Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:00 am
cadoo wrote:
We have set the precedent with the sales of Joel Tomkins, Lee Mossop and Gareth Hock – you are spot on with what you say.
On a club level, I accept that the NRL/RU have more money than we do and have the finances/resources to offer a very attractive lifestyle to some of our best players. I accept that, on a club level (wider issues with the game I take with the RFL). What I can't accept and will not accept is this surrendering so willingly – I can't emphasise enough how we are so quick to bendover and have our best players poached – Shaun Wane has openly commented in the press many times regarding Sam's future and him leaving, we will have to cope etc. Ian Lenagan too after losing Mossop/Hock to the NRL says that he predicts more will leave. Now some will say they are just being pragmatic, but they're admitting defeat and in doing so are encouraging more exits. If you sign a contract with Wigan for five years and want to leave after three you know you can do this - easily, almost encouraged in some instances. Why?
Sam signed a contract where he could not talk to an NRL/Rugby Union club for three years. After two years he signs for an NRL club. Either he has breached his contract or Wigan have cashed in on him. How has this been allowed to happen? What advantage do we have in cashing in on Sam Tomkins now? There doesn't exist a like-for-like replacement and we can't afford to spend the cash we receive on a player of his caliber because of salary cap restrictions. We are not in any debt. Why sell him now? We wouldn't be keeping him here against his will because he agreed to those terms in his contract. Does Sam look like a player that wants to leave Wigan? Does he look unhappy here? He's a player who comes around once every twenty years. One of the best players to ever pull on the shirt. It's not rocket science, you keep him here as long as possible. One more year – that should have been the minimum. However the precedent was set when we let his brother go a year after signing a five year deal and agreed to let Mossop/Hock go.
Look at Gary Hetherington. People on this board slate him (why I still can't fathom – look at the turnaround Leeds made under him) yet I admire his approach to NRL poaching. NRL clubs were swarming around Watkins, but the man has put his foot down and said no, the lad will serve his contract at Leeds. And THAT is the key factor there. I accept players will leave for NRL clubs – possibly Union clubs, but they should only be allowed to do so once they have completed the contracts they have signed. Otherwise what is the point of signing a contract in the first place? If Lee Mossop served his contract at Wigan and then left to the NRL – fair play. If Sam Tomkins as a bare minimum served his three years at Wigan before speaking to NRL/Union clubs – fair play. Because let's face it, we want to win trophies. We stand a better chance of winning trophies with these players at the club. Cashing in on them is useless in a salary cap restricted sport. You do not enter sport to make money. You enter sport to win trophies. Look at Koukash - is he plowing all this money into Salford to make a profit or win a trophy? Look wider in sport, Abramovich at Chelsea, Sheik Mansour at City, even Dave Whelan at Latics. Do you think he bought Latics to turn a profit or to see them win an FA Cup? Why cash in on them? Make players see out their contracts at Wigan and achieve success. I know the obvious responses are holding players against their will is not the way and all that BS and it is BS. I repeat, does Sam Tomkins look unhappy to you at Wigan? Did Joel Tomkins? Does Lee Mossop? Gaz Hock is the only exception. The other response is we might as well cash in on them now rather than letting them go for free, but I hope I've made the point loud and clear that in a salary cap restricted sport at a club that is healthy in terms of finance there are no benefits. Success is everything. What would we sooner see, a healthy balance sheet or a full trophy cabinet? We almost went bust becoming the most successful club in Rugby League, but would anyone see us go back in time, run a healthy balance sheet and not achieve the success we did? 8 cups in a row? 27-0 Saints? Beating Manly? Going to Brisbane and becoming World Champs?
Apologies for the long rant there. I was going to wait till it's all official and Wigan announce Tomkins leaving to let this out, but I can't help it. I'm gutted we're losing him full stop, but even more so that we're letting him go earlier when we could have kept him! He's the best player we've had since Hanley!
On a club level, I accept that the NRL/RU have more money than we do and have the finances/resources to offer a very attractive lifestyle to some of our best players. I accept that, on a club level (wider issues with the game I take with the RFL). What I can't accept and will not accept is this surrendering so willingly – I can't emphasise enough how we are so quick to bendover and have our best players poached – Shaun Wane has openly commented in the press many times regarding Sam's future and him leaving, we will have to cope etc. Ian Lenagan too after losing Mossop/Hock to the NRL says that he predicts more will leave. Now some will say they are just being pragmatic, but they're admitting defeat and in doing so are encouraging more exits. If you sign a contract with Wigan for five years and want to leave after three you know you can do this - easily, almost encouraged in some instances. Why?
Sam signed a contract where he could not talk to an NRL/Rugby Union club for three years. After two years he signs for an NRL club. Either he has breached his contract or Wigan have cashed in on him. How has this been allowed to happen? What advantage do we have in cashing in on Sam Tomkins now? There doesn't exist a like-for-like replacement and we can't afford to spend the cash we receive on a player of his caliber because of salary cap restrictions. We are not in any debt. Why sell him now? We wouldn't be keeping him here against his will because he agreed to those terms in his contract. Does Sam look like a player that wants to leave Wigan? Does he look unhappy here? He's a player who comes around once every twenty years. One of the best players to ever pull on the shirt. It's not rocket science, you keep him here as long as possible. One more year – that should have been the minimum. However the precedent was set when we let his brother go a year after signing a five year deal and agreed to let Mossop/Hock go.
Look at Gary Hetherington. People on this board slate him (why I still can't fathom – look at the turnaround Leeds made under him) yet I admire his approach to NRL poaching. NRL clubs were swarming around Watkins, but the man has put his foot down and said no, the lad will serve his contract at Leeds. And THAT is the key factor there. I accept players will leave for NRL clubs – possibly Union clubs, but they should only be allowed to do so once they have completed the contracts they have signed. Otherwise what is the point of signing a contract in the first place? If Lee Mossop served his contract at Wigan and then left to the NRL – fair play. If Sam Tomkins as a bare minimum served his three years at Wigan before speaking to NRL/Union clubs – fair play. Because let's face it, we want to win trophies. We stand a better chance of winning trophies with these players at the club. Cashing in on them is useless in a salary cap restricted sport. You do not enter sport to make money. You enter sport to win trophies. Look at Koukash - is he plowing all this money into Salford to make a profit or win a trophy? Look wider in sport, Abramovich at Chelsea, Sheik Mansour at City, even Dave Whelan at Latics. Do you think he bought Latics to turn a profit or to see them win an FA Cup? Why cash in on them? Make players see out their contracts at Wigan and achieve success. I know the obvious responses are holding players against their will is not the way and all that BS and it is BS. I repeat, does Sam Tomkins look unhappy to you at Wigan? Did Joel Tomkins? Does Lee Mossop? Gaz Hock is the only exception. The other response is we might as well cash in on them now rather than letting them go for free, but I hope I've made the point loud and clear that in a salary cap restricted sport at a club that is healthy in terms of finance there are no benefits. Success is everything. What would we sooner see, a healthy balance sheet or a full trophy cabinet? We almost went bust becoming the most successful club in Rugby League, but would anyone see us go back in time, run a healthy balance sheet and not achieve the success we did? 8 cups in a row? 27-0 Saints? Beating Manly? Going to Brisbane and becoming World Champs?
Apologies for the long rant there. I was going to wait till it's all official and Wigan announce Tomkins leaving to let this out, but I can't help it. I'm gutted we're losing him full stop, but even more so that we're letting him go earlier when we could have kept him! He's the best player we've had since Hanley!
Agree 100% with this, Sam is a true sportsman, an ambassador for the game. Does anyone think he would spit his dummy by keeping him to his contract? Every game he plays he gives 100% and wants to win. Another year at Wigan and he would do everything to win LLS GF CC.
A career is short and to have a wasted year is a blot on the copybook. No professional sportsman worth their salt would be arsey about fulfilling a contract they signed with both eyes wide open.
What about the fact that he is a draw for other players and also for the fans and fans of other clubs?
We demand silverware over profit.
