Page 4 of 5
Re: Doris must Go
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 10:10 pm
by DaveO
TomThumb posted:
Mike, i wasnt specifically refering to this season, i am aware and fully understand the 20/20 rule and the 1.8m salary cap.I understand we cant go out and buy players now, but the problem is doris is paying our players too much for what they are worth and this has meant that instead of getting a team that is strong across the full squad, you get a few highly paid players and then we have to rely on younsters coz there is not enough left in the pot. Were before the salary cap we could go out and snap up all the best british and aussie players coz we had enough cash to pay them good wages. This is not possible now as the salary cap is mostly taken up by a few top players.
Which players and how much do they earn?
When Long was up for the betting scandle it was reported he was on £200K a year. He was/is the current GB scrum half so you can reckon on an
established GB international commanding that sort of money. We have Rads, Newton and Carney. Saints have Long, KFC and the current GB captain in P Sculthorpe.
If you want players like that in the squad you have to pay them what they are worth. Do you want international class players in the squad or not?
We have three who you can call senior internationals and several others who make the train on squad.
I don't think we have any more players on top wages than Saints. In fact if you look at the squad you can make a guess that we are only playing 17 or 18 over £20K a year given the fact we have several part time players and quite a few kids in their first full season in the first team squad.
With farrell gone there ought to be £167K a year spare on the salary cap come June anyway.
Dave
Re: Doris must Go
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 5:10 pm
by TomThumb
With the introduction of the salary cap, the game has become a game of Fantay Rugby were by instead of transfer fees you decide you team based on wages, therefore you can decide to go for an over average team which has strength across the full squad or you can go with a few great players in your team but you have to sacrifice this with more players that arnt as good or as highly paid. My arguement is that if you pay players either too much or just a few players a large amount, you lose the strength in depth of the squad. And this is highlighted more when you either have your key players injured. It seems that the teams which have most consistency across the whole season are ones with strength in depth and not reliant on a few key players.
Re: Doris must Go
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 6:34 pm
by Fraggle
TomThumb posted:
It seems that the teams which have most consistency across the whole season are ones with strength in depth and not reliant on a few key players.
And that is a very good point. For whatever reason Chairman Mo has consistently taken the approach that Wigan should be attracting the biggest names to attract more spectators to the club (or back to the club, to convince the remainder of the Central Park deserters that rugby is still alive at the JJB). To some extent he's succeeded, getting The Pearl to Wigan was a masterstroke, a true legend of the game, and Wires did the same with Alfie Langer. However, ML isn't managing to get too many of those big names anymore but the people he is bringing in are probably getting something close to the money potentially being offered to the top stars. And do those big names really bring extra bums on seats, or do they just bring short-term, big publicity? You don't hear people talk about Lau'ititi or whatever he's called at Leeds anymore, the publicity there was short-lived and has he personally drawn any more fans to the club?
Has ML chosen the right tactic by aiming as high as he can in terms of player, no matter what the cost, or should he have gone for lesser but cheaper players to try and get more strength in depth? Most of his recruitment is from Aus/NZ and there are the limits on overseas players which restricts the numbers being brought in via that route, but perhaps he needs to concentrate less on the Antipodeans and more on UK-based players? Perhaps he's always expected the Wigan youth system to provide the home contingent of players, with the occasional outsider (Orr, the Robinsons etc), and in recent times that's not been enough for us. Some years we've had lots of kids coming through, as at the moment, and at other times we've had virtually no-one (who's left from the group that came through with Ricky Bibey?).
Lots of people have criticised ML, for me the big criticism is that he's concentrated too much on the big-name overseas imports at the expense of the UK players, and that's the reason for our lack of strength in depth.
Re: Doris must Go
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 8:13 pm
by Doveoverdave
Fraggle posted:
TomThumb posted:
It seems that the teams which have most consistency across the whole season are ones with strength in depth and not reliant on a few key players.
And that is a very good point. For whatever reason Chairman Mo has consistently taken the approach that Wigan should be attracting the biggest names to attract more spectators to the club (or back to the club, to convince the remainder of the Central Park deserters that rugby is still alive at the JJB). To some extent he's succeeded, getting The Pearl to Wigan was a masterstroke, a true legend of the game, and Wires did the same with Alfie Langer. However, ML isn't managing to get too many of those big names anymore but the people he is bringing in are probably getting something close to the money potentially being offered to the top stars. And do those big names really bring extra bums on seats, or do they just bring short-term, big publicity? You don't hear people talk about Lau'ititi or whatever he's called at Leeds anymore, the publicity there was short-lived and has he personally drawn any more fans to the club?
Has ML chosen the right tactic by aiming as high as he can in terms of player, no matter what the cost, or should he have gone for lesser but cheaper players to try and get more strength in depth? Most of his recruitment is from Aus/NZ and there are the limits on overseas players which restricts the numbers being brought in via that route, but perhaps he needs to concentrate less on the Antipodeans and more on UK-based players? Perhaps he's always expected the Wigan youth system to provide the home contingent of players, with the occasional outsider (Orr, the Robinsons etc), and in recent times that's not been enough for us. Some years we've had lots of kids coming through, as at the moment, and at other times we've had virtually no-one (who's left from the group that came through with Ricky Bibey?).
Lots of people have criticised ML, for me the big criticism is that he's concentrated too much on the big-name overseas imports at the expense of the UK players, and that's the reason for our lack of strength in depth.
I think we should try to sign the stars of the game. The contentous issue for me has been the stage of their careers that these so called big names have been signed.
Craig Smith, Adei Lam, Pongia, Renouf all came to Wigan in the twilight of their careers with their best days well and truly behind them.
Put these with Cowie, O'Conner, Cassidy, the re-signing of Connelly and Betts and its a real old boys retirement club.
The real indicment of the clubs signing/transfer policy is that O'Conner and Baz McDermott could still make our front row more than a decade after they were split up!
Re: Doris must Go
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 8:21 pm
by mike binder
the future is in the youth but they need a older bigger pack to follow and 4 some reason wigan cant seem to make them who was the last born wigan big prop???????
Re: Doris must Go
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 8:25 pm
by GeoffN
mike binder posted:
the future is in the youth but they need a older bigger pack to follow and 4 some reason wigan cant seem to make them who was the last born wigan big prop???????
Bibey?
Re: Doris must Go
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 8:27 pm
by mike binder
i said good prop
Re: Doris must Go
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 8:52 pm
by GeoffN
mike binder posted:
i said good prop
No, you said "big prop"!
Re: Doris must Go
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 8:53 pm
by mike binder
GeoffN posted:
mike binder posted:
i said good prop
No, you said "big prop"!
ok big good prop ne 1 no
Re: Doris must Go
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 12:01 am
by Doveoverdave
