You heard it here first

[Fraggle]

Would have thought that it was purely because Noble doesn't rate him.

He was signed from Leeds as the highest try scorer in the league and so would have had a decent salary.

So I would imagine that the club (whoever is in charge) believe that they can get a better player for less money

Almost certainly. Obviously we've no idea how much Calderwood earns but at the time he suggested it was the kind of offer he'd be locked up for if he refused, similar to Vaialiki with his pay offer that would set him up for life. Calderwood has a handful of good games a year, but hasn't been consistent at Wigan (poor defence even allowing for the lack of ball he receives, although half the time he drops it...) and certainly not worth however much it is that we pay him.

[DaveO]

like i keep saying to my mates whats the point in signing wingers if we dont give our current ones the ball....

we have one of the fastest in the league with calders and were letting him go, then want to go to austrailia and pay over the odds for a super fast winger, i just dont understand it to be honest... :conf:

Neither do I. Especially when the reason given for Calders exit is that he has not "regained fitness" at the same time the club persists with Karl Pryce.

Note I hope Pryce does get fit to play for us but the point is, it is a lame excuse to give (pardon the pun) for Calders exit when we have another player far further away from regaining fitness.

It's so poor an excuse I don't believe it is the real reason (though have no idea what is).

But not the first time we've done something like that though Dave. We released Luke Robinson, allegedly because of the salary cap although there were strong rumours of other reasons behind that decision, but then we signed other, more expensive players once he'd gone. I know that it would have been a bit undiplomatic to be honest about why we got rid of him, but perhaps they didn't need to give any reason at all...

That was done by a previous administration and we are supposed to be in a new era where we have fans forums and a chairman who has already posted on rlfans in direct response to (certain) threads.

We had the debate about Feka's weight and I think the information came from the club (not from fans alone) that he was as big as he was because of the type of his muscle fibre. Then at the forum, yes he was overweight but we didn't want to bother him due to the court case (or words to that effect). A complete change of tune.

We have Higham being released for mysterious "footballing reasons" but no clue as to what they are.

So I have a nagging doubt forming about how economical with the truth the club is being. It's not supposed to be like this under the new regime (however idealistic that may sound).

As you say, perhaps they didn't need to give any reason at all and I think that would be preferable than what seems to me like misinformation.

In this new era of supposed openness if we get more examples like these it could quickly mean we are back to square one where any information from the club will be taken with as big a pinch of salt as under the Mo era.

Perhaps it's naive to expect anything different but it does seem to me many fans will accept this sort of thing from IL and even justify it whereas if it were Mo doing it then it would be slagged off.

Dave

[GeoffN]

Neither do I. Especially when the reason given for Calders exit is that he has not "regained fitness" at the same time the club persists with Karl Pryce.

Note I hope Pryce does get fit to play for us but the point is, it is a lame excuse to give (pardon the pun) for Calders exit when we have another player far further away from regaining fitness.

It's so poor an excuse I don't believe it is the real reason (though have no idea what is).

But not the first time we've done something like that though Dave. We released Luke Robinson, allegedly because of the salary cap although there were strong rumours of other reasons behind that decision, but then we signed other, more expensive players once he'd gone. I know that it would have been a bit undiplomatic to be honest about why we got rid of him, but perhaps they didn't need to give any reason at all...

That was done by a previous administration and we are supposed to be in a new era where we have fans forums and a chairman who has already posted on rlfans in direct response to (certain) threads.

We had the debate about Feka's weight and I think the information came from the club (not from fans alone) that he was as big as he was because of the type of his muscle fibre. Then at the forum, yes he was overweight but we didn't want to bother him due to the court case (or words to that effect). A complete change of tune.

We have Higham being released for mysterious "footballing reasons" but no clue as to what they are.

So I have a nagging doubt forming about how economical with the truth the club is being. It's not supposed to be like this under the new regime (however idealistic that may sound).

As you say, perhaps they didn't need to give any reason at all and I think that would be preferable than what seems to me like misinformation.

In this new era of supposed openness if we get more examples like these it could quickly mean we are back to square one where any information from the club will be taken with as big a pinch of salt as under the Mo era.

Perhaps it's naive to expect anything different but it does seem to me many fans will accept this sort of thing from IL and even justify it whereas if it were Mo doing it then it would be slagged off.

Dave

I think it goes deeper than that, Dave. I get the impression it's not so much the club changing its tune as them not all singing from the same sheet (to continue the musical analogy!)

As I remember, the original excuse for Feka came from Forshaw at a Riversiders meeting (or maybe it was after-match in the SS bar), not from IL. There have been other instances of disparate information coming from various club sources.

We've had similar differences more recently, with IL, I believe realistically, listing all the problems at the club, and Noble and the players (including Barrett. as captain) essentially denying there is a problem.
Despite the dramatic improvement in the last two games, I'm more inclined to accept IL's assessment than Nobby's.

Could it be more a case of the rest of the management not coming to terms with IL's more "open" policies?

[Fraggle]

In this new era of supposed openness if we get more examples like these it could quickly mean we are back to square one where any information from the club will be taken with as big a pinch of salt as under the Mo era.

Perhaps it's naive to expect anything different but it does seem to me many fans will accept this sort of thing from IL and even justify it whereas if it were Mo doing it then it would be slagged off.

Dave

No arguments from me there. People used to seize just about any excuse to have a go at ML, regardless of whether it was really justified or not, just because they didn't like him, yet the club still seems to be being not-totally-honest about things but no-one's complaining much. It's a bit of a contrast to Hull KR where the club have been fairly open as to why Paul Cooke was left out in recent times. I don't really know why we always have to be like this, I'd be far happier if the club were honest in saying that Calderwood hasn't delivered value for a large amount of money, that Higham's face doesn't fit or whatever, rather than these endless excuses. Sometimes it does seem like nothing's changed at Wigan...

[DaveO]

Would have thought that it was purely because Noble doesn't rate him.

He was signed from Leeds as the highest try scorer in the league and so would have had a decent salary.

So I would imagine that the club (whoever is in charge) believe that they can get a better player for less money

Almost certainly. Obviously we've no idea how much Calderwood earns but at the time he suggested it was the kind of offer he'd be locked up for if he refused, similar to Vaialiki with his pay offer that would set him up for life.

That is the first time I have ever seen that suggested. Jimkin Jimmy reckons Calders was on £70K a season from talking to Millward.

Calderwood has a handful of good games a year, but hasn't been consistent at Wigan (poor defence even allowing for the lack of ball he receives, although half the time he drops it...) and certainly not worth however much it is that we pay him.

You can say that about virtually any player this season.

Why is what he earns under his current contract relevant anyway? He'd have a new contract on new terms offered by the club at a rate the club was prepared to pay.

He can't demand to get a new deal on the same money can he?

If the club offered him a deal on financial terms the club was prepared to pay and he refused the offer then why not say so? The club have in the past used the "salary cap issues" reason why players can't be retained not just for the likes of Luke Robinson (e.g. Furner).

If Calderwood's current contract was viewed as too expensive then surely him turning down a lower offer for a new deal and the club saying so would be the obvious and uncontentious thing to do.

I think the truth is he hasn't been offered a contract at all so the club can't say he's priced himself out of a job so its come out with the fitness comment - which I don't think anyone seriously believes which IMO reflects badly on IL (and flies in the face of how it views Pryce).

Dave

[Fraggle]

Would have thought that it was purely because Noble doesn't rate him.

He was signed from Leeds as the highest try scorer in the league and so would have had a decent salary.

So I would imagine that the club (whoever is in charge) believe that they can get a better player for less money

Almost certainly. Obviously we've no idea how much Calderwood earns but at the time he suggested it was the kind of offer he'd be locked up for if he refused, similar to Vaialiki with his pay offer that would set him up for life.

That is the first time I have ever seen that suggested. Jimkin Jimmy reckons Calders was on £70K a season from talking to Millward.

I seem to remember at the time we signed him that our offer was supposed to far ahead of anything Leeds were prepared or able to offer him, and given he was scoring tries for fun I'd have expected them to make him a decent offer to keep him. That's why I've assumed he's on big money, but I could be wrong.

[DaveO]

No arguments from me there. People used to seize just about any excuse to have a go at ML, regardless of whether it was really justified or not, just because they didn't like him, yet the club still seems to be being not-totally-honest about things but no-one's complaining much. It's a bit of a contrast to Hull KR where the club have been fairly open as to why Paul Cooke was left out in recent times. I don't really know why we always have to be like this, I'd be far happier if the club were honest in saying that Calderwood hasn't delivered value for a large amount of money, that Higham's face doesn't fit or whatever, rather than these endless excuses. Sometimes it does seem like nothing's changed at Wigan...

So would I. The HKR example is a good one showing it doesn't have to be this way.

Dave

[butt monkey]

But not the first time we've done something like that though Dave. We released Luke Robinson, allegedly because of the salary cap although there were strong rumours of other reasons behind that decision, but then we signed other, more expensive players once he'd gone. I know that it would have been a bit undiplomatic to be honest about why we got rid of him, but perhaps they didn't need to give any reason at all...

Denis Betts was coach at that time. He was given a choice of keeping either Mark Smith OR Luke Robinson. He decided to keep Smith, citing his higher flexibility in playing other positions than just hooker. A few weeks later, for whatever reason, Betts allowed Wigan to release Mark Smith! These are facts (I was told so).

Who ordered the release of Smith, I do not know, just know that Betts was never "too perturbed" in letting Whelan and Lyndsay "do there thing" at the club.

[Shaun1967]

Hello Everyone,
New boy here.
I realise that this is now going slightly off the original thread, but Maurice Lindsay decided to sell Luke Robinson. This decision was taken without consulting his coach at the time - Mike Gregory.
Mike pleaded with ML to keep Luke as he was young and he felt he could work with him. He asked him to release Adrian Lam who had just suffered knee ligament damage as they didn't know if he would fully recover and this would free up more money than releasing one of their promising kids. This was not an option as the decision had already been made by ML.
The source for this story - Mike Gregory (RIP).

Just going back to some of the earlier posts on this thread. I don't doubt for one minute that Calderwood still has pace; his try for the Reserves against Saints a couple of weeks ago shows he hasn't. However this is not the same as fitness. He is regularly stood blowing with his hands on his hips during a match, this is lack of fitness. Having said that, on those grounds we could sell most of our present first team squad who are simply not fit enough to compete at their top level on a week by week basis.

On the Mickey Higham subject, he is a good player and no-one can ever question his effort. However, we need a hooker who is going to lead our pack around the pitch and introduce some life into the team. This is what Mark Riddell has been signed for.

Am I allowed to post again?

[josie andrews]

Hello Everyone,
New boy here.
I realise that this is now going slightly off the original thread, but Maurice Lindsay decided to sell Luke Robinson. This decision was taken without consulting his coach at the time - Mike Gregory.
Mike pleaded with ML to keep Luke as he was young and he felt he could work with him. He asked him to release Adrian Lam who had just suffered knee ligament damage as they didn't know if he would fully recover and this would free up more money than releasing one of their promising kids. This was not an option as the decision had already been made by ML.
The source for this story - Mike Gregory (RIP).

Just going back to some of the earlier posts on this thread. I don't doubt for one minute that Calderwood still has pace; his try for the Reserves against Saints a couple of weeks ago shows he hasn't. However this is not the same as fitness. He is regularly stood blowing with his hands on his hips during a match, this is lack of fitness. Having said that, on those grounds we could sell most of our present first team squad who are simply not fit enough to compete at their top level on a week by week basis.

On the Mickey Higham subject, he is a good player and no-one can ever question his effort. However, we need a hooker who is going to lead our pack around the pitch and introduce some life into the team. This is what Mark Riddell has been signed for.

Am I allowed to post again?

Welcome to the site Shaun, of course you are allowed to post again, that was a very good first post very eloquent. Not like some who insist on posting in txt talk and abbreviations.