Page 1 of 2
let lam go and keep pj and briscoe
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 10:14 pm
by mario
if lam is going to be out for 6 months or more then release him! dont keep him at the expense of johnson and briscoe
Re: let lam go and keep pj and...
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 10:18 pm
by johnsons_babexx
To late now they have gone and i find it very unlikely they will be back me for 1 hopes they will especially pj but i cant see maurice going back on his plans. Hes already decided what he wants 2 decent players out and 2 crocked players in.
Re: let lam go and keep pj...
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2003 10:59 am
by warriors
How about .......... NO. WE dont wont to release Lam. he is a wicked player.
But the other to are good aswell. so i dont really no what they should have done. :conf:
Re: let lam go and keep pj and...
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2003 11:58 am
by ian.birchall
Right on, excellent player but too old and crocked now, what has happened to the mean Wigan streak, we let Hanley, Gregory and Edwards go when they were a lot younger than Lammy.
Re: let lam go and keep pj...
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2003 1:30 pm
by robjoenz
I agree Mario. We are keeping Lam for at most one season, for half of which he is injured, that means we get a few months out of him. OK, we'd have preferred it Luke could have been his understudy for a little longer, but he's in at the deep end now and he'll learn to swin soon enough, by the end of the season Lam will be an extra in the squad, albeit a good extra to have.
PJ and Briscoe have years left and are both good players too, I can't see why we need to accomodate one player towards the end of his career when we could have had two decent players in/towards their prime
Re: let lam go and keep pj...
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2003 8:05 pm
by the grinch
we have loads of young guns in the team what the club is trying to do is get some experience and some youth together its not easy but hard choces have to be made!
Re: let lam go and keep pj...
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2003 1:59 am
by AJ
another 6 months from lam, is better than six years of johnson, its that simple!
Re: let lam go and keep pj...
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2003 12:03 pm
by robjoenz
Whats to say that when Lam does get back he doesn't get injured again? Or if he will be back at all? How can six months of an injured player on the books be better than six months with two fit players? Especially if we are going to sell them to our opposition? Opposition are two men up, we are three men down.
Re: let lam go and keep pj...
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2003 12:08 am
by warriors
He is trying to say that, Lam is better than Johnson, an he wud rather lose Johnson than Lam.
(Which they already have done)
Even thou he has got an injury for 6 months.
But i dont think that they should of let Brisco go. they should of kept him.
Then i dont really no which other player should have gone instead. :conf:
Re: let lam go and keep pj...
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2003 12:08 am
by warriors
i am just sayin, but what about faz. he will be out for 4months? :doz: