I've no reason to believe that you weren't told this, but what has George actually done that would induce a top Aussie side to offer him mind-blowing money?

I can understand Wire wanting him ... because they'd just lost their star halfback and didn't have too many other options. But Souths?

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure he'll go to Aus at some point, but I'd be amazed if he went down there as anything more than 'a promising Brit who might be useful if he gets the right coaching'.

Ultimately I think they just have the cap space to take a punt on a promising youngster like Williams. He's been very good at superleague level and has just come off a four nations tournament where he was the top assist maker from any team off the back of a game and a thirds worth of playing time.

Newcastle Knights have just signed an 18 year old kid from North Queensland who has one NRL appearance to his name on a contract worth £350,000 per season. That terrifies me and is proof enough that a side may well be willing to throw a big contract at a very promising player from these shores given that he's got plenty of big game experience.

I hope the info is incorrect and it's certainly not anything I could class as more then a rumour but that's what I was told a while back.

Did anyone read the Sarginson interview today where he mentions that Bennett has encouraged all the England squad to get NRL experience? Probably makes sense from an England POV but it could seriously hurt SL

That one would hurt.

I'd hope that any young player who has come up through the youth system and had a lot of time and money invested in them would give us at least five full years at 1st team level.

Mcguire will have full info on Williams from the Burgess brothers.
Would not surprise me if Nosey Parker has got one right at last.
Pity, Georgw is a very good player.

Cruncher I think you may have hit the nail on the head with your comment that he " might be useful if he gets the right coaching".
I have been thinking this for weeks, ever since George got into the team he has to my mind been playing with one hand behind his back and by that I mean never to stray farther than 30 yards from the left wing.
I have mentioned before my dislike of this system of left side or right side halfback, which meant with Smith offering nothing in the creativity department or threat close to the line that George did, Wigan seemed to be playing at times with one arm behind their backs.
In saying this I am not blaming Smith, he knew his limitations and played to the best of his ability every week. Smith would have been better years ago under the old unlimited tackle rule were you had a steady half back guiding his forwards round the pitch and knowing when to release his more adventurous standoff who could get the outside backs going. ( who on here remembers Rees Thomas, signed from Swinton for £500 pounds as a stop gap scrumhalf but took Wigan to 2 Wembley finals)
I can see other posters lining up ready to say after the comments I have made telling me to get away from past and to realise that the game has moved on.

During the recent four Nations I made a big effort to focus on Johnathon Thurston Australia and to a lesser extent Shaun Johnson New Zealand.
First Johnson even though he is predominantly a right side player he popped up on the left side with his little kicks over the line.
Thurston is known as a left sided halfback but in the final he popped up a lot on the right and I think his little kicks led to at least I try, maybe 2.
Therefore my main point is by giving George just the bit more rope you may start to see a far more rounded player.

This is why I think Souths may get more out of George than Wigan do by allowing him a bit more room to make decisions for himself but in a controlled environment .

I am not saying George is a Johnson much less a Thurston but we will never know until someone lets him slowly off the leash he seems to be constricted by at Wigan.

I'd be surprised if that doesn't happen anyway, though I don't think it's a given that they'll all come back better players. Mossop and Sam, even when not injured, have been shadows of their pre-NRL selves, and we've yet to see whether Budgie benefitted.

On the upside though, perhaps Wigan are the only British club who've adapted to this new age by facilitating these transfers Down Under on the condition that we get first refusal on the player's return, etc. IL has been slated in some quarters for apparently not standing in the way of players looking to Aus, but maybe he's just been very realistic.

I'd still rather our best players went to the NRL than RU - that's probably a no-brainer for all RL fans, and it should be for the players too - but there is no question that it's damaging our domestic comp. It was embarrassing to watch that BBC highlights of 2016 show the other day, and see how many important games were played in half-empty stadia. (I know that player defections to Aus is not the sole cause of that, but big names put bums on seats, and yet it seems that big names now are a luxury we can barely afford).

Agree with all of that. I used to think raising the cap would help us compete with the NRL again, but recent events at Warrington have made me re-evaluate that. They had the marquee player allowance, so could have spent as much as they were able, and they clearly would have wanted the best player they could get given the importance of the position. Perfect conditions for a big transfer fee and lucrative contract for a good NRL halfback. Despite this, they ended up with Kevin Brown on a two year deal. So do clubs not have as much money as we think, or do top players simply not want to play in the Super League now, regardless of salary?

It seems to me that the marquee rule, while better than what we had before, will have two main effects.

1) It ought to allow clubs to secure their best player perhaps for an extra year before the all-round lure of the NRL inevitably becomes too much.

2) It ought to allow Uk clubs to buy from each other again. I suspect Wire really thought they had George in the bag. We already had our marquee player and so probably couldn't match the terms for George that Wire would offer. For some reason, possibly a dispute over transfer fees, it hasn't happened, but 9 times out of 10 it probably will, as star players approaching the ends of contracts will be sold rather than allowed to leave on a free.

Not sure if all that makes sense, but one thing the marquee rule clearly WON'T do is allow us to make big overseas signings. Only Aussies who've done it all and won't miss not being selected for Origin will come to the UK, so there'll be no change there - and as we know those kinds of signings are very hit-and-miss. And no club will risk using their marquee spot on an RU player, even an international star, because they are even more hit and miss.

It may help a little, but it isn't going to revive the British game.

Maybe one way would be allow a club to have more than one Marquee player provided that those more than the one were club trained.