I think that is the problem - at that time things were all rosy and the powers that be became complacent - a combination of the game standing still and economics (recession etc) have left RL over here lagging years behind. Playing catch-up is not even close to being enough at the moment.

What is also a worry (and something which seems to have passed a lot by) is the imports that have come from the NRL in the last year or two - many have used the homesickness/family argument to get released from their contracts sooner - meaning that even the ones that do come to SL cannot be relied upon to stay - leaving clubs planning in tatters.

And as I explained we should be getting all this IN ADDITION to top class players. It's not, or at least should not, be a trade off.

It's not good enough to simply say "The money from Sam will be used to invest in the infrastructure" etc etc etc

Throwaway comments, meaningless application.

Rogues does not. See my post above.

Patronising? Tell me where I am wrong.

Tomkins plays v Catalan.

I don't know how you want this all to play out. It's neigh impossible for SL clubs to sign top players at ths moment because of the strength of the NRL in Aus, and the salary cap over here,, so a big name replacement is pretty much out of the question. Forcing him to see out his contract is an option, but then you end up spending a massive chunk of your cap on a player who probably won't give 100%. Then in 3 years he leaves for free anyway. So what's the best we can do, if not signing a safe pair of hands to last a couple of years till Tierney/Hampshire is ready, then ploughing the money we get into trying to develop the next Tomkins? What would you do?

I sympathise with this argument, but the feeling among a lot of fans at present is that we are become a production line of top-drawer talent for other clubs.

I personally would draw the line at Josh Charnley.

I'd rather have a happy player giving his all for Wigan than anything else, but I could tolerate an unhappy player if it sent out the message that no-one need knock at our door until the object of their desire has only a year or so left on his contract.

We need to make a stand with Josh, I reckon. If it means his development is hampered and his career ruined as a result, and that we have to spend for three years on an uninterested player, it might be worth it if it makes it clear that our players MUST see out a significant chunk of their contracts before we will consider releasing them.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, would you tolerate an unhappy player whose "mistakes" cost games?

I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of him not being selected. That would certainly be my response if I was coach and the player in question was not trying.

You and I are both long enough in the tooth to remember when unhappy players used to get frozen out of the game. I hated all that, and I was proud that Wigan rarely indulged in it, but I honestly feel we're facing a crisis at present as never before, and Wigan seem to be bearing the brunt of it.

I hate the idea of seeing good players sulking on the sidelines, but I'm not sure we've got a choice in the matter. We can't go on developing and investing in great youth talent, only to see it blossom somewhere else.

You mean Wigan were a force, maybe Leeds aside the majority of teams were part time (with a few full time pro's) . Because of winter rugby players from both countries could have guest stints so it looked a little rosier. The games been broke for a long time and when we have had money it's been frittered away, the gap is just bigger now because SL is poorer in general and the NRL is rolling in it. In addition to the extra $ floating around the global economy means the aussie $ is worth more so we have become even poorer without actually losing any money.

We also had a game full of household names, we ran the Aussies close in major competitions on more than one occasion ... and many of the best players in the world wanted to join us (regardless of the reasons, weak currencies, better pay and conditions, higher profile in the press, or whatever).

I've heard all this endless guff about Wigan being the only full-time team, ruining the game for everyone else because they were too good, too rich(LOL), too much a bunch of cheats, owned the RFL, yadda yadda, moan moan. Actually, Wigan only went full-time pro in 1994, which was after the time I'm talking about. When it all started in and around 1986, they didn't do anything that most other clubs in what was then the First Division couldn't also have done.

I don't disagree that the game has been mismanaged for years, and has been broke longer than we care to imagine, but I never felt as if we were on the verge of sinking back into amateurism back then. I certainly do now, and I don't think I'm the only one.

It comes to something when you're a week away from going to Wembley, and all anyone wants to talk about is how depressed they feel.

I see your point and tbh in this instance I'm not having a dig re part time I'm just pointing out things outside of Wigan were pretty dire. What ever the reasons other clubs didn't follow Wigan's lead in 86 are don't matter , the only thing that does matter is they didn't and it took till 96 for everyone else to catch up and make RL in the UK interesting again. I'm not sure what can be done but if we want to stop the talent drain we'll need bucket loads of cash ,where are we going to get it as a game ??? I think part time players in 'top level' clubs may be back on the agenda

The state of the game at the moment over here is pretty bad but your all on a bit of a downer because your league form is nosediving Wigan are a club with very high expectations
,merely making a cup final is not enough , even winning it would not stop the feeling of disappointment if you don't have a real crack at the playoffs.

There seems to always be a big assumption here that any player held to his contract would behave like a child of about six years of age.

If a player is held to his contract and plays like an idiot for the remainder of it NO ONE is going to assume it's because he is sulking.

It also ignores the fact that players who spit the dummy over contracts are not generally well thought of. Why wouldn't a player who breaks his contract with one club not do the same again?

I believe the consequences of holding a player to his contract are way over stated if they apply at all. A professional RL player won't get a new deal if he plays like sh !t or behaves like a prat for two or three years.

If the first player we did hold to his contract spat the dummy, it would be his loss not ours if we sat him on the sidelines. Unfortunately I don't think IL can resits the $$ signs to do it.

It amazes me Dave that its only Wigan players now going to the NRL. It seems we have an owner who wants them to go. Only reason for that is to get a transfer fee.

I can see little use for transfer fees unless the club must sell to remain solvent and if that is case we need a wealthier backer than IL and/or or a better business plan.

The thing is I get the impression that we [idon't[/i need to sell players to remain solvent so I just don't understand it.

Has IL been brainwashed by Wane into thinking anyone can be replaced by this years star U19 player? Even if he has why sell a class player? IL is a fan. He like me grew up watching class players not mid table mediocrity.

In the games where 100% effort is needed. Can a player who is "unhappy" be relied upon to give more than 50%?

As for your bit in bold.......

Do you honestly believe that someone like Sam would NOT get a contract if he behaved in such a way? Honestly?

I don't like it, but you have to be pragmatic in this situation.