Just wondered if other season ticket holders felt like I do over this. I invest quite heavily in the club to the tune of 5 season tickets every year, which I am happy to do. We have great seats and the value, I believe, is good. But I feel a bit short changed this season. We paid the same price as last season for potentially one less game. I say potentially, because if we finish top 4 (or 9/10) then we will get 14 home games, but if we finish 5-8 (11/12) then we only get 13. In 2016 we had 15.

There is no way I can afford to go to Australia, it is just a non starter. But I feel justified in asking for the Salford away tickets in compensation, and I've written to Ian Lenagan to suggest this (I'm not expecting any reply).

A second point that I'm not happy about is sending the team to the other side of the world to play a home league game which disadvantages the team over the season because we are playing less home games, in effect than say Saints or Leeds. You don't see Leeds sending their fans to Sydney for a home game (or even worse - to Millwall!!!).

I usually support IL and I believe he is a good and responsible owner, but on this issue I can't get my head around any benefits for the club, who are effectively putting our players in the shop window again and also knackering them at the beginning of a long hard season.

I'm glad we are continuing to test ourselves against NRL opposition, and understand that we have probably had to go over there during the season to make that happen. I'll definitely watch the game and will enjoy it more than many SL games if it is reasonably close. However, I don't really understand why we are playing Hull FC whilst we are out there, that is just taking a game away from both sets of fans for no discernible benefit that I can comprehend.

That's pretty much how I feel. I love to see us playing Aussie opposition, and although I'm not tearing my hair about about "losing a home game", I accept that it's part of a bigger picture. And in fact, taken with the news of Big Nigel's departure, it might just point the way for a more progressive approach from the RFL. It's about time it wasn't left to one club to try to make some waves and bring some interest and money into the game. The Hull board appear to agree, lets hope others do too

[i<looks balefully in the direction of Headingley>
[/i

you have to take away personal grievance. the club is doing this as a business opportunity to make money. its at the fans' expense, yes, but would you rather that or the club post no profits constantly, especially considering what we now know about the salary cap at the club being maxxed out.

they are trying new things. I've heard the trip is due to make the clubs a nice sum of money and although i'm not an ST holder and I do agree and sympathise with your view, at the same time I still have to be positive that the club is doing all it can to market itself well, and in turn the game, and be a successfully run business too which is necessary in this day and age. someone has to feel the brunt and of course its not ideal that it is the fans who are doing so on this occasion, but lets hope it proves a success at least in monetary terms.

wigan rugby may be our way of life but ultimately the club is still run by a businessman no matter what he says about this commitment to the club. perhaps this is the way forward, who knows. we can't really comment until its been and gone and the numbers are in.

Can anyone explain to me the business benefit of playing Hull over there? Surely we are having to pay to use the ground, additional expenses of 30 odd people staying there longer, wouldn't have thought it would get a massive attendance, can't really pick up new fans because they wouldn't be able to go to games. I'm all for trying new things, and glad we are over there playing Souths, just don't understand this bit.

i'm not certain on the numbers but have heard the clubs and tourist boards in question hope to make close to £500k out of this venture. Wigan are doing this because they HAVE to make money, they don't want to put their fans out but this is a quick win. I hear the voices of the disgruntled fans 100%, but if the club is so desperate i'm willing to let it go for the sake of a successful future.

but where does this money come from? Are the tourist board/local authority paying us to play the game there?

Rads certainly seems to suggest so going off this interview: [urlhttps://www.wigantoday.net/sport/rugby-league/wigan-warriors/exclusive-part-2-radlinski-talks-wigan-s-style-of-play-season-ticket-sales-and-australia-trip-1-8951983[/url

I hear what you are saying but half a million (dollars or pounds?) spread between two clubs and two tourist boards isn't actually that much - and is it gross or net?

I really can't see that many attending the game either, so I'm with Grimmy on that one. It won't be such a good advert for Super League if the ground is empty (like Millwall was).

I understand wanting to play against the Aussies, but is it worth jeopardising the first few months of the season on a friendly? I really don't want to be coming on here in March saying 'I told you so' if the season is derailed yet again by injuries and fatigue. People shouldn't underestimate the effects of long haul flights especially when players are supposed to be in recovery after the Salford and Rabbitohs games. I mean the lessons of the last two seasons are surely that we need to look after the players health a lot better than we have been doing.

Anyway my first issue was that we miss a home game which unnecessarily creates difficulty for the team, who will now have to play fewer home games than our competitors. Given that we missed the top 4 on points difference last season I'd have thought we need every advantage we can gain.

Look who we play first week back Warrington away.

I applaud the club for trying something new and hopefully they will make a few quid out of it.

The concern I have is the effect the traveling will have on the players at the start of a long season.

and Hull have Castleford away