IMO it’s a mix of issues as pointed out;
i) that NRL and other clubs seem to target our players more than other teams
ii) that we don't seem to have a culture like leeds and saints...where players see wigan as the top and are desperate for success here, rather than chasing it elsewhere
iii) but personally I think your point in bold is the big one…we have been much too much a soft touch on players leaving, and that drives point ii) above – as they see their colleagues going off to big deals in Aus, Catalans or Wire etc and chase it themselves.

Point iii. drives point ii. IMO which is why I’m glad we’ve played hardball with Hardaker (especially when the reasons are tenuous), and think we need to do more of that to keep players here.

BUT the big one for me the club should really look at is partnering with an NRL club and building it into contracts, rather than having players chase them and breach contracts mid-way though a contracted period at wigan.
This leads to the unsettled nature of our squad, high turnover and difficulties we have building momentum.

Say instead, we partnered with West Tigers (for argument sake).
- Every Big 5 year deal offered to our young star players could have a contractual release option for year 3, to play for Wests if the player and WT wish to take up. This would provide an extra year option (in the 4th year), to enhance the value of their 5 year deal.
- Players would have the opportunity of NRL with the security of an agreed contact at wigan to return to if it didn’t work out (ie/ George Williams), but the option of a 2nd year if it did (ie/ Sam Tomkins).
- THEN the player would return to wigan as a much better player (with terms already agreed for the 5th year…to stop the nonsense of greedy players being lured by wire/ catalans outbidding us with their elastic caps etc). If they wanted them upon their return they would need to pay the relevant fee.
- Alternatively, if the player is a huge success and wants to stay in Aus for the rest of their career (ie / Sam Burgess), the aussie club pay a fee at the end of year 4.
- This would lead to not only more players returning and not being lost to rivals, but also critically continue the connection and cultural link to the club…they are still wigan players etc.

Of course, there’s ways this could be exploited, but its better than the current situation of every aussie club plus our rivals taking the mick out of us…..you could almost make a combined wigan team of catalans and wire players who are much better than what we have left at the club….could you imagine saying that about leeds or saints!!
The important part of this option is it retains the wigan link and connections to the club, plus hopefully desire of returning…..gives players a safety net to try the NRL but return to wigan (like we’ve seen with so many it often doesn’t work out), stops every NRL club vulturing off us…if we do a partnership deal with one, its much more likely to be accepted by others that they don’t chase our players as wigan players go to wests etc, and is less likely to have their head turned by wire or catalan etc on their return. If they do, then we get a fee out of our rivals (which limits their ability to keep doing it), rather than off an NRL club which has no impact.

Such a deal could also see us take those players in exchange who have yet to make NRL grade….ie/ when Lachlan lam was 17/18, he could have done a year here to give him game time and get a break in the NRL. They could effectively ‘fill the position’ for us, until our player returned, and be part of the contract negotiation if the wigan player wanted to remain in the NRL (we agree it, but would take an option for another 1-2 years to delay the return of a top aussie player….similar to the hastings arrangement).

Got to be better than the current mess we have, and I struggle to see how this wouldn’t have a positive effect on turnover.

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.

Seeing that compared to a normal season, the squad was light in numbers with some players on long term injuries and one or more suspended, there may have been times when the odd player or so was carrying a knock and not fully fit.

I seem to recalled that on one occasion, the club could only announce a pre match squad of only nineteen players instead of the normal twenty one.

The fact that twenty five games were completed is a credit to the club and the coaching team headed by Lam even if the results were not good enough.