Ian Lenagan and The Salary Cap

[DaveO]

Since his arrival IL has won the LLS twice, Grand Final twice and the Challenge Cup twice.
That is a record better than any other club chairman in that period and is excellent in that it's a spread of all three trophies. He's owned the club for six complete seasons and won a trophy for each of those years.
Wire so far can't win the League and Leeds so far haven't won the C Cup since 1999.
Ian Lenegan works the Salary Cap like the fiddle it is and does it better than any of his counterparts.

Except the evidence says he doesn't.

Unfortunately no one gives a stuff about the LLS and you are being very selective here when mentioning other teams records particularly Leeds who since 2007, the year IL took over, have won the Grand Final five times to our two.

In that time Wire won the CC three times, to our two.

So we have not been the most successful club in either competition since he arrived and Leeds in particular have done much better also winning two World Club championships in that time as well.

And as everyone knows a big difference between us and them is they have managed to keep a settled side throughout keeping some top players at their club while we sell our best ones and chop and change every year.

I hate to say it because I really don't like him but Gary Hethrington is the one who plays the salary cap like a fiddle and he beats IL in this regard by a country mile.

[TrueBlueWarrior]

Sometimes I wonder, if many of the comments swiping at anything to do with the club are actually from Warriors supporters.

This is sensible discussion about IL's attitude to the salary cap and the salary cap itself.

So it isn't "swiping at anything to do with the club" but if you are so sensitive such that you think it is, why read the stuff and stress about? It clearly annoys you so why bother?

Such discussions would also be better minus comments such as yours above which add absolutely nothing to the discussion itself and are just taking a swipe at the people posting in the thread.

I actually agree with you DaveO but I am uncomfortable with you taking the morale high ground when on another sensible thread you said 'Anybody that doesn't think Locke is a quality player is an idiot.' In my opinion that comment added absolutely nothing to that discussion either.

[Wandering Warrior]

Do we need to get personal?
There are a range of perfectly defensible positions, but we are all ultimately Wigan fans. My perspective on some things differs massively from DaveO's, but I know he loves our great club and only wants what's best for it. I am sure all the other posters hold a similar passion.
I happen to think that the good outweighs the bad to a huge degree just now, and am enjoying the ride. That makes me err on the side of optimisim and giving the club a break. But, who's to say whether today's success isn't the result of actions taken a long time ago or luck, and that it could all come crashing down. At least we have many knowledgable and thoughtful fans prepared to keep the club on its toes.
To end where I began, I would think it must be possible to debate without dismissing the opposite view or worse still the poster out of hand.
We're all in it together.

Exactly, so why question other people's credentials in the first place?
I have responded in kind to a contemptuous comment and in a similar vain to you on another post.
I won't lie under a stone just because somebody has the great illusion that they are a better supporter/fan than me or anyone else for that matter.
In fact what defines a supporter?

[Owd Codger]

Sometimes I wonder, if many of the comments swiping at anything to do with the club are actually from Warriors supporters.

This is sensible discussion about IL's attitude to the salary cap and the salary cap itself.

So it isn't "swiping at anything to do with the club" but if you are so sensitive such that you think it is, why read the stuff and stress about? It clearly annoys you so why bother?

Such discussions would also be better minus comments such as yours above which add absolutely nothing to the discussion itself and are just taking a swipe at the people posting in the thread.



A discussion or debate is when you get different opinions which is not the case on many threads including this one as you well know.

And for the record, I do not, as one person has suggested,
agree with everything at the club, but I do have more oil in my can than provide entertainment for supporters of other clubs who visit the website to enjoy seeing some pulling our own club to bits all the time.

Like Kittwazzer, just fed up of seeing the same negativity, day in and day out.

[Owd Codger]

Since his arrival IL has won the LLS twice, Grand Final twice and the Challenge Cup twice.
That is a record better than any other club chairman in that period and is excellent in that it's a spread of all three trophies. He's owned the club for six complete seasons and won a trophy for each of those years.
Wire so far can't win the League and Leeds so far haven't won the C Cup since 1999.
Ian Lenegan works the Salary Cap like the fiddle it is and does it better than any of his counterparts.

Exactly!

[Wigan_forever1985]

Just a thought though, could IL be backing himself into a corner with the approach he has taken?

Young players 17-22ish years old are the least earners in super league I think you would struggle to find any evidence to prove that isn't the case or hasn't been the case for years.

However this has been the case based on the fact they don't play that often and cant command the wage of a "star" player

Are our youth players going to carry on accepting low contracts when they know there are no plans to bring in anyone and they are the "stars" playing most matches

We could end up in a situation where we have players at 17-18 saying "pay me more because I know you need me"

[DaveO]

Sometimes I wonder, if many of the comments swiping at anything to do with the club are actually from Warriors supporters.

This is sensible discussion about IL's attitude to the salary cap and the salary cap itself.

So it isn't "swiping at anything to do with the club" but if you are so sensitive such that you think it is, why read the stuff and stress about? It clearly annoys you so why bother?

Such discussions would also be better minus comments such as yours above which add absolutely nothing to the discussion itself and are just taking a swipe at the people posting in the thread.

I actually agree with you DaveO but I am uncomfortable with you taking the morale high ground when on another sensible thread you said 'Anybody that doesn't think Locke is a quality player is an idiot.' In my opinion that comment added absolutely nothing to that discussion either.

And just what does yours above add to this one? Why didn't you keep comments about that in that thread if you wanted to prolong the indignation? Or are you going to follow me around the threads looking for excuse to mention it?

You are second poster in this thread to derail it with posts about posters not the topic.

[DaveO]

Just a thought though, could IL be backing himself into a corner with the approach he has taken?

Young players 17-22ish years old are the least earners in super league I think you would struggle to find any evidence to prove that isn't the case or hasn't been the case for years.

However this has been the case based on the fact they don't play that often and cant command the wage of a "star" player

Are our youth players going to carry on accepting low contracts when they know there are no plans to bring in anyone and they are the "stars" playing most matches

We could end up in a situation where we have players at 17-18 saying "pay me more because I know you need me"

I think the potential problem is slightly different to what you say.

What we have done is utilised quite a few different young players of a similar age. So we are going to have a lot of young players who will mature at around the same time.

So I don't think its a problem 17 or 18 year olds thinking they can command a high wage but that we will end up with quite a few in their early 20's who just expect to be paid the going rate for a more senior player.

If you have a squad with 30 odd of those in it then it will spread the salary cap much thinner making it hard to compete for any top players that become available or the club will have to release players.

[Wandering Warrior]

Whelley
if you don't like negative comments for fear of what others from other clubs might read, why have the forum in the first place?
Do you want everybody to sit on the picnic blanket eating pink chocolate elephants and drinking lemonade?
People with differing views are a fact of life, unfortunately I don't fall on the happy clappers side of the fence and won't sit there because a bottom ender from Billinge might read my comments!

[Wigan_forever1985]

Just a thought though, could IL be backing himself into a corner with the approach he has taken?

Young players 17-22ish years old are the least earners in super league I think you would struggle to find any evidence to prove that isn't the case or hasn't been the case for years.

However this has been the case based on the fact they don't play that often and cant command the wage of a "star" player

Are our youth players going to carry on accepting low contracts when they know there are no plans to bring in anyone and they are the "stars" playing most matches

We could end up in a situation where we have players at 17-18 saying "pay me more because I know you need me"

I think the potential problem is slightly different to what you say.

What we have done is utilised quite a few different young players of a similar age. So we are going to have a lot of young players who will mature at around the same time.

So I don't think its a problem 17 or 18 year olds thinking they can command a high wage but that we will end up with quite a few in their early 20's who just expect to be paid the going rate for a more senior player.

If you have a squad with 30 odd of those in it then it will spread the salary cap much thinner making it hard to compete for any top players that become available or the club will have to release players.

But aren't we seeing an attitude of once they are worth something sell them, there is always another youngster waiting?, i.e they never get that second contract offered or if they do its of an amount that makes it only an option to stay at Wigan if you never want to play for another team?

that's the impression I get that idea our squad is made up 80% of youth talent augmented with a few either "projects" or solid players from elsewhere