thomo wrote:I might be missing the point here but of Hock's wages are going to cover Gleeson's salary then what would have happened in 2010 if Hock has still been here - would we have been over the cap - or was the plan to let Bailey go and now Hock has gone we can keep Bailey.
You can't be over the cap anymore as it is "live" and so all the wages of each player you register get totted up and you can't sign anyone if you would breach the cap.
So I suspect if Hock were still here the upgrades to the junior players wages would be much less and Bailey would definitely be off. We may also not have retained Phelps or Coley.
Could we not sign a prop on a similar deal to Gleeson - three year deal - heavily loaded to pay him in the later two years of his contract - ie when Fielden has gone.
We could (it isn't renegotiating and deferring wages as we did previously and got done for). Since we have been prepared to do it with Gleeson I presume the reason why we don''t do it again is if we have both Gleeson and a prop with most of their wages loaded to back end of their contracts we end up in the same situation as we are now for those years - a couple of players taking up too large a chunk of the cap.
I also am thinking Bailey on a 1 year deal for 2010 then Hock back in 2011
Don't think we need Bailey despite Hocks loss. We need to take the opportunity to promote some of the younger players.
Surely the chances of Bailey being resigned are greatly reduced now he has ruptured his achilles?
Depending on the severity of the injury; he may not be able to play until after the start of next season and with Joel Tomkins and (hopefully) Flannigan able to play second row; there is less need for him.
"And Martin Offiah, trying to make some space, now then..." - Ray French, Wembley 1994
------------------------------------------------
Interviewer: So that obviously means that you're not going to St Helens and you're not going to Leeds?
Frano: I don't know why I would ever want to go to St Helens or Leeds
------------------------------------------------
Matthew wrote:Surely the chances of Bailey being resigned are greatly reduced now he has ruptured his achilles?
Depending on the severity of the injury; he may not be able to play until after the start of next season and with Joel Tomkins and (hopefully) Flannigan able to play second row; there is less need for him.
Well it seems pretty certain now that Flanagan is going to Wests, so that's one less we've got. My feeling is that Bails will stay for at least another year, maybe two.
Flannagan was decided before he was selected in the first team. His girlfriend/partner is going to Aus so he decided to go too.
Bailey. It would perhaps be high risk in the short term but not to re sign him in the long term may be a great move. His experience is often cited but how much experience does a team need. The captain is locking the pack, Hansen is no rookie. I do not consider Joel T or Prescott as Rookies any more. Riddell, Fielden, Feka are all experienced forwards. So for some experience via Bailey we stall the development of potentially far better players long term such as Mossop and Farrell and Davies.
I believe you're incorrect Eclipse,when Barret was playing for us his experience won us games-choosing the right options near the line etc etc.Your right they do make mistakes but not so many imo.
cpwigan wrote:
Bailey. It would perhaps be high risk in the short term but not to re sign him in the long term may be a great move.
The same injury as DV suffered whilst at Paramatta! He had serious problems with the joint - and make no bones, it is a serious injury. That maybe the best option IS to release Bailey with no guaranteed return date and possible long recuperation needed he may actually play very few games next season.
Excellent point BM. I just keep thinking if we do re sign him and he is fit what does that mean? Hansen / Bailey / Lockers leaving Joel T / Lee Mossop / Liam Farrell to fight for scraps. Flannagan is nobody's fool. One of the reasons he was prepared to go to Aus was because he could not see much opportunity at Wigan.
Exiled Wiganer wrote:Well, I would like to see...
1 - Phelps (he is really coming on, and showing why he was an Aussie junior rep player)
2 - Ainscough (if only Amos' wife allowed him to follow the Barrett path of legging it early)
3 - Gleeson
4 - Carmont
5 - Richards
6 - Sam T
7 - new player (Brough?)
8 - Prescott (Fielden doesn't merit a starting number)
9 - McIllorum (ditto Piggy)
10 - Coley (ditto Feca)
11 - Hansen (has stepped up in Hock's absence, I am beginning to see why DaveO rates him)
12 - Joel T
13 - Lockers
I think that we'll see a couple of new players, and, contrary to the prevailing opinion, I would rather see a very good 7 and 1, as I would back our young forwards to carry on improving.
With no Hock, Bailey or Smith from this year, we ought to have a bit of money to spend, even with Gleeson and improved terms for Sam T and other young uns.
Give us a new coach, and we'll be flying. We'd be top 3 this year but for poor conditioning.
Team selection & poor conditioning has been the nails in our coffin this season.
It has been so refreshing seing the young blood come through and play some damm good Rugby League from the heart.
Keep the young ones in and give more of the reserves a chance too, on selected games. (Effective squad rotation).
