WiganWarriorsFans.com

It might not be others are over paid either. Maybe IL does not want to finance 2 Marquees out of his own pockets. If the club is making a loss he faces paying for it. Maybe he does not want to pay ST for example 200-300k a year if he has played less than half the games in the 2 and a bit years he has been back.

Only 2 ways out of it either he stumps up the money of prices go up. ST on this contract does not deserve to be the marquee long term again. Missed about half of last season and about the same the previous season.

As for the replacement it again amazes me that people just as with Wiliams forget that neither were starters for England in the last WC and one of the 2 never made the squad. Which is even funier given the replacement that is been mooted for us was banned from it.

ST is worth 2 years marquee if and its a big if he playes well and plays most of the season. Previous 2 years that has not been the case. 4 years not a hope in hell he should be. So people want him to have a 4 year deal on the basis of what last 7-8 games.

Lets not forget that if rumour is believed, no smoke bout fire, he was out beginning of last season due to his own mischief?

Cherry_Warrior wrote: Maybe the management don't like the way he treats and talks to the younger players in the squad.

Is that a reference to something specific?

Sam is very difficult to negotiate with, it took a lot to get his signature when he returned from the NRL. I believe that Wigan have/will make him an offer but he has made it known that there are other offers on the table. The ball seems to be firmly in IFL/KR's court.

shaunedwardsfan​club​ wrote:Sam is very difficult to negotiate with, it took a lot to get his signature when he returned from the NRL. I believe that Wigan have/will make him an offer but he has made it known that there are other offers on the table. The ball seems to be firmly in IFL/KR's court.

There is no offer. He has already gone, Signed, sealed and delivered. Just trust me.

And yes moto, something specific. Sam is a bit of a bully. He won't be that missed within the squad. That isn't rumour because i know one of the lads he spits his vicious tongue at.

Both of the above statements are correct.

He will be missed.

Surplus to requirements that Tomkins bloke obviously!

DaveO wrote:Surplus to requirements that Tomkins bloke obviously!

That isn't the point though is it? Is a 29 year old worth a 4 year deal on marquee money? The answer is still no from me. That performance was absolute rubbish for 70 mins from Sam and the rest of the team. Thoroughly entertaining last 10 mins when they were forced to play rugby but it's blindingly obvious that no matter how much people want Sam to stay (and i do, but not for what he is asking) that we aren't going to be allowed to play the way we did in the last 10 mins because it would have happened from the kick off. I can not understand why a coach would want to stifle the team and stop them scoring points. I stuck up for Wane last week with the quick play the ball tactics because i like the model. Quick play the balls, fast expansive rugby but it doesn't happen. We get fast play the balls (until Sutton comes on) and then just drive 5 yards up the middle. Kind of defeats the object of what he says. I am just completely baffled.

Cherry_Warrior wrote:

DaveO wrote:Surplus to requirements that Tomkins bloke obviously!

That isn't the point though is it? Is a 29 year old worth a 4 year deal on marquee money?

I think tonight he proved the answer is yes. Last week no Lockers we lose v Cats. This week no Sam, we lose v Leeds.

It may have only been for the last 10 minutes but you tell me if you think Escare would have pulled that off?

These two players bring cool heads and experience. Is he worth the money you ask? Are we playing Monopoly or Rugby League? Is my response.

I agree with the gist of the rest of your post. Correct me if I am wrong but it looks to me you are suggesting when it's a lost cause the players are tossing the Wane play book out of the window?

If so and you want for us to at least have that option then the players we need Lockers to carry on until he is 45 and Sam signed up for another four years. No one else in the side is going to grab the game by the scruff of the neck when the need arises.

Cherry_Warrior wrote:
There is no offer. He has already gone, Signed, sealed and delivered. Just trust me.

And yes moto, something specific. Sam is a bit of a bully. He won't be that missed within the squad. That isn't rumour because i know one of the lads he spits his vicious tongue at.

Both of the above statements are correct.

Well, that matters doesn't it, for the club going forward. But we wouldn't have won tonight without him, of course.