Batemans's departure confirmed

Discuss all things Wigan Warriors. Comments and opinions on all aspects of the club's performance are welcome.
Charriots Offiah
Posts: 2900
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:14 pm

Re: Batemans's departure confirmed

Post by Charriots Offiah »

Dreamteam wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:26 pm
Charriots Offiah wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:22 pm The Club’s hierarchy are only judged on one thing, success. The question is, has the Bateman affair impacted our chances of winning silverware, history will tell us.

I can fully understand the dilemma that IFL and Rads faced but this is not a one off, they have created a rod for their own backs. Why are other teams not faced with such a scenario, do they not have good players?

Can’t afford to keep an unhappy player around regardless anyway. Up there with one of our worst pound for pounds signings in our history. The problem is the same 2 people with keep making signings like this, they never learn.
You have got to make a stance otherwise this turnstile will never stop. Maybe the club has started the process with KPP.
DaveO
Posts: 15395
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: Batemans's departure confirmed

Post by DaveO »

nathan_rugby wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:44 pm
WarriorWinger wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:27 am
nathan_rugby wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 10:41 am

They really haven’t.

They’ve let a contracted player leave with no replacement lined up in an area of the pitch we have limited cover.

Contracts clearly worth nothing at Wigan which is why we can never seem to build teams and keep players locked down.
And until the 'contracted' player makes his mind up about what he wants to do the club can't sign another player without either going back on the deal with the 'incoming' player if Bateman had changed his mind or the Aussies wouldn't pay what Wigan wanted, or end up with two players eating up cap space, the alternative is wait until last minute and panic buy, but why do that when we have the position covered for the year at least and possibly beyond if the young lads take a step up.
He was contracted, we didn’t have to let him go. We could have also looked for an alternative before confirming the deal.

What young lads? Nsemba? He’s played about 15 minutes for the first team.

The club have taken a massive risk here.
Correct. People need to read the press release again. Here you go:

"The Club first heard murmurings that John Bateman wanted to leave in July. After speaking to John, his agent and the Club in question, we made it clear that we wanted John to remain at Wigan and the matter was closed".

Next paragraph:

"During the World Cup campaign, John let the Club know of his desire to go back to the NRL. He asked to get the World Cup out of the way first, and then pick up discussions. With our desire to help England to do well in the tournament, we agreed to wait. After the tournament, John went on holiday and expressed his uncertainty regarding his future and requested time again to sort out in his own mind what he wanted to do. "

Sorry what? Wigan told him, his agent and the Aussie club it was a no-go. That's pretty definitive you would think. What difference did it make that he let them know during the World Cup he wanted to leave? The discussion was had in July. Wait for what? The matter was closed in July. :roll: Except it wasn't because the club entered into discussions once again and not only that, why the F did the club agree to wait? For England's benefit? Pull the other one. It was Bateman who set the ball rolling during the World Cup. He wasn't prepared to wait was he? That is just a pathetic excuse.

The club made a right balls up here. They should have sorted it out in July by insisting he see his contract out or giving him a deadline to find a new club (who would pay a fee) such that if he did leave, Wigan could find a replacement. That's all they needed to do.

The idea clubs can't do this is nonsense but Wigan have over recent years made a rod for their own back by allowing several players to leave mid contract. This latest fiasco shows just how weak Rads and IL are. It was a closed matter, then it wasn't, then they let themselves be left hanging while he decided. Been walked all over. Nothing pro-active on their part at all and they took their eye of the ball (or rather player).

As it is it's left us with Faz (32), Isa (34) and KPP who may or may not be interested given he's leaving. Regardless of the latter point, one injury and we are in a mess.
User avatar
Mike
Site Admin
Posts: 6747
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2018 6:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Batemans's departure confirmed

Post by Mike »

DaveO wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 5:09 pm
nathan_rugby wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:44 pm
WarriorWinger wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:27 am

And until the 'contracted' player makes his mind up about what he wants to do the club can't sign another player without either going back on the deal with the 'incoming' player if Bateman had changed his mind or the Aussies wouldn't pay what Wigan wanted, or end up with two players eating up cap space, the alternative is wait until last minute and panic buy, but why do that when we have the position covered for the year at least and possibly beyond if the young lads take a step up.
He was contracted, we didn’t have to let him go. We could have also looked for an alternative before confirming the deal.

What young lads? Nsemba? He’s played about 15 minutes for the first team.

The club have taken a massive risk here.
Correct. People need to read the press release again. Here you go:

"The Club first heard murmurings that John Bateman wanted to leave in July. After speaking to John, his agent and the Club in question, we made it clear that we wanted John to remain at Wigan and the matter was closed".

Next paragraph:

"During the World Cup campaign, John let the Club know of his desire to go back to the NRL. He asked to get the World Cup out of the way first, and then pick up discussions. With our desire to help England to do well in the tournament, we agreed to wait. After the tournament, John went on holiday and expressed his uncertainty regarding his future and requested time again to sort out in his own mind what he wanted to do. "

Sorry what? Wigan told him, his agent and the Aussie club it was a no-go. That's pretty definitive you would think. What difference did it make that he let them know during the World Cup he wanted to leave? The discussion was had in July. Wait for what? The matter was closed in July. :roll: Except it wasn't because the club entered into discussions once again and not only that, why the F did the club agree to wait? For England's benefit? Pull the other one. It was Bateman who set the ball rolling during the World Cup. He wasn't prepared to wait was he? That is just a pathetic excuse.

The club made a right balls up here. They should have sorted it out in July by insisting he see his contract out or giving him a deadline to find a new club (who would pay a fee) such that if he did leave, Wigan could find a replacement. That's all they needed to do.

The idea clubs can't do this is nonsense but Wigan have over recent years made a rod for their own back by allowing several players to leave mid contract. This latest fiasco shows just how weak Rads and IL are. It was a closed matter, then it wasn't, then they let themselves be left hanging while he decided. Been walked all over. Nothing pro-active on their part at all and they took their eye of the ball (or rather player).

As it is it's left us with Faz (32), Isa (34) and KPP who may or may not be interested given he's leaving. Regardless of the latter point, one injury and we are in a mess.
I agree with Dave on this one. Even the club's narrative shows them to be basically at the mercy of a player's moods and their agent getting them a better deal elsewhere.

Of course, that's true unless they actually wanted him gone so were prepared to let him go when he finally found someone to take him, and then wrote up an appropriate conciliatory tale to cover their backs and not offend Bateman? He's a good player, but *has not been* value for money in his second stint IMO. We can't offload him directly, but if he wants to leave then we can certainly let him go. Who knows...
WarriorWinger
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:32 pm

Re: Batemans's departure confirmed

Post by WarriorWinger »

Clubs are a the mercy of players as they generally hold all the cards, refuse a move and the player coasts along on a high wage and signs a contract for the following year with no transfer fee etc.
And the club have made a rod for their own backs with past dealings, but as far as what they could have done, they have made the best of a bad situation, they have secured a fee for a player who doesnt want to be here and released a load of cap space and a marquee spot
Wintergreen
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 2:13 pm

Re: Batemans's departure confirmed

Post by Wintergreen »

WarriorWinger wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:28 pm Clubs are a the mercy of players as they generally hold all the cards, refuse a move and the player coasts along on a high wage and signs a contract for the following year with no transfer fee etc.
And the club have made a rod for their own backs with past dealings, but as far as what they could have done, they have made the best of a bad situation, they have secured a fee for a player who doesnt want to be here and released a load of cap space and a marquee spot
Yep. It really is that simple. Not sure why everyone can't understand this.
Big Steve
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:21 pm

Re: Batemans's departure confirmed

Post by Big Steve »

I think the important point is that Wigan received a supposedly decent fee for John.

If it was a case of leaving for nothing then maybe they wouldn't have been so accommodating ?

Player wants to leave, Australian partner who (probably) wants to go back home, probably won't be 100% focused, on marquee wages but not really delivering at that level, here's a load of cash and free up a large chunk of salary cap, and significant reduction in overall wage bill.

I can see some sort of logic there in letting him go.
fozzieskem
Posts: 5629
Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 10:54 am

Re: Batemans's departure confirmed

Post by fozzieskem »

Wintergreen wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 9:36 pm
WarriorWinger wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:28 pm Clubs are a the mercy of players as they generally hold all the cards, refuse a move and the player coasts along on a high wage and signs a contract for the following year with no transfer fee etc.
And the club have made a rod for their own backs with past dealings, but as far as what they could have done, they have made the best of a bad situation, they have secured a fee for a player who doesnt want to be here and released a load of cap space and a marquee spot
Yep. It really is that simple. Not sure why everyone can't understand this.
Truth is wigan got him back because he had got his agent hawking his services around so at best the club where nieve at best when dealing with him,to let it get to the point it did is very poor management from the club they've left it far to late to get anyone of a calibre that'll make a difference I just hope this weird obsession with re signing former players ends now.
Caboosegg
Posts: 3432
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:51 pm

Re: Batemans's departure confirmed

Post by Caboosegg »

Wintergreen wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 9:36 pm
WarriorWinger wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:28 pm Clubs are a the mercy of players as they generally hold all the cards, refuse a move and the player coasts along on a high wage and signs a contract for the following year with no transfer fee etc.
And the club have made a rod for their own backs with past dealings, but as far as what they could have done, they have made the best of a bad situation, they have secured a fee for a player who doesnt want to be here and released a load of cap space and a marquee spot
Yep. It really is that simple. Not sure why everyone can't understand this.
Some people need anything to complain about the clubs handling of any situation.

People saying the club handled this poorly should Imagine if they found a better job for more money in nicer country but you boss prevented you taking up the role.

Would you have any loyalty or commitment to the current job

Would you work hard or coast

What damage would it do to your employers reputation and ability to recruit the best people they can going forward.
These are two reasons not to trust people.
1. We don't know them.
2. We do know them.
Big Steve
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:21 pm

Re: Batemans's departure confirmed

Post by Big Steve »

Wigan also retained Bevan French with an approach that many could see as 'soft' .

Giving him plenty of time to make a decision, not put pressure on him etc. Many were calling for him to be told sign or go. If it had been a take it or leave it by this date I'm pretty certain he would be at Newcastle now.

Same goes for Field I think in some ways - jive them a bit more freedom for time off so he can spend time with his family, friends, girlfriend who still spends much of her time over in Aus i believe. THe hardline approach would be to say Pre-season starts mid december be here or your sacked. He's proven to be a hard worker, good trainer, unselfish, as Peet has been speaking about recently. You have to put your trust in people to get the best from them, and yes sometimes you get burnt but you also get rewarded more often than not. In the base of Bateman, we still came out of it with something positive so not all one way.

Players aren't pieces of meat and one size doesn't fit all. I know which sort of environment I would prefer to work in - one where I'm not treated like a commodity.
Charriots Offiah
Posts: 2900
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:14 pm

Re: Batemans's departure confirmed

Post by Charriots Offiah »

Caboosegg wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:12 am
Wintergreen wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 9:36 pm
WarriorWinger wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:28 pm Clubs are a the mercy of players as they generally hold all the cards, refuse a move and the player coasts along on a high wage and signs a contract for the following year with no transfer fee etc.
And the club have made a rod for their own backs with past dealings, but as far as what they could have done, they have made the best of a bad situation, they have secured a fee for a player who doesnt want to be here and released a load of cap space and a marquee spot
Yep. It really is that simple. Not sure why everyone can't understand this.
Some people need anything to complain about the clubs handling of any situation.

People saying the club handled this poorly should Imagine if they found a better job for more money in nicer country but you boss prevented you taking up the role.

Would you have any loyalty or commitment to the current job

Would you work hard or coast

What damage would it do to your employers reputation and ability to recruit the best people they can going forward.
That’s because it was badly handled and worst still the Club has form in this respect. I want someone to explain to me why this isn’t a constant problem for Saints.
Post Reply