: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:22 pm  

mr chips wrote:

will someone name the 19 BRITISH

I'll have a go:

Mathers
Pryce
Goulding
Thornley
S Tomkins
Fielden
Coley
Prescott
O Carroll
Lockers
Hock
Hansen (counted as Britsh in IL example)
J Tomkins
B Davies
S Ainscough
L Farrell
Mossop

Can't think of the other 2. Sure a regular academy watcher will be able to

: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:22 pm  

Flanagan

: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:23 pm  

Mcllorum the other.

: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:23 pm  

Richards and Eamon?

[DaveO]

: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:23 pm  

Steinlager wrote:

They explained it at the forum Dave, just prior to introducing him. They basically invited him along, and no doubt this week he will be inveilled at the arranged press date. He walked on stage, waved and walked off.

What is annoying me is that a lot of the useful content from the evening is getting taken away by people trying to summarise it. Missing their explanation of such an announcement being a key one.

Well I was looking forward to someone posting a detailed summary as I think has happened previously but it does seem there is little to write about. Whether that is because things got lost in the noise or because there is not a lot to say I can't really tell.

They've made clear their policy not to make announcements on anything until signed, sealed and delivered.

I still think having Roberts there is a bit of a contradiction to that idea.

It's a bit like having a shirt available with a sponsors name on it before the deal is done

Dave

: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:24 pm  

wigan pie man wrote:

all this palaver about whelan having the final say and it always ends up with us moving, i would like to have asked leneghan one simple question (i would have , but summat cropped up and i couldnt go).

"Ian, have you ever asked DW if he would be willing to move a latics game as a goodwill gesture towards the rugby fans? If not, will you do and report back his answer? "

Would have been a good question, even though I think we all know the answer to it

: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:28 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Ryles to Les Cats given IL said he wanted a prop being the obvious one.

If we are still suffering from over inflated contracts for players still at the club fair enough we can't bid and the statement we have only £20K left on the cap makes this sound likely.

I am more concerned about not paying transfer fees of £75K (assuming we could fit the player in question under the cap once signed).

When IL took over there was lots of talk about us exchanging one multi-millionaire for another with the assumption we'd be still splashing the cash. It doesn't seem to be working out quite like that and I doubt IL would have forked out the transfer fee for Fielden had he been in charge at the time given the comments about not paying £75K for a player.

DW is a bit of a hate figure on here but he was prepared to dig into his own pocket to fund transfer fees which of course don't count on the salary cap. The player in question might not be worth £75K in one sense but if he completes the squad to the coaches satisfaction then how do you put a price on that?

Dave

To be fair, I doubt that DW dug into his own pocket to fund the Fielden transfer, the club would have done, DW would have been a guaranteur maybe... Perhaps the shelling out of so much money has left the club in a bigger mess than we are/were aware off...

[DaveO]

: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:31 pm  

Nucking Futs wrote:

Yeh that person who was saying "You said we're trying to reduce our amount of overseas players, yet we've got more this season than last. How does that work?" So IL answers the question...

How did he answer it? Because we do have more overseas players in 2009 than in 2008.

I am guessing he said something along the lines of we have more of our own young players in the squad or something like that. If so a true politicians answer i.e. no answer at all to the original question.

Dave

: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:41 pm  

DaveO wrote:

How did he answer it? Because we do have more overseas players in 2009 than in 2008.

I am guessing he said something along the lines of we have more of our own young players in the squad or something like that. If so a true politicians answer i.e. no answer at all to the original question.

Dave

That's one way to look at it. Another would be that he answered the question perfectly reasonably - the meat of which answer has now been outlined on this forum several times since last night.

Perhaps you should go to one of these forums and make your objections in person. It's almost impossible for those who attended to describe everything that was said on a message board.

: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:53 pm  

Cruncher wrote:

That's one way to look at it. Another would be that he answered the question perfectly reasonably - the meat of which answer has now been outlined on this forum several times since last night.

Perhaps you should go to one of these forums and make your objections in person. It's almost impossible for those who attended to describe everything that was said on a message board.

Thanks for that Cruncher, I can't exactly remember what he said DaveO but I thought at the time it was a fair answer and did address what the guy said, yet he just didn't seem to get it. I think he said something about a few of them coming off contract at the end of the season.