Is it davico time once more

[weststand-rich]

Cruncher posted:

Comparisons with Davico don't cut it. Davico was an essential part of our team-plan for that year, and losing him was a near-catastrophic blow.

I bumped into Maurice Lindsay the week after Davico injured himself at at a London Broncos friendly and Maurice said then that he was going to be released and they had a short notice replacement lined up. What he did say was that it was a real shame because not only he was popular and a real motivator with the lads but he would have been one of Wigans best players that year.

c'est la vie

[- psycho -]

bring back jerry seu seu!

[butt monkey]

DaveO posted:

butt monkey posted:
But with a very small experienced squad and Salary Cap monies used on Pryce, we can still, ill afford to gamble irrespective.

If you don't like this signing you can't be keen on Mathers either IMO. Dave

Totally pointless argument DaveO. Seeing as full medical tests AND second opinions were sought to prove that Mathers' knees are OK. As opposed to "crossing fingers" and hoping that Pryce is a viable option sometime in the future.

[butt monkey]

BTW, I fully hope that Karl DOES make a full recovery, because when fully fit, he should be a fantastic asset.

But as a gamble to cover for a shortage of three-quarters - he doesn't offer much hope at the moment.

As already mentioned, a broken ankle doesn't usually finish a pro-sportsman's career (unless their is more to the injury).

[butt monkey]

Cruncher posted:
If it turns out he's finished, then it's sad - but it didn't cost us a great deal.

Not my point! Read the previous post - then my reply.

It matters not one jot what Wigan pay as far as transfers/salary, only that as far as a small squad is concerned (as Wigan - I hope you admit, have), and we may have signed a player that does nothing to alleviate this problem.

[GeoffN]

butt monkey posted:

DaveO posted:

butt monkey posted:
But with a very small experienced squad and Salary Cap monies used on Pryce, we can still, ill afford to gamble irrespective.

If you don't like this signing you can't be keen on Mathers either IMO. Dave

Totally pointless argument DaveO. Seeing as full medical tests AND second opinions were sought to prove that Mathers' knees are OK. As opposed to "crossing fingers" and hoping that Pryce is a viable option sometime in the future.

there was more than just "crossing fingers" which is why we haven't paid the transfer fee yet.

[butt monkey]

GeoffN posted:

butt monkey posted:

DaveO posted:
If you don't like this signing you can't be keen on Mathers either IMO. Dave

Totally pointless argument DaveO. Seeing as full medical tests AND second opinions were sought to prove that Mathers' knees are OK. As opposed to "crossing fingers" and hoping that Pryce is a viable option sometime in the future.

there was more than just "crossing fingers" which is why we haven't paid the transfer fee yet.

You know what I mean!

[DaveO]

butt monkey posted:

DaveO posted:

butt monkey posted:
But with a very small experienced squad and Salary Cap monies used on Pryce, we can still, ill afford to gamble irrespective.

If you don't like this signing you can't be keen on Mathers either IMO. Dave

Totally pointless argument DaveO. Seeing as full medical tests AND second opinions were sought to prove that Mathers' knees are OK. As opposed to "crossing fingers" and hoping that Pryce is a viable option sometime in the future.

What is a pointless argument is assuming the club are treating Pryce any different than Mathers and didn't seek medical opinion on him. Regardless of medical opinion, Mathers must still prove his fitness. So far so good. So must Pryce. So far not so good.

They were both risky signings and you seem to be arguing the club took great care of the medical with Mathers and ignored it for Pryce which is highly unlikely.

We made both signings because we could get them on the cheap and/or get rid if not up to the job fitness-wise. Given the salary cap constraints we may have picked up two class players for next to nothing. At the moment it looks one out of two may have come off but IMO it's too soon to write off the second.

I don't understand what you have to complain about given the circumstances.

Dave

[GeoffN]

I find myself agreeing with DaveO again, and it's only February! Something is not right.

[butt monkey]

DaveO posted:

butt monkey posted:

DaveO posted:
If you don't like this signing you can't be keen on Mathers either IMO. Dave

Totally pointless argument DaveO. Seeing as full medical tests AND second opinions were sought to prove that Mathers' knees are OK. As opposed to "crossing fingers" and hoping that Pryce is a viable option sometime in the future.

What is a pointless argument is assuming the club are treating Pryce any different than Mathers and didn't seek medical opinion on him. Regardless of medical opinion, Mathers must still prove his fitness. So far so good. So must Pryce. So far not so good.

They were both risky signings and you seem to be arguing the club took great care of the medical with Mathers and ignored it for Pryce which is highly unlikely.

We made both signings because we could get them on the cheap and/or get rid if not up to the job fitness-wise. Given the salary cap constraints we may have picked up two class players for next to nothing. At the moment it looks one out of two may have come off but IMO it's too soon to write off the second.

I don't understand what you have to complain about given the circumstances.

Dave

The point is that Mathers is "recovered" from a serious injury, of which medical opinion has been confirmed.

Pryce was signed (possibly) as cover when/if he can play. We flew Mathers half-way round the world based on his ability to play. Yet couldn't be arsed to pay £30,000 for Pryce's services from the Bulls. Why the difference? You say that it is unlikely that Wigan would not have given Pryce the same degree of fitness checks as Mathers - yet we still signed him with no apparent details as to when he will be fit to resume.

If he had the medical - and in their opinion he would be fit sometime this year - why not pay the £30K? If he didn't have the medical and doubts surround that, then is the reason for IL (or whoever) withholding the cash payment. Stands to reason or are you ignoring your own excellent theories/arguments (on the Higham/Newton alleged deal) and logic suggests that not to pay the £30k hints that he was not fully checked prior to his signing.

Surely we would have been better off signing someone who could/would actually be available for the full season???? Rather than another player with major doubt over their playing future.

Any possible replacements will already be assigned to clubs by now and may leave Wigan shorthanded - surely that is wrong?