Was told that Warrington are sniffing around John offering silly money as a signing on fee to join them. Sincerely hope this is untrue as we need to build a side around our young players much like Leeds have.
The Leeds players stayed loyal to the club even when offers where greater elsewhere. There players have been rewarded with trophies and a good culture to be around.

They've already offered him the world before, and he turned it down.

We need to do everything we can to keep hold of Bateman, our side needs to be built round him in the next few seasons. He will be a England international before long and a future Bradford captain. He got the man of the match and 3 points in the Albert Goldthorpe medal in the League Express, to be playing so good at 18 against teams like Saints and Warrington is outstanding.

If its true - and I say 'if' - then isn't about time that the Bulls reported this to the RL?

It surely cannot be possible for other clubs to start inducing contracted players from other teams to sign for them. He is under contract for us until at least 2013 so there's got to be rules against this

Difficult to determine the validity of any rumour of this nature but doesn't it get tiring hearing the words 'Warrington' and 'silly money' mentioned alongside another team's player.

Where's the incentive for clubs to develop young talent if this is their fate? Fine, Warrington have got money and it's their prerogative to spend it but what does the RFL intend to do to help protect clubs' investment in youth? When careers are so short and pay packets not as fat as in other sports, who can blame players for chasing the buck when they can get it? It must be very tempting.

I'm not saying I have the answers but it would be more encouraging if the moneyed clubs weren't able to run roughshod over the rest. We're a long way off a genuinely competitive and don't seem to be getting any closer the more we progress.

It won't be long before we need to upgrade Batemans contract if he continues this form into the next few months. Look after him, pay him what he is worth to the team and hopefully he'll return with his loyalty and skills. He is a Dudley Hill lad so hopefully playing for his hometown club will be a big enough attraction for now. Holding onto other young players like Whitehead, Crookes etc that he has come through the ranks will also help. Ultimately we need to be challenging for honours, hopefully in the next couple of years we will be back in the mix.

That's nonsense
No doubt other clubs have taken note of Bateman's potential but none can offer him a "signing on fee" as he is already contracted to the Bulls until 2014.
It's certain that his current contract includes incremental wage increases per season plus ones for 1st team appearances.
If he continues to impress I would hope the Bulls sign him to an extended contract at the end of 2012 - to maybe 2017. And that only takes him to 24 years of age.
If not then the crux decisions by the club and the player will come towards the end of 2013.

The Bulls could sell his contract to another club at any time (viz Lynch) for a sh*t load of money, subject to him agreeing financial terms with that club of course

Bateman loves the club AFAIK, if we offer him a decent contract he will stay.

Tbh, with the potential he has I'd rather keep hold of Bateman than Langley if we had that choice, although I think its ridiculous these claims of Langers stealing his wage. We all know his injuries, but when he's on the pitch he earns his money.

Get yourself up to date.
Bateman is already contracted to 2014, so he has agreed to stay and clearly happy with whatever terms he is on.
Langley contracted to 2013. What happens then is for the coach and the club to decide.

Bloody hell, can't make a comment on here without you on my back today.

I know Bateman is contracted, I was talking in future terms (and he'll be getting an offer well before 2014 if he continues as he is)

The Langley bit was hypothetical, just a way of comparing the two, as I feel Bateman has the potential to be a star for both the Bulls and England.

The difference with Langley is who would take on an injury prone player on the wage he is reputed to be on at the Bulls? And I have no idea what he is on before anyone asks.

As has been repeatedly said on here, whatever wage Langley is on, only 50% counts on the cap as he has been here for more than ten years

So all this about how he is taking up valuable cap is a load of guff. In practical terms, unless he is on more than double everyone else, he is actually taking up LESS cap than the other higher earners

That doesn't alter what another team would have to match in take home pay though.

What happens if he doesn't need to take all his pay home?

not quite accurate. 50% or 50k dont count on cap, whichever reduction is smaller counts. so for example if langley was on 90k then his salary cap value would be 45k (50%). If he was on 120k his salary cap value would be 70k (120k-50k).