Then don't sign them. A contract is a legally binding agreement and there is absolutely nothing to stop the club making it absolutely clear any player signing will be held to his contract. If that means only signing players for two or three seasons maximum then so be it. That has got to be preferable to not knowing when a player will suddenly get the notion he wants to leave. You can't plan ahead if you don't know who is going to be playing for you one season to the next and this is at least in part IMO why I believe we find ourselves rebuilding after the winning the double.

There is also another issue here. Why would a player agree to sign a five year deal on the understanding he can leave of the club gets a transfer fee? There is no guarantee anyone will pay it and the clubs ability to demand a fee and block the players move if it doesn't get one means the player is agreeing to a potential block you are saying would stop them signing a deal that long in the first place.

It also means one of two things. 1. Because contracts are worthless the player could just leave for free anyway. 2. If that can't happen and the player would not be allowed to leave without a fee being paid [ithen contracts are not worthless[/i.

Also as I said previously I think a lot of fans also think Wigan are not averse to making a quick buck. I certainly do not believe Hansen was as dewy eyed as IL made out in his desire to play for Salford. We had signed him up for another year, he had signed then the interest came in and bingo, we sold.

It has been standing out like a sore thumb we miss his defence and so keeping him for another year at least would benefit the team more than the money. If he left for free at the end of the season, so what? When did it become necessary for Wigan to rely on transfer fees to finance the club because that is the impression this gives? Apparently Jones-Bishop at Leeds is attracting interest down under. He is off contract at the end of the season and so can leave for free. Leeds should have sold him prior to this season to cash in? Yes? No? Or should they avail themselves of his services for as long as possible and aim for success? You can guess my answers to those questions but what I also find interesting is there is no dummy-spitting by the player wanting away early. If he leaves he will have seen his contract out. How do Leeds manage to instill this behaviour into their players?

Maybe it has something to so with the idea that it ins't in the players head to leave early in the first place and the idea to do so isn't put there by the club as soon as someone makes an offer because the club is not interested in cashing in.



That is a poor analogy. Championship clubs are not at the pinnacle of the competition and in all professional sports lower league teams that unearth a talent have never expected to retain them. We [iare[/i supposed to be at the at the pinnacle of the competition and so there is an expectation this is or should be the destination of such players. The fact it can't compete financially is well understood but that doesn't mean people have to accept it or be happy about it nor view it as something that could not be addressed. It's a pity those running the game apparently are having going for the first TV deal that landed on the table.

It also doesn't seem to apply RL in general anyway given what I said re Jones-Bishop in that if he leaves it will be for free and no consideration will have been given to getting the best possible deal out of the move other than apparently the best possible deal is having him see his contract out.

Do you know the details of Hansen's move? I wish he'd stayed but it's clear that the Dr made an offer to both him and Wigan that neither could refuse. He knocked back a testimonial year to move to Salford.

Jones-Bishop is pretty much surplus to requirements at Leeds because of Hardaker, Hall and Briscoe, that's not the same as making sure you are able to demand a fee for one of your top class internationals should any interest occur.

The analogy with the Championship/Premiership is a fair one IMO, SL simply isn't the pinnacle and if a RL player wants to prove themselves in the best league in the world and earn the best possible living then they have to move down under to do so. I've said before about Sam Tomkins, he'd won pretty much everything over here and his tryscoring and assist stats are phenomenal, yet every time he was mentioned in the Aussie press his name was accompanied with words like "rookie" and "un-proven".

You can believe all you want that IL is some sort of SL Dellboy selling all his best players to make money for himself but I honestly don't believe that is the case. As long as we've got both RU and NRL able to offer much higher wages we're going to struggle to keep all of the top players in SL. Some may stay because they have no desire to move to Australia or play RU, but there's not a lot we can do at the minute to stop the ones that don't mind the move.

I see Soliola is heading back home at the end of the season.

With the NRL salary-cap increasing to some £4 million per club in the next couple of years, the mere concept of a contract is moot. Except to try & extort compensation from the buying club.
That combined with money-bags union, you have to question the long term vision in the RFL and especially decisions like the extended Sky deal that severely undervalued our game.
Pay the going rate or we'll forever loose top players to those who can & will.

You are missing the point with respect to both of these deals. Jones-Bishop is attracting interest from the NRL. So why not cash in and sell him? If he is as you suggest surplus to requirements that is even more reason to cash in. They have not done so.

With Hansen why do you think Wigan could not have refused the offer? There is no law that says we have to sell players. They could have done exactly as Leeds are doing with Jones Bishop and have him see his contract out but instead Wigan chose to sell. No one forced the club to do this. It was the clubs choice. It wasn't even to an NRL or RU club but one that operates under the same salary cap as us that had already made some high profile signings such as Chase and Hock and as we had him signed up we didn't even need to pay him any more. Another year would have been ideal and could hardly be seen as standing in his way.



The having won it all thing doesn't wash. Players who taste success want more success otherwise what is motivating Matty Smith and the rest of the double winning side to do it again? The "I have won it all" thing is just an excuse. If he wins an NRL GF what is he going to do? Retire as he has a full set of medals?

The competition here is the pinnacle of the game in this country and the 2nd highest spectator sport on TV. There is a problem of insufficient funds but that doesn't make it a feeder league in the way lower divisions are in soccer. It is a totally different mind set and people like Koukash want to change the game so it can compete.



There must be otherwise we would never see any money in transfer fees for any player moving to the NRL.

NZW didn't pay what they did for Sam out of charity. They paid it because that is the only way they could get him.

It therefore must follow Wigan could have held onto the player if the fee was not forthcoming or suitable. If they can hold onto a player because the offer is not deemed suitable it also follows they can deem any offer not suitable and not sell the player at all. Therefore Wigan are complicit in the sale of any player because the club[i is[/i prepared to sell for a price.

What would you have the club do if a player asks for a move to the NRL or to RU or the NRL or RU make an unsolicited offer to a player but the transfer fee eventually put on offer is not deemed enough?

What i'd personally like is for Wigan to take a logical, thought out and strategic approach to this. The odds are stacked against the SL clubs so they need to be savvy.

Currently the situation is we tie our top guys like Mossop, Sam, Hock & Hansen down to long term contracts in order to obtain potential transfer fees for them should the need or opportunity arise. Whilst that approach has it's benefits on the clubs bank balance (by my count it's about 1million in transfer fees for the above) it does screw with the long term planning on the pitch.

What i'd much prefer is for Wigan to focus more on the field and not on the bank. I'd rather have a structured, settled and consistent side.

That would mean an 'all cards on the table' approach from both the club and players. Instead of throwing around 5 year deals which neither party have any intention of sticking to they should instead agree on realistic deals that are seen out.

I'd rather see someone like Mossop sign a three year deal and Wigan be straight with him at the start that he's going to be sticking to that 3 years. When it's up Wigan put an offer on the table and should he reject it for the NRL or pastures new then he leaves with the clubs blessing.

At least that way everyone knows where they stand. The players know when their contract is up and can instruct agents to test the water. The club have an idea on what players contracts are up and can suitably plan and last but not least the fans roughly know what the side is going to be for a few seasons and can suitably invest their time, effort and money into backing them.

All your arguments are based on ifs, buts and maybes. You don't know the motivation of the players or the clubs when these deals are happening. We have received transfer fees for all the players that this argument is applicable to, so saying what if a club won't pay a fee doesn't hold up. The club clearly haven't let a player go unless the deal has met their requirements (disciplinary or compassionate grounds aside).

SL is the pinnacle of RL in this country, but it is so far behind the NRL in terms of playing standards, coverage, potential earnings, profile that you can't argue with players wanting to leave. I agree things need to change but until they do there is no immediate quick-fix to stop the players who want to leave from leaving.

agree with peppers' comments here, Wigan is definitely a "business" these days and doesn't have the "club" feel like it used to do, the sam Tomkins saga being the final nail in the coffin for anyone who still had hopes that wigan were about the rugby and the fans who make the club tick and not the money.

While I agree that we need to do more to keep hold of quality players - not just us, the RFL too - this post is the kind of casual exaggeration that I find really frustrating.

I'm not sure when this era of 'Wigan being about the fans' that you harp back to was. When Mo was running things ... neglecting our junior programme, delivering nothing but frustration on the pitch, finally getting us to the point of relegation? A journalist pal of mine told me you could ring the club all day back then, and no-one would even answer the phone. People have short memories. The club is being run very professionally now, and we are up and among the silverware contenders on a regular basis, the ultimate beneficiaries of which is the fans. If that is the result of taking a 'business' approach then you can't knock it too much.

Yes, I'm disappointed to see good players leave, when other clubs mysteriously seem able to hang on theirs (though we can probably all guess how they do it). But there has to be a bit of balance in this assessment.

Sadly at the minute the balance seems to lie with the playeys.

Shorter contracts entered into by both parties with the full understanding that they will be seen out is the way forward.

Which is better though, a 2 year contract that the player honours, or a 5 year contract where the player leaves after 2 and the club get hundreds of thousands of pounds of transfer fees in the bank? If the ultimate conclusion is the player leaves after 2 years then surely its the latter?

What's the price of fan disillusionment? If getting those £££'s means the fans lose faith (as is alluded to in this thread) then it can do more harm than good in the long run, and the club would be better served with the contracts fulfilled, even if it means losing out on a transfer fee?

I'd rather see the first option. Strength and dominance on the pitch opens doors off it Imo.

Exactly how I see it. People only see the negatives of the current situation, and ignore the fact that it makes the club a hell of a lot of money. Plus surely us providing a pathway into the NRL actually makes us quite an attractive proposition for a lot of players, if that means we unearth the next Tomkins then he gives us 5 quality seasons then so be it

IL I believe is doing what is best for the club.

Hypothetically of course as very few people know what is discussed but I'd think certain recent contract negotiations have gone like this:

Player - "I'd like a 2 year deal as I'm looking to try my hand in the NRL in the future"

Club - " how about we agree 5 years with a clause saying you can leave to a non SL side after 2 for a reasonable fee and we will allow your agent to look for a move. This also gives you the security of a contract if no move happens"

Best of both worlds for the club and player. Security for the player and money for the club. I'd love to live in dreamland like some on here but we have to be realistic and aware of the draw both financially and professionally of the NRL and other sports.