WiganWarriorsFans.com

medlocke wrote:Nobby Out

must say im surprised at that, for me coley can go but mossop and o'carroll thats a disgrace!!

i believe noble has seen 3 players from union he's interested in but is having a hard time trying to convince IL to go for it

standishwarrior wrote:

medlocke wrote:Nobby Out

must say im surprised at that, for me coley can go but mossop and o'carroll thats a disgrace!!

i believe noble has seen 3 players from union he's interested in but is having a hard time trying to convince IL to go for it

who

standishwarrior wrote:

cpwigan wrote:Not sure when we did so BUT we did offer Wakefield £80,000 for Moore.

we also offered either coley, mossop and o'carroll for moore

wakey chairman talking on the clubs website, go on rlfans topic all signings 2009 and its on page 25

It's got a thread of its own now.

The video of the Wakey chairman is on their wen site and he says Wigan offered Coley, Mossop and O'Carroll.

He doesn't say (or I assume mean) all at once for one player!

However the fact we would even consider doing this for a player of Moores ability is just not good enough.

Hopefully as the Wigan players have contracts with us should any of the moves been permanent moves and not loans (and I am led to believe by one person I consider reliable that at least O'Carroll was) they would have told the club to where to get off. They have no need to leave and which player in their right mind would want to leave Wigan for Wakey?

Which Wigan official is stupid enough to think they would?

Dave

DaveO wrote:The video of the Wakey chairman is on their wen site and he says Wigan offered Coley, Mossop and O'Carroll.

He doesn't say (or I assume mean) all at once for one player!

Obviously the wakefield chairman is going to give his own fans the best interpretation of events - not only to give the idea of "little old wakey holding big spending wigan to ransom, but also so that there fans are under the possible illusion that the squad is about to get larger (and thus more competitive) with one regular first teamer from last season, a world cup prop and a promising back rower from wigan are all thrown in (with a possible amount of finance too). Wakefield couldn't appear to lose, and their chairman might just be exaggerating to claim all three are in any deal - could simply be a case of either/or!


As for who, or what makes a world class prop - I am not sure there are too many examples of them left in the world of rl. Far too many ex-2nd rowers or utility players filling in the prime positions of 8+10 now. There are few lee crooks, steve roachs, kurt sorensons, kevin tamatis, greg dowlings, andy platts, kevin wards etc etc etc etc or players remotely of that type of quality prop around now. The likes of richard moore, jjb, bryn hargreaves and rob parker are symptomatic of the type of props in the game now.

wall_of_voodoo wrote:

DaveO wrote:The video of the Wakey chairman is on their wen site and he says Wigan offered Coley, Mossop and O'Carroll.

He doesn't say (or I assume mean) all at once for one player!

Obviously the wakefield chairman is going to give his own fans the best interpretation of events - not only to give the idea of "little old wakey holding big spending wigan to ransom, but also so that there fans are under the possible illusion that the squad is about to get larger (and thus more competitive) with one regular first teamer from last season, a world cup prop and a promising back rower from wigan are all thrown in (with a possible amount of finance too). Wakefield couldn't appear to lose, and their chairman might just be exaggerating to claim all three are in any deal - could simply be a case of either/or!

Whatever his motives for mentioning the names he has done so and he can't have done that if the players had not been discussed in relation to a deal for Moore.

I have it on good authority O'Carroll was offered on a permanent move and this was agreed by the clubs. The stumbling block was Wakey wanted a second player also on a permanent deal.

Anyone will tell you I rarely post things like the above so when I say this I am not doing so lightly.

As for who, or what makes a world class prop - I am not sure there are too many examples of them left in the world of rl. Far too many ex-2nd rowers or utility players filling in the prime positions of 8+10 now. There are few lee crooks, steve roachs, kurt sorensons, kevin tamatis, greg dowlings, andy platts, kevin wards etc etc etc etc or players remotely of that type of quality prop around now. The likes of richard moore, jjb, bryn hargreaves and rob parker are symptomatic of the type of props in the game now.

I agree and a player like one of those you list would be just what we need. I am not averse to players leaving if we could find such a player who isn't at the wrong end of his career but I certainly don't think Moore qualifies on that score!

Dave

DaveO wrote:I have it on good authority O'Carroll was offered on a permanent move and this was agreed by the clubs. The stumbling block was Wakey wanted a second player also on a permanent deal.

Anyone will tell you I rarely post things like the above so when I say this I am not doing so lightly.

Dave

Dave - can I try and understand what you are saying.... If the above is fact as you state, then are you saying that your previous post to mine.... the

DaveO wrote:
Hopefully as the Wigan players have contracts with us should any of the moves been permanent moves and not loans they would have told the club to where to get off. They have no need to leave and which player in their right mind would want to leave Wigan for Wakey?

Which Wigan official is stupid enough to think they would?

Dave

Contradicts itself? As you are saying that the

The stumbling block was Wakey wanted a second player also on a permanent deal

was the only reason for any deal not happening, not that any player refused or were not willing to "move on" as part of any deal?

I might have "read" too much into your post, but it appears that you are simply a little "sniffy" about wigan releasing players, believing it to be in some way "above them" to play for another club, and that they should refuse all club overtures for them to "pastures new".

wall_of_voodoo wrote:

DaveO wrote:I have it on good authority O'Carroll was offered on a permanent move and this was agreed by the clubs. The stumbling block was Wakey wanted a second player also on a permanent deal.

Anyone will tell you I rarely post things like the above so when I say this I am not doing so lightly.

Dave

Dave - can I try and understand what you are saying.... If the above is fact as you state, then are you saying that your previous post to mine.... the

DaveO wrote:
Hopefully as the Wigan players have contracts with us should any of the moves been permanent moves and not loans (and I am led to believe by one person I consider reliable that at least O'Carroll was)they would have told the club to where to get off. They have no need to leave and which player in their right mind would want to leave Wigan for Wakey?

Which Wigan official is stupid enough to think they would?

Dave

Contradicts itself? As you are saying that the

The stumbling block was Wakey wanted a second player also on a permanent deal

was the only reason for any deal not happening, not that any player refused or were not willing to "move on" as part of any deal?

I might have "read" too much into your post, but it appears that you are simply a little "sniffy" about wigan releasing players, believing it to be in some way "above them" to play for another club, and that they should refuse all club overtures for them to "pastures new".

I don't see the contradiction. In both posts I mentioned O'Carroll's name (I put the bit back in where I mentioned him you missed out in bold above). According to the person who gave me this info that was a done deal and the issue was "who else to go" to use their words.

Since the other players were contracted to Wigan then their agreement would be needed for amove to take place so my view was that they should refuse to do so. The reasons being I don't see how moving to Wakey would be a good move for either of the other two players and as a Wigan fan how it would be good for our club. So any means to scupper the plan was fine by me! I am actually surprised O'Caroll did agree to move.

To be clear I don't know if the reason the deal fell through was because any of our players refused to move or if Wigan decided they didn't want to lose Mossop and/or Coley as well.

What is clear from what I was told the club agreed to let O'Carroll go and it was all agreed but another player was wanted by Wakey.

As to being sniffy about it that isn't anything to do with it from my point of view. I happen to think letting any of these particular players (especially O'Carroll and Mossop) go is a bad idea for a player like Moore.

Dave

DaveO, the reason I removed the item bracketed is simple because that, in english This is usually superfluous information, that is why it is in brackets! As was the statement removed - it added nothing but your own thought on your own statement.

As for not seeing the contradiction, on the one hand you are saying that

The stumbling block was Wakey wanted a second player also on a permanent deal

your words when you originally posted that

Hopefully as the Wigan players have contracts with us should any of the moves been permanent moves and not loans they would have told the club to where to get off. They have no need to leave and which player in their right mind would want to leave Wigan for Wakey?

so obviously they had agreed to move or appear to move and were willing to play for wakefield, irrespective of the club "forcing" them out against their wishes as you did appear to intimate was happening. They couldn't have been too opposed to the move as might have been suggested.

The only apparent failing in the "deal" was wakefield's apparent desire for more/more/and yet more players (ignore the pun)

wall_of_voodoo wrote:DaveO, the reason I removed the item bracketed is simple because that, in english This is usually superfluous information, that is why it is in brackets! As was the statement removed - it added nothing but your own thought on your own statement.

I felt it could be misconstrued or taken out of context without the qualification that O'Carroll's name was in the frame.

As for not seeing the contradiction, on the one hand you are saying that

The stumbling block was Wakey wanted a second player also on a permanent deal

your words

Yes Wakefield did want a second player. With you so far.

when you originally posted

Hopefully as the Wigan players have contracts with us should any of the moves been permanent moves and not loans they would have told the club to where to get off. They have no need to leave and which player in their right mind would want to leave Wigan for Wakey?

And that is me expressing my opinion that our contracted players would hopefully refuse to move which would mean a second player could not be found.

so obviously they had agreed to move or appear to move and were willing to play for wakefield, irrespective of the club "forcing" them out against their wishes as you did appear to intimate was happening. They couldn't have been too opposed to the move as might have been suggested.

I can not see how you come to that conclusion at all. How does me hoping they would refuse to move if asked, as is their right as contracted players, imply they had agreed to move? It just doesn't.

The club can't force any contracted player to move. The players must agree to a move if they have a contract so there is no way the club can force them out.

If the player says "no" there is not much if anything the club can do. That is what I hoped would happen.

The only apparent failing in the "deal" was wakefield's apparent desire for more/more/and yet more players (ignore the pun)

We only know it required two players to be made available to seal the deal. We know one was, O'carroll, but we don't know why another was not made available. There can be two reasons why that was the case:

1. The players asked to move refused as is their right.
2. The club was not in agreement in letting either of the other two players in the frame leave permanently as well as O'Carroll.

I hope this makes it clear and I don't see where me saying Wakefield wanted two players and then expressing an opinion I hoped the players in the frame would refuse to go is a contradiction or implied they had agreed to move :eusa16:

Dave

get a room you two