: Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:31 pm  

wigan_knight wrote:

Heard the Graham rumour again tonight.

Thats 4 different people whos told me..i still believe its rubbish

It is rubbish. Pub talk travels slower than Net talk.

: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:59 am  

I believe the majority of fans at Wigan believe that to have a successful rugby league team, we need to conform to a model.

That there is always a right and wrong way that will ensure success. The truth is success on the pitch is acheived by way of working and assessing what you have got. If a player adds a lot to a team and he is only young, he plays. If a player is theoretically 'over the hill' but adds a lot to the team you play him.

You only have to look at Senior, who has been 'moving to second row' for the last gazillion years, or Fozzard heading back to St Helens to illustrate this.

All I am saying is that there is certainly scope to offer Carmont something attractive for him to remain at the club.

[DaveO]

: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:33 am  

Cruncher wrote:

Now that the coaching situ has been settled, it's amazing to sit here and watch as certain groups of Wigan fans slowly but surely manufacture the next club crisis - without knowing anything about George Carmont's medical reports, his wages demands, who we may have got lined up to replace him, etc.

Truly amazing.

Why don't we just wait until we actually KNOW something?

Would not be much point in a forum if we did that would there?

I find it interesting that those saying we don't know enough about the situation to comment tend to mention the negatives we know nothing about, such as the medical reports you mention above.

How do you know there even are any medical reports necessary for Carmont? I'd expect medical reports to be done for Bailey but we have seemingly re-signed him already before we know how he will recover from his Achilles injury and Carmont has nothing as serious as that. I find the re-signing of Bailey (mentioned by Wane on the radio the other week) far more amazing than the idea we should re-sign Carmont

If we just focus on what we do know then IMO we know this:

He is one of the best centres in the league

There is a wide body of opinion that our younger players are not ready to take his place.

We have been repeatedly led to believe we won't be signing anyone new and if he does leave his wage is unlikely to free up Fielden levels of cap space. I am of course assuming Carmont is not on Fielden type wages but is that an unreasonable assumption?

Bottom line is you can always kill any debate by saying we don't know the facts but so long as people put forward reasonable opinions and assumptions I think we can have a reasonable discussion about the merits or otherwise of retaining him.

Such assumptions would IMO be he isn't on a high wage, he isn't asking for silly money and we have not got a class player lined up to take his place.

Are they unreasonable assumptions? Not IMO.

So if my assumptions are correct, would you retain him on a two year deal?

Dave

: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:44 am  

DaveO wrote:

Would not be much point in a forum if we did that would there?

I find it interesting that those saying we don't know enough about the situation to comment tend to mention the negatives we know nothing about, such as the medical reports you mention above.

How do you know there even are any medical reports necessary for Carmont? I'd expect medical reports to be done for Bailey but we have seemingly re-signed him already before we know how he will recover from his Achilles injury and Carmont has nothing as serious as that. I find the re-signing of Bailey (mentioned by Wane on the radio the other week) far more amazing than the idea we should re-sign Carmont

If we just focus on what we do know then IMO we know this:

He is one of the best centres in the league

There is a wide body of opinion that our younger players are not ready to take his place.

We have been repeatedly led to believe we won't be signing anyone new and if he does leave his wage is unlikely to free up Fielden levels of cap space. I am of course assuming Carmont is not on Fielden type wages but is that an unreasonable assumption?

Bottom line is you can always kill any debate by saying we don't know the facts but so long as people put forward reasonable opinions and assumptions I think we can have a reasonable discussion about the merits or otherwise of retaining him.

Such assumptions would IMO be he isn't on a high wage, he isn't asking for silly money and we have not got a class player lined up to take his place.

Are they unreasonable assumptions? Not IMO.

So if my assumptions are correct, would you retain him on a two year deal?
Dave

You've missed out the all-important assumption, namely that no question has been posed by his recent injury record - which is a bit mischievous of you given that, as he played the last month and a half on pain-killing injections, it would be a very optimistic assumption and if proved incorrect would certainly be grounds for not retaining him long-term.

However, IF he is cleared medically, I would retain him for one year with an option to give him an extra year depending on how his body holds up.

Just out of interest, if, from their preliminary discussions with Maguire, Wigan have been led to believe that there's a chance Carmont's wage might be more usefully spend elsewhere in the not-too-distant future (i.e. for 2011) how would you feel about offering him a two-year deal?

Likewise, if Maguire isn't too keen about retaining a 31-year-old player for two years - for whatever reason - what would you think if the chairman then went and gave him his two-year deal anyway?

[DaveO]

: Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:43 pm  

Cruncher wrote:

You've missed out the all-important assumption, namely that no question has been posed by his recent injury record - which is a bit mischievous of you given that, as he played the last month and a half on pain-killing injections, it would be a very optimistic assumption and if proved incorrect would certainly be grounds for not retaining him long-term.

I didn't mention it because I didn't think it a big issue. He was actually able to play unlike Bailey and there has been no suggestion he has some sort of chronic recurring injury.

Just out of interest, if, from their preliminary discussions with Maguire, Wigan have been led to believe that there's a chance Carmont's wage might be more usefully spend elsewhere in the not-too-distant future (i.e. for 2011) how would you feel about offering him a two-year deal?

I don't think you can base 2010 recruitment on what might happen in 2011. IL seems inpatient for success and thinks we should have gone further than we have with the players we have already. Lose Carmont and go with what we have (which would seem the likelyest scenario for 2010) would IMO make that success IL wants less likely next year.

Carmont is also one player who we all assume isn't on mega-bucks and come the end of 2010 several other players are off contract so I don't think its realistic to assume keeping him on for 2011 is going to screw the salary cap up.

Likewise, if Maguire isn't too keen about retaining a 31-year-old player for two years - for whatever reason - what would you think if the chairman then went and gave him his two-year deal anyway?

I wouldn't think he's be too keen on retaining Bailey either with his injury but seemingly we have done so, so what do you think of that? If Maguire has been doing any research on the club and its players he will plainly see Carmont is easily one of the better players. If he wants to introduce Aussie style ruthlessness of not offering senior players new deals that is fine by me when the time is right but I don't think we have squad that allows him that sort of thing yet.

I have constantly said on this message board judging the re-signing of players on an individual basis is not the way to do it. You need to take the bigger picture into account and while I normally would side with those who say he is too old I can't see what we have that is any better or are likely to get. I think he could do a good job over two years with him being the first choice centre for 2010 but playing a retiring role in 2011 (but still an important role none the less).

I also think it is less risky to re-sign a proven player like Carmont than go for a different "solid pro" player (as opposed to out and out class player) if that was under consideration as the alternative.

We went for three such "solid pro" type players recently in Carmont, Riddell and Roberts and the oldest player has turned out to be easily the best.

If the club chose not to exercise their option on him for another year and as a result we end up losing his services for 2010 I don't care who came to that decision it will be a mistake unless we end up with an Aussie international centre in his prime which is hardly likely. I think this is especially true when we have given Bailey a new deal. He plays in a position we have cover for and has a bad injury, Carmont's replacements don't look as ready to take his place.

Dave

: Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:54 pm  

DaveO wrote:

I didn't mention it because I didn't think it a big issue. He was actually able to play unlike Bailey and there has been no suggestion he has some sort of chronic recurring injury.

I don't think you can base 2010 recruitment on what might happen in 2011. IL seems inpatient for success and thinks we should have gone further than we have with the players we have already. Lose Carmont and go with what we have (which would seem the likelyest scenario for 2010) would IMO make that success IL wants less likely next year.

Carmont is also one player who we all assume isn't on mega-bucks and come the end of 2010 several other players are off contract so I don't think its realistic to assume keeping him on for 2011 is going to screw the salary cap up.

I wouldn't think he's be too keen on retaining Bailey either with his injury but seemingly we have done so, so what do you think of that? If Maguire has been doing any research on the club and its players he will plainly see Carmont is easily one of the better players. If he wants to introduce Aussie style ruthlessness of not offering senior players new deals that is fine by me when the time is right but I don't think we have squad that allows him that sort of thing yet.

I have constantly said on this message board judging the re-signing of players on an individual basis is not the way to do it. You need to take the bigger picture into account and while I normally would side with those who say he is too old I can't see what we have that is any better or are likely to get. I think he could do a good job over two years with him being the first choice centre for 2010 but playing a retiring role in 2011 (but still an important role none the less).

I also think it is less risky to re-sign a proven player like Carmont than go for a different "solid pro" player (as opposed to out and out class player) if that was under consideration as the alternative.

We went for three such "solid pro" type players recently in Carmont, Riddell and Roberts and the oldest player has turned out to be easily the best.

If the club chose not to exercise their option on him for another year and as a result we end up losing his services for 2010 I don't care who came to that decision it will be a mistake unless we end up with an Aussie international centre in his prime which is hardly likely. I think this is especially true when we have given Bailey a new deal. He plays in a position we have cover for and has a bad injury, Carmont's replacements don't look as ready to take his place.

Dave

This is all about assumptions, Dave.

You're right, we can happily chat about it, but as all the viewpoints being expressed at present, mine included, are based on things we 'think' or 'assume', then it's a bit of a pointless exercise.

For what it's worth, I'd agree that George Carmont has been Ian Lenagan's best signing by some measure, and that we'd be lucky to get someone better unless we were prepared to pay a lot of money. But we still don't know what the state of play is re. wages and proposed wage increases among the juniors, or what Mike Maguire might be planning to do with the wage bill once he's arrived.

rl : Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:56 pm  

We have four SL centres on the payroll, Gleeson, Carmont, Goulding & Pryce. All have played a considerable amount of SL.
We also have two reserve lads in Thornley & Marsh who may deserve and get a run out next season.
If Carmont were to go then either Goulding or Pryce would compete for the 4 shirt. The two reserve lads would compete for the first run out one of them may get.
The club may well feel that a one year deal for George is generous under the financial situation the club is in and also the amount available under the salary cap given that some positions are desperate for strengthening.
As good as George is perhaps it's time Goulding and Pryce were made to show what they can or can't do next year. If they can they stay, if they can't then they could well depart.

: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:20 pm  

I don't want Graham, he's a good player, but i think his attitude stinks and i don't think he likes Wigan.

: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:27 pm  

SiY wrote:

I don't want Graham, he's a good player, but i think his attitude stinks and i don't think he likes Wigan.

Graham is exactly what we need IMO. Metres, quick PTB, aggression, and he's ginger.

: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:31 pm  

SiY wrote:

I don't want Graham, he's a good player, but i think his attitude stinks and i don't think he likes Wigan.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would not want James Graham. The only possible drawback would be the astonomical wages he'd ask, though I can't see IL even making an offer if that was the case.