Who will replace Faz

[craigbeck]

Today's papers are speculating the deal will be done at the end of this week. Warriors will get £400,000 as compensation. We need to quickly bring in some inspirational talent to replace him - but who?

Could Paul Sculthorpe be tempted?
:doz:

[GeoffN]

Inspirational talent? The 'other' Sculthorpe?

Nope.

[DaveO]

craigbeck posted:
Today's papers are speculating the deal with be done at the end of this week. Warriors will get £400,000 as compensation. We need to quickly bring in some inspirational talent to replace him - but who?

Could Paul Sculthorpe be tempted?
:doz:

No one will replace Faz this season as no SL club will relase a top class player three games into a season. Well no club except Wigan that is!

Just about every SL club except us and Leigh seem optomistic at the way they have started the season and so why would they let their best players go? SL in general seems financially healthy so I don't see any club needing the cash we could offer.

In fact according to Lindsay we don't need the cash either and would rather have the player.

No one of any note will come from Australia as they won't give up playing in the NRL so we can wave £400K where we like it won't bring in a comparable player.

We might pick up another player like Guisett to shore up the squad (who did well first time out) but not another player of Farrell's standard unless something very strange happens.

Lindsay will no doubt go looking at the end of the season for a big signing but we are not guarenteed to get one then either pretty much for the same reason we won't get one now. If he promises such a signing I for one will take it with a pinch of salt.

What all this means is, IMO, that Maurice Lindsay should be hung drawn and quarted for putting Farrell's interests before those of the club for not insisting Farrell see out his contract.

Dave

[mrs_carney]

in his position o'loughlin as a leader nobody

[Exiled Wiganer]

I was hearing that Anasta may be available as Canterbury re-sign Mason and Williams. He could do a job for us.

[waterside glens]

holding players to contract does work . you have to want to play where you are to be at your best. also it could have a bad effect on the rest of the squad

[gab0512]

Faz is injured for 4 months so effectively is gone anyway. I will still maintain that it is a good deal - and I will completely accept your opinion as should all on this board. But always being so cheerful is what keeps you going DaveO

There is nothing anybody can do about the Faz scenario, and no matter what anybody says about Lindsay etc. What is the point in keeping a player who is unhappy?

He may come back fit to play out the latter end of this season, but to what level in his mind? Speculation I know, but there is no guarantee he will be as inspirational as before on his return, especiallyu if he thinks the club have denied him his chance to earn extra money for his family for the future!

Lets look forward and not back. Personally I would try to get Webke for a year, possibly 2, and let O'loughlin prove his obvious potential. We can then look to address the long term changes needed. I also agree that Wigan with Whelan's wallet don't need additonal money to buy anybody, and everybody does have a price. The other Sculthorpe - not a chance as he has no love for our club.

Come on DaveO keep smiling - there are worse things in life, and it's nice to have some anticipation and a bit of exitement on who we could/will sign.

[thegimble]

Doug Stand posted:
I've already gone on record saying Ansta would be my preferred choice... but it wouldn't happen

Ive a feeling that a deal has been done to bring someone in asap. Whoever it may be when Faz goes the new player comes in and ive a feling he will be from the NRL.

Question this why let Faz go now when the RU season will be coming to an end. The club could say to both the player and the RU he can go as soon as this seasons campaign is gone. As ive seen posted on here on numerous occasions the club do not need the money.

So why are they letting him go early and now Betts is saying he wants the situation concluded either way asap.

NRL has yet started so it suggests they have someone is on his way soon after Faz departs.

Holding people to contracts do not work. What happens if he misses a tackle in a crucial match, we all would crucify him on here, saying he does not care. The missed tackle could be for various reasons but we wuld be questioning the player.

If he wants to go let him go. If he needs a new challenge let him go. Id rather see him go then been forced to stay.

[DaveO]

gab0512 posted:
There is nothing anybody can do about the Faz scenario, and no matter what anybody says about Lindsay etc. What is the point in keeping a player who is unhappy?

Andy Farrell is a professional player and so could not complain about being asked to honour his contract. He is not some amateur RU player looking to earn a living from sport for the first time but a professional player who should understand contractual obligations go with the privilege of being able to earn high wages playing sport for a living.

So should Maurice Lindsay decide to hold Farrell to his contract as he should do IMO, Farrell would just have to get on with it. That is be professional about it, get on with it and continue to earn his considerable wages he picks up from Wigan.

If you want professional level wages behaving like a professional and honouring contracts ought to be a no-brainer from a players point of view IMO. There should be no emotion about it.

If a player asks to be released early from a contract and his employer does not agree it should be something players accept as part of the job given they freely agreed to the contract in the first place.

Dave

[DaveO]

thegimble posted:
Holding people to contracts do not work. What happens if he misses a tackle in a crucial match, we all would crucify him on here, saying he does not care. The missed tackle could be for various reasons but we wuld be questioning the player.

If he wants to go let him go. If he needs a new challenge let him go. Id rather see him go then been forced to stay.

The only reason he would get crucified on here is because the entire farce has been mismanaged and it now looks as if he wants away thus casting doubt in the minds of some as to his commitment. A few sterling performances ought to sort that out.

If Lindsay had rejected the RFU's move right away, told Farrell he wasn't leaving, issued a press statement saying the club had told the RFU no, you can bet your bottom dollar Faz would have by now issued a statement himself saying how pleased he was to be staying at Wigan.

Radlinski has done the that and no one doubts his commitment but I bet he didn't just toss the RFU's offer out without considering it.

If every time a player wants out we rip up the contract there is no point having them in the first place. Contracts work both ways giving the player a degree of certainty of employment and the club a good idea of its playing roster into the future. They are mutually beneficial to both sides but if one side can rip them up as soon as a better offer comes along then thay are not worth the paper they are written on.

Letting Farrell walk away from a two year commitment is a mistake by Lindsay not only because it is not in the interests of the team and we can't replace Farrell but because it sends out the wrong message to players and to those who would tempt our players away.

RL is not a semi-pro or amateur sport and contracts are part of it being a professional game now. They should, IMO,be honoured or enforced.

Dave