Quote: Trainman "Part of the issue is the word ‘marquee’. That’s simply a name given to allow a SC dispensation. Let’s face it, if he was genuinely marquee he’d be in the NRL. '"
Not sure why you think that. As the cap rules tell us for him to be a marquee player he must be being paid at least £175K and I'd guess it is probably more. By paying such a wage to a player who was what, 20 or 21, at the time he first got it we were able to beat off the NRL interest and the reason we could is even with their big salary cap advantage even they don't fling silly money (in their books) at junior players. Even they have their limits and that is why he didn't go, not because of lack of genuine interest in the first place. Doubt they would be interested at the minute.
The trouble is he now has the salary of a player who you would expect to be exerting the influence if an Edwards, an Andy Farrell or a Lockers on games. All of whom were doing so at 23 and he isn't.
As to Warrington and Roberts, who cares if he has not lived up to his status and is off early? Nearly all our former players who went to the NRL came back early. Sometimes it just does not work out but I don't see what Roberts situation has to do with the question of whether Williams is currently good enough and worth the money. At the moment it looks like both Wigan and Warrington backed the wrong players for marquee status.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but using it it looks like we might have been better letting him go to the NRL and it might have been better for him as well. Had he gone he'd have been a junior player over there without the expectation placed on him here because marquee is not just a name to allow a SC dispensation but it is instead supposed to be a way to get a top player in your side, not a work in progress.