Have we? How have we done that if the marquee spots are full?

Because Bateman took one of them. Next year's marquee players are G.Burgess and Bateman

I'm sure the club never confirmed his marquee status, but I'm probably wrong.

I was just using Wade Graham as an example,there is a massive list of players coming off contract in the NRL

A very good example IMO and a good replacement if/when Lockers retires, Graham is a proper old school 13, a big stand off/second rower.

Are we that desperate to have a player past his best and possibly injury problems as one of the marquee players?

Maybe not
But if he's got a 3 year contract and is one of the 2 highest earners then what do you do?

You seem to have a very simplistic logic and I've seen lots of people with this thought pattern, hes no good get rid.
Very simple when your not the one dealing with the contracts etc.

Grimmy was asked a question why we couldnt just go and sign a half million pound a year player just because we have a multi millionaire backer.
Hes given everyone a perfectly 100% reason.
Nest year the top 2 earners will be Bateman and Burgess (rightly or wrongly).

Buying anyone else will have a massive impact on the salary cap and squad numbers if we are to offer them the type of money it would need to sign an origin level player, assuming theyd want to come here when they can get that and more and still be eligible to play origin and OZ back in Australia.

Unless we get rid of 5 players to gain 1
And at that point I would say in a salary cap sport it would be suicide to do so.

And we are suddenly into Uncle Mo territory again

Yes paying four or five players over half the salary cap and having player(s) in the same team on £8.5K per year. Sounds like a plan, a bloody bad one!!!

Get rid of him as he only signed for Wigan for easy money and Wigan only signed him for the publicity of signing a Burgess brother who is in fact no longer in the same class as his twin brother Tom and more so retired brother Sam.

A shame as when they were younger, he was the better of the twins.

How?

You're either a troll, or slow.

How do you get rid of someone on a 3 year deal?

Ever heard of something called a contract on your planet?

I'd be surprised if he's heard of a lot of things

A lot of hate directed towards GB. The same level that Pat Richards had in his first season, though admittedly he wasn’t on the same level of salary.

Fact is he’s coming back from a bad injury. He needs time and leading up to the season postponement he was getting better and going well. People with their pitchforks out so early are, to be frank, ridiculous and short sighted.

It's not me who is out of touch on Burgess, just those who think that every player that Wigan sign is a good signing.
'
And to compare Pat Richards who was in his prime when he came to Wigan with a player who is near the end of his career, not been offered another contract by South Sydney or any other Aussie club who evidently no longer rate him, come with a bad injury and then given a three year contract is not good thinking on the part of the club and I am not the supporter saying it.

And supporters are entitled to express opinions on players signed by the club without the usual minute minority making snide comments about being on another planet or being a troll etc.

Until you keep dodging the question then you're a troll.

This has nothing to do with yours, or other fans thoughts on if he's a good signing. You said you'd get rid, but can't answer the question of how you'd do that when he's got a three year deal.

Ignoring contracts is out of touch with the reality of the situation.

Unfortunately, that's not the way it works. Just because it's your opinion that doesn't entitle you to 'protection' from people having different opinions.

Pat Richards was not in his prime when he came to Wigan at all. What was he, 24 maybe?

I wouldnt waste your breath. We should get rid of GB now and replace him with Robocop

And out of form too. Spent a bit of time in the reserves.

Don’t be so ridiculous. Address the point I made rather than making up straw man arguments you can agree with. I did not compare his tenure to DW’s. I said I don’t like one man owning the club regardless of if is DW or IL so a new stakeholder is a good thing. It’s a positive development.

Yet here you are coming out with nonsense saying it’s an insult to compare their stewardship which I didn’t do so you can have a pop which you obviously could not wait to do. It’s transparently obvious. Grow up.

Touched a nerve there my Blackpool friend.

Hope all is well with you

Regards EW

Save your breath, IL like Whelan at the Latics can do no wrong with some supporters and I agree with you it is not ideal to have one person owning a club as all decisions are made by that one person, even if a decision might not be right or beneficial to the club. Examples being the loss making decisions by IL for the game at Millwall and the trip down under to Sydney which no doubt has been the reason for some of the poorer signings in the last couple of seasons or so as a result of how the two decisions have hit the finances of the the club. The two loss making ventures also have not been helped by the club having to move its HQ to Robin Park and the cost of upgrading the facility and now on top the pandemic which has made the financial situation worse.

Perhaps this the reason for a new investor in Mike Danson has been invited to come in and buy part of IL's 79% shareholding of the club.

how?