Wingin Wigan Maurice!

[primrose-n-blue]

There he goes again!

Just because it looks like Wigan have run into some problems with the fitness of Andy Farrell, he wants to change the RL laws to suit!
No other team has any difficulty following the guidelines set out and agreed by ALL the SL clubs.
The salary-caps and player quota's are there to ensure that SL clubs stay to an affordable budgit!

When you have crocked player it is sad for him but tuff on the club as it has always been.
Every player faces an injury or three during his career, some teams can suffer more than others as Stain's and Hull experianced fairly recently....
But all being equal it balances itself out, if not in the season, then over a couple.

Warrington were not without their share of mis-fortune either, we lost Briers, Appo, Leikvoll and Wilshere all at once but there were no complaints from us!

After a decade plus of being SICK TO DEATH of seeing a one team (Wigan) sport because of the spending power you had, it's a refreshing change to see you have eventually lost that cup monopoly!
And you have NO right M.L to interfere at this late point.

If you wanted to change things then it should have been debated during the close of last season, or do it at the end of this! (if it still suits your club in no doubt).

Farrell is out and you can't have anybody else, use your squad replacements!


:eusa10: Betts
:with: Maurice

[Fraggle]

P'n'B, I guess most of us appreciate there needs to be some limits on the amount of money teams can spend, and that surely is the purpose of the £1.8m salary cap. However, within that it should be up to the clubs themselves to decide how they spend that money. If that means a club can afford 21 or 22 well-paid players at the expense of a couple of untried 17 year olds, then why is that a problem? £1.8m is still not a massive amount of money to spend on full-time professional people who put their bodies on the line.

Incidentally, this isn't a response to Farrell's injury, Chairman Mo has been complaining about the 20/20 rule for a long time, and at least for the now 3 of our "couple of years" we've been hit by injuries (and the prospect of Davico being out for 4 months also before the season starts is only going to increase his annoyance with the rules).

Finally, these rules may have been agreed by all the clubs, but that doesn't mean all the clubs agree with them. Remember that the £1.8m salary cap was agreed by everyone, but that didn't stop Castleford wanting it reducing because they couldn't afford to spend even that amount.

BTW it feels strange for me to defend Chairman Mo for once, instead of criticise him as usual. I think I need to sit down for a couple of hours to recover!

[primrose-n-blue]

Don't have any problem with 20/20 rule or salary-cap changes.
I DO however take issue to the point that anything that doesn't agree with WIGAN, Maurice wants a immediate rule change for.
Maurice has already got the £1.8m linked to inflation and got a rule change on the 20/20 this year so that should be it!!
OH NO! now he wants to bring in tempory players as a top up too as and when it suits!!

Dennis:eusa10:
:with: Maurice

[Alex the Warrior]

When I saw the title of the thread, I thought it meant that more injuries meant that Maurice was going to be playing on the wing :conf:

[AncientWarrior]

I think he (or she) means 'whingeing'. I am led to believe by the number of posts by this person on a Wigan Warriors site that not much is going on on the Warrington site or does he or she just like to vent his or her spleen at all things Wigan.
As far as Maurice Lindsay making representations about the 20-20 ruling, this is exactly why he is the chairman and why he tries to do his best for the club. If we just accepted everything the RFL threw at us then we would be as bankrupt as they were a couple of years ago.
Professional sport is a business and should be treated as such!!!

[DaveO]

primrose-n-blue posted:
Don't have any problem with 20/20 rule or salary-cap changes.
I DO however take issue to the point that anything that doesn't agree with WIGAN, Maurice wants a immediate rule change for.
Maurice has already got the £1.8m linked to inflation and got a rule change on the 20/20 this year so that should be it!!
OH NO! now he wants to bring in tempory players as a top up too as and when it suits!!

Dennis:eusa10:
:with: Maurice

What I have a problem with is every time Mo says anything fans of other clubs automatically take the opposing view without engaging their brains. In fact some of our own fans do the same!

All clubs are already free to bring in temporary players if they de-register a current player but you can't always do that.

In actual fact Mo has not complained about not being able to bring in temporary players but is complaining that 20 senior professionals is not enough and forces kids to be played.

If there were no 20/20 the club would have about 22 or 23 senior players IMO which gives six experienced reserves as opposed to only three while still sticking inside the 1.8 million cap.

The 20/20 rule was designed to ensure each squad has young players in it. The trouble is, it means there are too many young players.

Payers like Hargreaves will have to play against the likes of Fielden who not only earns 10 times his salary but is a mature experienced prop who could batter the living daylights out of the youngster. That isn't a fair contest or sport but the club has no other option due to this rule.

The other problem with it, is that when you do play these young players and they get experience they quite rightly expect paying more than £20K. This is professional sport after all and they have no other job or career so £20K is a pittance in pro sport of this level.

When they do merit a pay rise the club must decide whether to keep them and release an experienced player who already earns over £20K or if it should release the young player.

In fact it probably wants to keep both players and if it were allowed to spend the 1.8 million as it saw fit, it could do this quite easily.

As it stands it just means players are released on a regular basis at the end of the season. Many of the lesser lights leave and it doesn't even make the press when they are cut. They won't find another club either so that is the end of their career. For every Luke Robinson there are several other youngsters who are cast off with no club to go to who might make the grade later were they able to be kept on.

If the 20/20 was scrapped the club could be more flexible.

As was said before this is not a new thing from Mo. He has been against it ever since it forced us to release players we wanted and could afford to keep under the cap. We are penalised for developing young talent.

It could happen to any club and when it does you can bet they will be up there with Mo complaining.

The 20/20 rule was the 20/20/20 rule where any player playing more than 20 games was automatically classed as earning over £20K despite what he was actually paid. Earlier this year it was changed to 20/20/30 and not long after was scrapped altogether.

So things can change and I hope the days of the 20/20 are numbered. If they want a way to enusre young players get a chance they need a better way than this.

Dave

[the grinch]

well said that man!! wigan bring talent onto the scene wigan cant keep them and have to GIVE THEM AWAY! and other teams snap them up and play them against us.i don't want to sound like my kids but its not fair is it!how manny players have warrington had to release because of the salary cap primrose? how do you think it makes us feel when luke robinson and sean briscoe are scoring try's for fun and we could have kept hold of them.its only wigan at the moment who are suffering because of this rule. but you wait until leeds have to release burrows or stains have to get shut of another higham the rule wont last long then.

[mally darwin]

i agree in theory with this argument but where wigoon have come unstuck here is that they have forked out good money on second rate aussies eg.vaieleki,davico,and second rate kiwis eg.see you later seu.this cash could have been the funding to keep robinson ,then you wouldn't have had to stump up cash for moran,which in turn leaves his contract money for the young uns.wigoon need to have a little bit of faith in these youngsters that they have been "championing" for the last two seasons.

[Fraggle]

mally darwin posted:
i agree in theory with this argument but where wigoon have come unstuck here is that they have forked out good money on second rate aussies eg.vaieleki,davico,and second rate kiwis eg.see you later seu.this cash could have been the funding to keep robinson ,then you wouldn't have had to stump up cash for moran,which in turn leaves his contract money for the young uns.wigoon need to have a little bit of faith in these youngsters that they have been "championing" for the last two seasons.

Nice idea, but Robinson can't play prop, Moran can't play prop, many of the "youngsters" can't play prop. Seu Seu and Davico are experienced props, and I'm sure it won't have escaped your notice that we lost Craig Smith, Terry O'Connor and Quentin Pongia last season leaving us very short in terms of front row players so recruitment there was essential. Everyone knows that props mature and get better with age, so whilst it might be ok to have a young prop as a replacement to get some experience, you definitely don't want to load the front row with props.

But also the Smith / O'Connor / Pongia money will have paid for the so-called (and we've not even seen two of those you criticise play yet for Wigan) "2nd rate" players so Robinson's salary wouldn't come into the equation. There are still lots of youngsters at Wigan, the team at Salford on Tuesday was very heavily loaded in favour of players under 21 who all have squad numbers for this year, so it looks to me like they are keeping faith with the youngsters. If there are one or two who fall by the wayside, then that doesn't mean that the club is abandoning its policy of using kids.

[primrose-n-blue]

Some good posts from you PIES, and all of you argued a good case.
I have no complaints about rule changes and progress.
I only have a problem when Maurice wants to move the goal posts when it suits his club.
I'm aware of his opposition against the current structure and has indeed brought about a more relaxation in it.
BUT bringing in players just because of an injury to FAZ and then releasing them again, no way jose!
He ain't spoke about that close season.
Can't you see what would happen?
Every club would be bringing in every TOM, DICK & HARRY every time there is an injury or so called injury(phantom).
Lets look at it even more extreme point of view.
For eg.
Daryl Cardiss has a cold, a player we wont miss after last seasons poor form, lets get Darren lockyer!

Yes i know thats stupid, but what im trying to point out is there is huge room for abuse. The idea isn't clear or structured and he obviously hasn't thought about his remarks, it sounds like a quickfire reaction to a loss of his star player. Which in fact we all know it is.

Dennis :eusa10:
:with: Maurice