Agreed.

I don’t get all this negativity about resigning players if they are the best available at the time.

I am also confused by this somewhat naive line that Wigan shouldn’t be used as a stepping stone. It may sit uncomfortably with fans but that is exactly what we are as is every other SL club.

The NRL is the main competition in rugby league. It is of a higher standard, the players get more money and generally have a better lifestyle. Of course it’s not for everyone but most of the players especially the younger lads aspire to play in the NRL.

Rugby League is a minority sport in the Uk.

I actually think it’s a little ironic that the NRL could be the key to us starting to reverse that trend in the future.

The more English/British lads we get playing at that level week in week out the more chance we have of winning an Ashes series or a World Cup and giving the game a much needed boost in the UK.

Is it a trend I’m comfortable with? Absolutely not.

Can I understand and accept why it is happening. Absolutely despite it being frustrating for us fans.

Exactly. If we still think he's good enough for Wigan then we do what we can to sign him.

He’s showing some guts to take the plunge at such a young age and with no first team experience behind him. So frustrating to lose him but I wish him nothing but well. I’m not sure if there is an answer to the question of what the club could do to stop moves like this. When you’re the best side in rugby league at producing young talent, you’re going to have eyes on you and sadly we don’t have the finance to stave this off.

That’s slightly different to us issuing a get out of jail card.

Wouldn’t mind if they’d let us have one of their older academy lads in return if they’re not quite first team ready, like Hamlin etc

We should definitely be open to taking him back if he's good enough. Imagine if we went on to have ten years starring for Saints, Leeds or Wire?

I genuinely wish the lad well, big risk to back himself as much as he is. I can see this being a Mark Flanagan situation though, coming back a decent player in his early 20s, but having not played enough rugby to have really developed.

I know Flanagan has actually gone on to have a perfectly decent career and is going well at Salford, but I still think that decision stopped him from becoming a really top player.

I agree we should always look at taking a player back if they are good enough.But when they leave the club they should be made aware that the door they are going through isn’t a cat flap.

So if a player goes to test themselves in the NRL gor whatever reason it may be, you wouldn't allow them back?

So if Bateman decides he misses his daughter too much we can't have him back?

I think my first sentence answers your question

I've often thought that some kind of dual registration would be a good idea

We want to send players over to improve develop Eric but would like them to return to us at a decent age. Nrl sides often seem to be letting players go for cap space reasons then surely there is something to be worked out their.

At the moment it's a one way street getting one of their big earners for a season or a young promising player coming the other way would not be a bad thing would it ?

It's a way of countering the resourse drain to the nrl but gets more of our players over there to experience it and learn from it too. Clubs could work together better we could undoubtedly have a lot to learn but nrl clubs would probably identify a few things we may do that they had not thought about.

You cannot knock a player wanting to go test themselves at the highest level and to earn more money in a warmer climate. We should want our players to go over there and succeed and bring that into the international set up. I would though make a stipulation same as ru that to be selected for England or GB you must be playing in super league.

But you then say they need to know it's not a cat flap so which is it? Let them back or not?

Like I said I answered your question in the first sentence. By all means look at signing them again but don’t let them go thinking that it’s an easy option to comeback if it doesn’t work out.

So the simple answer is to let a player go (assuming he is not out of contract so Wigan have some kind of bargaining position) with the club's blessing but with first refusal to re-sign if the player decides to come back, especially early but with no guarantee that Wigan would sign the player, depending on performances etc. which is what I understand the club have previously done.

Yip
And 2 more benefits
1/ Transfer Fee

2/ he may not have signed the contract that hes leaving part way through in the first place if we dont put a clause in, so we may get 2 more years say put of a Bateman, Williams, Gildart etc that we wouldn't have got as if there was no get out they may have just moved on.

Sits back and prepares for the expected

I’ve got no problems with lads going to the NRL with a few seasons experience in SL but young lads with no first team experience is the thin end of the wedge

Effectively we should be a part time professional sport with our current slim pool of players. Take away the buds of youth and if it expands then very quickly you don’t have a supportable professional product

I don’t know the answer but a previous post on dual registration may be part of the solution

If Rushton succeeds (which I hope he does) this could encourage even more young guys to take a similar route.

Not a great situation

As a super league club we have gone soft. I’ve never known a club where the tail wags the dog as much as it does at Wigan. We constantly put these clauses into players contracts basically putting everyone of them in the shop window. Now you could argue that if NRL clubs want to sign players then they will do regardless, I get that. What Annoys me is that we offer our players the incentive to go and play in the NRL instead of encouraging them to stay here.

I too sit back and wait for the expected.

Not every situation is the same
Rushton is 19? Is he out of contract? If so there is only so much you can do same as Budgie 5 years ago, same as Sutton 18months ago
So if they decide to run down their contract that's up to them - Maybe if we offered those players one of the contracts you dislike they would stay, maybe they wouldn't - More on that later

But on the scenario you describe - When a more established player such as Tomkins circa 2011, Bateman 2016/17, Gildart 2018 etc. are coming to the end of their contracts it is different.

This is the Bit where I differ I think based on your response above.

What would you have done in those negotiations?

Sign 4yr deal here or go end of the year?
Let them go end of the year? For nothing etc.
Sign a say 2 year deal? (Then let them go for nothing - Which, if an offer isn't there from the NRL could be to a SL Rival for nothing.
Sign say a 4yr deal with an NRL clause at end of year 2 if said player wants to leave? Ensuring a transfer fee, Won't leave for a SL Rival, and/or a 1st option on return clause That the club may or may not wish to take up at that time. thus removing risk of a player they want going to a SL Rival.

You say :- "As a super league club we have gone soft. I’ve never known a club where the tail wags the dog as much as it does at Wigan"

What does that mean? What would you do? How would you stop the Tail wagging the Dog
How do we "offer our players the incentive to go and play in the NRL instead of encouraging them to stay here" - if the answer to this is we put the clause in their contract, How do you get them to sign that initial contract in the first place without it and risk losing them to a SL rival or the NRL 2 years earlier?
How does that or any contract CREATE an interest form the NRL if it isn't there from the NRL in the 1st place

Very easy to sit back and criticise, I don't WANT them to go if possible (And in Budgies case I had a 3 or 4 long conversations with his Mum & Dad about this very subject in 2015) but it is their life, they are not tied/slaves to their employer like they were 25 plus years ago, they are free to move, make their own choices (Rightly or wrongly in mine or your view).
Very easy to say this is what I would do, how does that stand up to scrutiny, in real life when sat face to face with Agents & the player, who again, rightly or wrongly, hold all the cards.

Sits back and waits

And without being funny, that's the problem
We all Don't like what's happening, finding a solution is the difficult bit

Established players leaving for transfer fees is part of Lenagans business plan and he admitted that at a fans forum I attended a few years back. If we start to see the best young players leave before becoming established and for nothing, then it becomes a real problem because in the long term we then a)won’t produce good enough players to compete for trophies and b) we then won’t have any top quality players he can make money on.

We started the ball rolling on giving guys every opportunity to leave the club to try their hand at Union or the NRL years ago and unfortunately that is now engrained in our culture and the way we do things. These lads see their mates doing it, they see how open the club is to allowing them to go (for fees) and they negotiate their deals accordingly. This Rushton case is different and it genuinely worries me more him leaving them it did when Sam Tomkins, Bateman, Williams etc walked out the door. If it’s filtered down to juniors wanting to leave now and leave for nothing, we’ve got a major problem.

Go and test yourself either in the NRL against better sides than here, or in the NSW Cup/Jersey Flegg against better sides than here, not to mention the lifestyle, seeing the world etc OR stay here playing against Swinton? That's before the money aspect comes into it.

Let's face it.....every single one of us would go to the NRL.

As for not letting them come back, would Utd have let Ronaldo go to Liverpool if he decided Madrid wasn't for him or would they want to sign him back?

If quality players are available we sign them, whether they've been here before or not. Not to mention the possible improvements in said player from playing/being coached in the NRL.

How do we stop that?
Remember Rushton is not even a 1st Teamer - His value is minimal over there, if he stayed here and played 2/3 seasons it's likely his value would be far greater ala Bateman/Williams etc.
The fact he wants to go means "he wants to go" - and there's not much anyone can do to stop that other than provide them with the best environment & structure we can, and pay them the best we can within reason to keep them here - This is were IFL has been very successful, The Youngsters are treats VASTLY better than they were 15 years ago. But it doesn't and never will stop it happening.
How many youngsters in football spend there entire youth careers at lower league clubs or other clubs academy's and then sign for a PL Big club at 16/17/18 - It's a similar scenario - The enticement is there and you can only deal with that the best way we can and I believe we do a pretty good job, unless we decide to stop producing talented youngsters then the problem will go away.




Don't agree, in what way did we give guys "Every Opportunity"???
Saracens were offering ridiculous money for Joel T - Joel T himself wanted to go - Very difficult to stop - We didn't kick him out the door, we tried to keep him but it was too much from a Sport/club awash with money

The NRL stuff
As I say, how would we have got Sam T, George, Bateman (And even Farrell who has stayed) to sign the original contracts which kept them at the club for 2/3 years before they left if we didn't build these clauses in?
In what way would not building the clauses in have benefitted Wigan? They would either have gone earlier, or only signed 2/3 year deals and gone anyway?

The power is with the players these days, and overall it's the right thing, we just have to deal with it the best we can

Nail on the head pal

How do we stop it regarding juniors? don’t know, don’t think we can. Im not suggesting there’s a way really, other than hoping the game here gets stronger and the exchange rate gets to a point it was at 15 years ago.

As for us giving them every opportunity, I said Lenagan said it was part of the business model at a fans forum to let these lads go to bring fees in. I’m not saying I’ve a problem with it by the way, we’ve been successful and hopefully will continue to be so. You only need to look at the stats to see how many Wigan players have gone to the NRL in comparison to other clubs to see that there’s more to this then just coincidence. Lenagan has mentioned many times as seeing these approaches as a compliment, not wanting to keep unhappy players etc and wishing them luck in trying their hand elsewhere. Again is that wrong? Our record would say not but it’s certainly not the approach you see from other clubs who come out and say they’ll do everything they can to fight to keep their players.

My point is you won’t sustain that plan and success if the best juniors get picked off before they’ve made a name for themselves in our first team. If we can’t keep them at Rushton’s age I worry where we’re heading more than I do when losing a ready made international. I don’t claim to have any suggestions of how we stop that happening. You certainly can’t start throwing big money at kids you can’t be sure will make it.

I haven't missed a Fans Forum so can only assume the "Business Model" your referring to is the same one I heard.

I didn't interpret that the same as you (Maybe a Rogues can confirm his understanding?)

I believe when he said Business model, I didn't take it that we were producing players with the Sole intention of selling them to make money for a Business model.
My interpretation was that we give them slightly longer contracts with the release clause to benefit from them leaving if they Choose to do so. This in turn helps Wigan's business model because we are recouping some/all/more of the outlay for producing them in the first place.

I would Hazard a guess that given the Choice Wigan would have Chosen to retain ALL of the players that left for NRL rather than take the money, but once you can't keep them it's better get something for them?

I used to know a local lad quite well who although a professional footballer in his own right made his name as Man Utd Youth Team coach/development back in the Mid 90s
He told us that they had processes and systems in place throughout the 90's early 00's to coach & train their youth players and their sole intention was to develop them as 1st Team players
BUT
If they chose to move on due to lack of opportunity, they wanted 1st team to soon for Man Utd of they were poached etc. their Value as an asset was increased as they were Products of the United system. Clubs knew they were getting good players, brought up with the right ethics and coached in the right way. The money made can then be reinvested to develop and maintain more youth and hope to cherry pick the best.

My belief is that we can only hope that we get a similar reputation/system in place - But unlike a United or a Liverpool who seem to be doing something similar now, We are not the PEAK of our sport and until that changes we will lose youngsters who have different views, different aspirations etc.

Not sure of the rules, but do we get something for players say under 21 (I'm sure there was a rule in place were you could be compensated if you lost a player under a certain age?)

I don’t think the intention is solely to sell them on at all but I think the hope is that we keep producing enough good ones to keep being successful, whilst knowing that some are likely to move on and to be in a position when they do, that we financially benefit from that.

The long and short of it is that’s it’s basically a bit frustrating if a kid as young as Rushton walks for free. No blame being given to anyone at all but really sad to see him go. We can only hope it’ll be an isolated loss. If young Havard walls as well then that’s a huge kick in the teeth for the club.