WiganWarriorsFans.com

IL and Whelan are business men and get by with ruthlessness and insulting peoples' intelligence. They both **** in the same pot so it doesn't matter who calls the shots, same circus different ringmaster!!

The only explanation that I would be comfortable with here is if Sam said he wanted to play in the NRL and IFL released him early to play for NZW for two years on the proviso he returns to Wigan after two years.

Any other scenario is damning for IFL (IMHO)

East Stand Faithful wrote:The only explanation that I would be comfortable with here is if Sam said he wanted to play in the NRL and IFL released him early to play for NZW for two years on the proviso he returns to Wigan after two years.

Any other scenario is damning for IFL (IMHO)

Why is that one any better given it would be totally unenforceable?

DaveO wrote:

East Stand Faithful wrote:The only explanation that I would be comfortable with here is if Sam said he wanted to play in the NRL and IFL released him early to play for NZW for two years on the proviso he returns to Wigan after two years.

Any other scenario is damning for IFL (IMHO)

Why is that one any better given it would be totally unenforceable?

DaveO yes you may be right it might not be enforceable. I wouldn't say it is impossible though. Surely if he signed a new 5 year deal with Wigan on the basis he was loaned out for 2 years that would work?

Whelley Warrior wrote:Perhaps some would like to go back to the days of the club being owned by Uncle Dave.

Just a observation!

Whilst DW owned the Warriors he was not running the club. He put his money in the club but left it to Maurice Lindsay to run. Whilst he took care of his first love The Latics which i do not blame him for.

When we got in the mire he dipped into his own pocket and got Fielden in. Problem with DW was he did not run us so when we got into real trouble it cost him a fair bob to get us out of it. IL needs to realise youths are not always the answer. We got 5-6 exceptional young players coming through but its too soon for them to take over from the likes of Sam Tomkins, Pat Richards, Lee Mossop etc and thats without the lose of George Carmont who we have not replaced with a half decent player never mind a player of equal ability.

I am not saying IL is a bad owner but he is too much Spin never mind how he does it the announcement of Sam going to NZW will be a kick in the balls for us all (apart from the Ladies ofc). He is too much of a believer in a young player will replace an international class player and that does not always work. Though sometime signings too can go wrong as we have seen with Lauaki for example.

If we got into trouble next season and relegation reared its ugly head would he pay half a million, get a quality stand off in and the best British Coach in SL history. This is the issue i see with him he has changed other teams perception of Wigan Warriors we are no longer ridiculed as under achievers or a side that breaks the cap and that he has to be commended on. But and here is the problem for me and a few more i think he is trying to achieve the impossible for me a team that has come through the youth system. Though he has got in Smith, Green, Pettybourne, Hopkins, Powell etc none of them are adequate for what we are losing. We do have Ryan Hampshire coming through and he for me will be a top class 6 in the next 2 years.

As for would i want DW as an owner.

YES but with IL running it with DW's money.

Whelan puts his money in / IL will not. No brainer for me.

East Stand Faithful wrote:

DaveO wrote:

East Stand Faithful wrote:The only explanation that I would be comfortable with here is if Sam said he wanted to play in the NRL and IFL released him early to play for NZW for two years on the proviso he returns to Wigan after two years.

Any other scenario is damning for IFL (IMHO)

Why is that one any better given it would be totally unenforceable?

DaveO yes you may be right it might not be enforceable. I wouldn't say it is impossible though. Surely if he signed a new 5 year deal with Wigan on the basis he was loaned out for 2 years that would work?

I'd be sceptical but never mind me, why would you believe it if he did?

If IL chooses not to enforce his current deal with its special clauses to keep him here for three years, how can we expect deals like that you suggest to be stuck to?

DaveO wrote:

East Stand Faithful wrote:

DaveO wrote: Why is that one any better given it would be totally unenforceable?

DaveO yes you may be right it might not be enforceable. I wouldn't say it is impossible though. Surely if he signed a new 5 year deal with Wigan on the basis he was loaned out for 2 years that would work?

I'd be sceptical but never mind me, why would you believe it if he did?

If IL chooses not to enforce his current deal with its special clauses to keep him here for three years, how can we expect deals like that you suggest to be stuck to?

Well I don't think anyone really understands what IFL is up to so I guess we will have to wait and see.

cpwigan wrote:Whelan puts his money in / IL will not. No brainer for me.

Did he not stump up for Taylor?

Fujiman wrote:

cpwigan wrote:Whelan puts his money in / IL will not. No brainer for me.

Did he not stump up for Taylor?

He stumped up for Taylor, Smith and Green but if you take the money we got for Joel Tomkins i would be surprised if the 3 cost as much. Smith was minimal i believe due to the amount left on his contract. Point i was trying to make i can not see IL doing a DW and sign a big star with a big fee. TBH i think that Fielden is the last major transfer fee we will see in SL unless there is a drastic change. Tbh IL seems to go the other way and wants to sell our stars.