That's a two way street though - if you develop a rep of holding players to contracts in the face of NRL interest don't be surprised when talented young players opt to sign short-term deals and you stop receiving fees.

I sympathise with this viewpoint to a degree, but the Danson factor shouldn't really be relevant. As you say, Morgan was already under contract. If Wigan had 'upped it' mid-term just because he was asking to leave, that would have been setting an ugly precedent.

We could of course have offered him a much better contract when this current one is complete, and I'd be amazed if we didn't at least consider that. But I think it's more than just money. Whether we like it or loathe it, the NRL is now seen as RL's big league while we are just minnows.

Unless, as someone else pointed out, a player is a real home-body, it's now become a right of passage for them to try their hand in Aus. It's almost as though they're never fulfilling their potential if they don't.

Everyone has a price. For me, I'd have Smithies as a marquee in a heartbeat and certainly over someone like Thompson. We'd have just had to get to a number that Morgan couldn't turn down.

But maybe the factor wasn't numerical, maybe it was about testing himself and life experience, money talks but when you already have it and you have achieved just about everything you can in your domestic sport, the chance to try and achieve more elsewhere can and will be a big draw.

Well firstly I think we have respect Smithies for his efforts this year. Along with KPP, he has not dipped at all despite knowing he was leaving and if anything both their form just got better and better. I think both will do well in the NRL and will have a great career over there.

The bitter blow and I can only echo the comments from all on here is that we continually lose these lads. It is what has in my eyes held us back from sustained success like Leeds and St.Helens when they've had dominant spells - both clubs managed to retain that core group of players.

And yet I find it hard to be critical of the club for their approach with respect to having an open and honest culture with the players about their ambitions so they can recruit a replacement, secure a significant transfer fee etc and respect the wishes of the player, which will be the reason why KPP and Smithies continued to give their all and more for us and we ended up with a Grand Final.

The bigger issue is wider for the game. For young, unmarried, ambitious and talented RL players Super League is a stepping stone and the premier competition (and better lifestyle) is in the NRL. I wish we could keep them - I don't have the answer how we can do it.

We have made some great signings for next year, but talk of any "dynasty" will depend on us securing Harry Smith to a long term deal and trying to keep either French or Field (preferably both of course) for the next 2-3 years. We have Smith, French and Field all out of contract in 2024 (albeit with options for 1 and 2 years with French and Field - no idea in whose favour).

Agree with that. Smithies was a known quantity to us, and one that looked likely to continue improving.

Thompson is still a signing that i worry about, i can't shake the feeling of it being a Burgess all over again. One bitten twice shy you could say, he has missed a lot of time since his move over there.

We have had our trick, still hoping there is time for a treat!

Tying players down to long term contracts means nothing if we keep letting them go mid contract, so we can forget any talk of a dynasty.

I know what you mean, but being mid-contract does at least mean paying a fair wedge as a transfer fee. I know that doesn't mean a huge amount to us with Danson and the salary cap, but it does act as a deterrent to the NRL team unless they really want the player.

What is a fair wedge though? Danson is not in charge yet.

I take it that there was some form of compensation paid to us by either the club or the player to allow him to leave mid-contract?

Failing that, I take it we have a first option on when he returns to the UK and one that will be a little more watertight than the one GW managed to get out of.

‘A substantial fee’ was the line in the article. No mention of any first refusals on any return but I’m not sure they’re worth the paper they’re (probably not) written on anyway.

We need to stop this "return to sender" malarkey with players, if they want to leave then fine but we shouldn't have their tea on the table and bed ready for when they want to come back to us. There should be no first refusal its ridiculous that we even offer it to a player who is breaking his contract.

Why not have a first refusal for a player that may have completely ripped it up in the NRL but has decided they want to come back nearer to home, just becasue its a first refusal it doesn't mean we have to take it up if they seem a shadow of their former self.

I for one would like to have that first option (even if they manage somehow get out of it) and how many would complain if said player was a superstar in the NRL and we didn't bother to put a first refusal option in place, the club just need to have the courage of their convictions to say no if they appear to have gone backwards as a player

I thought the takeover was from 1st November?

I thought it was 1st December??
Could be wrong though.