Trainman wrote:
That’s not spin. Tomkin’s contract had finished. There was a 1 year option in the clubs favour they chose not to exercise which is their right. Instead he was offered a 3 year deal which he rejected.
That is not quite the full story. It was not a simple decision not to exercise the option. To quote Radlinski directly "After a great deal of consideration, taking all of the factors into account and following an open and honest conversation with Sam,
the club felt that the option salary set when Sam returned from New Zealand was too high and opted instead to offer a substantial new four-year deal in its place".
They then blathered on about the new deal still making him a highly paid player but the fact is they wanted him to stay
but on less money than the option they freely put in place on his return. Putting terms to a player of saying we will pay you £x but then when the time comes to pay it you decide you don't want to is disingenuous. It's the same at Leeds. Getting Watkins to sign a deal and then saying you want to pay less wages is not on. He could well have turned down other offers or not even looked elsewhere based on this contract. Clubs need to be careful. If this starts to be common they are going to end up in court and we might end up with another Bosman type ruling that forces them to honour contracts in full.
