I would assume that given the signing of Bateman (albeit for next year) and the stated interest in buying Latics from a consortium involving IL that the players have taken the view that the proposed wage cuts are too large for their liking, given that it seems there could be a pot of money available to pay for those things but not for a proportion of their contracted wages that they are happy with.

Hopefully it can be sorted to the satisfaction of all parties asap.

Batemans salary NEXT YEAR will be easily covered by the departing players, the likes of Escare, Burgess, Flower, O'Loughlin, Leuluai and possibly Greenwood. Lenagans involvement in the Latics bid is irrelevant.

Spot on about the irrelevance of the Latics bid. The key issue is what the business is able to afford with its current income streams; the other business interests of the majority shareholder has not relevance whatsoever. Following that logic, players could complain if they found out that IL had used his money to buy a new sofa.

Notwithstanding, Lenagan has put an extra £500k of his own money into the club anyhow.

I am only offering an opinion as to why I think agreement may not have have been reached. You don't have to agree with it but neither is there need for a condescending tone to any response. I am well aware that Bateman's deal begins next year. It is not beyond the realms of possibility for someone facing a wage cut to take the view that money being allocated to spend next year could be being taken at least in part from savings being made now by effecting said cuts.

Even a small percentage share in the costs of buying a football club is going to be a damn site more expensive than something like a sofa. I was only putting forward an opinion that those facing wage cuts (who don't seem to be happy enough to agree to whatever terms were offered as yet) may view such considerations of expenditure from the club owner as more relevant to their situation than you do.

Do either of you have any thoughts as to reasons why our club do not seem to have settled the issue?

Why should players take rage cuts? They are employed and if the clubs want them off furlow they need to pay their contracted wage.
End of

It’s not that simple though and I think the players are aware of that. Do they want full pay and risk the club/sports existence? Or can they agree to a pay cut and safeguard the clubs/sports long term future, in turn making it more likely they’ll have the option to continue their profession as a pro rugby player.

It may not be that serious at all clubs but I’m pretty sure there will be a number of clubs where if the players push for and get full pay, their very existence may be in doubt. The top 20% of players would be fine, they’d get a gig for an NRL club or in Rugby Union but there’s many who’d need to go and find a new career. It would probably be full time graft on less pay in many cases.

I think the six clubs who are due to play on that 1st day (2nd August) were the ones under most pressure to get the deals sorted quickly. As for Bateman as I said that money will be from players leaving at the end of this season so any wage cuts are irrelevant imo of course.

Then of course we have the Leeds situation whereby they are claiming it is unfair for them to have to travel to Catalan because they are allowed to have a crowd (up to 5,000 I believe) in attendance which according to GH will put Leeds at a disadvantage and they would rather Catalan travel to the U.K. and play the game behind closed doors at a neutral venue?

While it would make sense that time pressure to get sorted and resume training would drive clubs to seek to complete negotiations quickly (and could have led to some clubs agreeing on smaller cuts than they would have preferred due to time pressure) the split hasn't worked out totally along those lines. According to press reports Hull KR are one of those not in agreement (said to be pretty far from agreement in media reports when 3 clubs were said to have agreed) and they play on August 2nd while Hull FC who don't (and the owner of whom was frequently speaking to the press about financial strain during the suspension) were one of if not the first to come to agreement with their squad. For whatever reason exactly some clubs haven't reached agreement I imagine the financial position of clubs and players and the opinions of players as to how equitably the proposed terms treat them is a factor.

Didn’t realise Leeds had said that, what the hell are they thinking

Surely all teams will be excited to get over there and play in front of fans and not cardboard cut outs. The last side you’d think would cry ‘disadvantage’ would be the team who’ll no doubt be playing all their other games (including away fixtures) in their own stadium.

I think the problem with Catalan is that they originally agreed to play all their games over here like every one else. It was only when the French government did an unexpected U turn on playing in front of crowds that Guasch wanted to change things.

You can’t blame him for that. If current government rules allow it then to get some gate money & money from the bar etc will invaluable at the moment.

They’re in the fortunate position to be able to have supporters attend and it’s only right IMO that they should be allowed to have their home games at their home ground. As long as it doesn’t cause too many logistical issues, it would be fabulous for everyone concerned to be able to play there.

Why Leeds would be the club to kick up a fuss is beyond me. This season isn’t going to be played on a level playing field, it’s impossible all things considered and teams are just going to have to accept that. One of the teams who will gain a significant advantage out of the new set up of neutral venues will be Leeds. We’re going to be disadvantaged but that’s absolutely fine because needs must.

Why have we got to have games only played on neutral grounds when football clubs are all playing home games on their own grounds?

I have yet to see any explanation from the RFL.

Totally unfair on most clubs and their supporters and could cause immense harm to future support when things get back to normal, especially the future sale of season tickets.

I suspect that many season ticket holders, especially those who only attend home games have requested a refund as a result of what has been decided by the RFL or should I say Sky Sports.

I would guess the cost plays a MASSIVE part
Much easier making 2 grounds completely safe and continually cleaning them than 12.
(Plus any dual stadiums would have issues with extra cleaning and other issues when negotiating football teams etc)

No idea why you think it's a Big disadvantage to anyone and why it would affect season ticket sales next year?
And why anyone would request their money back because games they cant go to anyway because they are being played at a neutral venue is beyond me.(if we were allowed to go and they werent at home toud have a bit of a point).

Has he had anything to say on playing Huddersfield at a "neutral venue", which happens to be Headingley.

That situation is made even more ridiculous as Saints who should have been at home in their game have to play it at Headingley when Saints' ground is one of the ones expected to be used as a neutral venue. Playing the three games at Saints would have made more sense. I would hope that if it does as expected happen at Leeds that the Leeds v Huddersfield fixtures are reversed so that Huddersfield will get their home tie later in the season.

Not all supporters these days where money is tighter due to the pandemic situation are as loyal as you seemed to think

Most I suspect have not only asked for refunds, but also are not happy at all about their clubs having to play on neutral grounds instead of playing home and away games which they consider to be unfair, especially for the smaller clubs. A situation which may make many supporters of all the clubs in the Super League think about buying a season ticket etc in the future and even future support of the game.

Why do you think that with the reduction in the ticket office staff as a result of the Latic's going into administration, the club has appealed for supporters to be patient in contacting the ticket office.

We have all been supporters who have followed the club no matter where and when they play, but as you go older, especially when you get a family and money gets tighter, the majority end up just watching the home games.

Quote from Michael Carter today saying that only 5% of Wakefield Trinity season ticket holders have asked for a rebate which I personally think is amazing.

Everyone’s situations are different and there is no right or wrong in exceptional times like this.

As a sport we have always tended to come together and look after our own. Despite the many many issues with our game it is probably what we do better than any other sport.

I’d love for those figures or somewhere near to be replicated across the board.

You asked a question about why would SL and the clubs play the games at neutral venues.
I reply it will be because of cost, H&S etc for Clubs/SL and then you reply about supporters not having enough money.

you then state "Most" will ask for their money back, but yet I guess you have no evidence that they will or they wont? But again that's not what you originally asked.
Even if most do it once again backs up the reason why it is important for all clubs to keep their costs down etc.

You say that "Most fans will not be happy about having to play neutral games instead of home and away, you sure? What poll or evidence is there for that?
Why would they be upset when they wont be attending and considering people will acknowledge that given cost/H&S issues it makes total sense?

You then say :-
"Why do you think that with the reduction in the ticket office staff as a result of the Latic's going into administration, the club has appealed for supporters to be patient in contacting the ticket office."

I think they've asked because, there will be less people manning the ticket office because most have lost their jobs (inc people I know) quite simple really.
And once again supports why clubs will have to keep costs down.

As for getting older and only watching home games, I would say that's 50/50, I felt more pressure when i was in my 30s and kids growing up than i do 15 years later.
But even so, has SL/the clubs/Wigan stated that when games can be attended y fans they will continue at neutral venues? I've not heard that?
Because if they haven't then it irrelevant.

Whatever the decision later on I the season (second spike and all that could have a big bearing) it still applies.

Clubs have to cut their cloth accordingly
Fans have to be patient
Some will want their money back, some wont
It may discourage some from attending next year in case they're worried about a 2nd spike and wasting money, some it wont and they may be lucky enough or committed enough to buy one.

Uncertain times, but the decision to play at neutral grounds for half a dozen or so games when fans cant attend anyway is way down on the lsot of reasons why clubs should be worried about next season and moving on.

Bingo!

If Leeds had gone there when they should have instead of pretending that they had covid symptoms then they wouldn’t have to go now.

Great conspiracy theory seeing how Joe Greenwood was the player in question

Not a conspiracy theory, its a fact. Leeds should have been punished for refusing to play and used a loan player as a scape goat.

I have inside knowledge of this one. The return flights were cancelled and Spain (where the flights go from and to) went into a state of emergency by the time the game should have been played. The game should have been canned and Leeds did the right thing. I'll wager they stopped a lot of people getting COVID by forcing the cancellation of the game.

The fact is he was showing symptoms similar to those of the virus hence why they didn`t travel.
Had his symptoms developed into the virus and they traveled a fair few more might have been infected.
The airlines were already shutting down so whilst it was a bold decision it was the right one at the time.
Do you really think they had to use a loan player as a scapegoat!?
I`m sure Greenwood would have been really pleased to take on that role to save a team he wasn`t even contracted to