: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:26 pm  

If we are not going to be bringing in anyone next season and just clear out some of the players we can and stick with what we have got then that is fine by me. If the players out of contract this year are not what we are looking for then I would much rather stick with what we have got and develop some of the talent already here and wait another year than got for someone who isn't right for the club because of the pressure of the fans. I mean look what happened with David Vaeliki and Jerry SeuSeu. Players that the club should not really have bought.

Although if we are going to wait another year then we want to make sure we have made these future signings NOW or as soon as possible otherwise we could miss out again. I'm now curious as to who is out of contract in 2010. I would have thought Andy Lynch would have be a decent signing and I wouldn't have been too displeased with Carl Webb. Also Matt Orford would be a healthy signing as well if he was available.

: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:26 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

It does make you laugh though tbh. We enquired about Thurston with the hope of signing him only to find out he was asking for huge money.................................well fook me dead, i can't believe the current Australian number 7 and probably worlds best player is asking for a good wage to give up his rep career

Did we think he'd be asking for minimum wage?

Exactly

Like i said earlier St Pats could enquire if true i dont know what IL was expecting

: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:28 pm  

Comparing Trent and Willie Peters is like comparing Hanley against Sinfield.

There is no comparison Trent is an RL superstar and Willie Peters has achieved……………….

: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:28 pm  

odemwingie wrote:

Who do you think we could realistically get without spending Barrett style wages?

To be honest, no-one of Barrett's standard.

Spending so much money on individual salaries doesn't seem to be the club's policy any more. Whether we think that's a good thing or bad, is entirely a matter of opinion. I'd argue that it's got us into trouble in the past. We lost men to injury, and didn't have anyone to replace them. We also released more youngsters than we should have (though I still don't believe that any really crucial youngsters were lost).

On the other hand, I think it would be blinkered to say that we'll NEVER spend that much money again. If a really excellent player was available, I'd hope Wigan would be in there making realistic bids for him. But Thurston, I feel, would be in the SBW bracket in that he'd command such a high wage that no SL club would be justified in paying it.

My sideline observations at present are that the club is trying, fairly successfully, to underpin the team with home-grown talent. In the last couple of years, quite a few kids have re-signed for much better wages than they were on before. And that's got to be a good thing. One of the key criticisms of the last Maurice era was that our youngsters were on peanuts (at least, that's what I'm told). But I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't discomforted by the continued stories that we won't offer adequate money for older, international-standard talent. (Even if you don't personally think a player is worth the price-tag, if others are willing to pay it, then you may have to bite the bullet).

The signing of Gleeson seemed to disprove these stories, but signings like Gleeson are not happening across the board. We DO need a prop, and we DO need a halfback - and, while I accept and am pleased that the club won't just take anyone any more (let's be honest, we've had more than our fair share of Aussies on holiday - Riddell, take note!), I really feel that we need to sign at least one, preferably two, experienced quality players for next season.

But it's clearly a difficult balancing act, and I'm glad I'm not the one who's trying to get it right.

: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:35 pm  

thepriestman85 wrote:

:lol:

Comparing Trent and Willie Peters is like comparing Hanley against Sinfield.

There is no comparison Trent is an RL superstar and Willie Peters has achieved……………….

If Willie had been given a decent shot who knows how great he would have been, but thanks to fanboy fans like your self that want nothing but superstars these players slip through the net, grow up, was only comparing there scoring rates

: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:37 pm  

wigan_knight wrote:

Exactly

Like i said earlier St Pats could enquire if true i dont know what IL was expecting

The club will know what the going rate is for current test players and perhaps when they enquired Thurston was exceeding the norm due the fact he's had offers from French and Japanese rugby union which obviously we wouldn't be able to compete with. The guy's probably looking for a final long term contract to take him into retirement and is maximising his potential, would you all had preferred the club didn't enquire and just assumed to themselves nah he's to expensive for us.

: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:40 pm  

Cruncher wrote:

To be honest, no-one of Barrett's standard.

Spending so much money on individual salaries doesn't seem to be the club's policy any more. Whether we think that's a good thing or bad, is entirely a matter of opinion. I'd argue that it's got us into trouble in the past. We lost men to injury, and didn't have anyone to replace them. We also released more youngsters than we should have (though I still don't believe that any really crucial youngsters were lost).

On the other hand, I think it would be blinkered to say that we'll NEVER spend that much money again. If a really excellent player was available, I'd hope Wigan would be in there making realistic bids for him. But Thurston, I feel, would be in the SBW bracket in that he'd command such a high wage that no SL club would be justified in paying it.

My sideline observations at present are that the club is trying, fairly successfully, to underpin the team with home-grown talent. In the last couple of years, quite a few kids have re-signed for much better wages than they were on before. And that's got to be a good thing. One of the key criticisms of the last Maurice era was that our youngsters were on peanuts (at least, that's what I'm told). But I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't discomforted by the continued stories that we won't offer adequate money for older, international-standard talent. (Even if you don't personally think a player is worth the price-tag, if others are willing to pay it, then you may have to bite the bullet).

The signing of Gleeson seemed to disprove these stories, but signings like Gleeson are not happening across the board. We DO need a prop, and we DO need a halfback - and, while I accept and am pleased that the club won't just take anyone any more (let's be honest, we've had more than our fair share of Aussies on holiday - Riddell, take note!), I really feel that we need to sign at least one, preferably two, experienced quality players for next season.

But it's clearly a difficult balancing act, and I'm glad I'm not the one who's trying to get it right.

Oh come off it our team would be much better now if we would of had Briscoe and Wild in the team since they first broke in, I know they had to leave for their own career especially Briscoe but they were crucial losses IMO.

I cannot see where the half-back is going to come from if I am honest and I think the prop will end up being Griffin along with signing Paul Johnson.

: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:46 pm  

is Richard Owen still available?

: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:51 pm  

[Gareth] wrote:

is Richard Owen still available?

Was Richard Owen ever available?

: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:54 pm  

odemwingie wrote:

Oh come off it our team would be much better now if we would of had Briscoe and Wild in the team since they first broke in, I know they had to leave for their own career especially Briscoe but they were crucial losses IMO.

I cannot see where the half-back is going to come from if I am honest and I think the prop will end up being Griffin along with signing Paul Johnson.

I'd like Briscoe now - but there's no point taking his departure out of context. He didn't go because he wasn't earning enough, but because Radlinski was in his prime. End of.

As for Wilde, I don't recall thinking he was much of a loss at the time. I'd have him back too, but if we still had Lockers and Hock in the first team, I don't think he'd get in easily. He certainly wasn't what I'd call "a crucial loss", and those are the words I used.