He will be sorely missed. He has progressed really well since Peet and his team took over in 202.
For me he was the best LF in SL by a country mile. A couple of years ago Knowles was probably the best “13” in the competition but he’s a good but a very one dimensional player and I’d take Smithies over him every day of the week.
His passing game has for me become a significant part of his role within the club and unless we find a suitable replacement it may mean a potential style of play next season. Maybe O’Neil is given the 13 shirt if the Farrell prove to be just rumours.
Personally i wouldn’t have Thompson anywhere near the 13 role as that would just be a third prop and for me a lazy option.

For me Smithies can leave with his head held high and I wish him every success in the nrl. I think that a few opposition fans will be in for a surprise when Smithies becomes the next Brit to be a success in the nrl competition.

Annoying isn't it. I think we can put Leeds out of that because they haven't really developed any top class players in a generation, and you could argue the last ones (i.e. Hardaker and Watkins) did get their chance in the NRL.

Saints are more puzzling though. I think there's an element of Wigan being better at developing players who are 'NRL ready' at an earlier stage of their career. As good as this latest Saints team have been, most of their home grown stars' top form has come slightly later than Bateman, Williams, Smithies etc.

Thinking of their players who you think were of the right level, Lomax, Makinson & probably even Walmsley probably weren't as attractive when they were 23/24 compared to some of ours. Thompson was, but then he got his chance. Lees might've been, but then had his bad injury. Percival's injury record probably counted against him too.

You can't push these kids to be the best they can be and then be surprised when they see a better opportunity for themselves. Going to happen more and more given the finance available over there, and as you've already alluded to it will be Wigan and Saints worst hit by it as they do the most work to develop them.

Lomax and Makinson were definitely good enough at the age Smithies is now although you can equally see why they might not have been wanted, Makinson was pretty slight back then and Lomax had been through some injury problems. Joe Burgess was much bigger lad at a similar age (maybe younger) and you'd think he would have been more built for the increased physicality over there.

I do think Saints will see a lot more interest in this current and future generation of young players. Welsby, Dodd, Delaney all tremendous prospects (feels weird calling Welsby a prospect given all he's achieved) and by all accounts a very good set of youngsters waiting in the wings to be brought in over the next couple of years.

How can he leave? I thought the woman off the other site has asked him 50 times and told him he's not allowed to leave.

To be fair I think it's as much about perception as it is ability. Take Lomax, there's no doubt that he's been a brilliant player, but I'd say that's only become obvious when he was well into his career. In retrospect there were plenty of decent players at saints under Cunningham (when Lomax was in his min twenties) but you'd have been hard pressed to find anyone at the time saying that NRL clubs would be waiting in the wings.

Agree about Welsby and Delaney. Massive season for Dodd coming up.

Good luck to Morgan, we move on. The most frustrating part to me is seeing players go to the NRL when they are still under contract.

I wish him all the luck in the world over there - he's turned into a great player and it'll be a massive loss for Wigan.

I do struggle however to understand players being allowed to leave mid-contract, particularly if the financial issues perhaps aren't as significant as they were with Danson coming in. Doesn't it send a bad message to any other players who have NRL ambitions? What is wrong with asking players to fulfil the commitment they've made?

That's a two way street though - if you develop a rep of holding players to contracts in the face of NRL interest don't be surprised when talented young players opt to sign short-term deals and you stop receiving fees.

I sympathise with this viewpoint to a degree, but the Danson factor shouldn't really be relevant. As you say, Morgan was already under contract. If Wigan had 'upped it' mid-term just because he was asking to leave, that would have been setting an ugly precedent.

We could of course have offered him a much better contract when this current one is complete, and I'd be amazed if we didn't at least consider that. But I think it's more than just money. Whether we like it or loathe it, the NRL is now seen as RL's big league while we are just minnows.

Unless, as someone else pointed out, a player is a real home-body, it's now become a right of passage for them to try their hand in Aus. It's almost as though they're never fulfilling their potential if they don't.

Everyone has a price. For me, I'd have Smithies as a marquee in a heartbeat and certainly over someone like Thompson. We'd have just had to get to a number that Morgan couldn't turn down.

But maybe the factor wasn't numerical, maybe it was about testing himself and life experience, money talks but when you already have it and you have achieved just about everything you can in your domestic sport, the chance to try and achieve more elsewhere can and will be a big draw.

Well firstly I think we have respect Smithies for his efforts this year. Along with KPP, he has not dipped at all despite knowing he was leaving and if anything both their form just got better and better. I think both will do well in the NRL and will have a great career over there.

The bitter blow and I can only echo the comments from all on here is that we continually lose these lads. It is what has in my eyes held us back from sustained success like Leeds and St.Helens when they've had dominant spells - both clubs managed to retain that core group of players.

And yet I find it hard to be critical of the club for their approach with respect to having an open and honest culture with the players about their ambitions so they can recruit a replacement, secure a significant transfer fee etc and respect the wishes of the player, which will be the reason why KPP and Smithies continued to give their all and more for us and we ended up with a Grand Final.

The bigger issue is wider for the game. For young, unmarried, ambitious and talented RL players Super League is a stepping stone and the premier competition (and better lifestyle) is in the NRL. I wish we could keep them - I don't have the answer how we can do it.

We have made some great signings for next year, but talk of any "dynasty" will depend on us securing Harry Smith to a long term deal and trying to keep either French or Field (preferably both of course) for the next 2-3 years. We have Smith, French and Field all out of contract in 2024 (albeit with options for 1 and 2 years with French and Field - no idea in whose favour).

Agree with that. Smithies was a known quantity to us, and one that looked likely to continue improving.

Thompson is still a signing that i worry about, i can't shake the feeling of it being a Burgess all over again. One bitten twice shy you could say, he has missed a lot of time since his move over there.

We have had our trick, still hoping there is time for a treat!

Tying players down to long term contracts means nothing if we keep letting them go mid contract, so we can forget any talk of a dynasty.

I know what you mean, but being mid-contract does at least mean paying a fair wedge as a transfer fee. I know that doesn't mean a huge amount to us with Danson and the salary cap, but it does act as a deterrent to the NRL team unless they really want the player.

What is a fair wedge though? Danson is not in charge yet.

I take it that there was some form of compensation paid to us by either the club or the player to allow him to leave mid-contract?

Failing that, I take it we have a first option on when he returns to the UK and one that will be a little more watertight than the one GW managed to get out of.

‘A substantial fee’ was the line in the article. No mention of any first refusals on any return but I’m not sure they’re worth the paper they’re (probably not) written on anyway.

We need to stop this "return to sender" malarkey with players, if they want to leave then fine but we shouldn't have their tea on the table and bed ready for when they want to come back to us. There should be no first refusal its ridiculous that we even offer it to a player who is breaking his contract.

Why not have a first refusal for a player that may have completely ripped it up in the NRL but has decided they want to come back nearer to home, just becasue its a first refusal it doesn't mean we have to take it up if they seem a shadow of their former self.

I for one would like to have that first option (even if they manage somehow get out of it) and how many would complain if said player was a superstar in the NRL and we didn't bother to put a first refusal option in place, the club just need to have the courage of their convictions to say no if they appear to have gone backwards as a player

I thought the takeover was from 1st November?

I thought it was 1st December??
Could be wrong though.

I thought 1st December
Kind of irrelevant though as we know Danson has been funding certain things for 12/18mths plus behind the scenes

People seem to be on the length of contract, letting them go with a transfer fee, holding them to contracts, in a Binary Black or white stance

Each situation is different, and each stance could have 2 ways of looking at it.
Give them 2yrs you kownl what you've got so some people.claim they would be happy, don't be surprised if they walk away and then those same people will claim we should do more to keep them
Give em 4 years and on occasion they leave after 2 or 3, we get a fee, buy some people not happy we didn't get 4 years

In both instances we don't know if the player would have signed the current contract if it was structured the opposite way though do we?

Someone offered 2yrs they may not have signed it and walked away at that point (people would be up in arms!)
Someone offered 4 with a clause, without it they may not have signed it?
Offer Someone 4 without a clause, they may still feel like singing it, but opportunities and situations change, we hold em to it and we may set a precedent that affects future signings etc.

Watched the off the bench podcast a couple of weeks back with Matty Peet. Apart from Jon Wilkin being a pr1 k and ruining it the thing that stood out was a bit were Matty Peet talked about what makes players tick, and each player being different. And it's finding those things, understanding them, and making each person's situation work for them
Matty talked about having a wider responsibility than just making good rugby players, we need to make good people with goals and aims.
You couple that with Shaun Wane previously and Rads talking about wanting these young players all to go on and become successful people, family people and you get a nurturing environment that wants young players to succeed, and at times that may be letting/selling players go to achieve and attempt those goals/dreams

I'm 100% of the club for being like that and wouldn't want us to be any other way.

Here here