I'm sure there was a similar thread about this a few months ago but anyway, here goes.

Is anyone else getting worried with how Radlinski is managing the contracts at the club? It has been confirmed from Wane that it is Radlinski who deals with the contracts.

Latest problem now is that Bateman has been allowed to run his contract down and he now only has 12 months left. Do we cash in on him now to get a fee for him or let him go for free next October? I'd ideally like to see him sign an extension but I'm fairly confident he would have been offered one by now and there must be a reason he's not signed an extension.

Sarginson has also only got 12 months left so it sounds like Bath rugby Union wont even have to pay a fee for him either and whilst I'm happy to let players go if they want to leave I still think we should be getting a fee for players like Joe Burgess who was on a short termcontract as well.

This whole concept of signing players on short contracts has been a disaster alongside Radlinski giving players who dont warrant long contracts (Gelling, Smith, etc..) 4 year deals. This needs to be looked at by the club.

Imagine if we lost Bateman! I think I'd become pretty disillusioned with the club if that happens, even more so if it's to another superleague club.

I sincerely hope they get that sorted and sorted soon.

We'll have him please.

Surprised you didn't get him when we did. I remember there being rumours about Wire being in for him a while before us and for decent money and then it fizzled away. It was pretty surprising when we got him especially at the price we paid. I think his injuries had taken a lot of his value off (as well as Bradfords financial troubles).

Bateman will get a long term deal, he isn't interested in an NRL move

He won't go to NRL, he has a young daughter. Super League clubs will have their eyes closely on him though.

You'd imagine the NRL is a no go due to his daughter. It leaves us with no excuse not to get a deal over the line if that's the case.

You'd imagine only Leeds, Wire or possibly Salford (if he crazy enough) would have the means to try and tempt him away. He doesn't seem overly popular at Leeds but I think they respect his ability.

I personally don't mind playersending leaving at the end of their contracts.

Every player eventually leaves the club and if the majority see out their contracts it allows you to forward plan.

Whilst it's great to get money in the bank it isn't great for players to leave with 12 or 24 months left to play.

There is no point criticizing Rads for getting players to sign long term deals when you don't know the terms of the contract. Maybe Gelling isn't getting paid that much? Or Smith?

Bateman will join the top earners at the club, but that might mean we can't buy a prop or centre. It's no good people moaning about not buying top imports in, then saying we need to pay the youngsters more.

If everyone at Wigan received what they are worth then we would be breaking the cap because we have developed the best squad in the league IMO.

Manfredi and Gildart have just broken into a top team, yet will be on buttons. They will need a rise soon too.

And we all wanted Sam back, but he will take up the marquee player salary. Bateman may well be the best player at the club, so it stands to reason that we aren't paying him what he is worth, nor are we likely to be able to. If he goes to a Super League club who can pay him more as a marquee player, he will join an inferior squad. He will need to decide. I hear that he's happy at Wigan under Wane. Let's hope we can sign him up. But if we can't, don't blame Rads.

I'd agree with that. Although with Ward being a smaller type of back rower as well we would lack a bit of size in attack if we did sign him. Purely hypothetical anyway as it sounds like we've signed Westerman so I couldn't see us being in the market for him and by the sounds of it he's being groomed as SOL's successor so he's likely to be happy enough where he is.

Spot on, we can't have it all ways. We develop more young players than any other club and sometimes we have to let players go to accommodate them. I'm looking forward to see the next young group progress, and at some stage if they go well enough we'll have to find a way to pay them what they are worth.

Not overly popular but good opposition players rarely are, especially when they're young. Don't think he'd head our list of priorities unless he can play hooker though.

I think there is a case to be made for, at some point, sticking with what you have got. Our relatively large turnover of players could be viewed as detrimental IMO. Look how Leeds have remained unchanged for a decade in key areas. That stability is something I crave and if we relinquish crop after crop of kids, well, maybe that's the price to be paid.

Would you be happy to see the likes of Hampshire, Manfredi, Shorrocks etc released to keep Bateman? I'm playing devils advocate btw. I accept it's a difficult decision, but it's always going to be a problem if we keep churning out the young talent.

The point I'm making is that I don't want to hear calls for the next young thing to replace Manfredi, Bateman, etc as soon as those players reach the age of 24. Stick with this group for years to come and let the up and comers move on. Do you think Leeds had no great half back prospects coming through when Burrow and McGuire were in their mid 20s? I don't know if they did or not but what isn't in dispute is that Leeds had a squad chock full of players with 10 years or more on the clock - and now their trophy cabinet is chock full too. Coincidence? Well, maybe. I for one would like us to follow that route and see what happens.

The problem with that argument is that you could stick with someone and ignore someone better. What has happened at Leeds is unique I'm afraid and is unlikely to be repeated, especially by Leeds, as we shall see.

If you had identified Mellor and Powell from our Under 20 GF winning team a few years back and stuck with them as your argument suggests, you would have risked losing Williams and Hampshire.

Fair point but there comes a time when you have to settle on some players and stop keep changing and allow a team to develop - changing key positions every year or two is not a long term route to success, if that means missing out on a player who goes on to develop elsewhere so be it. That is the sad fact in the method Wigan have chosen - by developing young players you inevitably have to let some go who are or could be better than what you have!

A settled side is far more important than missing out on one or two talents imo. For example I'd personally have been happy if we'd have kept Green through to the day he retired even if that meant Williams had a tougher fight for the shirt. Having class and consistency is what turns good teams into dominant teams imo.

I'm also a firm believer that those who are good enough will always force thier way into a side. Williams would always eventually force his way in over Smith as he's a better player. Likewise there was no way in hell that Sam wasn't going to make it likewise Lockers, Faz & Rads.

Mellor and Powell? I'd still have Kevin Brown and Luke Robinson!

The problem with that is that Williams wouldn't be playing and would want away. We have a similar problem now with Hampshire, and there'll be hell on here if he leaves. They can't force themselves into the team if they're not playing anywhere.

Couldn't agree more. I've always argued that class will tell in the long run that's why I'm so ambivalent about Hampshire. If he's good enough he will get his place. But that doesn't necessarily make for a settled side does it? Because you have to let the talent in when it knocks down the door.

True.

I think as long as there's a honest and fair selection policy we shouldn't need to worry. If that is in place then the side will eventually even itself out. It's also why I don't think signing new players will face anyone of worth out either. If we signed a much needed prop Sutton might struggle initially but eventually he's that good that he'll displace someone in front of him.

This current Wigan team are arguably the most exciting crop of youngsters in recent memory (shame we couldn't have kept Burgess too). They went toe to toe with a massively experienced Leeds team and came a hair's breadth from taking the championship.

If the squad is managed correctly, this could be the beginning of our golden generation. They simply have to hold this team together now.

That's up to Ian Lenagan isn't it. If Leeds can do it and Saints can do it then we should also be able to do it.

We can't afford for the player drain to continue. The older heads in the squad (Lockers, MM, Farrell, Clubb, Tomkins x2) seem like they'll be here for a good while yet so it's all about getting these young lads tied down. Aside from Bateman/Hampshire we seem to have the majority on long deals now (Manfredi, Gildart, Williams, Sutton and Powell all signed long term deals within the last 6-12 months).

One thing I did note on Twitter was the Wigan lads taking the Mick out of Williams for now having loads of money after signing something. I presume he's then been offered upgraded terms which is totally deserved.

It's worth remembering that Rads does not have an infinite pot of money so he has to spend it wisely. We also want to see our youngsters develop into fine players and join our first team. Players (eg Burgess) will want to move on, either to try out in the NRL or Union. If others go for money then they go. If Bateman wishes to stay in Super League then I'm sure his first choice, given Bradford's' omission, will be to stay at Wigan. If that's the case then I'm sure Rads will splash the cash to keep him.