Basing future recruitment policy on the off-chance someone may be good in two years time seems ludicrous, I agree. But, that's actually a massive oversimplification.

Look at it this way. If we hadn't secured Bateman's return, and in two years time he announces that he's ready to come home anyway (at the age of 27!), would you expect us to be in there pitching for him?

Don't bother answering, because we all know that if that happened and we weren't, or even worse, we were but got beaten to the signature by Leeds or Warrington, IL would disappear under a deserved avalanche of very severe criticism.

I'll answer in so much as this, i don't like the policy of bring players back..thats just me though I see no evidence of it being successful, indeed in Sam's case its been a very expensive case of a player being injured for a good couple of years when he returned, this we know, yet we are led to believe it'll work this time..

Ive no problem with players signing for other clubs, if they wanted to stay they would have but accept its a free market and wish theme just don't think a safety should be laid out for them if it all goes belly up.

But as I say thats just me

No he would not. To assume so would be to also assume the club is not going to find or produce a player of equal ability in the next 2 - 3 years.

IL will get more criticism if we re-sign him just because we can if this is done in complete disregard for what the team needs are in 2 or 3 years hence.

We'd have to have one hell of a pack to not need or want an NRL-hardened John Bateman.

Depends if in the wider scheme of things the clubs needs him or not.

What a player Bateman has been for us. Great signing! Can’t complain he wants the move.

Would welcome him back. Could see him in a leadership role on return.

The club will always have a short term, medium term and long term recruitment strategy and it’s clear that JB fits into the medium to long term plans. The club will know the contract status, age, ability of every member of the squad and if they see fit to fight for this deal, I for one trust them enough to be happy with it.
We’re not talking about a bog standard forward here, Batty has been brilliant for us and his effort and attitude is something that young players can aspire to and he’s a player we could build our pack around for years when he returns.

There's no way Wigan could force Bateman to return in two years if he wants to stay in Australia, unless he would have to personally pay out his contract. Even if you put that sort of clause in place, why would you want to force a player back who didn't want to return?

What they could do - and hopefully have - is make sure that if he wants to return to SL Wigan have first crack, possibly at an agreed wage. The Iestyn Harris case showed that if players receive consideration from a club in return for promises about the future, that is enforceable - in Harris' case (and presumably Bateman's) the consideration is an early release from their existing contract.

At the end of the day you got him for virtually nothing when bradford had a 15 minutes of fame chairman in charge who knew nothing except bradford were penniless ....You ve done ok with that deal for sure.

I don’t think we’ll have an issue with him wanting to come back tbh. It may stretch to the three years but I’m pretty sure he’ll have spoke about the length of his stay over there with his daughter and the rest of his family.

I have no grumbles with the way the deal is set up. If the club hadn’t got him signed up for his return there would’ve been even more grumbles about the situation. It’s a risky move in a way but do I think we’ll be getting a ‘marquee player’ back in the shape of a 27 year old NRL experienced John Bateman? Yes I think we will. I can see him coming back in the 13 shirt and with the captains armband.

You can envisage a time when Wigan wouldn't need/want a 27-year-old John Bateman?

That's more optimism than you've ever shown previously.

I honestly can see John coming back sooner.

If he's going over there without his daughter, when the real-life kicks in and he sees her upset on Skype etc, no rugby in the world could keep him from feeling terrible. This alone might make him twice twice about spending so long in-between regular contact with her.

The RL Mole has come out and said, Canbera have paid 250,000 dollars for Bateman, just sort of £150,000.

Great bit of business by wigan for someone with only a year left on his deal.

Well done IL.

Since when have we got excited about losing our best players in exchange for a decent fee? Not since before the salary cap id imagine. As a fan, id rather have Bateman for another year than the money.

I’m not so sure. My understanding is that the predetermined transfer fee written into Bateman’s contract was £300,000 so Canberra have only paid half of it. That sets a precedent for when other players have NRL Clauses and the clubs come knocking.

I only hope IL accepted it because he got him to sign for us when he comes back.