Well I guess the club are damned if they do mention it and damned if they don't.

People regularly come on the forum and complain that the club doesn't keep them informed about this and that, so when they do, it's "they shouldn't have mentioned it".

If John left at the end of his contract and Wigan got nowt, fans would be up in arms saying the club should do something.

The club is well run, by people who know what they are doing, and they are letting us know it. I can't see the problem.

Fantastic news. This is the kind of deal I wish Burgess would have taken. This is the direction the team is taking with players, 'if you wanna go play in the NRL or Union we won't stand in your way'. This seems to norm with the likes of Joel, Sam and Mossop.

Be interesting to see what happens with Burgess, especially if he shines, the 3 mentioned didn't set the world on fire on their travels.

FWIW I don't see Bateman as a 13, we often like the 13 to be a bit of a ball player, I don't see that in John.

The club has covered it's back by getting him to sign a contract as long as you could reasonably expect any class player of class to sign these days. Why mention it at all?

It just sets the expectation he will inevitably go. What if he does? He will have seen his contract out and that is all we can reasonably expect so I'd have no problem if he did that. The club seems obsessed with the NRL and in my opinion it makes it easier for players to contemplate the move as it sets the expectation if it doesn't work out they can always come back.

Just offer the players the deal you want to offer and if they sign it, great as in this case, but stop banging on about the NRL.

There is a difference between letting players leave their contracts early as they did with Joel, Sam and Mossop compared to what has happened with Bateman and Burgess.

Bateman was out of contract soon as was Burgess at the end of the season. The club couldn't stand in Burgess way if it had wanted to as he was out of contract.

They have done a good job with Bateman as he could have simply walked as well if he had wanted to but the proof will be if he sees out the three years. Joel was on a five year deal but was allowed to leave but I get the impression this time the club (and the player) are committed to at least three years which is step in the right direction.



If he shines and likes the lifestyle I'd be astonished if he came back, certainly not at his peak, just like there is no sign of those who have been a success coming back such as James Graham.



I think Burke may figure at 13. He deputised for Lockers when he was injured when Burke made his first team debut. Did pretty well if I recall so I guess it depends on what Wane has him penciled in for.

Thought Faz went to loose at some point last season when Lockers was not fit.

I know that the rivalry between Wigan and Saints is fierce but am I correct in thinking that Wigan would take a moral victory over the Saints due to the bad decisions that have gone against them if they lost 5 Grand Finals in a row or would you rather smash their record and lose 6?

Fantastic news. Bateman is an exceptional player and the natural successor to O'Loughlin at Loose Forward.

I fully think Wigan purposely signed Sam Tomkins and possibly Joel to long term contracts knowing they would be leaving so the buying club would have to pay them out of their last few years of their current contract, it's a tactic used to ensure you are getting as much as you can for a player.
Burgess has elected to sign for the Roosters, but considering his age and minimal years in the first team I would have liked him to stay with us for a few more seasons before heading off to the NRL; like Bateman, that was my whole point.

Wigan seem to recognise the landscape of SL, understanding there are more lucrative options elsewhere, and allow the player to leave, currently it's worked out ok with players returning, but as I said; it will be interesting to see what happens with Burgess.

Don't see it, completely different players. I can imagine Wigan looking at Burke as a possible replacement at 13.

Who do you think will be benched from Farrell/Tomkins/Bateman? I'm not sure i see a long term future for Burke at Wigan given that we have just signed Isa (presumably indicating Burke still isn't seen as ready for a weekly bench spot)

I honestly don't know what the future will bring for the players you've mentioned. I just don't see Bateman in the Lockers role. He's a different player, I think they're both fantastic talents who offer a lot, but have different skill sets.

Bringing Burke back after being out on loan is very positive for Greg, who knows what will happen with injuries and poor performance over the next few seasons, things will change. We've had quite a few players come and go over the past few years in the pack (Eric, Pettybourne, Hughes, Patrick etc) all of which were brought it but didn't live up to expectation.

Like every other player who knows what will happen with Burke, Joel, Mossop, Charnley, Goulding all came back far improved after loan spells.

Going back to the NRL "clause", it's been a few years but back when Bradford were in administration (the first time) one of John's close relatives told me he had about a dozen NRL clubs make enquiries. (Said relative sat next to me at Odsal)

For someone who was sold to Wigan without him knowing, John certainly landed on his feet!

MOM at Leigh left centre his best side said Mac when he trained him at bradford.

After that performance yesterday I imagine McNamara is in a quandary. I think he wanted to play Hardaker at left centre and Sam at fullback next week. Even allowing for the quality of France yesterday, what does he do now? Bateman must play IMO. Hardaker had a good first half but went quiet in the second and Sam hasn't played in ages. I await his team selection with interest.

You won't see a like for like replacement for O'Loughlin. There just isn't anybody available that has such an all-round game. Bateman is as close as you will get.