I wish it was.

Charnley has clearly had his head turned and is off to the NRL

It is strange why Wigan can't keep their star players whilst other SL clubs can though?

Last year Tomkins played the majority of the season knowing he was leaving, for Charnley it could be the whole season. Why didnt SW drop Sam? Sam had a few poor performances, especially under the bombs. Double standards perhaps? Who knows.
RU and NRL is ripping us apart and the management doesn't really know how to deal with it, although they are trying their damndest. I think we all appreciate the effort they are putting into a losing battle.
It just feels like league was put into administration 15 years ago and SKY are the administrators.

When a club gives a player a contract (2 years for Taylor) and pay a significant fee for him and the club has an option for another year it is obvious to me that it is the player who only asked for the two years.

The years option in the clubs favour is to safeguard the clubs interest and by having the option of an extension it allows the club the option of asking for a fee if the player decides he wants out.

If it had been an option for the player to choose to stay for the extra year it would signify to me that it was the player who wanted a longer contract.

Taylor isn't ready for the NRL and would be crazy to move IMO. Wigan are working hard on him, improving him and getting him fitter and I believe he'll be one of the worlds top props in time but he isn't there yet. He needs to keep working and he couldn't be in a better place.

He'd be wise to stay where he is for at least another season after this IMO.

Fair play, suppose theres only so much naff weather he can take no matter how good the pies are

If you think every time Sam didn't play for us last year was due to 'Injuries' then you're a bit naive.

Who has said whether Charnley being dropped was to do with the possibility of him leaving at the end of the year? Wane has dropped players for playing poorly in the past. Maybe he thought the 60 odd tries Sam either scored or set up last year justified his selection more so than dropping him for these so-called 'poor performances'.

Whether Charnley leaves at the end of the season or not, I genuinely believe he was dropped against Wakey becuase he wasn't up to his usual standards against the Roosters. Wane isn't afraid to throw a young kid in at the expense of someone with a bigger reputation. It was just the usual storm in a teacup rumour mill that spiralled out of control because of Wane's comments to the media and specifically using the word 'dropped'. Josh is back in the side on Sunday, if he has a blinder and scores a hatrick alls forgotten about.

Sadly in today's game 'I have no interest in leaving' actually means 'I'm leaving at the end of the season'.

I think the only contracts you can read anything into as far as getting a fee goes are the five year ones.

I could as easily say the club didn't want to give Taylor more than 2 years in case it didn't work out but if it did would have him for at least one more season.

The 2+1 option meaning the "+1" is to get a fee is a pretty poor reflection on the clubs views anyway as it means they expect to [ihave[/i to sell. Or are even counting on it.

BTW, we do give players the option as well sometimes. Last time we did that was with Lauaki. If we do that then we can't cash in as they can stay until they are free agents.

That's the second time in a row you've come on here taking that tone, last time you made yourself look a fool as well (unless Hardaker's running out for us this week)

Pot kettle black springs to mind

in recent years, and in my opinion since Joel Tomkins left for RU there seems to have been a trend of wigan players bumping up their credentials with the club then aspiring to do better elsewhere, we just seem to have been lucky with the batch of players we have had since joel left that we have managed to quite rightly win some silverware.
I doubt we will be anywhere near the trophies this year as other teams look to have improved massively, while we have had too much turnover of playing staff.
I honestly think that as soon as our better players look to earn themselves a better contract that the club says ok, earn one and someone else will offer you a better one than us!
the club seems to be more of a business than a club this year, in comparison to the last few years under IL.
concerned!

But be fair ... IL's tenure has coincided with the worst assault on our playing talent in the history of the game, not just from the RU but from our so-called friends in the NRL too.

I agree he needs to fight harder to keep them, but he's also loaded us with silverware, which is something Mo and Whelan failed to do during their period of control. it isn't just Wigan either. Burgess is the biggest loss to the game ever IMO, both because of his ability and his apparent security in Aus.

One thing I am wondering is about the agents' role in all this. Without doubt they are the recruiters-in-chief for RU, and will remain so until RL can start offering comparable paydays, but could Wigan's excessive losses be down to the defectors all sharing a particularly RU-friendly agent? Or is that a naive question?

Did we ever really replace the income from cigarette advertising? Money was on tap back in the heyday. Sad thing is there are just as many people who smoke now than back then, so it seems the only loser was rugby league. On the plus side- pubs smell better...