He's doing a bad job of it then isn't he, given that he's put in more than he's taken out?

I bet hes received more than anyone in fees also.

Would you rather he let players go on a free?

Its quite incredible isn't it that argument.
He signs players on 4/5 year deals, and gives them a get out clause at say 2/3 years on receipt of a transfer fee.

Who's to say these players (Tomkins/bateman/Farrell/Gildart etc) would have signed the contracts and stayed for the first 2/3 years without those clauses? They could have walked away sooner for nothing.
And at the end player either stays or we get a nice transfer fee.

He's now being criticised for being a bad businessman who gets transfer fees, by people who think we should either have let them go on a free or not resigned them in the first place because after 2/3 years all were going to get is a transfer fee?

There's definitely been problems behind the scenes and I'll elaborate more later when I have time on what I think the most significant change in the last 2/3 years has been, but It beggars belief what some people will use to try and criticise the chairman with. Posters who disagree on what leneghan should and are.polar opposites on subjects agreeing with each other because they share a common goal, get rid of him.
Not too disimilar to the Wane scapegoating for the last 2/3 years

not at all, just stating a fact. Ive never called IL tight as we make a loss every season and he makes it 0. It was a response to a comment saying he spends on transfers. All clubs do.

Not saying your wrong, other than the reason we get the transfer fee is due to IL working the deal with the player that sees them stay for 2/3 years more (instead of leaving) and then we either keep the player after that (Farell) or sell on if player wants to try NRL etc. For a nice little earner rather than a freebie.
I dont particularly see the downside, and primarily it goes to cover costs which we desperately need to, and it pays back the money invested in these players through the youth system.

But, the experts seem to think he's not business savvy because he had the audacity to take Edwards word and his shake of the hand.
Now that seems like I'm taking IL's side when my true belief is both party's will be guilty of something or other, just the usual suspects who can't accept leneghan ever does anything right would rather believe a rumour that fits in with an agenda than wait and see what the facts are.

exactly but so are other chairmen. Thats what I was referring to from the post above.

I am not in that group either. I have never once questioned his business acumen since he has been here. my point about 'asset stripping' was more of a question than answer. I haven't commented on the Edwards thread because i know minute details. What i do know is that the 'man of his word' seemingly is a liar. IL asset stripping wouldnt be beyond the realms of possibility. Businesses do it every day when they are getting ready to ship up. Whelan did it with Latics, according to his book he bought Wigan RL, he did it on the proviso that Central Park wouldn't be sold and he says when he bought it, the deal was already done. If he signed a contract with that in place he could have pulled out but he didn't. He went along with it anyway and took the cash. A successful businessman like that could have made an investement into saving the club and got it back whilst keeping CP open but he had grand plans about the DW Stadium. If we are up for sale we won't be signing anybody on a top contract. make as much money as you can then sell the club at face value. You make more money for yourself that way

Yes. If they see their contracts out what is the problem? The only reason to sell a player early to cash in is if the club needs the money. Which if it does means IL isn't rich enough or willing enough to provide it to that extent out of his own pocket or he isn't good enough at raising sufficient sponsorship. Last season he got rid of McIllorum and S Tomkins (after asking him to take pay cut thus reneging on an agreed marquee deal) in what was clearly a cost cutting exercise so he hasn't even got the excuse of NRL competition since they went to Cats.

I also think his willingness to sell encourages agents to seek new clubs for our players. They get a cut each time a player moves and the players themselves are more likely to have their heads turned and/or just think it is par for the course they can sign whatever deal they like with Wigan because if a club comes in for them they think IL will sell. If it was "you are here for three years and we mean it" everyone knows where they stand.

RL clubs that want to be top RL clubs are just not profitable entities. They suck up cash like a sponge and so its up to the chairman to secure it and not by selling your best players. I think we'd be better with other than just one man owning the entire club. Saints were loaned most of the cost of their stadium by a different director other than McMannus. Who does IL have to call on to help out? No one.

So we sign a player for 3yrs and let him go for nothing
Rather than 3 plus 2 and get a transfer fee? Ok.

As for who does IL have to call on as per McManus, if I was someone with 100million and wanted to put money in and then have my name dragged through the mud, slandered, criticised at every point and subjected to some of the kind of stuff IL has had to out up with I'd seriously think long and hard about putting anything in.
Especially from people who have hissy fits when something as trivial as a post is criticised.

Of course the ‘sign up for two years and we’ll let you go for a fee in the third year’ deals are better then players just walking out the door for free but I can’t help but wonder why we can’t get players to just sign up on deals for 4 or 5 years with no pre built stipulations?

Saints have tied Makinson, Walmsley and Lomax to deals with no in built stipulations, as have Warrington with Hill, Clark, Currie and Ratchford, Leeds with Watkins, Hull with Taylor and so on, so we can’t sit here and prentend it’s fantastic business that we manage to get our lads on these deals. Ultimately the best deals are that your best players stay at your club and ours do not.

Makinson and Walmsley will go to the nrl, currie was nailed on to before his 2 bad injuries but i still think he will get there. The others you mention are not good enough to go. Think we all kniw that we have done well to keep george and sutty away from the nrl for a few years and won trophies with them here and batty would have been there sooner but for his little girl. All i can say is that we know george is going and personally i wish him all the best he has been great for us playing 6 with e like matty smith and an over the hill tommy and half a season with powell. If he had played with say a trent barrett then he would have been even better, you watch him go over there.

Theres umpteen pages here on someting that has no sustance at all yet, its complete hearsay at the moment.

Liam Farrell
Oliver gildart
Tom Davies
Liam Marshall
Ryan sutton
Zak hardaker
Joe Burgess
Ben flower
Sean o'loughlin x 3 or 4
Dan sarginson
Etc.
Etc.

All signed contracts in the last 2/3 or 4 years that didn't have get out clauses

We've had Sam tomkins in 2011
John bateman signed one in 2015
Both Top properties that had expressed desire to go to the NRL, having deals with those clauses in IMO helped secure their services for the first 2/3 years of their contracts.
Not sure if there were any more? But not an avalanche.
And those clubs you mention have lost players they didnt want to, to the nrl in that time, they didnt get any teenager fees for them though.

Not going to go through them all but we’re talking our very best players over the last few years (Tomkins in 2013, Bateman and now Williams) who walked out the door/will walk out the door on these kind of deals. Guys like Lockers were/are too old to command a fee even though he’s an incredible player, Hardaker won’t get a second glance due to his issues and others like Flower, Davies and Sarge simply aren’t going to have any NRL clubs willing to pay fees for them.

Any saleable playing asset has had a price put on their head (which in Bateman and Williams cases has been negotiated down) and yes it’s better to get some money then no money but I’d rather have the player pure and simple. The business plan of letting players get out of their contracts early to try other things (Joel Tomkins, Sam Tomkins, John Bateman, George Williams) in return for a fee and a promise of a return had destabilised the club IMO because it’s opened all the players eyes to the opportunities elsewhere. These lads see their mates going over to the NRL and it has a knock on effect. We saw Joe Burgess have a crack and his mates Bateman and Sutton have now gone and Williams will follow and Gildart talks openly about his desire to go and it took an inflated offer to keep him here. Once that momentum started its tough to stop.

Do other clubs lose players to the NRL? Yes they do but in very isolated cases and no club seems to face the open season on their squad like we do because we hear their owners/chairman coming out and stating they’re not for sale. As I’ve said many times if Lenagan needs to do this to keep the club afloat and to try and limit the losses then that’s his choice but I can’t sit here and pretend I’m thrilled with it.