I covered both scenarios in my reply. Yet you asked the same question again.

I spoke of the issues of signing Sammut as a a back up as well as a starter. Hence the circles.

Brian, why do you keep bringing sense in to these forums it will never catch on??? THEY all know its IL being tight and not wanting to spend another 600k out of his pocket mopping up the debt but then being criticised for attempting to spread the brand in order to generate more funds to enable us to afford marquee players.there is no pleasing these people they just like moaning and hate facts.

Chicken and egg.

That’s the issue isn’t it but it’s Lenagans money and he’s decided to go down the route of cutting costs to save money rather then speculating to try and accumulate.

I feel we’re putting a bit too much faith in crowds going back up based on people knowing who we’ll be playing in August and September but maybe I’ll be surprised. I’m hoping we’re trying to have a better financial year with an eye on really attacking the player market for 2020 when Edwards arrives.

My two pence is slightly different i think

I am obviously underwhelmed by his signing, however he gives us something which we currently lack in that he is a real maverick player. I know we have Williams but i dont think unpredictability is a string in his bow, despite his obvious talents.

Not to mention Sammut has may quality's of other maverick type players but with non of the baggage like Chase, Sandow or maybe even Brough.

I know people are bleating on about the failure to use the salary cap but being optimistic, i hope that this is in order not to tie down expensive players (when no real quality is available) before Edwards comes next year. Worst case scenario is Giz comes here and does not have a penny to spend.

Makes sense to me that IL is trying to make next year the big "relaunch" of WWRLFC, complete with the return of the prodigal sun and a few great signings.

This year was only ever going to be a transition one for us and next year the big push will start.

Wishful thinking perhaps but im still confident in IL and i am hoping that more bums will be on seats next year after we milk the bejesus out of Edwards homecoming of the back of hopefully a season of fluent and entertaining RL from Lam

Exactly. Having a marquee spot available though is not the same as having money available under the cap.

I think a lot of people are still struggling to grasp that concept.

Correct

And if we paid 2.2m last year with Tomkins and George getting say 150k each above their salary cap value (guessing) then when Tomkins leaves we only have his salary cap value available (100k) plus any money offset by nominating a different marquee (so if Farrell is on 175 then if we nominate him we have 75k available) not the 300 Sam got.

So I theory we are still paying up to the salary cap max and have 2 marquees but overall be paying less playing wages.

I suspect the bigger cut backs will come off the field though in the back room etc.

Another cold hard fact for me is that in 2016 and 2017 seasons in particular we were awful to watch and some of the fans we lost may never comeback and I think that is why a few people, including myself, were hoping for a signing that would grab the headlines and hopefully be a major coup as an addition to the squad.

I love it when we bring the kids through and long may it continue however, having the odd "glamour" signing with the skill set to match does get the fans taking and adds that extra bit of hopefulness and excitement to a new season.

A I've said previously I'm not anti Sammut and as long as he wears a cherry white shirt he will get my support however, its still a bit of an anti climax me after some of the Widdop rumours were going around.

Does a marquee player really have a BIG effect on the attendance?

Wire had one last year I think their attendances went down.

Saints went up by just over 1% but if you factor in they had the Good Friday game at home and another home derby v Wigan in the "Super 8's" the reality is that they probably flat lined.

Wigans dropped by 13% but you can hardly say we were poor to watch for most of last season.

I dont think there's 1 answer.
But I do agree that a big marquee signing will only have a short lived/limited effect. It's not helped other teams as you say.
The ageing fan base is an issue I think and I don't think we have done the best we could in building the younger element up.
There's the financial aspect and although I believe that Wigan ticket prices are fantastic there is generally a shortage of spare cash for younger families and with all the financial issues currently affecting us then being in a cash strapped area affects us a lot.

The other thing, and I appreciate this is very subjective and no "facts" sit behind this is the general attitude of a lot of our fan base.
We seem intent on running everything down to the "N'th" degree.
I'm not saying there aren't issues, but in general the club is as well run now and as successful as it has been for the last 25years, yet if you looked at message boards, Facebook, Twitter the loudest Wigan fans have portrayed a club in crisis.
And I do believe it has demoralised and eaten away at any feel good factor we may have had at the turn of the previous decade.

As I said the other day and have you have said we need that to turn it around, constantly portraying perceived negatives and almkst ignoring the many good things the club are doing isn't helping us.
We need to get the good messages and stories out there and the fans have a big part to play in this.

I/We did what we did in 2010/11 (flags) and the feel good factor lifted everyone and the club, without getting into a whole argument over that there needs to be something to replace that, I'm not sure what that should be but rather than being pessimistic about the new season I'm absolutely desperate to watch these young lads coming through wells/partington/paisley/mullen, our new signings (yes hardaker) bullock, hankinson, sammut and I still class greenwood as a new signing.
Plus gildart/budgie/davies/marshall/escare/faz etc.
We've a hundred things to be grateful for and yes a couple of things need working in, but anyone would think it's the other way round.

We need to get that feel good factor back and a change of coach, a marquee signing, attractive rugby were just some of the reasons given by those who have stayed away, the club have done some of that but I feel for a lot they were excuses rather than reasons.
Butbthe club also need to understand even if they are then that is the paying publics perogative and they need to win them back.

If we were to sign Jonathan Thurston, yes. If we just give Williams a pay rise and make him our marquee, no.

Well given that a wage demand for that type of player iscompletely out of anyone's range in the UK I.e. of we were to go for Shaun Johnson it would be practically double what we paid a Sam Tomkins and it would count nearly double on the cap, what's wrong with giving a George Williams a marquee that's about half to a 3rd of what a Shaun Johnson would be?
Putting aside what some keyboard experts think he's an England international, would walk into every SL team and was wanted by some NRL club's and will be again as his current deal starts to run down.

And Given that he'll be on around a 3rd to half of what a Shaun Johnson would want and counts about half what Shaun Johnson would cost on salary cap how do you reckon we would financially make that work?
We'd be about 400k a year more worse off and we'd have to lose another 75k off the salary cap to get him in as his dispensation wouldn't be as good?
Another 400k is around 2000 extra speccies on top of the 600k currently lost equals another 3k speccies required.
Until we get that 5k back and start averaging north of 15k then we really need to be more pragmatic.
From 2000-2004 (perceived by many as the glory years of suoer league) when we signed Matthew johns, Adrian lam, Steve renouf etc our home average was barely above 11 thousand!

When signing a Trent Barrett it increased our average by 1500 (helped by having 2 x 22k and 24k saints attendances in the same year) yet the year after with only 1 x saints game we were back at the same level before we signed him.

Since 2012 the crowds have been going down by 500 a year and we've lost around 3k, most other club's have shown decreases but maybe not as much.

Marquee overseas not only being financially risky is only a tiny part of the answer.

Depends who the marquee player is I suppose.
I never said we were poor last season but the 2 years previously we were downright woeful.

We need to stimulate interest in new supporters. You and I are ST holders of many years so we don't need any motivating to buy a new one each year but to get people who have never been or are lapsed supporters a real top marquee player is one potential route in increasing the age/mix of the fan base.

Absolutely nothing wrong with promoting an existing player to marquee status. It doesn't give the same excitement as signing a NEW big Aussie name though, that's all I'm saying.