Not quite Il, Fylde Warrior, but I can understand.
You should have seen the club accounts for the years prior to IL taking over.
If you have, or ever do, then you'll know why I wrote the above.

Then you don't know what loan deals are. The players are not contractually oblidged to Wigan [iunless[/i they return and even then I believe there is a limit on how long that applies for. You make it sound as if in two or three seasons they are contractually oblidged to up sticks and come back here. They are not. IF they come back in that time frame we have first refusal and this is not the same as what you say above and it certainly isn't a loan. If Mossop wants to stay there is nothing we can do about it and Hock will be ready for retirement anyway by then so for him this "loan" is really bye-bye and a transfer.



And why do we want them to leave in the fist place? You seem to be missing this rather important point. SL as a competition would be better with them in it. If/when Sam goes it will be a loss that can't be made up by promises of a future return given we lose these players in their prime. The idea virtually the entire England team will be playing in the NRL is somehow good for the game is not a view I share. It will dilute our competition and if that results in a steady decline (as I believe it would) it won't be long before we aren't producing any players good enough to be tapped up by the NRL anyway.

It may be that is the economic reality of the situation that we lose these players in their prime but a possible future return is no compensation.



He hasn't got much choice and in any case he as much as anyone knows the draw top class overseas players have provided over the years and for the flops such as they have been players like Bell and Richards and many others have been fantastic additions to the squad. I'd like to think if he could afford to sign Billy Slater he would. If he would not because producing from the academy was cheaper I am sure Warrington and now Salford would happily step in had SL got the salary cap to allow it.



If we didn't have a salary cap Wigan would be left behind if IL wasn't able to or prepared to spend more money on players wages. That isn't an argument for the cap but against the notions you put forward that implies because he balanced the books and has stopped importing players (when in fact he just can't compete for them) it's job done.

Ted, Simon Moran does not seem to have the same problem as IL?

Mr Lenagans comments are what I suspected and feared.

It's now 'writ large'.

IL does not want to pay more but he expects the fans to cough up for want will be an inferior product as the best players go to Australia

Well this sucks. How can this sport possibly grow then?

Collate as many DVD's of the days when world class talent like the Andy Farrell's, Steve Renouf's, Trent Barrett's, Adrian Lam's, Sam Tomkins', Keiron Cunningham's, Sean Long's, Paul Sculthorpe's, Jamie Lyon's, Lesley Vainikolo's of this world played RL in Super League because in two, possibly three years time it will all have gone to other competitions.

Of course he doesn't want the salary cap raising. The longer the cap stays low, the more teams will have to rely on their academies consistently producing a conveyor belt of talent to replace the best players who keep leaving for the NRL/Union. Who is best placed to benefit from that? Us. However, I'm a rugby league fan first and a Wigan fan second. Keeping the cap this low is bad for our competition and it needs to change. I want super players in the super league like there always has been. No way will we produce and retain the next Radlinski, Fielden or Peacock or attract guys like Vainikolo, Renouf, or Barrett. They'll all be plying their trade in the NRL and we'll be left with guys like Paul Wellens, Ade Gardner, Lance Hohaia and John Wilkin. No one wants that every week.

Nothing I haven't suspected (and posted) before.

Where are the happy clappers and IL defenders now?

Why should HE (IL) pay any more. His job is to try and make the club self sufficient.

Is it really?

I said it before, chairmen in RL are a likely to vote for an increase in the CC as turkeys would for Xmas.

They like to play the game on the cheap.

Ultimately they will have to increase it, and significantly or see their game dwindle into nothing.

People have been predicting RL's demise in this country for nearly 120 years. I'm sure it'll survive a good while longer despite a handful of players leaving to play in another comp.

So if we go on to do great things this year, will someone preserve this post for posterity and resurrect it afterwards, the way they did with your posts when you forecast disaster because we'd just appointed Michael Maguire?

Once the rest of SL gets on our level then we/they can moan about our chairman not wanting to increase the cap.

Why should he? There's perhaps 4 or 5 teams in the league that can spend up to the current limit as it is.

That's the problem. Only 4 or 5 clubs can spend what is, in real terms, less than 2/3 of the cap level when it was introduced. This suggests that a full time game is not sustainable in the medium/long term.

Like other posters, I think IL has done a great job in very many areas, but on the SC I fundamentally disagree with him.

Yet those great names didn't result in rises in attendances. And they aren't big names outside of RL circles (other than Farrell's coaching in another sport). For which the administrators should hang their heads in shame.