Major problem with Smith / Locking a Post

[exile in Tiger country]

Briers? now that is talking crap.

In his st helens' days he didn't look too bad a player. Lazy and hugely over-rated nowadays. A player who has suffered from some very mediocre coaches influencing his career (not withstanding alleged other habits)

Can you imagine the little mardy faced turd getting away with gobbing off at the ref and questioning every decision that went agsinst him, if he played for us?
I really don't want him at Wigan. I'd rather have Sean Long than that Wigan hating little toad! I remember in the season Nobby arrived his anti Wigan " I hope they get relegated" comments. AND he's not good enough to play for Wigan!!


















In case anyone is in any doubt, I don't like Lee Briers.

[highland convert]

Don't you just love threads like this.

"I know something you don't know. I'm not going to tell you what it is, but it's absolutely massive. I'm not going to tell you who supplied the information either, but he's in a position to know. Now ... feel free to speculate."

And people are actually thanking him for it.

WW always seems like an honest enough guy, but he's been proved wrong on at least two occasions - Trent Barrett's serious leg injury, which was going to keep him out for many weeks, and Karl Pryce, who was definitely not going to sign for Wigan

On this occasion he appears to be hedging his bets: "Wigan have a major problem with Smith. But I'm not prepared to supply any details at all ... presumably so that in case I'm wrong no-one can berate me for it."

No Cruncher, but it still generates 4 pages of drivel about the poor lad. In the football worl George Best and Gazza will long be remembered. In WW so will Smith but only if this "bring them down" mentality desists.
Well said,
Jim

[TRICKY DICKY]

The only major problem with smith is that he will have to fill trent Barretts shoes next season which is easier said than done.

[DaveO]

I help pay their wages

Dave

I think

I don't believe you.

Dave

[DaveO]

My answer to all this.... Gary Connelly, one of the best centers to grace or club, permanantly drunk, still is for that matter. Nobody wanted him out of the club, works hard plays hard just a typical rugby player for that matter.

No difference to Smith really exept the fact that internet forums didnt hamper his carrer like Smith is having to endure. Like i said leave him alone.

Of course its different. That was then, this is now. Things have changed.

Why where the pair of them disciplined for it of it is acceptable these days? Is the game now the same as it was when Connplly played? I would say not.

It's also not the Internet that made Smith have to endure the consequences of his actions but the press in Australia. RL is the national sport over there and such behaviour isn't considered acceptable over there. That being so why should it be here? Because we are a bunch of amateurs?

No one is having a go at Smith or Riddell anyway. They are just pointing out their past behaviour makes their signings a risk. Simple as that.

Dave

[Wigan Watcher]

My answer to all this.... Gary Connelly, one of the best centers to grace or club, permanantly drunk, still is for that matter. Nobody wanted him out of the club, works hard plays hard just a typical rugby player for that matter.

No difference to Smith really exept the fact that internet forums didnt hamper his carrer like Smith is having to endure. Like i said leave him alone.

Of course its different. That was then, this is now. Things have changed.

Why where the pair of them disciplined for it of it is acceptable these days? Is the game now the same as it was when Connplly played? I would say not.

It's also not the Internet that made Smith have to endure the consequences of his actions but the press in Australia. RL is the national sport over there and such behaviour isn't considered acceptable over there. That being so why should it be here? Because we are a bunch of amateurs?

No one is having a go at Smith or Riddell anyway. They are just pointing out their past behaviour makes their signings a risk. Simple as that.

Dave

Spot on my friend, spot on!

[DaveO]

I help pay their wages

Dave

I think this statement explains everything about any of your so called points or arguments that you make on here DaveO. You think that, because you contribute your hard earned cash, you have more of a say-so on signings and player contracts that anyone else, including the chairman!

On another thread, you are willing to argue to the point of stupidity, that carmont, who has recently accepted an extension, should now be allowed to demand more of your money.

From the Wigan today article on upping Carmonts contract:

Chairman Ian Lenagan – who moved quickly to sign Carmont soon after he took over Warriors last year – insists the player is worth it and has earned his reward.
He said: "This is an amended contract for 2009 and reflects the player's value to the club and to the team.

Looks like I was right all along with my position and you could not be more wrong if you tried.

So before you go calling peoples arguments "stupid" in future you might want to think a bit first before posting because if anyone looks stupid now it isn't me!

I think the words, I told you so spring to mind. Normally I wouldn't bother saying that but I think given the lengths you went to in order to dismiss the notion Carmoont should not get a pay rise I think I am entitled to have a little fun at your expense in return

Dave

[highland convert]

My answer to all this.... Gary Connelly, one of the best centers to grace or club, permanantly drunk, still is for that matter. Nobody wanted him out of the club, works hard plays hard just a typical rugby player for that matter.

No difference to Smith really exept the fact that internet forums didnt hamper his carrer like Smith is having to endure. Like i said leave him alone.

Of course its different. That was then, this is now. Things have changed.

Why where the pair of them disciplined for it of it is acceptable these days? Is the game now the same as it was when Connplly played? I would say not.

It's also not the Internet that made Smith have to endure the consequences of his actions but the press in Australia. RL is the national sport over there and such behaviour isn't considered acceptable over there. That being so why should it be here? Because we are a bunch of amateurs?

No one is having a go at Smith or Riddell anyway. They are just pointing out their past behaviour makes their signings a risk. Simple as that.

Dave

Spot on my friend, spot on!

Must be old age WW. Did you really forget what you wrote to start this topic? I suggest you read it againand revise your last post. Jim

[wall_of_voodoo]

I help pay their wages

Dave

I think this statement explains everything about any of your so called points or arguments that you make on here DaveO. You think that, because you contribute your hard earned cash, you have more of a say-so on signings and player contracts that anyone else, including the chairman!

On another thread, you are willing to argue to the point of stupidity, that carmont, who has recently accepted an extension, should now be allowed to demand more of your money.

From the Wigan today article on upping Carmonts contract:

Chairman Ian Lenagan – who moved quickly to sign Carmont soon after he took over Warriors last year – insists the player is worth it and has earned his reward.
He said: "This is an amended contract for 2009 and reflects the player's value to the club and to the team.

Looks like I was right all along with my position and you could not be more wrong if you tried.

So before you go calling peoples arguments "stupid" in future you might want to think a bit first before posting because if anyone looks stupid now it isn't me!

I think the words, I told you so spring to mind. Normally I wouldn't bother saying that but I think given the lengths you went to in order to dismiss the notion Carmoont should not get a pay rise I think I am entitled to have a little fun at your expense in return

Dave

If you call immaturity "fun" than it is you that is deluded . I have no problem with keeping george carmont, in fact, I am pleased he is still here, yet to offer more money, to a player who had already accepted his pay deal smacks of desperation. What next for the french club that came "sniffing"? If say the rep. approaches darryl goulding or pat richards as replacement targets, are you willing for the club to continue to ignore it wage structure and contracts already in place just to "smite" the raiding club?

You have for some time (to the point of repetition) stated the necessity of the club to strengthen its team more in various positions (full back is one instance, with your refusal to see richards hold down the no 1 slot). How can the club do this if it constantly throwing money at players who have already agreed deals. I for one, do not wish to read one single comment from you throughout the coming season on "who we should have signed" or "players that could have made a stronger team" etc etc etc, when you have been so agreeing (in accordance of the club) to throw money at players already signed, yet whos heads are turned at any possible mention of a lucrative contract elswhere.

This is not like any other instance, carmont is not some immature youngster, neither is he unsure of his current status at the club. He has used this as leverage to get far better terms than deserved (blackmail to some degree). Are you willing to accept this as a fate accomplis? Can more players expect the same response from the club if an alleged approach is made? More to the point, how would you feel if carmont has a season more akin to one of david vaeliki's especially now that his long term future has been sorted?, knowing full well he is being paid according to the one season at the club and with the key positions of full back, stand off and scrum half not filled with players of adequate ability, temperament or desire to make this once great club, great again.

I expect your immature and pathetic response in due course.

[DaveO]

If you call immaturity "fun" than it is you that is deluded .I have no problem with keeping george carmont, in fact, I am pleased he is still here, yet to offer more money, to a player who had already accepted his pay deal smacks of desperation. What next for the french club that came "sniffing"? If say the rep. approaches darryl goulding or pat richards as replacement targets, are you willing for the club to continue to ignore it wage structure and contracts already in place just to "smite" the raiding club?

I am sure the club is working towards a better wage structure under IL (he has said often enough how shocked he was at some players wages) and so I am confident whatever new deal Carmont has got will fit into that. I am also sure had he made any demands that were unreasonable IL would not cave in and he would let Carmont or any other player leave.

Unless you believe IL is not following such a policy you are relying on him behaving like Mo to make your point.

Do you think he is Mo MkII? I think we need to know the answer to that then we might be able to see where you are coming from.

You have for some time (to the point of repetition) stated the necessity of the club to strengthen its team more in various positions (full back is one instance, with your refusal to see richards hold down the no 1 slot).

That's because I think he's a better winger for us than full back and I am also not expecting a new full back any time soon. I was saying all last season I expected Mathers to be the full back in 2009 long before it was announced and have been proved right on that as well. I certainly have not been advocating we get a new full back now because I knew it was a waste of time even to think it.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see a better player there one day but I knew it was not going to happen in 2009.

So no, full back is not one instance of where I have been advocating the team is strengthened for 2009. There isn't any possibility of us recruiting one for 2009 not because of cap constraints but because Nobby has given Mathers the job!

How can the club do this if it constantly throwing money at players who have already agreed deals. I for one, do not wish to read one single comment from you throughout the coming season on "who we should have signed" or "players that could have made a stronger team" etc etc etc, when you have been so agreeing (in accordance of the club) to throw money at players already signed, yet whos heads are turned at any possible mention of a lucrative contract elswhere.

Don't be so ridiculous. You are yet again deciding what I think and using that to make a point. You need to get out of that habit as you are just arguing with yourself.

I have not "been so agreeing (in accordance of the club) to throw money at players already signed". You have no evidence the club is "throwing money" at Carmont as you put it. I think he is getting a pay rise in recognition of his worth. So do most people on this board. You make it sound as if he has just been given a £250K contract.

You need to get it into your head paying a player of his ability a low wage doesn't work. They will leave the club. The trick is paying them the right level of wages which is something I expect IL to have done with Carmont which is not "throwing money" at players. That is what Mo used to do. I'll ask again. Do you think IL is behaving like Mo? Do you think IL is not working to a wage structure at the club?

Unless you think he isn't you don't have a point. So which is it?

No one is suggesting the club adopts the attitude it did when the SL/ARL war was on and it threw money at players like Connolly to retain them.

What I don't have a problem, with is players getting paid a decent wage. I got sick and tired of seeing posts that said "lets keep Colbon on a low wage". Why do people presume players will accept a low wage? Why do you presume it? For the privilege of playing for Wigan?

This is not like any other instance, carmont is not some immature youngster, neither is he unsure of his current status at the club. He has used this as leverage to get far better terms than deserved (blackmail to some degree). Are you willing to accept this as a fate accomplis? Can more players expect the same response from the club if an alleged approach is made? More to the point, how would you feel if carmont has a season more akin to one of david vaeliki's especially now that his long term future has been sorted?,

All your arguments are spurious speculation. How would you feel if Richards form next season dropped off? He signed a new long term contract this year as well securing his future at Wigan as well. Both players future at Wigan are secure.

What a totally ridiculous point to even suggest.

I know, lets not offer anyone a good deal at Wigan! They may get complacent and play like DV!

I am sure you think you are being very clever trying to construct a logical argument as to why it was a bad idea to give Carmont a pay rise but if that is the best you can do I suggest you give up because it is patently one of the silliest arguments I have ever seen posted on an Internet forum.

Given your assertion about Carmont and his form next year I now fully expect Hock, Prescott, Gouldng, Richards, Hansen, Lockers, Mathers, Phelps, O'Carroll and anyone else including Carmont who signed new deals in 2008 to have a poor 2009 because they will be putting their feet up having secured their futures at the club.

knowing full well he is being paid according to the one season at the club and with the key positions of full back, stand off and scrum half not filled with players of adequate ability, temperament or desire to make this once great club, great again.

Unless you can think of a way to sack contracted players we are not going to get a new scrum half or full back. We may get a stand off or may go with Smith. Who knows. We may get a prop as well but I think you will find its other players not Carmont who take too large a slice of the wages pie. Paying him a decent wage and doing things like offering improved deals to younger players have to be done to retain them at the club and eventually when the other high wage earners contracts expire the club will have more flexibility. In the meantime it can't expect to get players like Carmont on the cheap.

I expect your immature and pathetic response in due course.

I really think you should look to your own posts when making comments like that. I think when the club chairman comes out with more or less exactly what I have been saying myself about Carmont when he gave him the new contract, the mature response from you would have been to either acknowledge your various speculations were unfounded or just keep quiet rather than flogging a dead horse with yet more fact-less drivel. Your speculation Carmont's form will drop off because he has secured his future was priceless

Dave