butt monkey posted:
The point is that Mathers is "recovered" from a serious injury, of which medical opinion has been confirmed.
If he is recovered then why why did we sign him on a contract with a get out clause? The answer is there is a risk he might not hold up to the rigours of the season. If we will do that with Mathers who is already fit, why won't we do it with a player who is still recovering?
Pryce was signed (possibly) as cover when/if he can play. We flew Mathers half-way round the world based on his ability to play. Yet couldn't be arsed to pay £30,000 for Pryce's services from the Bulls. Why the difference? You say that it is unlikely that Wigan would not have given Pryce the same degree of fitness checks as Mathers - yet we still signed him with no apparent details as to when he will be fit to resume.
We have got a player we didn't expect to get who, if he recovers, will be a great addition to the squad. I am sure the club knew what they were doing and why they were doing it. The reason they have not paid the Bulls is because of the doubt about his fitness. If they had paid up you may have a point in that we would have signed and paid for an unfit player. However it looks like we haven't even registered him but basically have first option on him depending on fitness.
If he had the medical - and in their opinion he would be fit sometime this year - why not pay the £30K?
Are you in the habit of coughing up cash before you need to? May as well earn the interest in the bank and pay on the last minute. IL isn't the Bulls charitable benefactor.
If he didn't have the medical and doubts surround that, then is the reason for IL (or whoever) withholding the cash payment. Stands to reason or are you ignoring your own excellent theories/arguments (on the Higham/Newton alleged deal) and logic suggests that not to pay the £30k hints that he was not fully checked prior to his signing.
It says the opposite to me. If he had not been checked out Wigan would have coughed up the money right away as they would have assumed he was fit. Why hold back payment for a player you have signed if you think he is fit and ready to play?
I also don't see any parallels with Newton/Higham. That is an age thing with Newton going to be 30 when Wigan can make a bid (i.e. when Higham's contract is up).
Surely we would have been better off signing someone who could/would actually be available for the full season???? Rather than another player with major doubt over their playing future.
In which case we are back to saying we should not have signed Mathers either because clearly given the nature of his contract there is doubt he will last the course.
The reason we signed these two is that given the circumstances they found themselves in neither could command big money so we got them under our salary cap AND because if they prove their fitness they are a much higher standard of player than that sort of money gets you normally.
It is a gamble but if the gamble on Mathers comes off and the one on Pryce does not, I still think it will have been one worth taking.
I also don't know what sort of player we will get for the money we had left on the salary cap. No one comparable to a fully fit Pryce I would imagine.
If someone had said to you two years ago we were about to sign Mathers from Leeds and Pryce from Bradford it would have been big news and we would be speculating how huge a contract Mo had given them. Now we get them under a very tight salary cap and its a problem?
Any possible replacements will already be assigned to clubs by now and may leave Wigan shorthanded - surely that is wrong?
Pryce is IMO a "bonus" signing who we have been able to get due to a combination of circumstances (same with Mathers).
I'd rather take the risk with Pryce and have him for half a season this year and then be our player beyond than waste money on another Millard type player because IMO that is all we can expect as an alternative.
Dave
We are now doing (in theory) what many player's and their agents have been doing to Wigan for the last 20 years or so.
