WiganWarriorsFans.com

Does the anti-tamper deadline even apply to players out of contract at the end of the season? It a question, I don't know the answer?

I imagine if Catalans had done something extremely obviously illegal the club would be complaining.

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:I can kind of see the Club issue from both sides

on the one hand i agree that the club havent done anything majorly wrong, essentially they signed tomkins for 3 years with a 1 year option on that contract in their favour on that deal. They chose not to take that option and offer Sam a new deal instead thus the option (at old wage) isnt taken and can be discounted as it was never in the contract unless the club chose to take it which they didnt.

However, i do think DaveO has a point in that usually when you have a contract + option deal and the club in question choses not to take the option the player would usually leave because essentially saying "youre not wanted"

In this case Sam agreed to a 3 + 1 if the club wanted him, the club have waived the right of the + 1 but said we do want you though we just dont want to continue paying you on your previous contract

So while i dont think the club have done anything "wrong" as of such it is a underhand, they could of offered sam a 2 year deal + his option year on his old contract - like i say i dont think this happens that often because option years are normally taken if you are wanted and turned down if you are not, they arent often turned down but you get a new contract offer.

Thank God someone else gets what I was on about

Flash wrote:Whilst I understand your point, WF, there are a couple of further things worth noting.

Firstly, this is not without precedent. We have used this same negotiation previously. In fact, didn't we do the same recently with Joel?

I can't recall the club making an announcement they had signed him on less money in 2017 when the extension was agreed. Googling the news items neither the press nor Wigan official site says anything like that. His new deal has an option after 2019 I think.

That said if we have done it before it just means the club has been underhand before. It's no excuse for turning down an option to sign a player and then asking the player to sign for less IMO.

Secondly, all parties, it seems, would have been more than happy with the outcome had it not been for the illegal (according to RFL rules) approach. By Sam's own admission the Wigan offer was better than he expected and Wigan would have secured the services of a player they wanted to keep for an extended period and at a price they deemed acceptable. In all probability this contract would have been tied up before the April 30th deadline and, theoretically at least, Sam should never have known about the better offer from Catalans. If there is a villain in the piece it is the Dragons for making an approach they quite clearly shouldn't have. Of course, back in the real world, I'm sure they aren't the first and won't be the last.

Those at the club must have been deaf and blind not to know there was something going on. As to Sam T signing a contract before the April deadline I would expect that made it a worthless bit of paper in that had he chosen to walk away from it I doubt Les Cats could have done a thing about it.

Looking at it form Wigan's side if Wigan really wanted to play hard ball I think they could have simply exercised the option and told Les Cats if they wanted him, pay a fee. Neither Sam nor Les Cats would have a leg to stand on.

Of course had Les Cats walked away we'd have had a player potentially unhappy at being here but I suspect it would not have been the end of the world for Sam had that occured.

It's just my own personal opinion but I think saving money was Wigan' prime motivation, not keeping Sam, so it's crocodile tears about the illegal approach.

That said though, it's all just Internet discussion really. As TBW says above, Sam wants this move and who can blame him?

It does appear it's what he wants but the general point I was making still stands IMO. "3+1" or similar options from Wigan aren't worth the paper they are written on. We complain if players want away early and while technically there is nothing wring with Wigan not taking an option year up, to then offer the player a lesser deal to stay is not a very honourable way to do business.

I see no such silliness has been attached to Gildarts new contract. Straightforward and everyone knows where they stand.

DaveO wrote:

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:I can kind of see the Club issue from both sides

on the one hand i agree that the club havent done anything majorly wrong, essentially they signed tomkins for 3 years with a 1 year option on that contract in their favour on that deal. They chose not to take that option and offer Sam a new deal instead thus the option (at old wage) isnt taken and can be discounted as it was never in the contract unless the club chose to take it which they didnt.

However, i do think DaveO has a point in that usually when you have a contract + option deal and the club in question choses not to take the option the player would usually leave because essentially saying "youre not wanted"

In this case Sam agreed to a 3 + 1 if the club wanted him, the club have waived the right of the + 1 but said we do want you though we just dont want to continue paying you on your previous contract

So while i dont think the club have done anything "wrong" as of such it is a underhand, they could of offered sam a 2 year deal + his option year on his old contract - like i say i dont think this happens that often because option years are normally taken if you are wanted and turned down if you are not, they arent often turned down but you get a new contract offer.

Thank God someone else gets what I was on about

Flash wrote:Whilst I understand your point, WF, there are a couple of further things worth noting.

Firstly, this is not without precedent. We have used this same negotiation previously. In fact, didn't we do the same recently with Joel?

I can't recall the club making an announcement they had signed him on less money in 2017 when the extension was agreed. Googling the news items neither the press nor Wigan official site says anything like that. His new deal has an option after 2019 I think.

That said if we have done it before it just means the club has been underhand before. It's no excuse for turning down an option to sign a player and then asking the player to sign for less IMO.

Secondly, all parties, it seems, would have been more than happy with the outcome had it not been for the illegal (according to RFL rules) approach. By Sam's own admission the Wigan offer was better than he expected and Wigan would have secured the services of a player they wanted to keep for an extended period and at a price they deemed acceptable. In all probability this contract would have been tied up before the April 30th deadline and, theoretically at least, Sam should never have known about the better offer from Catalans. If there is a villain in the piece it is the Dragons for making an approach they quite clearly shouldn't have. Of course, back in the real world, I'm sure they aren't the first and won't be the last.

Those at the club must have been deaf and blind not to know there was something going on. As to Sam T signing a contract before the April deadline I would expect that made it a worthless bit of paper in that had he chosen to walk away from it I doubt Les Cats could have done a thing about it.

Looking at it form Wigan's side if Wigan really wanted to play hard ball I think they could have simply exercised the option and told Les Cats if they wanted him, pay a fee. Neither Sam nor Les Cats would have a leg to stand on.

Of course had Les Cats walked away we'd have had a player potentially unhappy at being here but I suspect it would not have been the end of the world for Sam had that occured.

It's just my own personal opinion but I think saving money was Wigan' prime motivation, not keeping Sam, so it's crocodile tears about the illegal approach.

That said though, it's all just Internet discussion really. As TBW says above, Sam wants this move and who can blame him?

It does appear it's what he wants but the general point I was making still stands IMO. "3+1" or similar options from Wigan aren't worth the paper they are written on. We complain if players want away early and while technically there is nothing wring with Wigan not taking an option year up, to then offer the player a lesser deal to stay is not a very honourable way to do business.

I see no such silliness has been attached to Gildarts new contract. Straightforward and everyone knows where they stand.

I think you are overstating that options are not worth the paper they are written on from now on. They are optional. Either for the club or the player depedending on the contract.

I agree if we'd really wanted to keep Sam we could have done by exercising the option and offering a 2-year deal, but they obviously didn't think that was good value for money.

Lets hope they spend the money they've saved on a replacement. My feeling is that we'll go with what we've got when Hardaker arrives, as the club think that its a one-to-one replacement. It maybe position-wise, but finanacially I'd say they've made a very large saving here. Perhaps the club needs that for its accounts? Who knows?

Flash wrote:

DaveO wrote:

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:I can kind of see the Club issue from both sides

on the one hand i agree that the club havent done anything majorly wrong, essentially they signed tomkins for 3 years with a 1 year option on that contract in their favour on that deal. They chose not to take that option and offer Sam a new deal instead thus the option (at old wage) isnt taken and can be discounted as it was never in the contract unless the club chose to take it which they didnt.

However, i do think DaveO has a point in that usually when you have a contract + option deal and the club in question choses not to take the option the player would usually leave because essentially saying "youre not wanted"

In this case Sam agreed to a 3 + 1 if the club wanted him, the club have waived the right of the + 1 but said we do want you though we just dont want to continue paying you on your previous contract

So while i dont think the club have done anything "wrong" as of such it is a underhand, they could of offered sam a 2 year deal + his option year on his old contract - like i say i dont think this happens that often because option years are normally taken if you are wanted and turned down if you are not, they arent often turned down but you get a new contract offer.

Thank God someone else gets what I was on about

Flash wrote:Whilst I understand your point, WF, there are a couple of further things worth noting.

Firstly, this is not without precedent. We have used this same negotiation previously. In fact, didn't we do the same recently with Joel?

I can't recall the club making an announcement they had signed him on less money in 2017 when the extension was agreed. Googling the news items neither the press nor Wigan official site says anything like that. His new deal has an option after 2019 I think.

That said if we have done it before it just means the club has been underhand before. It's no excuse for turning down an option to sign a player and then asking the player to sign for less IMO.

Secondly, all parties, it seems, would have been more than happy with the outcome had it not been for the illegal (according to RFL rules) approach. By Sam's own admission the Wigan offer was better than he expected and Wigan would have secured the services of a player they wanted to keep for an extended period and at a price they deemed acceptable. In all probability this contract would have been tied up before the April 30th deadline and, theoretically at least, Sam should never have known about the better offer from Catalans. If there is a villain in the piece it is the Dragons for making an approach they quite clearly shouldn't have. Of course, back in the real world, I'm sure they aren't the first and won't be the last.

Those at the club must have been deaf and blind not to know there was something going on. As to Sam T signing a contract before the April deadline I would expect that made it a worthless bit of paper in that had he chosen to walk away from it I doubt Les Cats could have done a thing about it.

Looking at it form Wigan's side if Wigan really wanted to play hard ball I think they could have simply exercised the option and told Les Cats if they wanted him, pay a fee. Neither Sam nor Les Cats would have a leg to stand on.

Of course had Les Cats walked away we'd have had a player potentially unhappy at being here but I suspect it would not have been the end of the world for Sam had that occured.

It's just my own personal opinion but I think saving money was Wigan' prime motivation, not keeping Sam, so it's crocodile tears about the illegal approach.

That said though, it's all just Internet discussion really. As TBW says above, Sam wants this move and who can blame him?

It does appear it's what he wants but the general point I was making still stands IMO. "3+1" or similar options from Wigan aren't worth the paper they are written on. We complain if players want away early and while technically there is nothing wring with Wigan not taking an option year up, to then offer the player a lesser deal to stay is not a very honourable way to do business.

I see no such silliness has been attached to Gildarts new contract. Straightforward and everyone knows where they stand.

Dave, I totally get what you were saying too. It just has no legal merit whatsoever! I'm telling you that as a statement of fact not as an opinion.

Let me try it this way:

You need a wall building and you hear about this builder who is supposed to be the best so you call him up for a quote. He comes round and you tell him that if you're happy with his work there is another wall you may want him to build. He gives you a quote and, despite it being more expensive than anyone else, you decide to go ahead.

Once the first wall is built you realise that you've been overcharged and that, in truth, his work is little different to the builder down the road who would have done a similar job for much less money.

When the first builder comes to get paid you settle up and he says "so what about this second wall?" You reply "I'm sorry, but I've decided to get it done by the builder down the road".

"You can't do that" he replies, "You said that if you were happy with the first wall then you would give me more work".

"Yes, I'm happy with the wall but the builder down the road can do a similar job at a lower cost. However if you're prepared to match his price you can have the extra work".

"I'm sorry, says the builder but I want the same price for the 2nd wall too".

Now tell me Dave; would you feel obliged to pay the 1st builder the original price to build your 2nd wall or, as I strongly suspect, would you feel you were well within your rights to go elsewhere?

You know he will tell you its the first builder. Rather lose money especially if that builders work took 3 years and was off sick for half of it. Though the other builder has had a year off will still get the job done a bit quicker and you make the saving.

But we all know where this is going.

Cherry_Warrior wrote:

Mike wrote:

Cherry_Warrior wrote: .......Or alternatively a different opinion to your own. Nobody has ever said a bad word about anyone wanting to leave. It is the way that it is done and in this instance it has been conducted appallingly by both Sam Tomkins and Catalans Dragons. I stand firmly behind my opinion.

Why appallingly?

Catalans agreeing a deal with Sam before they were allowed to speak with him, and as stated, if they would have gone through the proper channels Sam would have already signed a new deal before they came calling as he had stated it was a very good offer, but he had already had his head turned.

Secondly Sam, whilst still being a Wigan Warriors employee and still being a player that we have to go and watch comes out with "i can't wait to call Catalans home" bulb head. Some of the players are just plain thick. Put his brain in a goose and he would fly north for winter.

Did he say 'can't wait' or 'will be good'?

Sam said in his interview that Wigan at the start of the season already decided not to take up the option for the extra year. Imo from the moment he was told he had every right to make preparations for his future.

Josie's friend wrote:Sam said in his interview that Wigan at the start of the season already decided not to take up the option for the extra year. Imo from the moment he was told he had every right to make preparations for his future.

Thats what i thought but i as i say i havent got the foggiest idea how the rugby league transfer market works, in football it seems quite clear but in rugby deals just seem to go on all the time

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:

Josie's friend wrote:Sam said in his interview that Wigan at the start of the season already decided not to take up the option for the extra year. Imo from the moment he was told he had every right to make preparations for his future.

Thats what i thought but i as i say i havent got the foggiest idea how the rugby league transfer market works, in football it seems quite clear but in rugby deals just seem to go on all the time

Also the news about us sounding out a move for Hardaker came out along time ago!

TrueBlueWarrior wrote:

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:

Josie's friend wrote:Sam said in his interview that Wigan at the start of the season already decided not to take up the option for the extra year. Imo from the moment he was told he had every right to make preparations for his future.

Thats what i thought but i as i say i havent got the foggiest idea how the rugby league transfer market works, in football it seems quite clear but in rugby deals just seem to go on all the time

Also the news about us sounding out a move for Hardaker came out along time ago!

I think I saw it here in January or early feb.

thegimble wrote:

TrueBlueWarrior wrote:

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote: Thats what i thought but i as i say i havent got the foggiest idea how the rugby league transfer market works, in football it seems quite clear but in rugby deals just seem to go on all the time

Also the news about us sounding out a move for Hardaker came out along time ago!

I think I saw it here in January or early feb.

Enough said, so we can't condone Sam when it seems his replacement was being lined up long before he had decided to leave!