If influencing means offering them better playing conditions than what they currently receive this is a reality and all part of playing semi-professional rugby.
if Eastwood have a contact that says Cummins was unhappy at Wests and they offer him more than what Wests were giving him then what is the problem. If Wests can't match it or make the player happy thats life. It is up to the player (or the player's agent) to get the best for the player. Obviously the best deal will be found with the more successful and more affluent clubs
You don't stay with a club that is being mismanaged or play under a coaching structure you believe is not suited to you and you have no influence over just because you are a junior product of that system. I don't believe that any franchise would be influencing a players decision unless they were not happy with the players development at the club. I certainly don't believe they would tell a player to join a certain club.
If being unhappy at a club is defined as being told you won't play higher level rugby while you remain at West Harbour by some well meaning, gin and tonic soaked blazer wearer from Waratah land then I dare say you might be right.
The player is not at fault here it's the system that permits it to happen that needs an overhaul NOW. Independant jurists need to be employed to find an equal distribution of talent across a competition that is quickly becoming insignificant and has only itself to blame. Entreched nepotism of the current officials whose only concern is looking after the best interests of thier club affiliation is obvious from the current farce that has 2 clubs with 30 players of S15 talent while others are lucky to scrape together 2 or 3. If a club goes down the path of trying to build from the bottom up they are slaughtered by the cannibals who like to stockpile thier benches with the best quality young players who one day may be somebody.
This is a similar attitude to American baseball where clubs put every talented player they can find on a contract and play the percentages that some will come through and that it denies other clubs the opportunity of developing unseen talent. One northern suburbs club is believed to be signing all colts players to 2 year minimum contracts to play with them but to also stop them leaving for other opportunity.
As to semi professionalism, my understanding is that this means you have something of value to sell/provide such as a test match providing entertainment. At colts level most would say that the best to offer here is potential. For god's sake people, there are 15 yr olds running around with managers asking for ridiculous fees. If these precocious little twats are so confident of thier ability then let them share the gate takings, that should cover the petrol home from Rat park or Forshaw.
But once again don't blame the players, blame the club officials who perpetuate the myth that Sydney club rugby can sustain any form of professional format. My respect goes to those that realise long term sustainability of thier club overshadows the need to have immediate levels of sucess at any cost to themselves or others. Many long time traditional clubs are going to the wall due to the percieved need to pay players to play. If they are that good then surely France is a more lucrative offer. Let them go, turn your back on professionalism at this level and maybe the players will have no reason to seek out other opportunity.
As far as I'm aware West harbour is one of the better managed clubs and has realised a profit over the past few seasons due to diligent efforts from many supporters and staff. To see a player of untapped but outstanding potential leave for any form of enticement is naturally disappointing but until someone takes control of the asylum that maquerades as NSW/SRU then we can set the IQ to record the UNI v Eastwood Fianls for the unseeable future.