Higham Knew Nothing About the Netwon Thing

[Nine]

And next week ... Dave O on how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

[lucky 13]

Nine posted:
And next week ... Dave O on how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

:eusa16:

[Nine]

lucky 13 posted:

Nine posted:
And next week ... Dave O on how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

:eusa16:

That old grammar school education coming out again, sorry.... It's a phrase usually used to take the mick out of someone perceived to be prepared to argue about the tiniest (and often unlikely) details.

Google Thomas Aquinas for the serious explanation.

[butt monkey]

DaveO posted:

highland convert posted:

No need for IL to mention Higham at all.
This still does not say who first broached the exchange. We probably never know.

Why would Bradford suggest it when they are not interested in selling Newton? It is obvious it must have come from IL. In any case he said so himself in his post on rlfans.

Dave O wrote
It wasn't an option to stay and be second fiddle. Higham would have had to leave for salary cap reasons
Not the case. Higham has a contract.
Can Wigan offload him without his permission?

Dave O answered
No. He could refuse to leave and see out his contract. Which IMO makes it all the more bizarre the approach for Newton was made in the first place. IL knew he would have to persuade a contracted player to leave for this to fly and the player has been doing really well in training and by all accounts was looking forward to the season. Why would he even consider agreeing to such a deal?
Gives more credibility to my theory. This is a storm in a teacup.

How do you conclude that? Are you agreeing with me that because Wigan would have had to persuade Higham to leave it was an odd thing to enquire about Newton in the first place? If not I am not sure what you are trying to say when you say it gives credibility to your theory.

Would H have his contract renewed if TN was still here?

Dave o wrote.
TN isn't still here and could not come here unless Higham left so that isn't relevant.
Feka goes down,.Pryce foot collapses. There is more money available than we think. The money could become available or the money is available. The two could be here. Remember the new rule. Prove you are under cap before you sign anyone.

But none of those things had happened at the time IL enquired about Newton which is the crucial point.

If you are talking about possible offers for Newton in the future that has nothing to do with the ins and outs of what went on recently.

IL's offer could have been doing him a favour. As it was said a looonnnnnggg time ago this was the initial approach and therefore a deed sodjer from first post.

Eh?

What this thread is saying is IL how dare you manage WW. You can't look to new players. You cant hurt feelings.

Dave O wrote
It is saying he made a mistake for various different reasons. Some say so because as Geoff said he simply should not have mentioned Higham's name unless Newton was available. Some like me for that reason and because I don't want a 29 or 30 year old Newton back thanks. We could do without a change to a key position going into the season yet again as well.
For this reason I personally think the Higham swop was a conversational aside not a hard and fast negotiation offer.

To get Newton on the books for 2008 would have required Higham to leave. No two ways about it.

And anyway conversational aside or not we get back to the point once IL was told Newton was not available that should have been the end of it. No need to mention Higham as said previously.

Maybe Newton was stirring for more loot or getting back to Wigan. IL said only x amount in the kitty. What if you offload Higham to us?

From IL's comments we know it didn't happen like that. Bradford were simply not interested in releasing Newton is the bottom line.

You must not even suggest a player that might be available for trade.

Dave O
Not when the player you want to trade him for isn't available, no! Common sense.
The deal could not have been dead when the barter was being discussed . Common sense.

Bradford said Newton was not available. IL knew Higham had a contract for 2008 so to instigate a barter behind the players back gets us back right back to the beginning. Anyway I thought you were arguing it was a conversational aside?

Oh and IL if you are following this thread, how dare you look out for players you might have to offload. Lets face it. IL could hand Higham his years wages and tell him to go west. Its called buying out his contract.

Dave O
IL isn't that daft. Higham's wages would still count on the salary cap. So if he did that we would just be a player down because we would not be able to fit Newton or anyone else's wages under the cap.
Not if he moved to another team where salary cap was not such a problem.

That is NOT what you said. You said buy out his contract, pure and simple. You can not do that in RL as it counts on the salary cap. Period.

Work that one out yourselves.
On a vote you are happy with the new management yet here is the first controversial decission and teeth are nashing.

What is your point? That because the new management has done well so far when they screw up we can't criticise? I am sure they will do something else right in future so am I not allowed to say so because I disagree with what has gone on here?

Higham wants the jersey offcourse he will be upset if the management want to give it to someone else. Offcourse he will be unhappy if Wigan value TN over himself. That's life.

Dave O
IL may value Newton more but if he had never mentioned Higham at all no one would be any the wiser about a potential swap, especially Higham. That is good man management. The fact IL didn't expect it to leak out is no excuse. Things that don't need to be said are always best not said and as soon as the answer was "no" about Newton's availability that should of been the end of it.
When did Hood say no? Was anyone privy to that part of the approach?

We all are privy to it. IL published details of what was said and when it was said on rlfans. He basically sets out the time-frame and sequence of events. Haven't you read it? IL tells us Bradford said Newton was not available.

The underhand dealings seem to be coming from Bradford. How far down the garden path was IL before the plug was pulled? Did the original approach originate in Wigan or Bradford?

You really need to read IL's version of events before trying to sugggest there is doubt about who approached who. It was IL who approached Hood. Of that there is no doubt.

Where Bradford screwed up was with McNamara rushing off to the press as soon as he ans Hood knocked back Wigan's approach.

Dave O wrote
That doesn't mean I am saying IL should not have asked about Newton. If he wanted to do that then that was up to him. He can run the club how he sees fit but are we bound to agree with all he does because he isn't Mo? I don't agree it was a good idea from an RL point of view but the controversy is/was about how Higham appeared to be being offered behind his back.
Back to the point where the confidentiality of the meeting should have been maintained. If management teams cannot maintain the confidentiality of such meetings they should not manage. If Hood is a gentleman Macnamaras days could be numbered.

None of which alters the fact IL made an approach for Newton which as I said he was free to do but is something I don't agree with.

Either we get a H that proves IL wrong or we look to change him at the end of his contract. Lets face it from school days how many of us have had disappointments when we were not picked. He has the chance. Twelve months to prove he is up to it. He now knows that IL thinks there are better players out there. Can't be a bad thing. Let's face it every player must play for his position. HC

Dave O wrote
I don't think having your name bandied about as a potential make weight in a swap deal is quite the same as playing for a new contract.

How many players come good in their last six months of their contract?

It is just not relevant as Geoff said. The decision at the end of 2008 will be whether to offer Higham a new contract or possibly go for a 30 year old Newton or even someone else altogether. They won't base that on Higham's last six months work. If he is garbage all season he won't stand a chance of a new deal but any player will hope to go well in the last season of a contract so if his current club don't want him another will. I am still not sure of what relevance this is.

Dave[/quote]

DaveO posted:

highland convert posted:

No need for IL to mention Higham at all.
This still does not say who first broached the exchange. We probably never know.

Why would Bradford suggest it when they are not interested in selling Newton? It is obvious it must have come from IL. In any case he said so himself in his post on rlfans.

Dave O wrote
It wasn't an option to stay and be second fiddle. Higham would have had to leave for salary cap reasons
Not the case. Higham has a contract.
Can Wigan offload him without his permission?

Dave O answered
No. He could refuse to leave and see out his contract. Which IMO makes it all the more bizarre the approach for Newton was made in the first place. IL knew he would have to persuade a contracted player to leave for this to fly and the player has been doing really well in training and by all accounts was looking forward to the season. Why would he even consider agreeing to such a deal?
Gives more credibility to my theory. This is a storm in a teacup.

How do you conclude that? Are you agreeing with me that because Wigan would have had to persuade Higham to leave it was an odd thing to enquire about Newton in the first place? If not I am not sure what you are trying to say when you say it gives credibility to your theory.

Would H have his contract renewed if TN was still here?

Dave o wrote.
TN isn't still here and could not come here unless Higham left so that isn't relevant.
Feka goes down,.Pryce foot collapses. There is more money available than we think. The money could become available or the money is available. The two could be here. Remember the new rule. Prove you are under cap before you sign anyone.

But none of those things had happened at the time IL enquired about Newton which is the crucial point.

If you are talking about possible offers for Newton in the future that has nothing to do with the ins and outs of what went on recently.

IL's offer could have been doing him a favour. As it was said a looonnnnnggg time ago this was the initial approach and therefore a deed sodjer from first post.

Eh?

What this thread is saying is IL how dare you manage WW. You can't look to new players. You cant hurt feelings.

Dave O wrote
It is saying he made a mistake for various different reasons. Some say so because as Geoff said he simply should not have mentioned Higham's name unless Newton was available. Some like me for that reason and because I don't want a 29 or 30 year old Newton back thanks. We could do without a change to a key position going into the season yet again as well.
For this reason I personally think the Higham swop was a conversational aside not a hard and fast negotiation offer.

To get Newton on the books for 2008 would have required Higham to leave. No two ways about it.

And anyway conversational aside or not we get back to the point once IL was told Newton was not available that should have been the end of it. No need to mention Higham as said previously.

Maybe Newton was stirring for more loot or getting back to Wigan. IL said only x amount in the kitty. What if you offload Higham to us?

From IL's comments we know it didn't happen like that. Bradford were simply not interested in releasing Newton is the bottom line.

You must not even suggest a player that might be available for trade.

Dave O
Not when the player you want to trade him for isn't available, no! Common sense.
The deal could not have been dead when the barter was being discussed . Common sense.

Bradford said Newton was not available. IL knew Higham had a contract for 2008 so to instigate a barter behind the players back gets us back right back to the beginning. Anyway I thought you were arguing it was a conversational aside?

Oh and IL if you are following this thread, how dare you look out for players you might have to offload. Lets face it. IL could hand Higham his years wages and tell him to go west. Its called buying out his contract.

Dave O
IL isn't that daft. Higham's wages would still count on the salary cap. So if he did that we would just be a player down because we would not be able to fit Newton or anyone else's wages under the cap.
Not if he moved to another team where salary cap was not such a problem.

That is NOT what you said. You said buy out his contract, pure and simple. You can not do that in RL as it counts on the salary cap. Period.

Work that one out yourselves.
On a vote you are happy with the new management yet here is the first controversial decission and teeth are nashing.

What is your point? That because the new management has done well so far when they screw up we can't criticise? I am sure they will do something else right in future so am I not allowed to say so because I disagree with what has gone on here?

Higham wants the jersey offcourse he will be upset if the management want to give it to someone else. Offcourse he will be unhappy if Wigan value TN over himself. That's life.

Dave O
IL may value Newton more but if he had never mentioned Higham at all no one would be any the wiser about a potential swap, especially Higham. That is good man management. The fact IL didn't expect it to leak out is no excuse. Things that don't need to be said are always best not said and as soon as the answer was "no" about Newton's availability that should of been the end of it.
When did Hood say no? Was anyone privy to that part of the approach?

We all are privy to it. IL published details of what was said and when it was said on rlfans. He basically sets out the time-frame and sequence of events. Haven't you read it? IL tells us Bradford said Newton was not available.

The underhand dealings seem to be coming from Bradford. How far down the garden path was IL before the plug was pulled? Did the original approach originate in Wigan or Bradford?

You really need to read IL's version of events before trying to sugggest there is doubt about who approached who. It was IL who approached Hood. Of that there is no doubt.

Where Bradford screwed up was with McNamara rushing off to the press as soon as he ans Hood knocked back Wigan's approach.

Dave O wrote
That doesn't mean I am saying IL should not have asked about Newton. If he wanted to do that then that was up to him. He can run the club how he sees fit but are we bound to agree with all he does because he isn't Mo? I don't agree it was a good idea from an RL point of view but the controversy is/was about how Higham appeared to be being offered behind his back.
Back to the point where the confidentiality of the meeting should have been maintained. If management teams cannot maintain the confidentiality of such meetings they should not manage. If Hood is a gentleman Macnamaras days could be numbered.

None of which alters the fact IL made an approach for Newton which as I said he was free to do but is something I don't agree with.

Either we get a H that proves IL wrong or we look to change him at the end of his contract. Lets face it from school days how many of us have had disappointments when we were not picked. He has the chance. Twelve months to prove he is up to it. He now knows that IL thinks there are better players out there. Can't be a bad thing. Let's face it every player must play for his position. HC

Dave O wrote
I don't think having your name bandied about as a potential make weight in a swap deal is quite the same as playing for a new contract.

How many players come good in their last six months of their contract?

It is just not relevant as Geoff said. The decision at the end of 2008 will be whether to offer Higham a new contract or possibly go for a 30 year old Newton or even someone else altogether. They won't base that on Higham's last six months work. If he is garbage all season he won't stand a chance of a new deal but any player will hope to go well in the last season of a contract so if his current club don't want him another will. I am still not sure of what relevance this is.

Dave[/quote]

DaveO posted:

highland convert posted:

No need for IL to mention Higham at all.
This still does not say who first broached the exchange. We probably never know.

Why would Bradford suggest it when they are not interested in selling Newton? It is obvious it must have come from IL. In any case he said so himself in his post on rlfans.

Dave O wrote
It wasn't an option to stay and be second fiddle. Higham would have had to leave for salary cap reasons
Not the case. Higham has a contract.
Can Wigan offload him without his permission?

Dave O answered
No. He could refuse to leave and see out his contract. Which IMO makes it all the more bizarre the approach for Newton was made in the first place. IL knew he would have to persuade a contracted player to leave for this to fly and the player has been doing really well in training and by all accounts was looking forward to the season. Why would he even consider agreeing to such a deal?
Gives more credibility to my theory. This is a storm in a teacup.

How do you conclude that? Are you agreeing with me that because Wigan would have had to persuade Higham to leave it was an odd thing to enquire about Newton in the first place? If not I am not sure what you are trying to say when you say it gives credibility to your theory.

Would H have his contract renewed if TN was still here?

Dave o wrote.
TN isn't still here and could not come here unless Higham left so that isn't relevant.
Feka goes down,.Pryce foot collapses. There is more money available than we think. The money could become available or the money is available. The two could be here. Remember the new rule. Prove you are under cap before you sign anyone.

But none of those things had happened at the time IL enquired about Newton which is the crucial point.

If you are talking about possible offers for Newton in the future that has nothing to do with the ins and outs of what went on recently.

IL's offer could have been doing him a favour. As it was said a looonnnnnggg time ago this was the initial approach and therefore a deed sodjer from first post.

Eh?

What this thread is saying is IL how dare you manage WW. You can't look to new players. You cant hurt feelings.

Dave O wrote
It is saying he made a mistake for various different reasons. Some say so because as Geoff said he simply should not have mentioned Higham's name unless Newton was available. Some like me for that reason and because I don't want a 29 or 30 year old Newton back thanks. We could do without a change to a key position going into the season yet again as well.
For this reason I personally think the Higham swop was a conversational aside not a hard and fast negotiation offer.

To get Newton on the books for 2008 would have required Higham to leave. No two ways about it.

And anyway conversational aside or not we get back to the point once IL was told Newton was not available that should have been the end of it. No need to mention Higham as said previously.

Maybe Newton was stirring for more loot or getting back to Wigan. IL said only x amount in the kitty. What if you offload Higham to us?

From IL's comments we know it didn't happen like that. Bradford were simply not interested in releasing Newton is the bottom line.

You must not even suggest a player that might be available for trade.

Dave O
Not when the player you want to trade him for isn't available, no! Common sense.
The deal could not have been dead when the barter was being discussed . Common sense.

Bradford said Newton was not available. IL knew Higham had a contract for 2008 so to instigate a barter behind the players back gets us back right back to the beginning. Anyway I thought you were arguing it was a conversational aside?

Oh and IL if you are following this thread, how dare you look out for players you might have to offload. Lets face it. IL could hand Higham his years wages and tell him to go west. Its called buying out his contract.

Dave O
IL isn't that daft. Higham's wages would still count on the salary cap. So if he did that we would just be a player down because we would not be able to fit Newton or anyone else's wages under the cap.
Not if he moved to another team where salary cap was not such a problem.

That is NOT what you said. You said buy out his contract, pure and simple. You can not do that in RL as it counts on the salary cap. Period.

Work that one out yourselves.
On a vote you are happy with the new management yet here is the first controversial decission and teeth are nashing.

What is your point? That because the new management has done well so far when they screw up we can't criticise? I am sure they will do something else right in future so am I not allowed to say so because I disagree with what has gone on here?

Higham wants the jersey offcourse he will be upset if the management want to give it to someone else. Offcourse he will be unhappy if Wigan value TN over himself. That's life.

Dave O
IL may value Newton more but if he had never mentioned Higham at all no one would be any the wiser about a potential swap, especially Higham. That is good man management. The fact IL didn't expect it to leak out is no excuse. Things that don't need to be said are always best not said and as soon as the answer was "no" about Newton's availability that should of been the end of it.
When did Hood say no? Was anyone privy to that part of the approach?

We all are privy to it. IL published details of what was said and when it was said on rlfans. He basically sets out the time-frame and sequence of events. Haven't you read it? IL tells us Bradford said Newton was not available.

The underhand dealings seem to be coming from Bradford. How far down the garden path was IL before the plug was pulled? Did the original approach originate in Wigan or Bradford?

You really need to read IL's version of events before trying to sugggest there is doubt about who approached who. It was IL who approached Hood. Of that there is no doubt.

Where Bradford screwed up was with McNamara rushing off to the press as soon as he ans Hood knocked back Wigan's approach.

Dave O wrote
That doesn't mean I am saying IL should not have asked about Newton. If he wanted to do that then that was up to him. He can run the club how he sees fit but are we bound to agree with all he does because he isn't Mo? I don't agree it was a good idea from an RL point of view but the controversy is/was about how Higham appeared to be being offered behind his back.
Back to the point where the confidentiality of the meeting should have been maintained. If management teams cannot maintain the confidentiality of such meetings they should not manage. If Hood is a gentleman Macnamaras days could be numbered.

None of which alters the fact IL made an approach for Newton which as I said he was free to do but is something I don't agree with.

Either we get a H that proves IL wrong or we look to change him at the end of his contract. Lets face it from school days how many of us have had disappointments when we were not picked. He has the chance. Twelve months to prove he is up to it. He now knows that IL thinks there are better players out there. Can't be a bad thing. Let's face it every player must play for his position. HC

Dave O wrote
I don't think having your name bandied about as a potential make weight in a swap deal is quite the same as playing for a new contract.

How many players come good in their last six months of their contract?

It is just not relevant as Geoff said. The decision at the end of 2008 will be whether to offer Higham a new contract or possibly go for a 30 year old Newton or even someone else altogether. They won't base that on Higham's last six months work. If he is garbage all season he won't stand a chance of a new deal but any player will hope to go well in the last season of a contract so if his current club don't want him another will. I am still not sure of what relevance this is.

Dave[/quote]
Just thought I would re-post it. Does that make it one of the longest this year (so far)?

[highland convert]

butt monkey posted:

DaveO posted:

highland convert posted:

Why would Bradford suggest it when they are not interested in selling Newton? It is obvious it must have come from IL. In any case he said so himself in his post on rlfans.

Dave O wrote
It wasn't an option to stay and be second fiddle. Higham would have had to leave for salary cap reasons
Not the case. Higham has a contract.
Can Wigan offload him without his permission?

Dave O answered
No. He could refuse to leave and see out his contract. Which IMO makes it all the more bizarre the approach for Newton was made in the first place. IL knew he would have to persuade a contracted player to leave for this to fly and the player has been doing really well in training and by all accounts was looking forward to the season. Why would he even consider agreeing to such a deal?
Gives more credibility to my theory. This is a storm in a teacup.

How do you conclude that? Are you agreeing with me that because Wigan would have had to persuade Higham to leave it was an odd thing to enquire about Newton in the first place? If not I am not sure what you are trying to say when you say it gives credibility to your theory.

Would H have his contract renewed if TN was still here?

Dave o wrote.
TN isn't still here and could not come here unless Higham left so that isn't relevant.
Feka goes down,.Pryce foot collapses. There is more money available than we think. The money could become available or the money is available. The two could be here. Remember the new rule. Prove you are under cap before you sign anyone.

But none of those things had happened at the time IL enquired about Newton which is the crucial point.

If you are talking about possible offers for Newton in the future that has nothing to do with the ins and outs of what went on recently.

IL's offer could have been doing him a favour. As it was said a looonnnnnggg time ago this was the initial approach and therefore a deed sodjer from first post.

Eh?

What this thread is saying is IL how dare you manage WW. You can't look to new players. You cant hurt feelings.

Dave O wrote
It is saying he made a mistake for various different reasons. Some say so because as Geoff said he simply should not have mentioned Higham's name unless Newton was available. Some like me for that reason and because I don't want a 29 or 30 year old Newton back thanks. We could do without a change to a key position going into the season yet again as well.
For this reason I personally think the Higham swop was a conversational aside not a hard and fast negotiation offer.

To get Newton on the books for 2008 would have required Higham to leave. No two ways about it.

And anyway conversational aside or not we get back to the point once IL was told Newton was not available that should have been the end of it. No need to mention Higham as said previously.

Maybe Newton was stirring for more loot or getting back to Wigan. IL said only x amount in the kitty. What if you offload Higham to us?

From IL's comments we know it didn't happen like that. Bradford were simply not interested in releasing Newton is the bottom line.

You must not even suggest a player that might be available for trade.

Dave O
Not when the player you want to trade him for isn't available, no! Common sense.
The deal could not have been dead when the barter was being discussed . Common sense.

Bradford said Newton was not available. IL knew Higham had a contract for 2008 so to instigate a barter behind the players back gets us back right back to the beginning. Anyway I thought you were arguing it was a conversational aside?

Oh and IL if you are following this thread, how dare you look out for players you might have to offload. Lets face it. IL could hand Higham his years wages and tell him to go west. Its called buying out his contract.

Dave O
IL isn't that daft. Higham's wages would still count on the salary cap. So if he did that we would just be a player down because we would not be able to fit Newton or anyone else's wages under the cap.
Not if he moved to another team where salary cap was not such a problem.

That is NOT what you said. You said buy out his contract, pure and simple. You can not do that in RL as it counts on the salary cap. Period.

Work that one out yourselves.
On a vote you are happy with the new management yet here is the first controversial decission and teeth are nashing.

What is your point? That because the new management has done well so far when they screw up we can't criticise? I am sure they will do something else right in future so am I not allowed to say so because I disagree with what has gone on here?

Higham wants the jersey offcourse he will be upset if the management want to give it to someone else. Offcourse he will be unhappy if Wigan value TN over himself. That's life.

Dave O
IL may value Newton more but if he had never mentioned Higham at all no one would be any the wiser about a potential swap, especially Higham. That is good man management. The fact IL didn't expect it to leak out is no excuse. Things that don't need to be said are always best not said and as soon as the answer was "no" about Newton's availability that should of been the end of it.
When did Hood say no? Was anyone privy to that part of the approach?

We all are privy to it. IL published details of what was said and when it was said on rlfans. He basically sets out the time-frame and sequence of events. Haven't you read it? IL tells us Bradford said Newton was not available.

The underhand dealings seem to be coming from Bradford. How far down the garden path was IL before the plug was pulled? Did the original approach originate in Wigan or Bradford?

You really need to read IL's version of events before trying to sugggest there is doubt about who approached who. It was IL who approached Hood. Of that there is no doubt.

Where Bradford screwed up was with McNamara rushing off to the press as soon as he ans Hood knocked back Wigan's approach.

Dave O wrote
That doesn't mean I am saying IL should not have asked about Newton. If he wanted to do that then that was up to him. He can run the club how he sees fit but are we bound to agree with all he does because he isn't Mo? I don't agree it was a good idea from an RL point of view but the controversy is/was about how Higham appeared to be being offered behind his back.
Back to the point where the confidentiality of the meeting should have been maintained. If management teams cannot maintain the confidentiality of such meetings they should not manage. If Hood is a gentleman Macnamaras days could be numbered.

None of which alters the fact IL made an approach for Newton which as I said he was free to do but is something I don't agree with.

Either we get a H that proves IL wrong or we look to change him at the end of his contract. Lets face it from school days how many of us have had disappointments when we were not picked. He has the chance. Twelve months to prove he is up to it. He now knows that IL thinks there are better players out there. Can't be a bad thing. Let's face it every player must play for his position. HC

Dave O wrote
I don't think having your name bandied about as a potential make weight in a swap deal is quite the same as playing for a new contract.

How many players come good in their last six months of their contract?

It is just not relevant as Geoff said. The decision at the end of 2008 will be whether to offer Higham a new contract or possibly go for a 30 year old Newton or even someone else altogether. They won't base that on Higham's last six months work. If he is garbage all season he won't stand a chance of a new deal but any player will hope to go well in the last season of a contract so if his current club don't want him another will. I am still not sure of what relevance this is.

Dave

DaveO posted:

highland convert posted:

No need for IL to mention Higham at all.
This still does not say who first broached the exchange. We probably never know.

Why would Bradford suggest it when they are not interested in selling Newton? It is obvious it must have come from IL. In any case he said so himself in his post on rlfans.

Dave O wrote
It wasn't an option to stay and be second fiddle. Higham would have had to leave for salary cap reasons
Not the case. Higham has a contract.
Can Wigan offload him without his permission?

Dave O answered
No. He could refuse to leave and see out his contract. Which IMO makes it all the more bizarre the approach for Newton was made in the first place. IL knew he would have to persuade a contracted player to leave for this to fly and the player has been doing really well in training and by all accounts was looking forward to the season. Why would he even consider agreeing to such a deal?
Gives more credibility to my theory. This is a storm in a teacup.

How do you conclude that? Are you agreeing with me that because Wigan would have had to persuade Higham to leave it was an odd thing to enquire about Newton in the first place? If not I am not sure what you are trying to say when you say it gives credibility to your theory.

Would H have his contract renewed if TN was still here?

Dave o wrote.
TN isn't still here and could not come here unless Higham left so that isn't relevant.
Feka goes down,.Pryce foot collapses. There is more money available than we think. The money could become available or the money is available. The two could be here. Remember the new rule. Prove you are under cap before you sign anyone.

But none of those things had happened at the time IL enquired about Newton which is the crucial point.

If you are talking about possible offers for Newton in the future that has nothing to do with the ins and outs of what went on recently.

IL's offer could have been doing him a favour. As it was said a looonnnnnggg time ago this was the initial approach and therefore a deed sodjer from first post.

Eh?

What this thread is saying is IL how dare you manage WW. You can't look to new players. You cant hurt feelings.

Dave O wrote
It is saying he made a mistake for various different reasons. Some say so because as Geoff said he simply should not have mentioned Higham's name unless Newton was available. Some like me for that reason and because I don't want a 29 or 30 year old Newton back thanks. We could do without a change to a key position going into the season yet again as well.
For this reason I personally think the Higham swop was a conversational aside not a hard and fast negotiation offer.

To get Newton on the books for 2008 would have required Higham to leave. No two ways about it.

And anyway conversational aside or not we get back to the point once IL was told Newton was not available that should have been the end of it. No need to mention Higham as said previously.

Maybe Newton was stirring for more loot or getting back to Wigan. IL said only x amount in the kitty. What if you offload Higham to us?

From IL's comments we know it didn't happen like that. Bradford were simply not interested in releasing Newton is the bottom line.

You must not even suggest a player that might be available for trade.

Dave O
Not when the player you want to trade him for isn't available, no! Common sense.
The deal could not have been dead when the barter was being discussed . Common sense.

Bradford said Newton was not available. IL knew Higham had a contract for 2008 so to instigate a barter behind the players back gets us back right back to the beginning. Anyway I thought you were arguing it was a conversational aside?

Oh and IL if you are following this thread, how dare you look out for players you might have to offload. Lets face it. IL could hand Higham his years wages and tell him to go west. Its called buying out his contract.

Dave O
IL isn't that daft. Higham's wages would still count on the salary cap. So if he did that we would just be a player down because we would not be able to fit Newton or anyone else's wages under the cap.
Not if he moved to another team where salary cap was not such a problem.

That is NOT what you said. You said buy out his contract, pure and simple. You can not do that in RL as it counts on the salary cap. Period.

Work that one out yourselves.
On a vote you are happy with the new management yet here is the first controversial decission and teeth are nashing.

What is your point? That because the new management has done well so far when they screw up we can't criticise? I am sure they will do something else right in future so am I not allowed to say so because I disagree with what has gone on here?

Higham wants the jersey offcourse he will be upset if the management want to give it to someone else. Offcourse he will be unhappy if Wigan value TN over himself. That's life.

Dave O
IL may value Newton more but if he had never mentioned Higham at all no one would be any the wiser about a potential swap, especially Higham. That is good man management. The fact IL didn't expect it to leak out is no excuse. Things that don't need to be said are always best not said and as soon as the answer was "no" about Newton's availability that should of been the end of it.
When did Hood say no? Was anyone privy to that part of the approach?

We all are privy to it. IL published details of what was said and when it was said on rlfans. He basically sets out the time-frame and sequence of events. Haven't you read it? IL tells us Bradford said Newton was not available.

The underhand dealings seem to be coming from Bradford. How far down the garden path was IL before the plug was pulled? Did the original approach originate in Wigan or Bradford?

You really need to read IL's version of events before trying to sugggest there is doubt about who approached who. It was IL who approached Hood. Of that there is no doubt.

Where Bradford screwed up was with McNamara rushing off to the press as soon as he ans Hood knocked back Wigan's approach.

Dave O wrote
That doesn't mean I am saying IL should not have asked about Newton. If he wanted to do that then that was up to him. He can run the club how he sees fit but are we bound to agree with all he does because he isn't Mo? I don't agree it was a good idea from an RL point of view but the controversy is/was about how Higham appeared to be being offered behind his back.
Back to the point where the confidentiality of the meeting should have been maintained. If management teams cannot maintain the confidentiality of such meetings they should not manage. If Hood is a gentleman Macnamaras days could be numbered.

None of which alters the fact IL made an approach for Newton which as I said he was free to do but is something I don't agree with.

Either we get a H that proves IL wrong or we look to change him at the end of his contract. Lets face it from school days how many of us have had disappointments when we were not picked. He has the chance. Twelve months to prove he is up to it. He now knows that IL thinks there are better players out there. Can't be a bad thing. Let's face it every player must play for his position. HC

Dave O wrote
I don't think having your name bandied about as a potential make weight in a swap deal is quite the same as playing for a new contract.

How many players come good in their last six months of their contract?

It is just not relevant as Geoff said. The decision at the end of 2008 will be whether to offer Higham a new contract or possibly go for a 30 year old Newton or even someone else altogether. They won't base that on Higham's last six months work. If he is garbage all season he won't stand a chance of a new deal but any player will hope to go well in the last season of a contract so if his current club don't want him another will. I am still not sure of what relevance this is.

Dave[/quote]

DaveO posted:

highland convert posted:

No need for IL to mention Higham at all.
This still does not say who first broached the exchange. We probably never know.

Why would Bradford suggest it when they are not interested in selling Newton? It is obvious it must have come from IL. In any case he said so himself in his post on rlfans.

Dave O wrote
It wasn't an option to stay and be second fiddle. Higham would have had to leave for salary cap reasons
Not the case. Higham has a contract.
Can Wigan offload him without his permission?

Dave O answered
No. He could refuse to leave and see out his contract. Which IMO makes it all the more bizarre the approach for Newton was made in the first place. IL knew he would have to persuade a contracted player to leave for this to fly and the player has been doing really well in training and by all accounts was looking forward to the season. Why would he even consider agreeing to such a deal?
Gives more credibility to my theory. This is a storm in a teacup.

How do you conclude that? Are you agreeing with me that because Wigan would have had to persuade Higham to leave it was an odd thing to enquire about Newton in the first place? If not I am not sure what you are trying to say when you say it gives credibility to your theory.

Would H have his contract renewed if TN was still here?

Dave o wrote.
TN isn't still here and could not come here unless Higham left so that isn't relevant.
Feka goes down,.Pryce foot collapses. There is more money available than we think. The money could become available or the money is available. The two could be here. Remember the new rule. Prove you are under cap before you sign anyone.

But none of those things had happened at the time IL enquired about Newton which is the crucial point.

If you are talking about possible offers for Newton in the future that has nothing to do with the ins and outs of what went on recently.

IL's offer could have been doing him a favour. As it was said a looonnnnnggg time ago this was the initial approach and therefore a deed sodjer from first post.

Eh?

What this thread is saying is IL how dare you manage WW. You can't look to new players. You cant hurt feelings.

Dave O wrote
It is saying he made a mistake for various different reasons. Some say so because as Geoff said he simply should not have mentioned Higham's name unless Newton was available. Some like me for that reason and because I don't want a 29 or 30 year old Newton back thanks. We could do without a change to a key position going into the season yet again as well.
For this reason I personally think the Higham swop was a conversational aside not a hard and fast negotiation offer.

To get Newton on the books for 2008 would have required Higham to leave. No two ways about it.

And anyway conversational aside or not we get back to the point once IL was told Newton was not available that should have been the end of it. No need to mention Higham as said previously.

Maybe Newton was stirring for more loot or getting back to Wigan. IL said only x amount in the kitty. What if you offload Higham to us?

From IL's comments we know it didn't happen like that. Bradford were simply not interested in releasing Newton is the bottom line.

You must not even suggest a player that might be available for trade.

Dave O
Not when the player you want to trade him for isn't available, no! Common sense.
The deal could not have been dead when the barter was being discussed . Common sense.

Bradford said Newton was not available. IL knew Higham had a contract for 2008 so to instigate a barter behind the players back gets us back right back to the beginning. Anyway I thought you were arguing it was a conversational aside?

Oh and IL if you are following this thread, how dare you look out for players you might have to offload. Lets face it. IL could hand Higham his years wages and tell him to go west. Its called buying out his contract.

Dave O
IL isn't that daft. Higham's wages would still count on the salary cap. So if he did that we would just be a player down because we would not be able to fit Newton or anyone else's wages under the cap.
Not if he moved to another team where salary cap was not such a problem.

That is NOT what you said. You said buy out his contract, pure and simple. You can not do that in RL as it counts on the salary cap. Period.

Work that one out yourselves.
On a vote you are happy with the new management yet here is the first controversial decission and teeth are nashing.

What is your point? That because the new management has done well so far when they screw up we can't criticise? I am sure they will do something else right in future so am I not allowed to say so because I disagree with what has gone on here?

Higham wants the jersey offcourse he will be upset if the management want to give it to someone else. Offcourse he will be unhappy if Wigan value TN over himself. That's life.

Dave O
IL may value Newton more but if he had never mentioned Higham at all no one would be any the wiser about a potential swap, especially Higham. That is good man management. The fact IL didn't expect it to leak out is no excuse. Things that don't need to be said are always best not said and as soon as the answer was "no" about Newton's availability that should of been the end of it.
When did Hood say no? Was anyone privy to that part of the approach?

We all are privy to it. IL published details of what was said and when it was said on rlfans. He basically sets out the time-frame and sequence of events. Haven't you read it? IL tells us Bradford said Newton was not available.

The underhand dealings seem to be coming from Bradford. How far down the garden path was IL before the plug was pulled? Did the original approach originate in Wigan or Bradford?

You really need to read IL's version of events before trying to sugggest there is doubt about who approached who. It was IL who approached Hood. Of that there is no doubt.

Where Bradford screwed up was with McNamara rushing off to the press as soon as he ans Hood knocked back Wigan's approach.

Dave O wrote
That doesn't mean I am saying IL should not have asked about Newton. If he wanted to do that then that was up to him. He can run the club how he sees fit but are we bound to agree with all he does because he isn't Mo? I don't agree it was a good idea from an RL point of view but the controversy is/was about how Higham appeared to be being offered behind his back.
Back to the point where the confidentiality of the meeting should have been maintained. If management teams cannot maintain the confidentiality of such meetings they should not manage. If Hood is a gentleman Macnamaras days could be numbered.

None of which alters the fact IL made an approach for Newton which as I said he was free to do but is something I don't agree with.

Either we get a H that proves IL wrong or we look to change him at the end of his contract. Lets face it from school days how many of us have had disappointments when we were not picked. He has the chance. Twelve months to prove he is up to it. He now knows that IL thinks there are better players out there. Can't be a bad thing. Let's face it every player must play for his position. HC

Dave O wrote
I don't think having your name bandied about as a potential make weight in a swap deal is quite the same as playing for a new contract.

How many players come good in their last six months of their contract?

It is just not relevant as Geoff said. The decision at the end of 2008 will be whether to offer Higham a new contract or possibly go for a 30 year old Newton or even someone else altogether. They won't base that on Higham's last six months work. If he is garbage all season he won't stand a chance of a new deal but any player will hope to go well in the last season of a contract so if his current club don't want him another will. I am still not sure of what relevance this is.

Dave[/quote]
Just thought I would re-post it. Does that make it one of the longest this year (so far)? [/quote]
Yes But not as long as this one

[AncientWarrior]

I don't propose to keep quoting previous posts but I still take issue with DaveO and his assertion that Higham was somehow dishonourably offered as a 'makeweight' in the proposed deal.

What Lenegan actually said was, "I telephoned Peter Hood last Friday, a discussion which we both agreed was in confidence, to enquire as to whether they might be already considering such a possibility or might consider it for 2009. Peter confirmed that they were not considering such a possibility and that Terry Newton had fitted in extremely well at Bradford. There was some reference to 2008 and a tongue-in-cheek comment from Peter that they might consider it if there was another “world record” transfer fee but the 2008 option was viewed by both Peter Hood and myself as unlikely since it would need the agreement of the Bradford Coach, Steve MacNamara and the agreement of Micky Higham to a transfer because of Wigan’s Salary Cap constraints and the non-availability of other hookers at this late stage".

I think this is self-explanatory.

Incidentally, in law, you don't make an 'offer', you make a 'bid' on an item (or player) which has been 'offered' for sale. If the item is not for sale, you can't make a bid. QED.

[DaveO]

Nine posted:
And next week ... HC on how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

Fixed your typo. I am not the one making things up

Dave

[DaveO]

AncientWarrior posted:
I don't propose to keep quoting previous posts but I still take issue with DaveO and his assertion that Higham was somehow dishonourably offered as a 'makeweight' in the proposed deal.

That is what Higham's perception was because McNamara spouted off to the press.

It doesn't matter whether it was an offer, bid, a discussion or call it what you like between Hood and IL. The effect was as we saw, Higham talking to the press about being upset.

It also does not alter the fact that once Newton was known to be unavailable that would not have happened if IL had not mentioned Higham at all.

It also does not alter the fact Newton's availability for 2008 was discussed which by implication meant Higham would have to leave and if you read IL's statement it is obvious Higham moving to the Bulls was discussed.

What Lenegan actually said was, "I telephoned Peter Hood last Friday, a discussion which we both agreed was in confidence, to enquire as to whether they might be already considering such a possibility or might consider it for 2009. Peter confirmed that they were not considering such a possibility and that Terry Newton had fitted in extremely well at Bradford. There was some reference to 2008 and a tongue-in-cheek comment from Peter that they might consider it if there was another “world record” transfer fee but the 2008 option was viewed by both Peter Hood and myself as unlikely since it would need the agreement of the Bradford Coach, Steve MacNamara and the agreement of Micky Higham to a transfer because of Wigan’s Salary Cap constraints and the non-availability of other hookers at this late stage".

I think this is self-explanatory.

Read it again. It is a careful choice of worlds (the whole statement was IMO). He jokes about the record transfer fee idea but then says:

"...but the 2008 option was viewed by both Peter Hood and myself as unlikely since it would need the agreement of the Bradford Coach, Steve MacNamara and the agreement of Micky Higham to a transfer"

In other words the idea of Higham moving was discussed. Just because the conclusion was a deal in 2008 would not fly does not alter that they discussed it. For IL to enquire about Newton's availability for 2008 meant that particular discussion had to take place. Otherwise how could he enquire about Newton's availability for 2008.

Incidentally, in law, you don't make an 'offer', you make a 'bid' on an item (or player) which has been 'offered' for sale. If the item is not for sale, you can't make a bid. QED.

Better tell IL then. It was IL who first said no "offer" was made in the Observer.

Dave

[AncientWarrior]

DaveO said amongst other things:...It is a careful choice of worlds (the whole statement was IMO). He jokes about the record transfer fee idea but then says:

"...but the 2008 option was viewed by both Peter Hood and myself as unlikely since it would need the agreement of the Bradford Coach, Steve MacNamara and the agreement of Micky Higham to a transfer"

If anyone is 'carefully choosing words' it is you.

You can't keep taking quotes out of context just to try to prove a point.

The fact remains that you were prepared to believe McNamara (until Lenegan's published rebuttal) and now you are trying to 'spin' the story to what you think was actually said. What has Lenegan done for you to try to blacken his character in this way?

[GeoffN]

it's pretty much in context; have you read Ian's full statement? I don't often agree with Dave, but in this case he's right.