Wigan to sign Gleeson?

[highland convert]

OK we have Gleeson. If we take that as a Gimmie who will lose out on the teamsheet? Bailey is the direct replacable but will it mean a resuffle in the centres immediately prior to ST.H.

[Matthew]

The sun says it will be announced today- £100k and Mathers for Gleeson.

I find it hard to believe that I.L. has parted with £100k of his cold hard cash!!!

He must have got the message that he needs to improve the team to keep merchandise and ticket sales going up- shame he won't cough up for Noble's severance package yet.

We could always throw in Noble as part of the deal, he could be entertainment director at wire...

[warrior till i die]

yes i think bailey will now move back upto the second row and at the minute i can see it being hansen dropping out.

our back line definately is of the highest quality now and I think roberts will be licking his lips at the thought of being outside a centre who passes the ball- he shown he fan finish against hudds and I think this may be the start of something special.

richards
roberts
gleeson
carmont
ainscough
sam tomkins
leuluai

that is a very good 1-7 in my opinion, the only place which now needs work is prop

I can see the signs of a very good team being built here.

[DaveO]

Nice surprise. Gleeson you say?

Never heard of him!

I think this should be merged with the Gleeson thread in the rumour mill until the club announces his signing!

Dave

[thomo]

I am now thinking that Bailey must be release at the end of the season and the big enforcer of a front rower must be brought in - if the pack does not lay the platform it doesn't matter who the half backs/centres are.

Futher questions spring to mind - how much is Gleeson on - and how much was mathers on - surely not just the magic £20K less then Gleeson.

If we have did have money spare for Gleeson why did we not put it toward Carvell of Ryles?

Our pack is weak this year, weak last year and weak the year before - we lack size in both the front row and back row.
if we were paying out a large transfer fee why not go and bid for Burgess.

[ste lord]

IL will get half his money back on Thursday. The signing of Gleeson will boost the attendance. One down six to go -two props, a half back, another centre, aloose forward and a full back!

Now we are gettin a little silly,

Carmont is a good centre IMO, as for a loose we have one of the best in the making but NOBLE chooses to play him in the 2nd row.

Whilst is feel pat is waisted at FB i feel that will stay this way for a the near future with Roberts on the wing.

[cherrywarrior]

IL will get half his money back on Thursday. The signing of Gleeson will boost the attendance. One down six to go -two props, a half back, another centre, aloose forward and a full back!

Now we are gettin a little silly,

Carmont is a good centre IMO, as for a loose we have one of the best in the making but NOBLE chooses to play him in the 2nd row.

Whilst is feel pat is waisted at FB i feel that will stay this way for a the near future with Roberts on the wing.

I completely agree, but I would go further to say that we dont need another half back, we just need a better hooker than Riddell then Tommy doesnt keep having to cover at hooker

[Panchitta Marra]

Not a big fan of Gleeson, so lets hope he changes my mind with some excellent performances and turns us into a top class team. I won't hold my breath about the latter.

Can't help but think signing Gleeson would have been much better if we had a decent pack, which at the moment we don't. All our play seems to go down the left hand side as it seems on the right the ball stops with the forwards and the space is squeezed out. Is it worth spending £100k on a player part way through the season? Well only if he plays well, which means actually giving him the ball in a decent position, a luxury most of our right centres rarely received.
He's also not on form at the moment, so we're relying on him hitting the ground running and finding form in a new team, something which our other new signings haven't really done.
There is also the worry that Smith was trying to get rid of the troublemakers. If he was too bad to stay at Wire, why is he good enough for Wigan? Hopefully he will clean up his act (we can debate what can and can't be said but most people know what he's like).

It's a gamble, but if it pays off it could be great for the club. If it doesn't pay off, we will look foolish again. Let's hope he finds past form while at Wigan. It's been a while since we've had 2 top class centres at the club.

It makes me think what Warrington are doing in all of this.
Getting rid of expensive cap money, dont seem to want a player exchange (Mathers & Goulding).
The money off set for a top young star somewhere,maybe or even a top Aussie.
Thats what Wigan should be looking to do, a young Myler at Half for starters.

[shaunedwardsfanclub]

Ste/Cherry - I assume by your email that you are happy with the current side apart from one or two positional changes! You are obviously easily pleased.

If Tommy (and I like the guy) was any good then he wouldn't be playing at hooker! Could you ever see us moving Edwards or Gregory to hooker because our number nine was tired or not playing well? Good guys don't win you rugby matches good players do and unfortunately we have a lot of people who fall into the first category and not the second.

As for Pat, he would play consistently well anywhere in the team, but we need a full back who makes plenty of yards and beats men as well as being defensively sound.

[ste lord]

£100k + Mathers? Great bargain if true. The option presumably was a free transfer, but keeping Mathers.

I'm just glad Goulding isn't part of the deal. We might expect some loan deals though, to cover the salary cap.

Doesn't say how long the contract is, though. No longer than 2 years, I hope.

Just picked up on this from the guardian i think:

was expected to put pen to paper on a three-and-a-half-year deal with his hometown club.

Another long deal if this article is true.