Eels’ Mossop bid as Powell lands

[Ron Doran]

And then Mr. S Tomkins has his pennyworth...

http://www.loverugbyleague.com/news_116 ... ports.html

[exile in Tiger country]

Perhaps Mossop wants to go to Australia? When you seen how well George Burgess has developed for the benefit of Great Britain / England is make you wonder if we should be encouraging rather than discouraging players from going to Australia for stints?

Why not alter Mossop's contract? Allow him to go to Aus for 2 seasons and then have the option in our favour for him to return and complete his contract?

I really could not care less about players being better for the international team if it means Wigan losing top players. What you are effectively saying is
"let's not bother about the quality of rugby we watch for eight months of the year in the hope that we win a three or four week competition at the end of a mediocre season".
How would our good players become better in a scenario where they are not regularly tested? If the top players went South, teams such as Wigan, Saints and Leeds would be brought down to the level of Wakefield, Castleford, Widnes and Salford because of the numbers they would lose.
How would this improve the game as a spectacle and the profile of RL generally?

[josie andrews]

And then Mr. S Tomkins has his pennyworth...

http://www.loverugbyleague.com/news_116 ... ports.html

There is already a thread covering this topic

[devon jim 1]

In responce to Butt Monkey; There's a thought. :I,m off now to concentrate;I think!? :just a thought

[DaveO]

Two comments on this story having just got back form a few pleasant days in Edinburgh..

And while the Warriors could resist any offers for him, they may be willing to release him for a fee – rather than lose him for nothing 12 months later.

Not this cliché again.

We could sell just about our entire first team on that basis. We had better put the lot of 'em up for sale and quick in case, shock horror, a contract actually runs its full course and a player moves on at the end of it.

In the current climate there is always a risk any player who develops into a good player will be a target for other UK RL clubs, NRL sides or RU sides. It's about time we accepted that we have players for the duration of their contract and if we get them to sign another deal that is great but if they don't its not the end of the world. We will have had them for the deal they agreed.

What we don't want to be doing is using the "cash in before we get nothing" excuse time after time. If we do that we will never have any peace from potential buying clubs as we will be viewed as a selling club. And players will expect to be let go early as a matter of course which is no way to run a team.

And with the second-rower’s relationship with Wigan untenable, it would make sense to cash in when his season-long loan at Widnes comes to an end later this season. The deal for Mossop, though, has not been completed.

And the fact discussions are still taking place may explain why Wigan have yet to announce the capture of his long-term replacement – Wales rugby union star Andy Powell.

How the hell is a 31 year old RU forward a "long term" replacement for anybody let alone a young player like Mossop?

Lets hope the fact the article says a deal for Mossop has not yet been completed means it is all speculation.

[Kittwazzer]

Two comments on this story having just got back form a few pleasant days in Edinburgh..

And while the Warriors could resist any offers for him, they may be willing to release him for a fee – rather than lose him for nothing 12 months later.

Not this cliché again.

We could sell just about our entire first team on that basis. We had better put the lot of 'em up for sale and quick in case, shock horror, a contract actually runs its full course and a player moves on at the end of it. Nonsense and a total overreaction. Hock is a one-off and Mossop has ongoing shoulder problems. As far as I'm aware, they are the only ones potentially leaving and we can demand significant fees

The quote I was commenting on related directly to Mossop not Hock. I am well aware the club may well like to cash in on Hock's worth but was making the general point that what was being said in the article about getting money for Mosssop now compared to getting nothing at end of his contract applies to any of our contracted players and it does. The same was said about Joel. It has been/will be again about Sam and I am sure it will be trotted out for the next contracted player to catch some other clubs eye.

In the current climate there is always a risk any player who develops into a good player will be a target for other UK RL clubsNo chance. These are our own boys, which other SL clubs would they want to go to bearing in mind most don't have a pot to piss in?, NRL sides That's a risk for any team's good players and who can blame them? or RU sides Same again but less likely for a player to want to switch codes!.

You are taking what I said out of context. I am sure Leeds and Wire have enough dosh to interest our players and possibly one or two other clubs as well. We can't afford to pay all our best players six figure salaries but that and the fact the NRL and RU clearly can has nothing to do with the point I was making anyway.

It's about time we accepted that we have players for the duration of their contract and if we get them to sign another deal that is great but if they don't its not the end of the world. We will have had them for the deal they agreed.

What we don't want to be doing is using the "cash in before we get nothing" excuse time after time.which we don't.

Of course we do. It was said when Andy Farrell left for God's sake. It was said when Joel left and now we see the same thing being mentioned in relation to Mossop. It's a cliché.

We write a compensetion clause into contracts. Clever move!

What is clever about it? If we hold a players contract we can get a fee. We all know that. The point I am making is we can sell any contracted player for a fee rather than let contracts run their course but if we want a good team there is no future in doing so. The fact we will get compensation for Sam when he goes is quite frankly feck all use.

If we do that we will never have any peace from potential buying clubs as we will be viewed as a selling club. And players will expect to be let go early as a matter of course which is no way to run a team.

And with the second-rower’s relationship with Wigan untenable, it would make sense to cash in when his season-long loan at Widnes comes to an end later this season. The deal for Mossop, though, has not been completed.

Which is why I said I hoped it was just speculation and why I view the idea that we should cash in as put forward in the article as a well worn cliché being trotted out yet again.

How the hell is a 31 year old RU forward a "long term" replacement for anybody let alone a young player like Mossop?

Lets hope the fact the article says a deal for Mossop has not yet been completed means it is all speculation.

Which is what I said, so yes I agree lets hope that is the case.

[butt monkey]

Two comments on this story having just got back form a few pleasant days in Edinburgh..

And while the Warriors could resist any offers for him, they may be willing to release him for a fee – rather than lose him for nothing 12 months later.

Not this cliché again.

We could sell just about our entire first team on that basis. We had better put the lot of 'em up for sale and quick in case, shock horror, a contract actually runs its full course and a player moves on at the end of it.

In the current climate there is always a risk any player who develops into a good player will be a target for other UK RL clubs, NRL sides or RU sides. It's about time we accepted that we have players for the duration of their contract and if we get them to sign another deal that is great but if they don't its not the end of the world. We will have had them for the deal they agreed.

What we don't want to be doing is using the "cash in before we get nothing" excuse time after time. If we do that we will never have any peace from potential buying clubs as we will be viewed as a selling club. And players will expect to be let go early as a matter of course which is no way to run a team.

And with the second-rower’s relationship with Wigan untenable, it would make sense to cash in when his season-long loan at Widnes comes to an end later this season. The deal for Mossop, though, has not been completed.

And the fact discussions are still taking place may explain why Wigan have yet to announce the capture of his long-term replacement – Wales rugby union star Andy Powell.

How the hell is a 31 year old RU forward a "long term" replacement for anybody let alone a young player like Mossop?

Lets hope the fact the article says a deal for Mossop has not yet been completed means it is all speculation.

:eusa2:

Like I said, I seriously think this article was generated from the Rumour Mill off this site

[josie andrews]

Like I said, I seriously think this article was generated from the Rumour Mill off this site

You're more than likely right

[markill]

Perhaps Mossop wants to go to Australia? When you seen how well George Burgess has developed for the benefit of Great Britain / England is make you wonder if we should be encouraging rather than discouraging players from going to Australia for stints?

Why not alter Mossop's contract? Allow him to go to Aus for 2 seasons and then have the option in our favour for him to return and complete his contract?

I really could not care less about players being better for the international team if it means Wigan losing top players. What you are effectively saying is
"let's not bother about the quality of rugby we watch for eight months of the year in the hope that we win a three or four week competition at the end of a mediocre season".
How would our good players become better in a scenario where they are not regularly tested? If the top players went South, teams such as Wigan, Saints and Leeds would be brought down to the level of Wakefield, Castleford, Widnes and Salford because of the numbers they would lose.
How would this improve the game as a spectacle and the profile of RL generally?

Please don't take this personally - but I think it is this kind of attitude that holds our game back (the bold bit). No sport other than football (at the top level) can get away with such a club-centric view in this country. Cricket don't, Rugby Union doesn't and all the smaller sports are primarily funded based on participation and ability for international level success. For The sport to gain profile. Yes we need some in Super League, but was Adrian Morley a bigger star when he went or when he came back? Was there more interest in Gareth Ellis before he went or when he said he was coming back? Having our players at the top table (NRL) and preparing them to perform highly in the internationals - that will be shown on BBC now don't forget - will help far more than Wigan running riot in regular season games.

[Kittwazzer]

Club-centric. I like that word!