You need to get your facts straight.

Tom chose to leave as he wasn't guaranteed 1st team rugby.

With regards to signing Bibby. Its all in hindsight and he may have been signed predominantly as a Centre? We still don't really know because of injuries.

I agree Davies staying would have been best, but its all in hindsight.

Steph has an ability to see in to the future obviously. He knew Burgess would suffer with injuries and a loss of form and he knew Manfredi would need to retire (in fairness, he probably did know that one).

Tom Davies has done the right thing for his career and fair play to him. I’ve always felt he has a couple of weak points that hold him back from being very top class, like a Makinson for example but he’s an absolute workaholic and has grafted his way to being one of the better wingers in the league.

They alluded to it at the forum with him selecting multiple players who weren't fit.

Can you paste the exerts from the transcript on this one...

What did your last slave die of?

The fact only 3 years ago our Grand Final side had 0 Australians, just Tommy and 2 french lads and now we are scrambling over quota spots just shows the mismanagement.

Absolutely.

The signing of Field seemed unnecessary at the time and as though it had been done because they expected one of French or Hastings to leave. We now probably do need him but we then sign Leuluai up to a new deal, which just seems bonkers. I like Isa and wanted to sign him back up but if they had planned to keep Leuluai on, you’d have probably understood if they’d have parted ways, especially given how many good young backrowers we have and Farrell and Bateman cover the need for experience. We sign a quota wingman from the Championship, who has no real top flight history down inder. Now I like the looks of the guy and I think he could go really well but getting a homegrown winger would seem easier than getting a homegrown halfback, so again you could live without that signing.

Those three moves have tied our hands. We could only afford to make two of them IMO.

Who alluded to it?

The club or supporters.

He picked players that weren't fit. Do you think he listened to his support staff (analysts, physios, coaches etc) when making those selections?

I may be putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5, but seeing as he demanded a signing (Sammut) and then didn't pick him I'm pretty confident in my maths skills.

Yeah the idea that Sammut was Lam's choice seems odd, given that, whatever you think about him, the fact is that he wasn't given much of a shot at Wigan.

There are two mentions of injuries, are there others you are referring to? What they do not definitely say is that Lam acted against advice, it could simply be a viewpoint in hindsight.

French
[iWhat that did do it meant that he came into the season completely underprepared to be brutally honest. He needed a good five or six weeks of more pre-season training and him to get his body right to play. So that’s a reflection of something that I believe we could have done better. I think he was probably selected a little bit early, four or five more weeks, and we might have been in a different position. [/i

Burgess
They only mentioned him turning up overweight, working him too hard in pre-season.

As I said above, may be me getting 5 from 2+2 but if a player isn't fit and we know he isn't fit then someone somewhere within the coaching setup will have said something.