The main issue I have is the club putting this out there means to me they are putting themselves in a hole. If he wants to come back and Wigan say no he could go to another SL team and if successful the club wont look good. On the otherhand they could get him back down the line and then he isn't the player he was and isn't as successful to which again the club would get criticism.

I think it would of been better just to announce he was leaving and made no reference to him returning. At worst maybe they could of said Wigan have first refusal.

What if he's very successful in the NRL and doesn't want to come home, Will Canberra or another club need to renegotiate his signing with Wigan

It will be detailed in the contract that Doesn't exist and is no more than a Gentleman's agreement according to our Expert from the Wolf's Board.

My Guess however is it will be detailed in a Contract that will have numerous clauses/scenarios in it to cover numerous scenarios that won't be as complicated as some make out.

As predicted!

If his successful @ Canberra I see him then looking to go to Sydney.

FINALLY!

But I just don’t understand this deal. It doesn’t make sense from any way you look at it. In 2yrs we’ll be a different club with different needs etc

Im also not an advocate of bringing players back to the club and although I think Bateman is a fantastic player; I’m standing by that ethos. It makes the club look weak in my honest opinion.

Dont mind Bateman going to NRL totally deserves is chance but I just find the returning / Marquee part of the deal mind boggling / laughable decision by the club.

As many have said what if Bateman is a success will he want to return?

Also which jumps out at me is that for the next 2-3 years we will not be signing or interested in any Top players as we already have a marquee in Williams and a marquee when he wants to return in Bateman. Imagine if a top no 7 becomes available we wont be able to sign as Marquee in case Bateman returns or table a offer because we will have no space on salary cap.

I do think again its a bad press release by Wigan why didn't they just say we have first refusal with a 3 year deal on the table....DONE......that way if a better option comes up we can go for it and see what happens with Bateman down the line, he may have a stinker or get injured and hardly play then will he be worth the money?

We have made a big thing about the significant signing on fee, it will only be the same fee if he decides to come back early which we know as happened before.

Told you all this about 6 months ago but was mocked and told that Mods shouldn't spread rumours.

Sometimes helps knowing a Hull lad currently living in Canberra..

No suprises. I'm a bit concerned about us making him marquee upon his return. We have been stung badly with players not being as good upon their return, and would we even want to use up a marquee spot on a second rower anyway? I'd rather have a marquee 1, 6, 7 or 9 where the player will have more influence

Its surprising, you'd say that they've not learned from the tomkins situation, and how thats played out.

Clearly they've agreed this and announced to soften the blow for the fans, hoping you've all got short memories.

Not surprised he is going and not overly mithered about his potential return or not I am solely concerned about who will be replacing him. No disrespect to Wells and any other of the young bucks coming through but I want an experienced replacement as good as if not better than Bateman. Our pack has been too small for too long and this for me is another opportunity for the club to help to get the pack to a decent size which can give us a platform to perform in every match of the season not just the 60% or so when we want to or presently can do.
Sad to see the lad go as on the pitch he is as honest as the day is long and I wish we had another 5 or 6 like him in the squad. Hope he makes a success of it in the NRL.

I genuinely can’t think of a player past or present that has come back to the club a better player than the one who left?

That’s my issue as well. I feel quite confused about it as well; he’s a fantastic player but I’m not sure the deal we’ve gone for is the right one.

As other posters have stated, a lot can change in 2yrs. Form, injuries etc but the other major problem for me is that we now have two marquee spots, GW and JB. The latter of which isn’t here for 2yrs which restricts us majorly in the transfer market.


This isn’t an astute move by the club, it’s a ridiculous move in my honest opinion benefitting nobody.

Same here.. Why are we still giving players a get out clause on their Aussie move? It's not been a success yet.

If Bateman was having doubts about going I think the offer he has been made to come back as the marquee signing would tip the balance. It's a risk free move for him because he will know even if he comes back on one leg IL will sign him just to show how "clever" he's been striking the deal.

I am sure some will say we'd be kicking ourselves if he came back an even better player and went to another club but so what? In the meantime the club should be looking to fill the gap he leaves such that we do not need to re-sign him. It should move on and not be thinking he will be an integral part of the plans two or three years hence (there is an option of the third year in his Aussie contract).

The contract isn't worth the paper it's written on anyway. If he wants to sign another contract in Australia after this one is up, he will. What is the club going to do about it? Apply for his extradition?

I have no problem with Bateman going. Good luck to him. He's honoured his contract and his new club have coughed up the fee but that should be the end of it. If in two or three years he becomes available Wigan should consider making a move to sign him or not on its merits at the time and the needs of the club at the time. Not tie itself to signing him regardless.

Ask Iestyn Harris/Bradford Bulls. Contracts certainly seemed to count for something in that case!

Nail. Head.

Have to agree with Dave here; no contract can predict what the situation will be in two years time with his form and fitness, and whether he would want to return to England or not. The only purpose of such a clause would be to placate Wigan fans, but I don't see how it could anything more than a 'gentleman's agreement'.

Charnley.

He's still a turnstile, but we can't say he isn't scoring tries.

And maybe there's a lesson there, if we care to learn it. Let them go somewhere else, and they might well come back good.

I should add that I don't believe in bringing them back, either, but I was wrong about Charnley. I wonder how we'd feel if the same thing happened with Bateman?

Not the way to run a team though on the off chance he may come good elsewhere,Charnley IS the exception though he only went down the road to Sale not the other side of the world too and barely played in the time he as away.

I don’t agree with resigning players so it would hypocritical of me to start with Bateman

I think they have probably agreed a wage which at the moment would be Marquee. But in 2-3 years time, who knows if that will qualify him. I think he will be back after 2 seasons without his daughter and will be a better player (injuries permitting).

I think its a good deal and Wigan are in a no lose position with it. Bateman would be a great signing for any club in the world

Basing future recruitment policy on the off-chance someone may be good in two years time seems ludicrous, I agree. But, that's actually a massive oversimplification.

Look at it this way. If we hadn't secured Bateman's return, and in two years time he announces that he's ready to come home anyway (at the age of 27!), would you expect us to be in there pitching for him?

Don't bother answering, because we all know that if that happened and we weren't, or even worse, we were but got beaten to the signature by Leeds or Warrington, IL would disappear under a deserved avalanche of very severe criticism.

I'll answer in so much as this, i don't like the policy of bring players back..thats just me though I see no evidence of it being successful, indeed in Sam's case its been a very expensive case of a player being injured for a good couple of years when he returned, this we know, yet we are led to believe it'll work this time..

Ive no problem with players signing for other clubs, if they wanted to stay they would have but accept its a free market and wish theme just don't think a safety should be laid out for them if it all goes belly up.

But as I say thats just me

No he would not. To assume so would be to also assume the club is not going to find or produce a player of equal ability in the next 2 - 3 years.

IL will get more criticism if we re-sign him just because we can if this is done in complete disregard for what the team needs are in 2 or 3 years hence.

We'd have to have one hell of a pack to not need or want an NRL-hardened John Bateman.

Depends if in the wider scheme of things the clubs needs him or not.