Higham Knew Nothing About the Netwon Thing

[DaveO]

AncientWarrior posted:
I haven't missed the point at all! My point is that you are prepared to believe Bradford before your own Chairman. I don't think that's very loyal. Lenegan has denied making an offer full stop. Why should he need to elaborate on that?

He just has elaborated on the situation and he has confirmed that he asked about Newton's availability and that Higham would have to agree to move the other way.

The reason I believed this to be the case was because there is no way those quotes from McNamara would be made otherwise.

It has nothing to do with loyalty but common sense.

You talk as if telling lies is something new to professional sport and that if you were found out then legal action is bound to follow. Get real! What possible legal action would succeed in these circumstances?

Liable obviously. If someone is quoted as saying you did something in the press and you didn't do it, that is libelous.

Certainly not libel and unless they have enacted new legislation of, 'unlawfully and maliciously telling lies in order to make another Chairman look silly', I don't know what you're going on about.

Liable means damaging another persons reputation. Had IL not discussed Newton moving to Wigan and not discussed the fact Higham would have to transfer then IL could sue McNamara for damage to his reputation as chairman of Wigan RL.

It was therefore highly unlikely such discussions did not take place because McNamara isn't stupid enough to go around libeling another clubs chairman.

Clear enough?

In addition, when I talk about loyalty, I am mindful of the many people who view these boards from time to time who do not have the best interests of Wigan at heart. How gratifying it must be for them to see us denigrating the Chairman before his new club has kicked a ball in anger?

Oh not this load of rubbish again! Never criticise the club because it is seen to be disloyal!

How about some loyalty to a contracted player from the club? It is now clear the idea of Higham moving to Bradford was mentioned and had Bradford said Newton was available, this would have been put to Higham.

I say keep your counsel for now and give the man a chance.

Well I feel vindicated in my views given IL's clarification.

It is also pretty clear from IL's statement on RL fans he felt compelled to offer further clarification because of message board debate which I think is a good thing because now we know exactly what went on. He is to be applauded for doing so.

In terms of the discussions he had with Bradford in RL terms I do not agree it was a good idea for Wigan to enquire about Newton despite IL's stated reasons for so doing. That is my opinion in terms of the RL side of it regardless of anything else.

Basically I think he got it wrong this time.

I suppose having that opinion isn't loyal?

Dave

[DaveO]

AncientWarrior posted:
So what you're saying is that you were wrong (on many, many posts) but you are not apologising?

You can't have read IL's post on rlfans if you are being serious.

I was right Wigan discussed with Bradford bringing Newton back.

Hood already conformed previously Wigan made an approach for Newton. I was right to believe this to be the case.

I was right the idea of Higham moving to the Bulls was discussed (and that Higham knew nothing of it).

I was right the only way Wigan could say no offer was made if it wasn't formally made.

In short, I was right.

Dave

[AncientWarrior]

DaveO posted:

AncientWarrior posted:
So what you're saying is that you were wrong (on many, many posts) but you are not apologising?

You can't have read IL's post on rlfans if you are being serious.

I was right Wigan discussed with Bradford bringing Newton back.

Hood already conformed previously Wigan made an approach for Newton. I was right to believe this to be the case.

I was right the idea of Higham moving to the Bulls was discussed (and that Higham knew nothing of it).

I was right the only way Wigan could say no offer was made if it wasn't formally made.

In short, I was right.

Dave

Have you ever thought of going into politics? Lenegan said no offer was made!!! End of story. There is a deal of difference between enquiring after a player and making an offer. No matter how you hide behind words - you were wrong!!

Incidentally, it's LIBEL not Liable.

[Cruncher]

DaveO posted:

AncientWarrior posted:
I haven't missed the point at all! My point is that you are prepared to believe Bradford before your own Chairman. I don't think that's very loyal. Lenegan has denied making an offer full stop. Why should he need to elaborate on that?

He just has elaborated on the situation and he has confirmed that he asked about Newton's availability and that Higham would have to agree to move the other way.

The reason I believed this to be the case was because there is no way those quotes from McNamara would be made otherwise.

It has nothing to do with loyalty but common sense.

You talk as if telling lies is something new to professional sport and that if you were found out then legal action is bound to follow. Get real! What possible legal action would succeed in these circumstances?

Liable obviously. If someone is quoted as saying you did something in the press and you didn't do it, that is libelous.

Certainly not libel and unless they have enacted new legislation of, 'unlawfully and maliciously telling lies in order to make another Chairman look silly', I don't know what you're going on about.

Liable means damaging another persons reputation. Had IL not discussed Newton moving to Wigan and not discussed the fact Higham would have to transfer then IL could sue McNamara for damage to his reputation as chairman of Wigan RL.

It was therefore highly unlikely such discussions did not take place because McNamara isn't stupid enough to go around libeling another clubs chairman.

Clear enough?

In addition, when I talk about loyalty, I am mindful of the many people who view these boards from time to time who do not have the best interests of Wigan at heart. How gratifying it must be for them to see us denigrating the Chairman before his new club has kicked a ball in anger?

Oh not this load of rubbish again! Never criticise the club because it is seen to be disloyal!

How about some loyalty to a contracted player from the club? It is now clear the idea of Higham moving to Bradford was mentioned and had Bradford said Newton was available, this would have been put to Higham.

I say keep your counsel for now and give the man a chance.

Well I feel vindicated in my views given IL's clarification.

It is also pretty clear from IL's statement on RL fans he felt compelled to offer further clarification because of message board debate which I think is a good thing because now we know exactly what went on. He is to be applauded for doing so.

In terms of the discussions he had with Bradford in RL terms I do not agree it was a good idea for Wigan to enquire about Newton despite IL's stated reasons for so doing. That is my opinion in terms of the RL side of it regardless of anything else.

Basically I think he got it wrong this time.

I suppose having that opinion isn't loyal?

Dave

Dave, how can you honestly say it was a bad idea for IL just to talk to Bradford?

Surely you don't genuinely believe that?

What's the harm in club chairmen talking to each other? If he wasn't doing stuff like this, planning ahead, having confidential discussions about who is and who isn't available, and what it might take to bring them to Wigan, then we'd be in grave danger of falling miles behind everyone else.

To me he's guilty of only one thing, being unaware that an idiot like Steve McNamara - and I use my words carefully here, 'idiot' - would immediately seek to cement his own position by warping the truth to make it look like he'd fended off another Wigan attack.

If our chairman decided that it was now too dangerous even to talk to rival chairmen about potential signings, there'd be two outcomes: first of all, we'd do no business at all; secondly, it would be a victory for sneaky little gets like Steve McNamara (who must be in the minority to be honest, because I'm sure this goes on all the time even though usually we don't hear about it).

[Hawkeye]

McNamera as had a huge dummy spit because we've inquired about Newton. A temper tantrum you see from a toddler

IL as done nothing wrong at all speaking to Hood. its McNamera who seems to have lost the function of his bowels when hearing we was interested in Newton. so what does he do ?? throws a wobbly to the media hoping it would stop us in our tracks even though a simple no on the phone to IL would have done the trick.

[Matthew-Warrior]

DaveO posted:

So it boils down to if you think it was right for this possibility to be discussed in that way. Personally I can't see how Higham can have any other impression he is considered 2nd best to Newton by Wigan.

Dave

I don't think Higham is necessarily considered second best by Wigan, but simply Ian Lenagan was stating the only way that we could possibly sign Newton for 2008 was in a swap deal for Higham because of the salary cap. Nowhere does he state that Higham would actually be offered to Bradford, but actually says this would be the only way we could possibly fit Newton under our salary cap. The actual enquiry was made for 2009, Peter Hood made the reference to 2008.

[Fraggle]

Matthew-Warrior posted:

DaveO posted:

So it boils down to if you think it was right for this possibility to be discussed in that way. Personally I can't see how Higham can have any other impression he is considered 2nd best to Newton by Wigan.

Dave

I don't think Higham is necessarily considered second best by Wigan, but simply Ian Lenagan was stating the only way that we could possibly sign Newton for 2008 was in a swap deal for Higham because of the salary cap. Nowhere does he state that Higham would actually be offered to Bradford, but actually says this would be the only way we could possibly fit Newton under our salary cap.

Except that if Wigan considered Higham as good enough, we wouldn't even have been making enquiries for Newton. What's wrong with the two hookers we've got? We don't need and certainly can't afford three.

There was something in last week's League Express where Higham said that he wasn't first choice last season when useless Grandad was there. I get the impression that Higham is perhaps just not Nobby's kind of player.

Although personally I think there's not much wrong with Higham at all. Tackles very well, reminds me of Mick Cassidy sometimes with some of the tackles he does, runs very well from acting halfback and if we get stuck, could cover as a halfback as well. Possibly he lacks a bit of the weight and size that Newton and KFC have, but he offers things that they don't. But I don't see why we necessarily have to change for 2009, I'm not convinced bringing Newton back would really give us something extra next year.

[DaveO]

AncientWarrior posted:
Have you ever thought of going into politics? Lenegan said no offer was made!!! End of story.

Did you read this I posted earlier in the thread yesterday? Here is what I said:

"If any verbal enquiry (including offering Higham) was made about that but no written offer put on the table because Bradford said no outright, then that would allow IL to say no offer was made. However it would also allow Bradford to say what they have said. I suspect this is the case."

So isn't that EXACTLY what happened?

There is a deal of difference between enquiring after a player and making an offer. No matter how you hide behind words - you were wrong!!

I know. That is exactly what I said, yesterday before IL confirmed it today. So what is it I am wrong about again?

Dave

[DaveO]

Cruncher posted:

Dave, how can you honestly say it was a bad idea for IL just to talk to Bradford?

Surely you don't genuinely believe that?

There is nothing wrong talking to any club if you are looking to address a particular weakness in the side but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to talk to Bradford specificaly about Newton, no. We have two perfectly good hookers for 2008.

Higham is contracted for this season so as we know to get Newton now would involve Higham agreeing to move which would not be guaranteed.

Next season Newton will be 30 so I just would not even consider bringing him back then.

Higham has a full year to run on his contract so I'd expect Wigan to sound him out about now about a new contract and if one could not be agreed then to start looking elsewhere. Not looking elsewhere before deciding where they stand with Higham. It is the wrong way around and can lead to the sort of fiasco we have just seen.

Unless of course it has been decided he will not be offered a new deal already.

Put it this way I reckon it is normal to sort out where your current players are contractually before checking out possible replacements. There is plenty of time if Higham can't be accommodated or is simply not wanted by Nobby. Enquiring about Newton's availability seems very strange to me (and yes I have read IL's reasons for doing so, I just don't think they are very good ones!).

What's the harm in club chairmen talking to each other? If he wasn't doing stuff like this, planning ahead, having confidential discussions about who is and who isn't available, and what it might take to bring them to Wigan, then we'd be in grave danger of falling miles behind everyone else.

See above. It is just an odd way to go about it IMO. Is Higham not available in 2009? Have the club asked him? Do they want him? If the club answers those questions it would then know if it should start to make enquiries but clearly it just went ahead anyway.

To me he's guilty of only one thing, being unaware that an idiot like Steve McNamara - and I use my words carefully here, 'idiot' - would immediately seek to cement his own position by warping the truth to make it look like he'd fended off another Wigan attack.

McNamara must be hugely embarrassed by this of that there is no doubt. It is as if Hood has had to deal with a naughty child. Credit to Hood for this IMO.

But if IL had determined if we actually needed a new hooker before enquiring about one, none of this would have happened. Do you not agree?

Dave

[lucky 13]

Fraggle posted:

Matthew-Warrior posted:

DaveO posted:

So it boils down to if you think it was right for this possibility to be discussed in that way. Personally I can't see how Higham can have any other impression he is considered 2nd best to Newton by Wigan.

Dave

I don't think Higham is necessarily considered second best by Wigan, but simply Ian Lenagan was stating the only way that we could possibly sign Newton for 2008 was in a swap deal for Higham because of the salary cap. Nowhere does he state that Higham would actually be offered to Bradford, but actually says this would be the only way we could possibly fit Newton under our salary cap.

Except that if Wigan considered Higham as good enough, we wouldn't even have been making enquiries for Newton. What's wrong with the two hookers we've got? We don't need and certainly can't afford three.

There was something in last week's League Express where Higham said that he wasn't first choice last season when useless Grandad was there. I get the impression that Higham is perhaps just not Nobby's kind of player.

Although personally I think there's not much wrong with Higham at all. Tackles very well, reminds me of Mick Cassidy sometimes with some of the tackles he does, runs very well from acting halfback and if we get stuck, could cover as a halfback as well. Possibly he lacks a bit of the weight and size that Newton and KFC have, but he offers things that they don't. But I don't see why we necessarily have to change for 2009, I'm not convinced bringing Newton back would really give us something extra next year.

I think you are missing the point with this second choice tag .
Micky is a strike hooker ,in my opinion and that of Nobby he is a player who benefits from coming off the bench behind the likes of a KC or Newton even Macnamara says as much ''we have Godwin who is similar too Higham Newton gives us something different ''.
Wigan do not have a starting hooker and it showes Wigans best form last year coincided with Millard playing better and Micky coming off th bench !
Most teams use this ploy Roby as took Micky's place at Saints and won the MOS ( :craz: )in the process.

IL full explanation is spot on for me he is a chairman he needs to speak to other teams ,every now and again this may involve players under contract and players coming to the end of contracts , he would be failing in his duties if he did not .
This works both ways Bradford at some point will have done the same the guilty party as was wildly suggested before hand was Macnamara .

I have discussed this with Dave O on here and although we have different oppions he was not far off the mark , in fact somewhere in the middle of our views would be a fare assessment of what happened .

What is good is that IL has been on the boards read our thoughts on the matter and responded ,this is a good thing , even if you do not agree with Micky being involved, his openness and response as again brought a little more respect for the bloke from me.