WiganWarriorsFans.com

cpwigan wrote:I gives the club a season not to have to make a decision and in the bargain Wigan protect themselves from losing a potentially lucrative investment with protection as to how long they retain him if it ever comes to trading / selling him.

So how did they sell this deal to Hampshire then? With a pack of lies because I am damn well sure he wouldn't sign a contract extension simply so the club can cash in on him. He could end up stuck here while Wigan wait for what they deem to be a suitable offer.

Furthermore if things don't work out for him and he isn't in demand Wigan won't have a lucrative investment but someone on the club's salary cap for two years or someone they will have to pay off (which also counts on the cap).

To borrow phrase from the world of finance, the value of your investment can go down as well as up.

There is absolutely no sensible reason to give any player a three year deal if you don't want to retain the player for your own team.

DaveO wrote:

cpwigan wrote:I gives the club a season not to have to make a decision and in the bargain Wigan protect themselves from losing a potentially lucrative investment with protection as to how long they retain him if it ever comes to trading / selling him.

So how did they sell this deal to Hampshire then? With a pack of lies because I am damn well sure he wouldn't sign a contract extension simply so the club can cash in on him. He could end up stuck here while Wigan wait for what they deem to be a suitable offer.

Furthermore if things don't work out for him and he isn't in demand Wigan won't have a lucrative investment but someone on the club's salary cap for two years or someone they will have to pay off (which also counts on the cap).

To borrow phrase from the world of finance, the value of your investment can go down as well as up.

There is absolutely no sensible reason to give any player a three year deal if you don't want to retain the player for your own team.

One sensible reason would be if you had no option for a shorter contract but we want to take the gamble. Its the same bet, it just costs the club more to get in the game. Weighing up the outcomes if its still worth it you still go for it, it just cost you more than you would have ideally liked.

DaveO wrote:

cpwigan wrote:I gives the club a season not to have to make a decision and in the bargain Wigan protect themselves from losing a potentially lucrative investment with protection as to how long they retain him if it ever comes to trading / selling him.

So how did they sell this deal to Hampshire then? With a pack of lies because I am damn well sure he wouldn't sign a contract extension simply so the club can cash in on him. He could end up stuck here while Wigan wait for what they deem to be a suitable offer.

Furthermore if things don't work out for him and he isn't in demand Wigan won't have a lucrative investment but someone on the club's salary cap for two years or someone they will have to pay off (which also counts on the cap).

To borrow phrase from the world of finance, the value of your investment can go down as well as up.

There is absolutely no sensible reason to give any player a three year deal if you don't want to retain the player for your own team.

Not lying, rather hedging your bets and keeping your options open.

cpwigan wrote:

DaveO wrote:

cpwigan wrote:I gives the club a season not to have to make a decision and in the bargain Wigan protect themselves from losing a potentially lucrative investment with protection as to how long they retain him if it ever comes to trading / selling him.

So how did they sell this deal to Hampshire then? With a pack of lies because I am damn well sure he wouldn't sign a contract extension simply so the club can cash in on him. He could end up stuck here while Wigan wait for what they deem to be a suitable offer.

Furthermore if things don't work out for him and he isn't in demand Wigan won't have a lucrative investment but someone on the club's salary cap for two years or someone they will have to pay off (which also counts on the cap).

To borrow phrase from the world of finance, the value of your investment can go down as well as up.

There is absolutely no sensible reason to give any player a three year deal if you don't want to retain the player for your own team.

Not lying, rather hedging your bets and keeping your options open.

Correct, cpwigan and all hinges on how Smith performs during the remaining years of his contract

cpwigan wrote:An interesting conflict. Coach only sees the player as a fullback. Player sees himself as a halfback and does not want to be considered as a fullback. Player goes out on loan + extends contract which allow the coach to save face too and not be undermined. The big PROVISO is PROVIDED Wigan do well in 2016 and Rocky does not shine at Cas.

Fantastic strategy from IL / KR or egg on face ? Only time will tell.

Interesting but then why sign Sam Tomkins if SW only sees Hampshire as a FB. Can not have it both ways CP.

Here is the Bigger Proviso if Wigan do well and Rocky will you give SW and the club praise on this instead of beating them to death on it. I can guarantee if its goes opposite to how you state it you will be on here.

thegimble wrote:

cpwigan wrote:An interesting conflict. Coach only sees the player as a fullback. Player sees himself as a halfback and does not want to be considered as a fullback. Player goes out on loan + extends contract which allow the coach to save face too and not be undermined. The big PROVISO is PROVIDED Wigan do well in 2016 and Rocky does not shine at Cas.

Fantastic strategy from IL / KR or egg on face ? Only time will tell.

Interesting but then why sign Sam Tomkins if SW only sees Hampshire as a FB. Can not have it both ways CP.

Here is the Bigger Proviso if Wigan do well and Rocky will you give SW and the club praise on this instead of beating them to death on it. I can guarantee if its goes opposite to how you state it you will be on here.

Totally hypothetical as are all such discussions. Perhaps IL and KR rate Rocky much higher than Wane but equally they do not want to undermine / not support their coach so you compromise which IMO is what these moves clearly are.

Smith / Powell are also given time opportunity to show Wane is correct re his faith in them. Jake Shorrock may get a game or two.

Gimble before we signed Sam I think Wane thought Rocky may replace Bowen. Sam signing meant Wane had alternatives and pushed Rocky to reserve FB in his eyes. Rocky has rightly IMO said I am a halfback. I believe IL / KR have by loaning Rocky out / extended his contract agreed with that view but they have not undermined their coach significantly.

Wane IMO is under pressure in 2016 following two barren seasons. IL / KR may disagree but 2016 is a very important year for club / fans. Whatever the spin positive / negative by whomever 2016 needs to deliver silverware.

Problem has been for a while CP some No6 make exceptional FB. Players like Slater, Lockyer and to a degree Inglis have the ability to either break the line or put a player through it. But not all FB are like that. Hence why Rocky was tried and kept when it was obvious he was struggling.

I agree Wane has to win something next season or IL will have a decision to make. Could be in a real dilemma if South's and us struggle. Madge could be available again. But then again we never know until next season is over.

Just glad he signed an extension he just needs to develop at Cas now for me Rocky is under no pressure to do much. But Wane is.

I think you are right about the trend to try to convert all / ever halfbacks to fullbacks. It sometimes works, it sometimes fails.

I think Inglis is a freak. Even as a rookie he played some 6 and has probably played every back line position (I am guessing he played the odd game on the wing at some point) bar scrum half at some point. For me Inglis would be a Golden Boot nomination every season of his playing career.

Whelley Warrior wrote:

cpwigan wrote:

DaveO wrote: So how did they sell this deal to Hampshire then? With a pack of lies because I am damn well sure he wouldn't sign a contract extension simply so the club can cash in on him. He could end up stuck here while Wigan wait for what they deem to be a suitable offer.

Furthermore if things don't work out for him and he isn't in demand Wigan won't have a lucrative investment but someone on the club's salary cap for two years or someone they will have to pay off (which also counts on the cap).

To borrow phrase from the world of finance, the value of your investment can go down as well as up.

There is absolutely no sensible reason to give any player a three year deal if you don't want to retain the player for your own team.

Not lying, rather hedging your bets and keeping your options open.

Correct, cpwigan and all hinges on how Smith performs during the remaining years of his contract

Which is exactly what I said two pages ago

As for DaveO. I know you cannot understand why Wigan brokered this deal. Please give your thoughts why YOU think we did this rather than simply pull apart other posters hypothesis and speculation

I've thought for a while there has been a difference between IL/Rads and Waney over Hampshire.
Listen to IL's Wigan TV interviews and he didn't sound like a Chairman/Owner that shared the same opinion of Hampshire with Shaun W.

The "Frustration of the player and the Club" bit I thought was very revealing. Not only have "The Club" been frustrated by Waney not selecting RH they decided to go public with their differences.

If we go out of the C Cup early yet again next season, then Waney will be under the most intense pressure he will have experienced whilst Head Coach at the Club.