A WAR of words has erupted between the Dragons and the NRL over who is responsible for Mark Gasnier ending his contract to play rugby union in France for $1 million a season.

Within minutes of Gasnier confirming he had accepted a two-year deal to join Paris glamour club Stade Francais, fingers were being pointed about who was to blame for the departure of one of the game's superstars.

Besieged Dragons chief executive Peter Doust claimed the NRL had forced his hand into including the escape clause that has allowed the Dragons captain to walk away two seasons into a five-year deal because third-party agreements have not been honoured.

This infuriated the NRL, with chief executive David Gallop returning fire last night: "There was no commitment from the NRL to guarantee income."

The Herald can also reveal the Kangaroos and NSW centre was struck a massive financial blow last year when he lost $100,000 on a property deal set up by his manager George Mimis. Gasnier ended up in the property investment at a Hillsdale apartment block along with a handful of his Dragons teammates and other leading players, including Sharks captain Brett Kimmorley.

"Would you work if you only got paid two-thirds of your wage?" Gasnier asked reporters at a press conference yesterday. "Would you be happy to keep turning up to work for two years and for that to keep going on? I didn't want to risk that and I couldn't foresee the future so I had to react to it.

"I'm definitely not going to leave thinking I did the wrong thing by anyone."

Gasnier will leave for Paris as soon as the Dragons' season ends to join former Waratahs coach Ewen McKenzie, who attempted to lure him to rugby union in 2006 - a move, coincidentally, which prompted the Dragons' search for external sponsorships to keep him in the game.

While Gasnier indicated he had no ambitions to play rugby league again, he is contractually obliged to play for St George Illawarra should he return.

'[I would] never say never obviously because I don't know," he said. "If I had to give you an answer now, I'd say no.

"As far as the NRL goes, I'm not trying to be modest, I'm not going to be missed that much. I don't have any anger towards the game because it's given me so much out of life. People won't care too much that I've gone."

Doust remains under extreme pressure over the departure of his highest-profile player - one of several in recent seasons, including former captain Trent Barrett and representative prop Jason Ryles - although there is increasing speculation he is poised to sign veteran hooker Luke Priddis to a two-year deal. "I'm not talking about any of that," Priddis said last night.

Doust also refused to confirm the board knew about Gasnier's get-out clause before the contract was signed. There is also confusion over who was responsible for ensuring the third-party deals Gasnier had been promised came to fruition: Doust, Mimis or the NRL. Each was privately blaming the other last night.

"Mark signed a contract in 2006 for five years based on those commitments," Doust said. "We couldn't contractualise those commitments because the NRL wouldn't let us and so we had to put in a [escape] clause to allow him to make a decision if they weren't honoured. We've done the best we can to put together a deal to keep Mark in the game."

The NRL insisted it could not have guaranteed any income, for any player. "We certainly met with Mark and the Dragons to point out the opportunities in rugby league but there was no commitment from the NRL to guarantee income," Gallop said.

"Ultimately, the club decides how much it will guarantee in a contract and how much may or may not be available in the market place through sponsorship to keep the player. Had there ever been such a guarantee then the club would not have devised a 'get-out' clause each year. That clause was there in case opportunities did not eventuate."

Asked if he could understand if St George Illawarra fans were angry with him for leaving, Gasnier replied: "Angry at what, you know? I think they've got to work out what they're angry at. If there is anger, it should be pointed in the direction of the contractual deal that wasn't honoured."