Sounds impressive. Being an outsider, there's a few there I haven't seen too much of. By way of debate, were you to start with that 17 throughout the regular season whereabouts in the table do you think they'd finish?

With the entire back of the pack missing(Hock, Hansen, Lockers) and our new halfback (Blake) I'd estimate 5th. GF winners it is then

I'm trying to spot a flaw in your argument and failing miserably...

It's the other way round it's in the clubs favour. That means he wanted 3 but they want him to prove himself at Wigan then he may get his 3rd year.

If it was in HIS favour then it would be a stop gap but its not its in Wigans favour.

Pretty much agree with this. Let's face it, if he and Wigan are successful in the first two years he's hardly going to go elsewhere, with the possible exception of the NRL. Plus, he'll doubtless be rewarded with a more lucrative contract if/when he stays.

Correct. Basically they're just treating him the same way as if he was a 21 year old who's broken through from the academy. If he impresses he'll probably get a 4+ year deal like we've seen Mossop, Farrell, Charnley get in recent seasons.

Yes and I don't see why people have a problem with the contract. From Wigan's point of view this is a three year deal with the option to get shut after two years of things don't work out. Not that I anticipate that to be the case.

We seem to expect to be signing people on five year deals when in fact two and three year deals are far more normal and in this case lets not forget he is only 21 and while its acknowledged he is a very promising player things [icould[/i go wrong.

Each to his own. For me it's different when paying a transfer fee. If he goes even after 3 years he'd have been an expensive player relatively thinking. It's also exacerbated by his playing position. You could argue he's 8 years from his prime. Why pay a transfer fee if not to sign him up on an extended deal? Are we not sure about this kid?

People on here are assuming it is Wigan who have offered a 2 year deal with an option in the Clubs favour of an extra year if he makes it.

There is another option though,maybe it was the player who only wanted 2 years and to protect themselves Wigan insisted on the 1 year option so that Wigan could get a fee if he did want to leave after the 2 years.

This is just another point of view.

That's a good point - I'd forgotten about the fee! Yes it does seem odd to pay a high fee for a player on a relatively short contract but I still think deals of five years or more are a fairly recent development and even when we bought players in the past we didn't try and do so with five year contracts.

Maybe it's simply a sellers market?

Can't see the club paying a fee for such an uncommitted player.

he has serious ambitions to play in the NRL, that might sound unlikely at the moment but if he continues his progression with you lads that he showed in the 5 years with us he will definately be wanted over there when he hits his prime. He's not a daft lad and has given his career path some serious thought. You wont be disappointed with his next 3 years at wigan he is a class act in the making.

Should make a bigger impact than Ian Mcrae, although i can see the similarities.