WiganWarriorsFans.com

Just an idea, but what about Phil Bailey at Centre with Roberts, and Gleeson with Pat? He has played there for us in the part, and for Cronula.

dont think thats gonna work with bailey there. people are complaining that goulding never passes but i think we have found a guy in bailey who passes even less than dennis betts did!!!! but im not knocking bailey, he is a good defensive second rower.

Bailey IMO didn't work as a centre.
Goulding, would I expect him to wait two years for a first team place? No, I wouldn't give him a place as he isn't good enough. If he isn't quick enough to play on the wing, he's surely no good as a centre? A centre must be able to play at the pace of a winger, otherwise he will always be having the winger he's supposed to be supporting over running the pass or having to check to allow the centre to keep up.
Keep George, lose Goulding.

This is quite a simple fact - Wigan want to offer George a one year deal - he wants two. Unless one relents then George is "on his way". The only real surprise was the one year deal for Bailey who will struggle to be fit for the most part of next season.

Players come and players go - who knows if one of the possible signings hinted at by IL when appointing Madge could be that of an overseas prop maybe (a more important position that IS weak & needs strengthening) that preemts all this "two year deal for George" talk.

Wigan do have, despite opinions that he is greedy, a ready made replacement in Goulding, who's form prior to injury (both in his return for Wigan and during his spell at Salford) was good. Maybe everyone's reaction's might be more divided if put this way:- Wigan move for a 33 year old Aussie winger who will be able to catch a high ball, yet will guarantee Ainscouch "moving on" for lack of opportunity.

Why sign any juniors and then offer the chance for progressing within the club's first team (as has been done with the coaching change) if at the first opportunity everyone demands that a player in the twilight of his career is given "over the odds" as regards length of contract time!

butt monkey wrote:This is quite a simple fact - Wigan want to offer George a one year deal - he wants two. Unless one relents then George is "on his way". The only real surprise was the one year deal for Bailey who will struggle to be fit for the most part of next season.

Bailey one year deal is a far greater gamble than giving George a two year deal. Wigan had the chance to activate the option for one more year on George's contract and missed the deadline (if the rumours are to be believed). Understandably George is keen to maximise his earning potential and after the service that he has given us over the last two years; I think that we should.

In an earlier post; you stated that George hasn't been as good as last year. Well this partly because for a large part of the season he has been the club's only attacking centre. He is joint second highest try scorer and his winger is the club's highest try scorer - so he can't have had that bad a year. Furthermore, he made the dream team last year and was very unlucky not to do so this year - as IMO he has been far better than Gidley.

butt monkey wrote: Players come and players go - who knows if one of the possible signings hinted at by IL when appointing Madge could be that of an overseas prop maybe (a more important position that IS weak & needs strengthening) that preemts all this "two year deal for George" talk.

Possible signings? Do you honestly think that we have the room to sign a high profile prop? Even if we did, we will have at least 5 props for next year. How many centres will we have? Minus George, we have Gleeson (who has yet to settle), Bailey who will probably miss a large part of the season with his current injury and juniors; one of which may not be up to the task and the other who has yet to play in the first team.

Why should we bring in another overseas player that might be a disappointment (ala Roberts) when we have a proven player already. It's not like George is going to be drawing a pension at the end of his contract; he'll still be younger than Senior - who just won a grand final medal.

butt monkey wrote: Wigan do have, despite opinions that he is greedy, a ready made replacement in Goulding, who's form prior to injury (both in his return for Wigan and during his spell at Salford) was good. Maybe everyone's reaction's might be more divided if put this way:- Wigan move for a 33 year old Aussie winger who will be able to catch a high ball, yet will guarantee Ainscouch "moving on" for lack of opportunity.

Whilst Goulding's form for Salford and on his return here was acceptable; he was not as good as George and he has yet to show that he can do the job fulltime. To me he looks like being the next Aspinall.

Comparing Roberts and Ainscough is not the same. Ainscough has outplayed Roberts when given the chance. Goulding has not. According to that theory we should have got rid of Rads and kept Briscoe!

butt monkey wrote: Why sign any juniors and then offer the chance for progressing within the club's first team (as has been done with the coaching change) if at the first opportunity everyone demands that a player in the twilight of his career is given "over the odds" as regards length of contract time!

We're talking about an extra year - not a decade! As I have repeatedly stated; it is highly likely that George will play less games in his second year so that a youngster can get more experience without having the pressure of playing every week. With Gleeson tied to the club; it is highly likely that either Goulding or Thornly will move on anyway.

The reason that everyone is "demanding" that George be given the contract he has asked for; is because they recognise his importance to the team. And letting him walk away for what is probably chicken feed compared to what we pay Roberts, Gleeson etc etc is lunacy.

If the club feels so strongly that he won't be fit for another year; then improve the terms of the one year contract.

Matthew wrote:

butt monkey wrote:This is quite a simple fact - Wigan want to offer George a one year deal - he wants two. Unless one relents then George is "on his way". The only real surprise was the one year deal for Bailey who will struggle to be fit for the most part of next season.

Bailey one year deal is a far greater gamble than giving George a two year deal. Wigan had the chance to activate the option for one more year on George's contract and missed the deadline (if the rumours are to be believed). Understandably George is keen to maximise his earning potential and after the service that he has given us over the last two years; I think that we should.

In an earlier post; you stated that George hasn't been as good as last year. Well this partly because for a large part of the season he has been the club's only attacking centre. He is joint second highest try scorer and his winger is the club's highest try scorer - so he can't have had that bad a year. Furthermore, he made the dream team last year and was very unlucky not to do so this year - as IMO he has been far better than Gidley.

butt monkey wrote: Players come and players go - who knows if one of the possible signings hinted at by IL when appointing Madge could be that of an overseas prop maybe (a more important position that IS weak & needs strengthening) that preemts all this "two year deal for George" talk.

Possible signings? Do you honestly think that we have the room to sign a high profile prop? Even if we did, we will have at least 5 props for next year. How many centres will we have? Minus George, we have Gleeson (who has yet to settle), Bailey who will probably miss a large part of the season with his current injury and juniors; one of which may not be up to the task and the other who has yet to play in the first team.

Why should we bring in another overseas player that might be a disappointment (ala Roberts) when we have a proven player already. It's not like George is going to be drawing a pension at the end of his contract; he'll still be younger than Senior - who just won a grand final medal.

butt monkey wrote: Wigan do have, despite opinions that he is greedy, a ready made replacement in Goulding, who's form prior to injury (both in his return for Wigan and during his spell at Salford) was good. Maybe everyone's reaction's might be more divided if put this way:- Wigan move for a 33 year old Aussie winger who will be able to catch a high ball, yet will guarantee Ainscouch "moving on" for lack of opportunity.

Whilst Goulding's form for Salford and on his return here was acceptable; he was not as good as George and he has yet to show that he can do the job fulltime. To me he looks like being the next Aspinall.

Comparing Roberts and Ainscough is not the same. Ainscough has outplayed Roberts when given the chance. Goulding has not. According to that theory we should have got rid of Rads and kept Briscoe!

butt monkey wrote: Why sign any juniors and then offer the chance for progressing within the club's first team (as has been done with the coaching change) if at the first opportunity everyone demands that a player in the twilight of his career is given "over the odds" as regards length of contract time!

We're talking about an extra year - not a decade! As I have repeatedly stated; it is highly likely that George will play less games in his second year so that a youngster can get more experience without having the pressure of playing every week. With Gleeson tied to the club; it is highly likely that either Goulding or Thornly will move on anyway.

The reason that everyone is "demanding" that George be given the contract he has asked for; is because they recognise his importance to the team. And letting him walk away for what is probably chicken feed compared to what we pay Roberts, Gleeson etc etc is lunacy.

If the club feels so strongly that he won't be fit for another year; then improve the terms of the one year contract.

Not really wanting to read into your post (nothing personal)

George joined the Warriors in 2008 on a two year deal after spending three years with the Newcastle Knights Club in the NRL. His 2009 deal was amended in October after a great season and also now has an option for 2010.

http://www.wiganwarriors.com/SquadMembe ... d=1&id=269

George "played" the club at the end of last season and got the extension offer HE wanted at THAT time for the upgrade in money. Now he wants to move the goalposts again!!! Wigan have had better and more professional (off the field) he is trying to cancel the option that the club has (second time now) and is blackmailing the club into giving another upgrade Wigan (or IL) doesn't feel he warrants!

butt monkey wrote: Not really wanting to read into your post (nothing personal)

George joined the Warriors in 2008 on a two year deal after spending three years with the Newcastle Knights Club in the NRL. His 2009 deal was amended in October after a great season and also now has an option for 2010.

http://www.wiganwarriors.com/SquadMembe ... d=1&id=269

George "played" the club at the end of last season and got the extension offer HE wanted at THAT time for the upgrade in money. Now he wants to move the goalposts again!!! Wigan have had better and more professional (off the field) he is trying to cancel the option that the club has (second time now) and is blackmailing the club into giving another upgrade Wigan (or IL) doesn't feel he warrants!

The reason that George's deal was amended was because even IL said that it was too little and I doubt that they threw another 50K at him. One figure that I heard was that he was on 20K a year!

This season, George has again proved his skill and commitment to the club and wants a contract that he feels reflects his input and gives him a little security - again I doubt that he is asking for Fielden's money here.

I think it's funny that after saying we should let him go; you now accuse him of "blackmailing" the club. If the club doesn't need him; then they wouldn't even be discussing it with him.

It is alledged that the club missed the deadline to activate the option on the contract - who's fault is that? Should George just bend over and take it; because the club can't get it's affairs in order? Agents are playing clubs off against each other at the moment to get the best deal they can for the players and in the world of the salary cap; players would be stupid not to.

Considering the players at the club that are either stealing a living; or who put in extra effort approaching contract time; I think that it is a bit unfair to accuse George; considering his effort, consistency and willingness to put his body on the line week in, week out of "blackmail".

You say that "Wigan have had better and more professional" and I would be intersted to know who has been a better centre at Wigan than George has been in the last ten years?

Ok for the DaveO type response you seem eager to give me!

Matthew wrote:

butt monkey wrote: Not really wanting to read into your post (nothing personal)

George joined the Warriors in 2008 on a two year deal after spending three years with the Newcastle Knights Club in the NRL. His 2009 deal was amended in October after a great season and also now has an option for 2010.

http://www.wiganwarriors.com/SquadMembe ... d=1&id=269

George "played" the club at the end of last season and got the extension offer HE wanted at THAT time for the upgrade in money. Now he wants to move the goalposts again!!! Wigan have had better and more professional (off the field) he is trying to cancel the option that the club has (second time now) and is blackmailing the club into giving another upgrade Wigan (or IL) doesn't feel he warrants!

The reason that George's deal was amended was because even IL said that it was too little and I doubt that they threw another 50K at him. One figure that I heard was that he was on 20K a year!

Do you know what improvement in contract he received? Neither do I, yet AT THAT TIME George was more than happy to sign the one year deal with an option, why no longer term deal at that time when he was in a better bargaining position?? His choice - end of!

Matthew wrote:
This season, George has again proved his skill and commitment to the club and wants a contract that he feels reflects his input and gives him a little security - again I doubt that he is asking for Fielden's money here.

Did I say he was asking for Fielden's money, just an extension that placed problems on the club re the quota!!!!? Read the response above also.

Matthew wrote:I think it's funny that after saying we should let him go; you now accuse him of "blackmailing" the club. If the club doesn't need him; then they wouldn't even be discussing it with him.

Are they discussing it with him?

Surely to try and amend/alter contract conditions after an agreement between both parties is blackmail! This is what happened last year irrespective of how well he played and how little he was on - he was not forced to move to the other side of the World - it was ultimately his choice for the money on offer, the Club had no reason to offer the upgrade but to respond/recognize how well he had actually performed last season. If (as we read) that Calderwood & Pryce exercised the option on their contracts - do you not think it unusual that George did not have the same option or did he just want to alter it (again)? Why did he have to wait for Wigan to offer the option when the agreement would have already been in the player's favour to either accept or leave?

Matthew wrote: It is alledged that the club missed the deadline to activate the option on the contract - who's fault is that? Should George just bend over and take it; because the club can't get it's affairs in order? Agents are playing clubs off against each other at the moment to get the best deal they can for the players and in the world of the salary cap; players would be stupid not to.

So you agree that George "might" be being mercinary about this then? With the dreaded word blackmail!

Matthew wrote: Considering the players at the club that are either stealing a living; or who put in extra effort approaching contract time; I think that it is a bit unfair to accuse George; considering his effort, consistency and willingness to put his body on the line week in, week out of "blackmail".

What other players do at the club is immaterial. They will suffer the consequences when their contracts come for renewal. As for George, his form, especially early season was not good. Take off the rose tinted glasses.

Matthew wrote: You say that "Wigan have had better and more professional" and I would be intersted to know who has been a better centre at Wigan than George has been in the last ten years?

The bit that really riled me. I do not mind being quoted or pulled apart in any comments I make. I DO NOT like them being edited to make them appear contrary to what I said!! This should not be beneath you Matthew. I said

Wigan have had better and more professional (off the field)

Am I telling the truth?? Did you deliberately edit my post to cause mischief?

butt monkey wrote: Do you know what improvement in contract he received? Neither do I, yet AT THAT TIME George was more than happy to sign the one year deal with an option, why no longer term deal at that time when he was in a better bargaining position?? His choice - end of!

I never suggested that I knew what the improvement was. But considering IL's desire for the club to support itself and the fact that we couldn't fit anyone else under the cap I can't believe that it brought him in line with the other senior players.

Are you suggesting that George knew that he wouldn't get an extension for 2011 at that point? Considering that we didn't have Gleeson at the time and we didn't have any young players good enough to play in the team full time.

The fact that George is now in a better bargaining position is allegedly because the club missed the deadline to take up the option - who's fault is that?

If the club definitely didn't want to keep him beyond 2010 then they should have just tied him to the contract for 2010 instead of making it an option. They could have then got rid of him at the end of the 2010 season. I suggest that the reason that they didn't do that was because they weren't sure (as they are now) that he would still be playing at the same standard by the end of 2009 and they hoped that Goulding would have improved; so their current negotiating position is their own fault.

butt monkey wrote:
Did I say he was asking for Fielden's money, just an extension that placed problems on the club re the quota!!!!? Read the response above also.

I made reference to Fielden to put in perspective the likely amount of money we are talking about. As for the quota; I was under the impression that because he signed for the club before the latest quota rules were introduced that at the end of his contract he wouldn't be counted (maybe DaveO can answer that?)

butt monkey wrote:
Are they discussing it with him?

Surely to try and amend/alter contract conditions after an agreement between both parties is blackmail! This is what happened last year irrespective of how well he played and how little he was on - he was not forced to move to the other side of the World - it was ultimately his choice for the money on offer, the Club had no reason to offer the upgrade but to respond/recognize how well he had actually performed last season. If (as we read) that Calderwood & Pryce exercised the option on their contracts - do you not think it unusual that George did not have the same option or did he just want to alter it (again)? Why did he have to wait for Wigan to offer the option when the agreement would have already been in the player's favour to either accept or leave?

If there was a current valid contract between the club and George; then they could hold him to it - as to break it would be illegal. If the club had an option on George and had activated it; then he would be tied to the club and he wouldn't be able to re-negotiate. The option was either not written in by the club - their fault. Or they missed the deadline - again their fault. All George is doing is trying to get the best deal for himself and his family - just like every other player in the league.

butt monkey wrote: What other players do at the club is immaterial. They will suffer the consequences when their contracts come for renewal. As for George, his form, especially early season was not good. Take off the rose tinted glasses.

Very few players are at the top of their game all season long. On the balance of things George has had two very good seasons. If the club didn't agree then they would not be interested in retaining him.

Out of a matter of interest - who do you think has had a better season than George?

butt monkey wrote: The bit that really riled me. I do not mind being quoted or pulled apart in any comments I make. I DO NOT like them being edited to make them appear contrary to what I said!! This should not be beneath you Matthew. I said

Wigan have had better and more professional (off the field)

Am I telling the truth?? Did you deliberately edit my post to cause mischief?

I did - largely to put a point on how good it has been to finally have a centre at the club who can make the most of our wingers - and also because I love a good debate, feel strongly that we should retain a player who I think is our best centre since Renouf - and because this debate is far more interesting than a lot of the topics that have appeared on here recently.

Whatever you may feel about how George is trying to make the most of the remainder of his career; it shouldn't detract from the basic fact that a) we need him next year and b) he will be useful back up for 2011. He could of course get a season ending injury in the first match of 2011; however that is the risk in professional sport.

As regards:

butt monkey wrote: Wigan have had better and more professional (off the field)

I don't think that is very fair either - especially considering how we have Martin Offiah in the media saying that Eastmond should "establish himself in League before moving to union" and that "Saints to show faith in him. He's going to have options without a doubt but hopefully he won't need to worry about it." which is a blatant attempt to get saints to offer him a mega contract asap.

As far as I am aware; apart from a bit of rumour-mongering by the usual sources; the discussions have taken place behind closed doors; it's not like George is proclaiming to all and sundry that he is going to leave if Wigan don't give him what he wants

butt monkey wrote: Surely to try and amend/alter contract conditions after an agreement between both parties is blackmail! This is what happened last year irrespective of how well he played and how little he was on - he was not forced to move to the other side of the World - it was ultimately his choice for the money on offer, the Club had no reason to offer the upgrade but to respond/recognize how well he had actually performed last season.

Yes it did. He was out of contract and had offers including to go an play RU in France if I recall correctly. Wigan therefore had to offer him a competitive wage if they wanted to retain his services, which they wanted to do and so went on to offer a better wage for 2009 and the option to play for the club in 2010.

This was not blackmail on his part it was doing what all players have to do when out of contract which is maximise their wages in a short career. No player has to move to the other side of the world but now he is here living in this country I fail to see what that had to do with it. He got a deal with the club the same way any player gets a deal with any club.

If (as we read) that Calderwood & Pryce exercised the option on their contracts - do you not think it unusual that George did not have the same option or did he just want to alter it (again)? Why did he have to wait for Wigan to offer the option when the agreement would have already been in the player's favour to either accept or leave?

A number of contracts were agreed where the option was in favour of the club only. Phelps got one of these and they mean if the club wants the player to stay the player must stay but if the club wants them to leave then there is nothing the player can do about it.

Calderwoods and Pryces contracts were agreed much earlier with Calderwoods being pre IL for example. I don't think the club gives out options on contracts that either party can exercise any more. The options are always in favour of the club (quite right too). I am virtually certain both Phelps and Carmont had such contracts where it was just the club who held the option, not them.

If the club has missed the option date on Carmont's contract as rumoured then all bets are off.

Matthew wrote: It is alledged that the club missed the deadline to activate the option on the contract - who's fault is that? Should George just bend over and take it; because the club can't get it's affairs in order? Agents are playing clubs off against each other at the moment to get the best deal they can for the players and in the world of the salary cap; players would be stupid not to.

So you agree that George "might" be being mercinary about this then? With the dreaded word blackmail!

He isn't being a mercenary at all and he certainly isn't blackmailing anyone. He is just doing what he and any other player does when they are out of contract, negotiates a new one!

What you don't seem to get is that he is out of contract. A free agent. If Wigan want to sign him then they have to reach agreement as if he was any other out of contract player.

If they missed a deadline that they could have forced him to sign for one year only it is no use accusing the player of blackmail or being unprofessional. As I said he is a free agent and Wigan must now negotiate with him as such.

Matthew wrote: You say that "Wigan have had better and more professional" and I would be intersted to know who has been a better centre at Wigan than George has been in the last ten years?

The bit that really riled me. I do not mind being quoted or pulled apart in any comments I make. I DO NOT like them being edited to make them appear contrary to what I said!! This should not be beneath you Matthew. I said

Wigan have had better and more professional (off the field)

Am I telling the truth?? Did you deliberately edit my post to cause mischief?

So you mean you consider his behavior off the field over his contract unprofessional? If so it clearly is not. He is out of contract so is free to negotiate and that is all there is too it. He owes the club no obligation to accept a one year deal if the club missed a deadline to force him to sign one. He has met his obligations as player far more than virtually any of our squad you care to name so to accuse him of being unprofessional off-field due to his desire to negotiate a new deal (as all out of contract players do) is IMO ridiculous.

If Wigan don't want him for two years they will let him leave but I think we will be worse off if we do. Having read Matthews posts I think the point he makes is the real difference in position is that what he wants is only one year longer then the club originally envisaged means the club should give him the two years.

You won't sign anyone else any good for less than two years anyway so if the club let him leave then the only sensible option would be to play Goulding and/or Thornley and neither are up to Georges standard.

The people you should be having a go at for unprofessionalism are the idiots at the club who messed about and missed the deadline (assuming that is what happened). Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they were planning on letting him go, missed the date they could force him to stay but now realise he is actually a rather important player to the team!

Dave