Page 2 of 9
Re: Carney will not be lea...
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:10 am
by GazzL82
had a thought last night is carney leaving cos they've got nicer seats in the stands in Oz???
Re: Carney will not be lea...
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 10:36 am
by jinkin jimmy
DaveO posted:
proud_pie_eater posted:
Although all Brian Carney wants to do at the end of the season is leave and go to Oz, Mo isnt going to let him, yet. He has told Brian that he has to honour his contract until the end of 2006 and he will not be selling him to an Australian club. I think its slightly unfair to the poor lad because thats all he wants to do, but I also think its a stupid idea of Mo's, if Brian isnt enjoyimg his time at Wigan anymore and he wants to be somewhere else he wont play well (when hes fit to be on the field that is) and he wont half be as good as he can be.
Sorry but I just can't believe I am reading this.
RL is now a professional game and the Bosman ruling has set the scene for how players are employed by clubs.
What this means is clubs sign players on contracts, which the player enters into freely and at the end of the contract the player is free agent.
The free agent status came about because of the Bosman ruling and is to the players advantage.
While they are under contract they are well paid expected to honour it. That is their part of the deal.
Mo is quite right on this and as to Carney being unhappy he hasn't shown any signs of it when on TV.
He will loose the ambition and pride that he has once had for Wigan and, as anyone would, he will try to get back at Lindsey for not letting him leave.
As anyoine would? Why do you assume he would be as petty as that? Like I said before RL is professional now and it doesn't just means players are full time. It means they have to do the best for their clubs. Any player who was seen to be swinging the lead or with an attitude problem would find it hard to attract another clubs interest.
Canrey's best option is to do his best for Wigan so when his contract is up in 2006 he either gets another deal here (if he wants it) or can get one somewhere else. If he is too old for the NRL by then well he should not have signed a contract with Wigan in the first place if that is what he wants now. He knew when he signed it how old he'd be when he left.
Although I do think its a bit harsh to say that because if he loves playing rugby, he will always strive to play his best, there are loads of different senarios!
Exactly. He does not come across as not trying or not having passion for the club.
As to those who said we should cash in, what for? If he remains the player he is now we get his services for the duration of his contract. If he has lost something by next season then no one will buy him anyway and in any case, according to Mo, we didn't need the money when we sold Farrell and would rather have kept the player. The same applies here and I only wish Mo had been as keen on enforcing Farrell's contract as he seems to be Carney's.
Dave
Spot on analysis as usual Dave. In a nutshell, Carney comes across as honourable and professional. He will obviously make the best decisions for Brian Carney first and foremost but I'm sure he will stick to his side of whatever bargain he strikes.
Personally, I hope he signs for us for 2 more years. If not, a part of me wants him to stay in the British game. I agree we would not like playing against him but he is articulate and intelligent and can actively promote RL in this country.
Re: Carney will not be lea...
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 10:56 am
by Fraggle
There's a lot of talk on here of cashing in on Carney, getting rid before the end of his contract. Am I mistaken, or is this something new since the Farrell debacle? We never used to talk about cashing in players, it was always assumed players see out their contracts, they either get a new one or they leave for nothing (unless they fall into the age category where transfer fees were still used - under 23?) and someone new comes in. Other players have gone mid-contract and we've never received fees for them (O'Neill), but with Faz changing sports (note that is different to changing clubs within the same sport) then we're suddenly talking about getting money for players. Are we suddenly becoming soccer, where players are business commodities to be bought and sold on a whim regardless of what they bring to a team? Ok, so the constant transfer speculation which, to me, blights that inferior sport keeps the newspapers entertained and gives them an excuse to fill their pages with soccer even on those 3 or 4 days a year when there are no matches, but do we want to see all that in RL? And what's the guarantee that any other club would want to pay for our players anyway, when they know they can get them for free by waiting a year? We've just made our first profit for many years, I suspect there are plenty of other clubs who would like to be in profit and by buying and selling players we're not really going to help the financial state of our clubs. It's worth noting that the constant trading of players in soccer means that the majority if not virtually all professional soccer clubs have debts. I'd rather not see players being traded and contracts being cashed in regularly if it means our sport getting into the financial mess that soccer is in.
Re: Carney will not be lea...
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 10:58 am
by we_need_a_coach
:conf: Sorry DaveO but I can't agree with you on this one, from whats been reported so far, Carney will go to Souths this year, I don't believe MO has the clout any more to refuse him (aka Farrell).
If he wants to go, let him ! It will free up a place in the squad and money, for when someone comes available.
Anyway, whats the chane of him playing back to back matches this season ?
Re: Carney will not be lea...
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:00 pm
by DaveO
we_need_a_coach posted:
:conf: Sorry DaveO but I can't agree with you on this one, from whats been reported so far, Carney will go to Souths this year, I don't believe MO has the clout any more to refuse him (aka Farrell).
He has the right to refuse Carney and he had the right to refuse Farrell. The fact he chose not to with Farrell was a mistake IMO but comparing the situations doesn't really hold water. Farrell was here for 14 years and that was the reason given for Mo letting him go. Carney is not in that situation.
If he wants to go, let him ! It will free up a place in the squad and money, for when someone comes available.
You can't run a team like that. The club offers contracts to players because it wants them for X years not X years minus 1. You have to plan how your squad develops and letting players leave early will scupper that.
The fact we can't replace Farrell shows letting quality go has a detrimental effect on the side. To repeat the mistake with Carney would be doubly stupid IMO.
All this "if he wants to go let him" misses the point completely IMO. The nature of the game is as I said previously professional with all that this entails. That means players seeing out contracts, simple as that. The vast majority do just that as well.
Anyway, whats the chane of him playing back to back matches this season ?
What chance next season of Hock and O'Loughlin recovering from their injuries? Should we seel them as well on the off chance they may not be the same again? As soon as someone is injured we seem to label them as a crock and ready for the knackers yard. The speed with which Farrell was written off as a player when his transfer speculation started was laughable. He went from MoS, Golden Boot winner to crock overnight.
Dave
Re: Carney will not be lea...
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:15 pm
by Fraggle
we_need_a_coach posted:
If he wants to go, let him ! It will free up a place in the squad and money, for when someone comes available.
Perhaps you could use your crystal ball to tell us who's going to be available as a replacement and when? 2007? 2010? We've already got money to bring someone here next year with Farrell's release (and the profit announced by Chairman Mo this week) but there still needs to be a player of suitable quality available to come here. Otherwise if there's no-one available until the year after or after that then it's ridiculous to suggest letting him go ahead of his contract expiring.
Re: Carney will not be lea...
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:21 pm
by we_need_a_coach
£200000 for Farrell, and £110000 profit, before tax.
So who are we going to buy with this magnificent war chest...perhaps we could persuade Robinson to come back ?
Do you think DW will give us any more now that Latics are on the verge of the Premiership.
Re: Carney will not be lea...
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:29 pm
by Fraggle
we_need_a_coach posted:
£200000 for Farrell, and £110000 profit, before tax.
So who are we going to buy with this magnificent war chest...perhaps we could persuade Robinson to come back ?
Do you think DW will give us any more now that Latics are on the verge of the Premiership.
If we use all that "magnificant war chest" of £300k on just one player then we're going to struggle to get 17 players under the salary cap. This isn't soccer, we don't give out multi-million pound contracts.
Re: Carney will not be lea...
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:44 pm
by we_need_a_coach
Farrell ??? Radlinski ???
Re: Carney will not be lea...
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:59 pm
by Fraggle
we_need_a_coach posted:
Farrell ??? Radlinski ???
Don't know Rads' salary, but Farrell's was well publicised as £1m over 6 years = £166,666/year. Not £300000/year. His reported salary in Union is something like £250,000. Not £300000/year.
£200000 for Farrell, and £110000 profit, before tax.