nathan_rugby wrote:You are right, thank you for pointing out.
Still a bit of a ridiculous statement nonetheless as the club have agreed to it.
Not ridiculous at all. If Smithies had a contract and had turned out to be a complete flop, could Wigan have terminated it early and paid him nothing?
Of course they couldnt. There would have to be a settlement.
This is just a reversal on words. He has been a success and he wants to terminate it early, and as long as we get something for that, its ok with me. The bit about 1st refusal was asked in case there was no fee/compensation, as I dont see it as being fair that we sign, nurture and develop someone only for them to leave for free mid contract, then come back in a years' time and sign for a rival, when technically they could have still been under contract to us.
Obviously, if the player leaves at the end of their contract (like KPP), then they leave with just a handshake and our best wishes.
muttywhitedog wrote:Not ridiculous at all. If Smithies had a contract and had turned out to be a complete flop, could Wigan have terminated it early and paid him nothing?
Of course they couldnt. There would have to be a settlement.
This is just a reversal on words. He has been a success and he wants to terminate it early, and as long as we get something for that, its ok with me. The bit about 1st refusal was asked in case there was no fee/compensation, as I dont see it as being fair that we sign, nurture and develop someone only for them to leave for free mid contract, then come back in a years' time and sign for a rival, when technically they could have still been under contract to us.
Obviously, if the player leaves at the end of their contract (like KPP), then they leave with just a handshake and our best wishes.
I am only referring to the point made that the compensation should be paid by player (not the club).
Of course there should be compensation, of course it should (and does) come from the club, but when has it ever come from the player?
nathan_rugby wrote:I am only referring to the point made that the compensation should be paid by player (not the club).
Of course there should be compensation, of course it should (and does) come from the club, but when has it ever come from the player?
I don't think it ever has come from the player but is that not the point that was trying to be made, the player commited to 4 years and wants to leave early, so I think the suggestion was the player should pay some form of compensation to the claub as the club probably would do to the player if we wanted to move them on early, unless I have misunderstood the original post, but it was so long ago in the chat now I could be wrong.
Warrior Winger wrote:I don't think it ever has come from the player but is that not the point that was trying to be made, the player commited to 4 years and wants to leave early, so I think the suggestion was the player should pay some form of compensation to the claub as the club probably would do to the player if we wanted to move them on early, unless I have misunderstood the original post, but it was so long ago in the chat now I could be wrong.
Which is an absolutely ridiculous statement and is the point I keep making.
In theory it makes sense, but players won't be able to afford anything material so in reality its a meaningless statement.
nathan_rugby wrote:I am only referring to the point made that the compensation should be paid by player (not the club).
Of course there should be compensation, of course it should (and does) come from the club, but when has it ever come from the player?
For clarity I said "the club or the player". I dont give two hoots whether this came from Canberra or Smithies. I do give two hoots that Wigan Warriors received compensation or a transfer fee (dress it up whichever way you choose) for a contracted player, who we didnt want to lose, to depart for another club.
I dont like the idea of nurturing and developing players into outstanding talents, only for them to leave mid-contract for nothing.
nathan_rugby wrote:Which is an absolutely ridiculous statement and is the point I keep making.
In theory it makes sense, but players won't be able to afford anything material so in reality its a meaningless statement.
Why is it a ridiculous statement, it happens in all forms of employment, if the employer invests time and money into training someone, I for one did a degree funded by my employer and I had to sign an agreement that said if I left the company within a set time period I would have to repay back the cost of the course.
I don't think some of the players are that poor they could not afford some form of 'get out clause' plus it is also about the players making a commitment to the club and the club reaping the benefits of their time and investment, now I for one don't neccessarily think we should be asking players to pay to get out of a contract, nor do I think we shoud be holding players to their contracts if they have a desire to take the next step up and we can get compensation from somewhere, but to say it is a ridiculous statement is a bit far off the mark and not the point I think that was trying to be made in the first place.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
