: Sun Sep 06, 2009 4:28 pm  

Wigan Peer wrote:

Its what some on here keep saying, but not many are listening.... How much space will this lot give us under the cap? and how many will we need to bring in from outside?. Also could make us a club that needs to sell good players for good money...

As long as we keep the right players then I don't care.

If we are smart with the cap with so many young players we should easily be one of the top 3 teams.

: Sun Sep 06, 2009 4:30 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Ultimately not much. While they are establishing themselves in the side they won't command a big wage obviously but if some of them reach the potential people think they have Wigan will have to pay the going rate to keep them. In fact they may not be able to keep all of them and stay under the cap which is of course what the cap is all about, spreading the talent across the teams with no club being able to hog all the best players.

Dave

That's why were I Lenegan or the owner of any of the big clubs whom produce players I would petition the RFL to get kids removed from the cap of the club that produced them, rewarding clubs that produce them.

: Sun Sep 06, 2009 4:36 pm  

LovesToSpooge wrote:

That's why were I Lenegan or the owner of any of the big clubs whom produce players I would petition the RFL to get kids removed from the cap of the club that produced them, rewarding clubs that produce them.

Damn right...

rl : Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:18 pm  

The idea that SL clubs exclude U21s from the salary cap has been around years. Trouble is over SL time the biggest winners would have been Wigan and Leeds. The other clubs would never ever vote for that.
Maybe even the Hetheringtons wouldn't vote for it.
However now the "home trained rule" is in force and clubs are obliged to provide players for their 25 man squad attitudes may change.
The NRL don't include their reserve grade in the SC so why do we?
If we are to compete with the Roos then we should exclude our reserve garde from the SC.
Let's not expect our SL chairmen to catch on that quickly!

Re: rl : Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:21 pm  

Father Ted wrote:

The idea that SL clubs exclude U21s from the salary cap has been around years. Trouble is over SL time the biggest winners would have been Wigan and Leeds. The other clubs would never ever vote for that.
Maybe even the Hetheringtons wouldn't vote for it.
However now the "home trained rule" is in force and clubs are obliged to provide players for their 25 man squad attitudes may change.
The NRL don't include their reserve grade in the SC so why do we?
If we are to compete with the Roos then we should exclude our reserve garde from the SC.
Let's not expect our SL chairmen to catch on that quickly!

I am not sure if that is the way to do it but we do need a way of rewarding team who bring through young players.

One point in the table for every player who plays in a season which puts us 3rd

Re: rl : Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:03 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Bailey has NOT been offered a one year playing contract.

So has he been offered a longer one? or not offered one at all?

I hope it's the second one tbh. I'm happy with how Hansen, Tomkins and Lockers are going and Mossop is playing very well also. It's a shame Flanagan won't be here next year because he's been superb but Liam Farrell looks more then capable of making the step up to me.

We also have the option of putting Coley in there if needs be and a couple of other young lads so we'll not go short if Bailey goes.

: Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:34 am  

To offer Bailey anything more than a 1 year deal would be a poor move, it would indicate to me his injury has cost his place in the Wigan team next year.

We must use his money to bring in a Prop.

: Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:36 am  

jonh wrote:

To offer Bailey anything more than a 1 year deal would be a poor move, it would indicate to me his injury has cost his place in the Wigan team next year.

We must use his money to bring in a Prop.

Agreed. Though Bailey is apparently a likeable guy, and is well regarded around the club, I still feel he's a journeyman type player. Given that he's also now injured, I think we need to be more ambitious.

: Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:41 am  

IFL must have a few signings up his sleeve if true about bailey, with hock, tim smith gone, we need to make atleast one signing for next season.

: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:21 am  

jonh wrote:

To offer Bailey anything more than a 1 year deal would be a poor move, it would indicate to me his injury has cost his place in the Wigan team next year.

We must use his money to bring in a Prop.

I was just about eding towards giving him a years deal until his injury. That injury should have cost him any chance of staying at the club imo. It's harsh to let a guy like Bailey go on the back of an injury like that because he seems well respected and really does give the club his all but he's simply no better then the 4 or 5 other option we have and they all have the advantage of being British and Cheaper then Bailey.

Time to move on.