennies worth...

Joel as an individual probably not a bad loss to Super League as a player. The reason why we have nearly 200 posts is the underlying topic of the salary cap to which most if not all posters agree that it is a "shackle" to our sport. We are purely a breeding ground and the RFL is rotten to the core.

If it were me, I would go for the money... easier (yet more boring) game to play at club level and sadly the interbational set up is what all rugby players want... 80,000 at Twickenham several times a year and press... recognition... RU can afford it and they can have any player they want. I would love to say and have always thought that if I were a player I'd stay at Wigan for life, very romantic but until you're in a players shoes you cant say it. Be a Radlinski or O'Loughlin or be an Ashton? After 10 years you could have £4,000,000 in the bank or £1,000,000 or less in League.

Sam will go to Union as I know the relationship between him and Joel (and Logan) is transparent. It's obvious that england RU have all eyes on Sam. Kyle Eastmond has rotten in the Saints reserves all season apart form his 'injuries' I believe this attitude is wrong, just let them go.

We should command a nice sum of money from Joel and more for Sam just think what this can do for the club itself off the field... player development etc...

Well well Joel should not leave ? well i'm sure he reads the posts on here and for him to be slagged off in such a poor way after the saints game, and more or less blamed single handedley for us not getting to the Grand finale. If i was Joel i would take the mega bucks and leave for a game were fans respect players even if the players don't have any respect as seen in the world cup. I will say all the best Joel thanks for all you have done for Wigan RL don't forget your routes would love to see you back some day.

DaveO wrote:

Fujiman wrote:

DaveO wrote: There is no evidence of a plan b but even if there were I would quite happily put Joel on gardening leave for the next four years and take the hit of having an effective squad of 24 if he took his bat and ball home in order to show that contracts mean what they say. This is in my opinion taking the wider view.

you say no evidence of a plan b. IL has just come back from Aus. He may have been signing up Joels replacement

Like I said, there is no evidence of a plan b.

And there's no evidence there isn't.