You heard it here first

[DaveO]

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).

So who was right then?

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.

In the context of this thread that is the point really. It is an odd justification to use to release him when we have Pryce who can't play and others who do not impress fitness-wise.

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.

That's not really the issue here. Again in the context of this thread it is what the club has done and how its gone about it re: Higham that doesn't sit right. It is IMO an example that the new people at the helm are not perfect. So even if Riddle is all you say it it is no excuse to say
publicly a player has the season to earn a new deal then exactly six weeks later announce his replacement is signed.

I have seen this justified by some people saying things like "Well the club made the decision based on all season up until the signing, not just six weeks" but even if they did they tell the world one thing and do another - which was supposed to have gone out the window with Mo's exit and would never have been defended if Mo had done it.

You also have to ask why he had to earn it while other players who have not had great seasons in comparison got new deals or extensions to contracts.

So this and Calders are not examples of different parts of the club not singing from the same hymn sheet as Geoff mentioned earlier (e.g. Feka and his weight issue) but the top brass behaving in a way supposed to have gone (but often having their actions justified rather then criticised).

Am I allowed to post again?

I still haven't found the "ban" button so I guess so. Welcome to the forum.

Dave

[Shaun1967]

DaveO

In answer to your reply:

1. Both were right with hindsight. Lam made a full recovery and gave us some more good service. However, when you have a coach who has a track record of achieving results with youngsters he should be consulted before decisions are made regarding the release of a player he feels has great promise.

2. Agreed. I was merely making the point that there is a difference between pace and fitness.

3. If we are looking for people at the helm who are perfect we are all going to be very disappointed. For the record, I don't believe the situation with Higham was dealt with particularly well. When you say "if Riddle is all I say" I think you are misunderstanding me. I am stating the reason I believe Wigan prefer to have him in their side over Higham. I personally have not seen enough of him to make any judgement yet.
Sadly some players no matter how well they are performing may not fit into a clubs long term plans. This is the nature of the business, and obviously Noble does not see either of these players fitting into his plans; remember he didn't sign either of them, and if memory serves me correctly he never picked him for Yorkshire when he was playing for Leeds. Although I am not Nobles biggest fan, as I have already stated in point 1) I believe a good chairman listens to what his coach wants. However you are correct that public statements should not be made regarding players futures until they are resolved with the player in person.

4. I was only joking. Looking forward to many healthy debates.

[butt monkey]

DaveO

In answer to your reply:

1. Both were right with hindsight. Lam made a full recovery and gave us some more good service. However, when you have a coach who has a track record of achieving results with youngsters he should be consulted before decisions are made regarding the release of a player he feels has great promise.

2. Agreed. I was merely making the point that there is a difference between pace and fitness.

3. If we are looking for people at the helm who are perfect we are all going to be very disappointed. For the record, I don't believe the situation with Higham was dealt with particularly well. When you say "if Riddle is all I say" I think you are misunderstanding me. I am stating the reason I believe Wigan prefer to have him in their side over Higham. I personally have not seen enough of him to make any judgement yet.
Sadly some players no matter how well they are performing may not fit into a clubs long term plans. This is the nature of the business, and obviously Noble does not see either of these players fitting into his plans; remember he didn't sign either of them, and if memory serves me correctly he never picked him for Yorkshire when he was playing for Leeds. Although I am not Nobles biggest fan, as I have already stated in point 1) I believe a good chairman listens to what his coach wants. However you are correct that public statements should not be made regarding players futures until they are resolved with the player in person.

4. I was only joking. Looking forward to many healthy debates.

Hi Shaun - my info came from one of the player's concerned, mum! At the time of the decision, Mike Gregory had been "relieved" of his duties at the club. Betts was Caretaker Coach.

[Shaun1967]

Fair enough BM, Mike told me this story after he had left the club, but did tell me that exact conversation with Mo.
Maybe the decision had been taken some time before the players were informed.

[DaveO]

3. If we are looking for people at the helm who are perfect we are all going to be very disappointed. For the record, I don't believe the situation with Higham was dealt with particularly well. When you say "if Riddle is all I say" I think you are misunderstanding me. I am stating the reason I believe Wigan prefer to have him in their side over Higham. I personally have not seen enough of him to make any judgement yet.

I know nothing about Riddle either and so have not and won't offer an opinion until he has settled in next season. The point I was trying to make was while you may be right as to the reasons the club went for him they are not a justification for the way the club handled the situation with Higham BUT some people seem to think they are. The end justifies the means and all that.

Sadly some players no matter how well they are performing may not fit into a clubs long term plans. This is the nature of the business, and obviously Noble does not see either of these players fitting into his plans; remember he didn't sign either of them, and if memory serves me correctly he never picked him for Yorkshire when he was playing for Leeds.

I agree but I think its fair to question Noble's coaching ability when he can't or won't use a winger correctly who was scoring tries freely at his former club. To a certain extent I think several players including Higham have been asked to play differently than their natural game and this I think is a failing of Noble's. I have always said the argument it is "not his team" is a poor one as any new coach inherits a side and is normally expected to deliver results quickly working with the players he inherits not three years down the line when he's kicked out players he doesn't know how to coach, can't use correctly or simply doesn't appear to like!

4. I was only joking. Looking forward to many healthy debates.

Well of course so was I about the ban button (but in fact I really still haven't found it...)

Dave

[Matthew]

I know nothing about Riddle either

We know - his name is Riddell!

I agree with everything that has been said - the coach should adapt the game plan to play to the strengths of the players he has - not expect them to change their game to the one plan that he has.

It's like trying to adapt a formula one car to run in a rally!

[josie andrews]

I know nothing about Riddle either

We know - his name is Riddell!

I agree with everything that has been said - the coach should adapt the game plan to play to the strengths of the players he has - not expect them to change their game to the one plan that he has.
It's like trying to adapt a formula one car to run in a rally!

This is the one thing I have against Brian Noble, and if he likes the player personally, that shouldn't come into it, if you are doing your job that should be enough.

[KOOCH]

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).

Indeed this was the case. You've been reading his book I see. At the time ML wanted rid of Luke Robinson , Paul Johnson and Steven Wild each had another year on their contracts. Mike wanted to keep them and release Lam & looked to recruit Gareth Ellis, Martin Glesson , Andy Coley and Rob Parker as he saw these four as potential GB players of the future. ML said that Coley and Parker was not Wigan standard. He wouldn't go for Gleeson and Ellis was happy in Yorkshire.

Going a bit off topic but I recommend every Wigan fan reads Mike's book "biting back" because the way that Mike was treated by DW and ML is nothing short of disgusting. You get a real good idea just what Lindsay was like in that book.

The legend that is Mike Gregory will live on.Can the same be said of DW&ML i think not!!

[butt monkey]

Indeed this was the case. You've been reading his book I see. At the time ML wanted rid of Luke Robinson , Paul Johnson and Steven Wild each had another year on their contracts. Mike wanted to keep them and release Lam & looked to recruit Gareth Ellis, Martin Glesson , Andy Coley and Rob Parker as he saw these four as potential GB players of the future. ML said that Coley and Parker was not Wigan standard. He wouldn't go for Gleeson and Ellis was happy in Yorkshire.

I do not have the book, but if you relate the stories as per the book, then there are a few factual errors contained within (not for the first time in any book either)


Paul Johnson left the club shortly after the sad demise of his younger brother, which was some while before this period. The player in question HAD to have been Mark Smith!

As for Gleeson, Stains would never have dealt with Wigan, never even informing him and his manager of Wigan's interest at the time of his transfer to the wire. He (apparently) was not very happy to have not been given the opportunity to have played for his "home-town club".


Parker and Ellis were relative youngsters emerging at both the Bulls and Wakefield respectively, and would have been unlikely at that time for Wigan to have moved on them - especially Parker, who was a "bench player" at best for Bradford - he moved to the wire in 2006, whilst Ian Millward was coach of Wigan. Ellis was out of contract when he signed for Leeds in 2005.

Wigan would not pay a transfer fee for new players - preferring to join the "auction house" with all the other SL Teams for "out-of-contract-payers". Hence clubs like Leeds signed Peacock and Ellis because of their greater "freedom" under the salary cap to offer better wages than Wigan could.

Coley, might be true, his name had been linked with the club on a few occasions before his actual signature. But the only player I heard that had a contract offer from Wigan "teared up" by Mo for "not being Wigan standard" was Fozzard.

[Shaun1967]

Indeed this was the case. You've been reading his book I see. At the time ML wanted rid of Luke Robinson , Paul Johnson and Steven Wild each had another year on their contracts. Mike wanted to keep them and release Lam & looked to recruit Gareth Ellis, Martin Glesson , Andy Coley and Rob Parker as he saw these four as potential GB players of the future. ML said that Coley and Parker was not Wigan standard. He wouldn't go for Gleeson and Ellis was happy in Yorkshire.

I do not have the book, but if you relate the stories as per the book, then there are a few factual errors contained within (not for the first time in any book either)

Paul Johnson left the club shortly after the sad demise of his younger brother, which was some while before this period. The player in question HAD to have been Mark Smith!

As for Gleeson, Stains would never have dealt with Wigan, never even informing him and his manager of Wigan's interest at the time of his transfer to the wire. He (apparently) was not very happy to have not been given the opportunity to have played for his "home-town club".


Parker and Ellis were relative youngsters emerging at both the Bulls and Wakefield respectively, and would have been unlikely at that time for Wigan to have moved on them - especially Parker, who was a "bench player" at best for Bradford - he moved to the wire in 2006, whilst Ian Millward was coach of Wigan. Ellis was out of contract when he signed for Leeds in 2005.

Wigan would not pay a transfer fee for new players - preferring to join the "auction house" with all the other SL Teams for "out-of-contract-payers". Hence clubs like Leeds signed Peacock and Ellis because of their greater "freedom" under the salary cap to offer better wages than Wigan could.

Coley, might be true, his name had been linked with the club on a few occasions before his actual signature. But the only player I heard that had a contract offer from Wigan "teared up" by Mo for "not being Wigan standard" was Fozzard.

Mike actually told me the Luke Robinson story personally before he had started writing his book.