You are probably right in the sense Wigan have tried to emulate Leeds in their pay structure and offer a progression salary-wise as players hit various milestones. So players will get pay rises when these are hit. This is a good thing in the sense it ought to put an end to the situation where really talented players are stuck on poor contracts and so they get fed up.

However the object of the exercise is to assemble a top side and not just keep all the players happy. We have the highest wage bill in the league and I don't think it is warranted. Where has all the money gone? My concern is we are paying too many average players too much money and this is holding the club back from making signings to fill obvious gaps in the side. For example it was rumoured Powell was given a huge pay rise when Widnes came sniffing. I'd have let him go.

We do have a great academy set up but no club has ever succeeded off home grown talent and Wigan don't even try to do this with plenty of signings from outside the club. Part of the problem is quite a few of these have also been bang average lately but that doesn't mean the solution is going to be found in the academy. I suppose what I am trying to get it is your posts sounds like you are justifying a lack of signings because we decided to pay home grown talent more and we should be happy we are doing so whereas my stance is I don't see a problem with doing that with the [ibest of them [/ibut given the huge wage bill we must be doing this with not just the best of the home grown talent but with the entire squad wherever they come from some of whom don't warrant it.

It can't be mutually exclusive to give someone like Davis a pay rise and also not be able to afford a better centre than Sarge. If it is for Wigan the balance isn't right.

Not sure how you put Flower in the bang average bracket when he's achieved more than plenty of the Leeds players in your list.

For that matter, I'd argue Sarge has had a bigger impact in winning trophys than some of those Leeds names, Ferres, Griffin & Garbutt (so far) to name a few.

Thanks Jeff, I honestly couldn't understand his point as Leeds, to me, as a good mixture of local and signings.

They had the likes of Sinfield, Burrow, Danny Mags, but also brought in the likes of Peacock. Webb, Hardaker, Senior, Kyle to name few.

they aren't signings though (other than Burgess, slight exception as he came back). youth is youth, signings are signings. neither inspired me last year and still have a fair way to go this season to justify what they want or demand.

and again let me point out, i'm not saying our youth isn't good enough, it really is fantastic, but after one or two seasons they seem to think they can take on a team of thurstons and be paid accordingly. so my point remains, I don't think the club is handling them very well.

If only we had the junior set-up that the Aussies have! We see teenagers walk into NRL teams and be star players, whereas their equivalents in SL are undercooked in comparison. And the reason is that those Aussie kids, although only 18 or 19, have been battle-hardened in the tough junior comps there.

And herein lies my point
If gildart has 6 months left on his contract and wire or hull or nrl (slightly different argument) come in and sign him they would see that as a big signing and would pay him accordingly.
Why shouldn't we?
Tom Davies signed a new contract late last year, why shouldn't we see that as a new signing and why shouldn't he get paid in line with his performances and in line with his market value?
Etc.

Now some people can choose not to look at it that way (and tend to be the more critical of posters?).
Some may never have considered that particular view point (I hadn't really up until 4/5 months ago when Someone said it to me). And if they don't agree fair enough, if they do fair enough.

But I wanted to put that argument across so that people consider it when complaining about lack of signings because without a doubt this way of bringing the youth through impacts on what we do with the money at the top end.
Ps. What we then do with the money and who we sign etc from outside (or bring people back) is a different argument.

Not sure why some people would be happy if we signed a Percival and paid him top dollar and would praise the club but we don't seem to appreciate it when the club sign gildart and also want him to be paid less?