And from the current Leeds team how many of their academy produced players would you have at Wigan?

Who said Leeds only develop their own? Not me.

Leeds relied largely on home grown stars - Watkins, Hall, Maguire, Burrow, Peacock, Diskin, JJB, Ablett and Sinfield. The key to their success was not the sort of big name signings people are calling for, other than Peacock. They stayed together consistently winning trophies even though the sport went through massive changes in terms of our relative spending power compared with the NRL.

Bradford was more like 50/50 between big name signings and home grown players, the sort of strategy more of our fans would prefer I think. That worked in the early to mid 00s, but it meant the players didn't stick round as long, and ultimately couldn't be adequately replaced once they could no longer attract the same calibre of big names from the NRL. Now they're getting excited about their big derby is against Keighley this weekend, whilst Leeds are still a decent bet to win the Grand Final or Challenge Cup.

I hope that adequately demonstrates the point I'm trying to make. IMO unless the salary cap gets increased (which I really think it should, but don't think self interested chairman are really pushing for), the strategy needs to be primarily to rely on home grown talent and cheaper more speculative signings like Gelling, Flower and Hamlin. Telling players they won't be welcome back when they leave would just be helping our rivals, just make that decision when the opportunity arises rather than automatically bringing them back.

It really is an area we have to be careful with.

It's not so much about telling them they won't be welcome back. It just shouldn't be built into contracts that, if they are released early to go to Aus, they MUST come back to us when it all goes wrong.

That was supposed to protect Wigan's investment in these starlets, but it's actually a very good arrangement for the players - nearly all of whom have blown it Down Under (or in RU) and have then automatically resumed their careers at a top SL club (even though no returnee has shown anything like the form that got him poached in the first place).

It's a real safety net for them, which is, I fear, creating a very complacent attitude towards the club and the fans. Budgie blew it spectacularly in Aus, came back to Wigan, did nothing, and now, only a year later, is allegedly talking about going down there again. Someone's kidding someone here.

I may be wrong, but isn't it 'right of first refusal' rather than an obligation for us to take them? Otherwise surely we could inadvertently end up over the salary cap. Out of interest, were you against the signings at the time, or in hindsight? Personally, the only one I didn't agree with at the time was Mossop, because of his injury record.

I doubt there's an obligation there, but it must give them an extra feeling of security knowing that the door at Wigan is being kept half-open for them. And as none, to my knowledge - with the
alleged exception of Charnley (because we already have lots of wingers) - been told that we won't take them back, that feeling of security would appear to be well-justified.

Was I happy at the time when we re-signed these guys?

I was indifferent to Mossop coming back because I never thought he was worth a place in the NRL anyway. I felt the same about Sarge - if it hadn't been for Gelling, I doubt we'd even have looked at him. I admit that I had high hopes for Sam and Joel because they were so good when they left. I would never have expected them to be as disappointing as they've been. And who wouldn't have wanted Budge back after the form he was showing when he went?

Whenever our star names underperform in Australia, I always wonder how bad they actually are ... or is just that an Aussie press who took it as a personal insult that Leon Pryce didn't like Bondai Beach are never going to be the fairest yardstick when it comes to Brits? So it's not always been a certainty that this so-called poor form will continue once the players in question get back here. But we've now been stung several times. I'd hope that we'll be very, very wary the next time.

I think the threads drifted slightly and away from what I was getting at.
What happens to the players at say 22/23/24 when they may want to move elsewhere and if we should resign them etc if they do eventually want to come back is a slightly different point.

Originally I was trying to get at the investment in youth that the club seems to make on many various levels from the scouting, education of, background medical care and other stuff that goes unnoticed along with the attitude the club has over the last 10years or so of paying players their worth at all levels up to and including their first senior contracts and then if they progress paying them accordingly. (Steve hand in said his lad came to Wigan as they look after an better than anyone else, and not just in a money way).
That long term view has definitely brought a lot of success bringing players through and that is the comparison o as making with the Wire thread that short termism and getting excited over 3/4 supposed big names and paying them big no ey seems to be coming at the cost of the youth and it's development.

Now on what happens on the relevant merits of those players maybe wanting to move on, whether we make it easy for them or whether we should sign them back is a slightly different debate imo
However I do feel that on that part a lot of players are getting slightly unjustifiable criticised because of fans frustrations and not necessarily their contributions in some instances.
Tomkins- injuries have affected his contribution and I think this marquee tag is used as an unfair stick (he's had a really good start imo to the season)
Budgie - I think he was ok last year and very good early on until injury amd positional shift forced on us let to am average back end. Marshall.comimg through has put a lot more pressure on but looking at last Friday when I thought he was very good he is still a tremendous player.
Williams - ditto sam regarding the marquee tag. However I still would reckon every club in the league would have signed him this time last year and rightly so. Id hazard a guess that every club in the league would probably still do so.
Gildart - makes a couple of errors (he's 21/22 for crying out loud so what so we expect) and makes a comment that imo is nowhere near as bad as people are making out and some fans imo then try and overstate how poor he's been to get back at the comments.

Back on track
My point is that all the above and almost countless others are testament to what a great system/job the club is doing. I just think it's very easy to clammer for 3/4 Big name signings and forget that if we follow that path it may come at a cost.

The Wigan academy has been the envy of all SL clubs for a long time. You’ll struggle to find many teams in the pro ranks without a former Wigan academy player such is the quality and the sheer numbers we’ve had going through it.

Are we over critical? Perhaps. Probably because we’ve seen the quality Gildart, Tomkins, Farrell and Williams can produce and when tha quality isn’t shown we probably are over critical. Having said that when they’re on the “big money” they are, that wage has to be justified through solid consistent performances.

I think the days of quality big money signings are numbered and more and more SL clubs are going to start pumping money in to their academies. That isn’t to say we shouldn’t be looking at quality signings but our vision should be firmly on the local talent coming through as well as broadening our horizons to different countries for that young raw talent.

Our production line of youth players is something to be proud of. The league is full of ex-Wigan developed players who have either spent time playing for us, or were shipped off and blossomed elsewhere.

Where I have a problem is that other clubs regularly benefit from our academy. For home-grown players under a certain age there should be some form of compensation when a 22 year old who has been with the club for 10 years, goes elsewhere after his first professional contract expires.

There ought to be league wide incentives to clubs for producing their own talent.

There’s only a few clubs in SL who actually care about producing talent. The rest drag their knuckles behind sulking. This HAS to change and the model set not just by us but by the other clubs committed to talent development must be adapted for each club.

Fully agree. Opposing fans may bleat, but without Wigan, the sport in this country would be in a vastly poorer place. And sure, we are not the only club doing it. But everyone should have to get on board. If for no other reason, the lack of money in the game, and the financial clout of the NRL, make it the only plausible way forward.

I may have misunderstood your post but are you suggesting that if Salford/Widnes sign an academy player after release from Wigan/Leeds/Saints they must then pay compensation to the original club? If so I do not see how that would benefit anyone.

Other clubs regularly benefit from Leeds/Saints academies as well, let’s not just pretend we’re the only club with a decent set up here. The bar that has been set between Wigan, Leeds and Saints must IMHO be met by all SL clubs. We are seeing some clubs bring through some promising talent but we need this to be widespread to really put English RL on top.

Agree that all SL clubs should try to emulate us Leeds and Saints when it comes to having an academy.

This is why I've suggested for a while now that all SL clubs should have a "Club Trained" quota in their match day squad.
First I'd have a squad at 19 for each game. I just don't see the point of naming 19 two days prior to the game the reducing to 17. 19 have trained all week and would give more players game time.
At what figure would the Club Trained quota be, is the difficult one. I'd go for at least 6 out of 17. That would be a challenge for some club as they don't have the set up in place. Perhaps a couple of year's notice then come in at 4 a game then increase each year.
I know this would be difficult for a club like Salford who are within eye sight of Old Trafford. Getting kids to play RL must be very hard work when Man U are the local team.

I think a "Club Trained" quota would help all of us in the game appreciate our academy players more.

Club trained is a nice idea, but I don't think I'd be in favour of more substitutes (if that's what you're suggesting). After all, a lot of people are saying we have too many as it is!

A big issue is that the quality of young players in Aus is so much higher than in SL. And that gap will only get bigger as young players in the UK currently suffer because of the lack of any meaningful reserve comp. How do we expect them to develop when they're not given enough time to? It's an absolute joke. Quite a few of their reserve grade teams in Oz could give SL teams a real run for their money, so young British players going out there really have to be of the highest quality or they'll get found and find themselves rotting in the reserves.

There's something really wrong there though. We can normally match or beat Aus at academy level. Saints do well when they go down there with their U16's team (a great initiative).
However our lack of reserve grade rugby doesn't IMO allow our kids to develop. U16's to U19's is too big a step as is U19's to first team.