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.

I thought 1st December
Kind of irrelevant though as we know Danson has been funding certain things for 12/18mths plus behind the scenes

People seem to be on the length of contract, letting them go with a transfer fee, holding them to contracts, in a Binary Black or white stance

Each situation is different, and each stance could have 2 ways of looking at it.
Give them 2yrs you kownl what you've got so some people.claim they would be happy, don't be surprised if they walk away and then those same people will claim we should do more to keep them
Give em 4 years and on occasion they leave after 2 or 3, we get a fee, buy some people not happy we didn't get 4 years

In both instances we don't know if the player would have signed the current contract if it was structured the opposite way though do we?

Someone offered 2yrs they may not have signed it and walked away at that point (people would be up in arms!)
Someone offered 4 with a clause, without it they may not have signed it?
Offer Someone 4 without a clause, they may still feel like singing it, but opportunities and situations change, we hold em to it and we may set a precedent that affects future signings etc.

Watched the off the bench podcast a couple of weeks back with Matty Peet. Apart from Jon Wilkin being a pr1 k and ruining it the thing that stood out was a bit were Matty Peet talked about what makes players tick, and each player being different. And it's finding those things, understanding them, and making each person's situation work for them
Matty talked about having a wider responsibility than just making good rugby players, we need to make good people with goals and aims.
You couple that with Shaun Wane previously and Rads talking about wanting these young players all to go on and become successful people, family people and you get a nurturing environment that wants young players to succeed, and at times that may be letting/selling players go to achieve and attempt those goals/dreams

I'm 100% of the club for being like that and wouldn't want us to be any other way.

Here here

Spot on that Jukes.
It’s the old saying “can’t do right for doing wrong”.

Peet openly stated for example that some player’s desire high wages, others want the challenge of nrl. How Peet and his team approach each player personally is exceptionally mature and I’d suggest pretty envious to players at opposing clubs.
I couldn’t believe how amateurish and immature Wilkin was on that podcast. I won’t be listening to anything associated with Wilkin in the near future.

The guy is a grade a gobs***e and stealing a living

You could be right. When can we expect our next signing to be announced Brian?

rlhttps://www.wigantoday.net/sport/rugby-league/mike-danson-honoured-to-take-over-as-wigan-warriors-owner-following-ian-lenagan-decision-4219969rlDecember 1st Danson takes over

Compensation paid to Smithies for leaving a contract early and getting a better contract?

What on earth are you talking about.

With regards to the first refusal option, its still up to the player to agree that they want to go back to the club. All the club can do is offer what they believe is a fair deal, the player may want a different challenge, more money or to live in a different area...

I think you need read it again there Nathan, he said paid ‘by’ Smithies, not to Smithies.

You are right, thank you for pointing out.

Still a bit of a ridiculous statement nonetheless as the club have agreed to it.

Not ridiculous at all. The reason it was agreed was because we were compensated to the figure we agreed on.

By Canberra, it would never be the player paying...

Not ridiculous at all. If Smithies had a contract and had turned out to be a complete flop, could Wigan have terminated it early and paid him nothing?

Of course they couldnt. There would have to be a settlement.

This is just a reversal on words. He has been a success and he wants to terminate it early, and as long as we get something for that, its ok with me. The bit about 1st refusal was asked in case there was no fee/compensation, as I dont see it as being fair that we sign, nurture and develop someone only for them to leave for free mid contract, then come back in a years' time and sign for a rival, when technically they could have still been under contract to us.

Obviously, if the player leaves at the end of their contract (like KPP), then they leave with just a handshake and our best wishes.